Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DynamicSpirit]

In an ideal world political parties would not be allowed to accept such grand donations, irrespective of who it is and what they or their company says, but that's another debate entirely.

I'm quite sympathetic to that argument. Someone giving such a large sum of money does raise questions about how much influence one person might have. But as you say that's a separate debate - and it raises all sorts of questions about how political groups are funded. There may well be a case for saying that no-one should be able to donate such a large amount. But I think it's wrong to link whether a person should be allowed to donate money (or whether a political party should be able to accept the money - which for all practical purposes amounts to the same thing) to that person's beliefs.

 

[edwin_m]

But I think it's wrong to link whether a person should be allowed to donate money (or whether a political party should be able to accept the money - which for all practical purposes amounts to the same thing) to that person's beliefs.

That's only valid if we can be certain that the donation doesn't gain the donor any personal political power, or influence over the behaviour of the recipient party. There have been many cases over the years where there's at least the strong suspicion that hasn't been so.

 

[SteveM70]

That's only valid if we can be certain that the donation doesn't gain the donor any personal political power, or influence over the behaviour of the recipient party. There have been many cases over the years where there's at least the strong suspicion that hasn't been so.

In the real world, why would Hester give £5 million of his own money, and £5 million of his company’s money, to the party in power unless it was to gain influence (or if you’re very cynical to thank them for their contracts)

Personal gifts could be seen as altruistic and from someone who genuinely believes that the party they’re donating to will make the country better for everyone, but a company?

 

[oldman]

But I think it's wrong to link whether a person should be allowed to donate money (or whether a political party should be able to accept the money - which for all practical purposes amounts to the same thing) to that person's beliefs.

Offering a donation is one thing, accepting it another - they are not 'the same thing'. The Tories are free to accept donations from any source, but who they choose to accept them from is a legitimate topic for debate.

 

[Senex]

It has nothing to do with free speech - Hester can say what he likes, within the law. The issue is whether a political cause should accept or retain funds from someone who can come out with such remarks.

Does anyonme know yetr exactly what he did say? The BBC has been very careful all day yesterday, whilst repeating the "news" at every possible opportunity, to say that it hasn't been able to confirm the precise comments. And what about setting? Are we thinking of throw-away remarks in casual conversation or sort of formal comment in a formal setting?

 

[SteveM70]

Does anyonme know yetr exactly what he did say? The BBC has been very careful all day yesterday, whilst repeating the "news" at every possible opportunity, to say that it hasn't been able to confirm the precise comments. And what about setting? Are we thinking of throw-away remarks in casual conversation or sort of formal comment in a formal setting?

The comments were in some sort of company / team meeting, so informal in the sense that it will probably have been a "meet the boss" or a company update or something, but formal insofar as it was in company time and he was there in a professional capacity

The alleged quotes are widely available if you ask Mr Google nicely - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/mar/12/tory-donor-frank-hester-no-room-for-the-indians is a good starting point

There's a lot of information coming to light about the wider company culture, which does sound pretty, er, interesting. And they don't have an HR function!

 

[nw1]

It is not about accepting, it is about looking forward. Crying 'we wuz robbed' and licking past wounds for ever is not going to change things. If you don't like something campaign for change - convince the country and the EU of the need/desire whatever.

A good point. I do suspect those Remainers (will use this term for want of a better word) who can influence are biding their time until a more amenable government is in power. There is no way in a million years that the current government will get closer to the EU, as Hard Brexit is in their eyes their badge of honour.

 

[edwin_m]

A good point. I do suspect those Remainers (will use this term for want of a better word) who can influence are biding their time until a more amenable government is in power. There is no way in a million years that the current government will get closer to the EU, as Hard Brexit is in their eyes their badge of honour.

True. Also the EU is unlikely to want to go through a further set of painful negotiations on a closer relationship with a future government if there is a significant risk that the Tories will get back in and reverse the whole thing again. Labour is proposing to stop any further divergence and to work closer on a few specific areas, but anything more than that is unlikely until the current Tory Brexit faction is no longer active or has been reduced to irrelevance with no prospect of a way back.

 

[ainsworth74]

A further reminder that if you wish to discuss Brexit more generally please use the existing thread for that topic. If there's a post you wish to reply to on this thread press the "+Quote" button on that post, go to the Brexit thread and in the reply box you will see a button labelled "Insert quotes...", press that and then hit the "Quote messages" button and the posts from this thread that you wish to respond to will appear in the Brexit thread for you to reply to. This trick works on all threads in the Forum by the by.

Otherwise please can we leave Brexit here on this thread and return to the topic the thread at hand which is Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party

 

[Howardh]

The ECHR was brought up in PMQ's, for once Sunak did the right thing in brushing it away by not directly answering the question. Although if any party wanted to leave the EHCR (and take our rights away in one swoop) then I reckon it should be via a referendum, not government policy.

Also came away with the feeling that anyone who supports the Tories can be and do anything as long as they weakly apologise for it. Like him or loath him, Flynn (SNP leader) gets to the point!!

 

[Busaholic]

Scott Benton might defend his seat as a Reform candidate if, or rather when, the recall petition comes to fruition, so we'll have a chance to see if a chancer's chances are improved or not.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Also came away with the feeling that anyone who supports the Tories can be and do anything as long as they weakly apologise for it. Like him or loath him, Flynn (SNP leader) gets to the point!!

Flyn is one of the few politicians to ask the difficult questions Starmer just spars with Sunak using it for practice for when hes on the other side. Mind PMQs is a farce and the Speaker just lets them all get away with never answering the question.

 

[brad465]

On the surface, this is a good initiative and should be in place. However I'm pretty sure the reason this ban is being expedited now is simply to stop an unfavourable to the Tories entity buying The Telegraph, paving the way for Paul Marshall, who owns GB News. It's also not broad enough, as I'd argue there are foreign owners with more power/influence than certain foreign governments who already own media corporations:

UK to ban foreign state ownership of newspapers

It follows concern about a potential takeover of the Daily Telegraph by a UAE-backed group.

www.bbc.co.uk

Foreign governments will be banned from owning UK newspapers and news magazines, the government has said.
The move follows concern about the potential takeover of the Daily Telegraph and Spectator by a group fundedby the United Arab Emirates.
Labour has indicated it will back the change, which will be in an amendment to a new law being debated next week.
The government said the legislation would "deliver additional protections for a free press".
There had been growing cross-party pressure on the government to act and it was facing a possible defeat in the House of Lords on Wednesday from peers who wanted to see urgent action.
Announcing the ban, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay said the new law would "rule out newspaper and periodical news magazine mergers involving ownership, influence or control by foreign states".
The government will bring forward an amendment to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill - which has its third reading next week - to block such deals, he added.
Lord Parkinson also confirmed the buyout ban would not apply to broadcasters.
It comes as the investment fund RedBird IMI continues its push to take control of the Daily and Sunday Telegraph newspaper titles and Spectator current affairs magazine, after paying off the debts of its previous owner.
The fund is 75%-owned by Sheikh Mansour, who is deputy prime minister and vice president of the UAE, and best known in the UK for transforming Manchester City Football Club.

• Is Gulf-backed bid for Telegraph 'effectively dead'?
• Government intervenes in UAE bid to buy Telegraph

The government's new law could apply to the Telegraph Media Group takeover if the law was passed swiftly, Lord Parkinson suggested.
But sources close to the matter have told the BBC's Business Editor Simon Jack the bid looks likely to fail, amid growing political opposition.
The other bidders for the newspapers include hedge fund tycoon Sir Paul Marshall, who owns GB News, Daily Mail owners DMGT, and Rupert Murdoch's News UK.
Andrew Neil - who is chairman of the Spectator and has been strongly critical of the proposed takeover - said the government's intervention on Wednesday meant the UAE bid "now looks dead in the water".
Lord Moore of Etchingham, a former Daily Telegraph editor, said there should have been "such a rule from the start" in order to provide "clarity" on proposed takeovers.
Baroness Stowell, the chair of the Communications and Digital Committee and a former Conservative cabinet minister, has led cross-party calls to prevent foreign powers acquiring UK news media organisations.
She told peers: "We can't ignore that public trust in news, Parliament and the political class has fallen significantly in recent years.
"Allowing foreign governments to own such a critical and sensitive part of our nation would damage public confidence in all of us yet further if it was allowed to happen."
An alternative amendment tabled by the Tory peer to the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill was felt by both the government and Labour to be unworkable.
Lord Parkinson said the government hoped instead to make the change at a later stage of the bill.
Explaining how it might work, he said the government would refer proposed media mergers to the Competition and Markets Authority where there are "reasonable grounds" to believe a deal "would give a foreign state or body connected to a foreign state, ownership, influence or control".
He continued: "The Competition and Markets Authority would be obliged to investigate the possible merger and if it concludes that the merger has resulted or would result in foreign state ownership, influence or control over a newspaper enterprise, the secretary of state would be required by statute to make an order blocking or unwinding the merger."

 

[eyebrook1961]

Surely someone who earns £35,000 isn't wealthy!?

I thought that the current view is that £35k is the "average" wage? With this years wage increase I am getting to be almost "average" - my wife is unimpressed, especially when she pointed out that she was less "average" than I . . . .

 

[nlogax]

On the surface, this is a good initiative and should be in place. However I'm pretty sure the reason this ban is being expedited now is simply to stop an unfavourable to the Tories entity buying The Telegraph, paving the way for Paul Marshall, who owns GB News. It's also not broad enough, as I'd argue there are foreign owners with more power/influence than certain foreign governments who already own media corporations:

And this is the reality of enforced domestic media ownership; it's no guarantee of quality or a lunatic-free environment. As the age-old movie trope goes, "the calls are coming from inside the house".

 

[dgl]

With forcing news outlets to be UK company owned it's just another attack on Johnny Foreigner, I bet a lot of UK owned outlets get a fair bit of foreign "sponsorship" to ensure the right stories go out.

 

[najaB]

And this is the reality of enforced domestic media ownership; it's no guarantee of quality or a lunatic-free environment. As the age-old movie trope goes, "the calls are coming from inside the house".

As I understand it, the limitation is on foreign state ownership of media companies, but there's no limit on foreign corporations. It does make sense to stop other governments from directly controlling our media.

 

[The Ham]

Much had been said about the loss of voters from the Tories to Reform, well according to YouGov (and I know there'll be many who will question how reliable polls are, but it's interesting nonetheless) of the 2019 Tory voters it is indeed the largest shift at 19% has been to Reform.

However, Labour isn't too far behind at 14% and when you add in the shift to the Lib Dems and the Green Party, you end up with a shift to the left leaning parties of 19%.

It also puts the don't know at 18%, so almost as large.

With 8% opting "not to vote", the Tories can only count on 35% if those who voted Tories in the 2019 election to do so again.

If you look at the overall numbers the Tories see support from 13% (if there was a vote tomorrow), considered with 8% for Reform and 17% for don't know. If the Tories were able to appeal to all the don't knows they could be almost tied with Labour (30% vs 31% for Labour) however that's highly unlikely to happen.

https://ygo-assets-websites-editorial-emea.yougov.net/documents/TheTimes_VI_240307_W.pdf

 

[brad465]

Place your bets on May 2nd folks!

Rishi Sunak rules out general election on 2 May

There had been speculation the PM might hold a ballot on the same day as local elections.

www.bbc.co.uk

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has said there will not be a general election on 2 May, the date when local elections are already taking place.
Earlier this year, Mr Sunak suggested the general election would happen in the second half of 2024.
More recently, there had been some speculation in Westminster that the PM might choose to hold an earlier ballot.
But, speaking to ITV News West Country on Thursday, Mr Sunak ruled out polling day being the first Thursday in May.
He told the broadcaster: "In several weeks' time we've got elections for police and crime commissioners, for local councils, for mayors across the country."
Asked if there would also be a general election at the same time, Mr Sunak said: "There won't be a general election on that day but when there is a general election, what matters is the choice."

He also told ITV News: "I can see that the Labour Party are trying to whip up this idea that I'm about to call a general election. It's very deliberate, it's because they want to avoid questions about how they're going to fund all of their spending commitments."
In the UK, general elections - where MPs are voted to Parliament - are held every five years.
The latest the next election could legally be held is 28 January 2025, however Mr Sunak has the power to call one earlier than that.
If the PM had been planning to hold a spring election, 2 May would have been the most likely date, given the other elections taking place that day. However, in theory, he could still hold a general election in April or at a later date in May.
In order to hold an election, the prime minister has to first ask the King to close Parliament. The general election generally takes place 25 days later.
Labour's election co-ordinator Pat McFadden said: "After 14 years of Tory failure, the British public have the right to expect an election to be called by 26 March and held on 2 May.
"Rishi Sunak should stop squatting in Downing Street and give the country what it desperately needs - a chance for change with a Labour government."
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Ed Davey accused the prime minister of "running scared" of a May election.

Also another rendition of one of Queen's greatest hits in my head:

Great Yarmouth MP Sir Brandon Lewis to stand down at next election

Sir Brandon says he will continue to serve his constituency until Parliament is dissolved.

www.bbc.co.uk

A former chairman of the Conservative Party says he will not be standing as a candidate at the next general election.
In a letter, Sir Brandon Lewis said he had notified the chairman of the Great Yarmouth Conservative Association of his intentions.
First elected as MP for Great Yarmouth in 2010, he said the decision was not made "easily".
He said he was proud of "the small part I have been able to play in public life".
Sir Brandon became the chairman of the Conservative Party in 2018 and has held eight ministerial roles, including Lord Chancellor, the justice secretary and the secretary of state for Northern Ireland.

 

[Cdd89]

I don’t really understand the calls to give back the donation - I don’t see how keeping it proves they are obliged to him, and there’s no evidence that he wanted something specific in return for his donation as opposed to approving of and wishing to support Conservative ideals (whatever those are, these days…).

If you remove the (arguably immaterial) word “back”, you are left with “Tories should give £10m to a racist person who incites violence”, and I’m not sure how that’s preferable to (for example) donating the money to charity.

 

[AM9]

I don’t really understand the calls to give back the donation - I don’t see how keeping it proves they are obliged to him, and there’s no evidence that he wanted something specific in return for his donation as opposed to approving of and wishing to support Conservative ideals (whatever those are, these days…).

If you remove the (arguably immaterial) word “back”, you are left with “Tories should give £10m to a racist person who incites violence”, and I’m not sure how that’s preferable to (for example) donating the money to charity.

There's a world of difference; giving it to charity just says, "not our problem now but aren't we good giving £10m to charity", whereas handing it back to the donor says "we will not fund our political activites from racists because we (the party) are not racists ourselves".
Of course neither of the above factually true depictions of the current state of Tory politics.

 

[YorkRailFan]

First elected as MP for Wells in 2015, Mr Heappey said the decision to not stand was "painful".
In a letter, he said it was time "to step away from politics, prioritise my family, and pursue a different career".
He has become the 62nd Conservative MP to confirm they will not stand in the next general election.
Mr Heappey became the armed forces minister in 2020 and previously served as parliamentary private secretary to the prime minister under Boris Johnson.

In a letter to his local Conservative association, he thanked his constituents saying it was the "greatest honour" of his life to serve the Wells area for nine years.
The Wells MP said he would continue to support Rishi Sunak as prime minister and assured his "full commitment" until the end of this parliament.
Boundary changes mean Mr Heappey would have been standing in the newly-named Wells and Mendip Hills constituency.
Electoral Calculus currently predicts the Liberal Democrats have a 56% change of winning the new seat, compared to 38% for the Conservatives.

Armed forces minister James Heappey will not stand at next election

The MP for Wells James Heappey says he wants to prioritise family and pursue another career.

www.bbc.co.uk

They're dropping like flies. Looks like Heappey doesn't want to face the humiliation of losing his seat to the Lib Dems.

 

[Typhoon]

Also another rendition of one of Queen's greatest hits in my head:

Great Yarmouth MP Sir Brandon Lewis to stand down at next election

Sir Brandon says he will continue to serve his constituency until Parliament is dissolved.

www.bbc.co.uk

And another ..

James Heappey is set to leave his role as armed forces minister and quit as an MP.

As first reported by The Times, Government sources have confirmed that the Conservative MP for Wells, Somerset, will leave his role at the end of the month.

The veteran has also confirmed in a letter to his constituents that he will stand down from the Commons at the next general election.

Not happy about the level of defence spending, apparently.

Lewis won't be missed, but I suspect Heapey may be, because of his experience as a former soldier.

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/news...31&cvid=69e2b101a4fa4101a312002a18bd9c75&ei=8

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don’t really understand the calls to give back the donation - I don’t see how keeping it proves they are obliged to him, and there’s no evidence that he wanted something specific in return for his donation as opposed to approving of and wishing to support Conservative ideals (whatever those are, these days…).

If you remove the (arguably immaterial) word “back”, you are left with “Tories should give £10m to a racist person who incites violence”, and I’m not sure how that’s preferable to (for example) donating the money to charity.

Agreed. I imagine in reality what is happening is: The Tories want as much money as they can have to fight the next election with - therefore they won't give it back if they possibly can avoid it. The other parties want the Tories to have as little money as possible to fight the election with - therefore they will do everything they can to pressure the Tories into giving it back.

The loser in all this is the principle of free speech, and that, no matter what a person's opinions or how offensive we or other people might find those opinions, if that person wishes to support some cause or party, they shouldn't suffer any discrimination in being able to do so (Provided obviously there's nothing underhand or illegal going on). The Tories had the opportunity to make that point when accounting for their refusal to return the donation, but sadly appear to have bottled it, citing only that Hester has apologised for his remarks.

 

[jon0844]

I don’t really understand the calls to give back the donation - I don’t see how keeping it proves they are obliged to him, and there’s no evidence that he wanted something specific in return for his donation as opposed to approving of and wishing to support Conservative ideals (whatever those are, these days…).

If you remove the (arguably immaterial) word “back”, you are left with “Tories should give £10m to a racist person who incites violence”, and I’m not sure how that’s preferable to (for example) donating the money to charity.

It seems it was in fact £15m, as the latest £5m wasn't/isn't on the register yet.

That does seem like an awful lot of money from one man (well, £5m or possibly more was from his business) with no strings attached - especially money from a business that is going to a party in power that issues contracts.

But, of course there's no proof that his donations had anything to do with his business or anything underhand has been going on. Guy might just have far too much money - and quite likely makes similar donations to charity etc.... I am sure someone can check and see that in the grand scheme of things, he just likes giving out money.

I can perhaps see why Rishi, if he knew there was more money, might be thinking 'oh crap, that's a lot of money to give back'.

 

[DustyBin]

I'll probably regret posting this, but hear me out....

Based on what I've read regarding Hester's comments in regard to Diane Abbott, I'm struggling to see any actual racism, or misogyny. He didn't say he hates Diane Abbott because she's black, or because she's a women. Nor did he say he hates black women, or that there's anything wrong with belonging to either group. In my opinion, the worst thing he said is that Diane Abbot should be shot, which is at best deeply unpleasant and highly inappropriate, especially in the current climate.

He strikes me as a bit of a cringe-worthy David Brent type character with a "controversial" sense of humour, who probably also considers himself to be fighting back against a "PC gone mad" culture that does more harm than good in his eyes (rightly or wrongly). That doesn't make him a racist or misogynist, just a bit of a prat.

To be clear, I'm not defending Hester here as he clearly lacks self awareness and has created his own problems through comments which were without doubt inappropriate. I also appreciate that just because someone doesn't mean to offend, others can't be offended. However, I do get the sense that the current pile-on is the result of politically motivated feigned outrage more than anything....

 

[40C]

Saying that someone ''should be shot'' is a normal phrase used in everyday conversation by people of my age in this part of Lincolnshire.

 

[Gloster]

Although he did say that he did not hate all black women, he did say that seeing Abbott on TV meant ‘you just want to hate all black women because she’s there’. He also said, ‘we take the piss out of the fact that all our Chinese girls sit together in an Asian corner.’ Possibly not quite as bad as some of the hints that have been made, but still pretty unpleasant from someone in his position.

In some ways worse is his comment that Abbott ‘should be shot’: either he is suggesting that she should be shot because of her appearance, or because she is black or because she is an MP. None of these are particularly edifying.

 

[SynthD]

they shouldn't suffer any discrimination in being able to do so

That’s not in question. That’s a common deflection from the real points being clearly made. He can be judged for what he said, and for giving the money. The party can be judged for accepting the money and for their lack of pushback over his words, and most of all choosing his company for NHS contracts. Judging people is free speech, is money considered speech by society in this country? We don’t ban government contractors from donations, but we do investigate dodgy connections.

 

[DustyBin]

Saying that someone ''should be shot'' is a normal phrase used in everyday conversation by people of my age in this part of Lincolnshire.

It's "bulleted" where I live, but yes it's a figure of speech. I get the impression though that whilst I'm sure he didn't mean it literally, Hester used the expression with a degree of vitriol. In this context, it was a completely inappropriate thing to say in my opinion.

Although he did say that he did not hate all black women, he did say that seeing Abbott on TV meant ‘you just want to hate all black women because she’s there’. He also said, ‘we take the piss out of the fact that all our Chinese girls sit together in an Asian corner.’ Possibly not quite as bad as some of the hints that have been made, but still pretty unpleasant from someone in his position.

These are undoubtedly stupid things to come out with, and if the people on the receiving end were offended or felt uncomfortable then fair enough. I'm just not convinced such comments are racist in the true sense of the word; again he seems a bit of a prat more than anything.

In some ways worse is his comment that Abbott ‘should be shot’: either he is suggesting that she should be shot because of her appearance, or because she is black or because she is an MP. None of these are particularly edifying.

I think it's clear he just doesn't like her, as many people don't. However, most people aren't in his position and to me this was the worst part of what he said.