Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Typhoon]

With Green having been deselected, there may be plenty of Conservatives MPs who will now lay down their country for their political life and vote against any agreement that Sunak makes over the NI Protocol. He is likely to get it through if Labour support him, but as Johnson has criticised it, although he probably isn’t clear what he is criticising (Details, what details?), there are going to be plenty of constituency activists who will demand that their MP bow down to him. If many more than the usual group of hard-core barking ERG nutters vote against, Sunak is in trouble and the profligate (with other’s money) son will be waiting to make his return.

Milliband E. summed him up in probably his finest hour in the Commons when he, sarcastically, referred to Johnson as a 'details man'. That is Johnson's strength and weakness, he makes it all seem so easy because he keeps it simple, throws in a few obscure references to the classics (so he appears intelligent) and popular media (so he appears 'one of us'). It is only when (or if) you look at the detail, you find that a Johnson speech has less substance than the Emperor's New Clothes. He leaves that to others, who find that the puzzle they have been given to complete has half its pieces missing, and some of the ones they have are from another puzzle entirely.

Green is a pretty easy target, a backbench remainer whose time has come and gone, whose allies on the green benches will be thinking of spending more time with their pension, and were thinned in Johnson's cull of autumn 2019. How about the over 50 members who walked out of Johnson's government? Cut those and it leaves the blue corner pretty bereft of talent, especially as there is a growing number who have decided to walk.

On another matter:

Boris Johnson could face suspension from the House of Commons if he refused to appear before the partygate probe, sources close to the investigation have said.

The cross-party privileges committee of MPs is investigating allegations the former prime minister deliberately misled Parliament when he insisted there were no lockdown parties in Downing Street.

Mr Johnson, who was fined last year over a “birthday party” event during the first lockdown and continues to deny any wrongdoing, has promised to cooperate with the inquiry and said he had “absolutely nothing, frankly, to hide”.

He will be called in to face oral questions, a process that is expected to be televised, as soon as the committee – now into its ninth month of inquiries – has analysed all written evidence after a deadline for submissions passed earlier this month.

While Mr Johnson could be accompanied by a legal adviser if he wished, the rulebook states he would have to give evidence in person.

One source familiar with the investigation said if he opted not to do this, the committee could lay a motion before the House stating he had committed contempt by refusing to show up.

Now that would be interesting if only because it would Partygate back on the front pages and Sunak's supporters (if they had any sense) would make sure it was a slow news week.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...vid=aa43a4e180f94fa386822b65e2269cfc#comments

 

[brad465]

YouGov's latest poll gives Labour a 28 point lead, with the Tories on just 22%. Not Liz Truss levels, but Sunak certainly doesn't appear to be turning things around right now:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1628356714155180034

Latest Westminster voting intention (14-15 Feb) Con: 22% (-2 from 8-9 Feb) Lab: 50% (+3) Lib Dem: 9% (-1) Reform UK: 7% (+1) Green: 6% (=) SNP: 4% (=)

 

[Gloster]

I wonder if Coffey’s comments on turnips will be the tipping point: the moment when the great majority of voters, rather than the interested minority, realise that the government has completely lost touch with reality. References to Baldrick will only attract attention and give it legs.

 

[brad465]

I wonder if Coffey’s comments on turnips will be the tipping point: the moment when the great majority of voters, rather than the interested minority, realise that the government has completely lost touch with reality. References to Baldrick will only attract attention and give it legs.

Opinion polling suggests that already happened before this gaffe, like the YouGov one just above. It certainly won't help the Government, particularly as any notions about it being "global issues" has been overshadowed by the silliness of her suggested "solution".

 

[MikeWM]

YouGov's latest poll gives Labour a 28 point lead, with the Tories on just 22%. Not Liz Truss levels, but Sunak certainly doesn't appear to be turning things around right now:

https://twitter.com/YouGov/status/1628356714155180034

It is interesting when you drill down into the full results that, once you factor in don't knows, we have Labour 33%, Tories 15%, Won't vote 13%, Don't know 17%, Refused 2%. Those 32% that didn't pick any party would be enough to swing the election in any direction whatever if someone could manage to reach them with a message they liked.

Of the 2019 Tory voters, 14% have now gone to Labour - quite a swing - but a massive 23% are don't know, and fair to assume many of those will reluctantly end up voting for the Tories at election time.

Starmer beats Sunak in 'who would make the best Prime Minister' but rather concerning for Starmer, 'not sure' is comfortably beating both of them.

(Full tables can be found here).

It isn't looking at all good for the Tories' chances at this point, but I wouldn't bet on a crushing Labour victory quite yet. People are a lot more turned off by the Tories than they are turned on by Labour, this still doesn't feel like Blair 1997 territory to me (say what you like about Blair, and I certainly don't have much good to say about him at all, but he did enthuse many people at the time in a way Starmer isn't currently doing *at all*). And even then the Tories got 31% on the day.

 

[brad465]

It is interesting when you drill down into the full results that, once you factor in don't knows, we have Labour 33%, Tories 15%, Won't vote 13%, Don't know 17%, Refused 2%. Those 32% that didn't pick any party would be enough to swing the election in any direction whatever if someone could manage to reach them with a message they liked.

Of the 2019 Tory voters, 14% have now gone to Labour - quite a swing - but a massive 23% are don't know, and fair to assume many of those will reluctantly end up voting for the Tories at election time.

Starmer beats Sunak in 'who would make the best Prime Minister' but rather concerning for Starmer, 'not sure' is comfortably beating both of them.

(Full tables can be found here).

It isn't looking at all good for the Tories' chances at this point, but I wouldn't bet on a crushing Labour victory quite yet. People are a lot more turned off by the Tories than they are turned on by Labour, this still doesn't feel like Blair 1997 territory to me (say what you like about Blair, and I certainly don't have much good to say about him at all, but he did enthuse many people at the time in a way Starmer isn't currently doing *at all*). And even then the Tories got 31% on the day.

Ultimately it will boil down to how the FPTP system plays out; if there is a lot of tactical voting against the Tories that will make a lower Labour lead necessary; this is a factor in how Labour won over 400 seats in 1997, despite only around a 13% lead over the Tories who got 160 odd seats, where the Lib Dem vote share was largely unchanged from 1992, but benefitted hugely from the tactical voting involved, leading to their seat count more than doubling to reach 46. I think we could see similar behaviour in the next election, as evidenced by by-elections the Lib Dems won in uncharted territory.

 

[nw1]

Opinion polling suggests that already happened before this gaffe, like the YouGov one just above. It certainly won't help the Government, particularly as any notions about it being "global issues" has been overshadowed by the silliness of her suggested "solution".

Turnips? Therese Whiteadder?

Personally I'd far rather see the Environment Department do something about the shocking negligence of water companies such as Southern Water than go on about turnips.

Ultimately it will boil down to how the FPTP system plays out; if there is a lot of tactical voting against the Tories that will make a lower Labour lead necessary; this is a factor in how Labour won over 400 seats in 1997, despite only around a 13% lead over the Tories who got 160 odd seats, where the Lib Dem vote share was largely unchanged from 1992, but benefitted hugely from the tactical voting involved, leading to their seat count more than doubling to reach 46. I think we could see similar behaviour in the next election, as evidenced by by-elections the Lib Dems won in uncharted territory.

Indeed, I was one of those 1997 tactical Lib Dem voters.

I think now there is a lot more awareness of tactical voting and I suspect that will sink the Tories anywhere they are considered vaguely vulnerable. (Incidentally maybe there's place for a "predict the results in your county, constituency by constituency" thread).

 

[edwin_m]

There's an choice coming up for anti-Tories in consituencies that are like the recent LibDem by-election wins, where Labour may have been second placed last time but disenchanted Tories are probably more likely to vote LibDem. Probably still a risk of splitting the progressive vote here.

 

[nw1]

There's an choice coming up for anti-Tories in consituencies that are like the recent LibDem by-election wins, where Labour may have been second placed last time but disenchanted Tories are probably more likely to vote LibDem. Probably still a risk of splitting the progressive vote here.

Maybe, though the recent cases seem to have been fairly clear to me.

Places like Tiverton and North Shropshire are, to me, clearly Tory/Lib Dem, while in Wakefield it was clearly a Labour/Tory marginal. The other by-elections were, of course, Labour safe seats.

I don't think we've yet had one which is genuinely three-way.

 

[MikeWM]

Maybe, though the recent cases seem to have been fairly clear to me.

Places like Tiverton and North Shropshire are, to me, clearly Tory/Lib Dem, while in Wakefield it was clearly a Labour/Tory marginal. The other by-elections were, of course, Labour safe seats.

I don't think we've yet had one which is genuinely three-way.

SECambs, where I am, is fairly interesting in that respect. It's a fairly safe Tory seat but could go somewhere else in a landslide. In 1997 it was Tory/Labour/LibDem 43/26/25 (showing the 'not-Tory' split clearly in action). In 2001 it was very similar at 44/26/27.

In 2017 Labour were the clear challenger - 53/28/19. But in 2019 it was clearly the Lib Dems as the clear challenger - 50/16/32.

It really isn't particularly clear which is the best to pick if you want to unseat the Tories here. (Not that it matters to me personally - I won't be voting for any of them).


Edit : electoralcalculus.co.uk has it going Labour on the latest polling - 32/34/22. But that depends on Lib Dems switching to Labour, which seems unlikely to largely happen given they were clearly the main challengers last time. (Though if the Tories lose SECambs, they're on course for a much worse defeat than 1997, which I'm still not convinced is likely).

 

[edwin_m]

Maybe, though the recent cases seem to have been fairly clear to me.

Places like Tiverton and North Shropshire are, to me, clearly Tory/Lib Dem, while in Wakefield it was clearly a Labour/Tory marginal. The other by-elections were, of course, Labour safe seats.

I don't think we've yet had one which is genuinely three-way.

But in 2019 North Shropshire was Labour 22.1%, LibDem 10.0%. And at Tiverton it was Labour 19.5%, LibDem 14.8%. So sometimes there's more to tactical voting than who came second the previous time.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It isn't looking at all good for the Tories' chances at this point, but I wouldn't bet on a crushing Labour victory quite yet. People are a lot more turned off by the Tories than they are turned on by Labour, this still doesn't feel like Blair 1997 territory to me (say what you like about Blair, and I certainly don't have much good to say about him at all, but he did enthuse many people at the time in a way Starmer isn't currently doing *at all*). And even then the Tories got 31% on the day.

Labour are boxing themselves in by continuing to say very little about what they stand for and relying upon Torys to do the hard work for them. Listen to any interview of a Labour shadow front bencher and they tread a very narrow road refusing to have an opinion on anything that deviate from the message. Labour to seem think this is the clever approach but it starts to look like a dictatorship to me and those don't knows will either go elsewhere or not bother to vote.

 

[MikeWM]

Labour are boxing themselves in by continuing to say very little about what they stand for and relying upon Torys to do the hard work for them. Listen to any interview of a Labour shadow front bencher and they tread a very narrow road refusing to have an opinion on anything that deviate from the message. Labour to seem think this is the clever approach but it starts to look like a dictatorship to me and those don't knows will either go elsewhere or not bother to vote.

I suspect they're thinking that this approach worked for them in 1997 - aside from the 'five pledges' card, and some specifics on things like devolution, they didn't really say all that much then about what they would do in office. But I'm not so sure it will work this time, especially with the level of 2019-Tory don't knows which aren't showing any signs of going to Labour, and may well swing back largely Tory.

Currently they're not managing to remotely appeal to semi-floating voters like myself, or lifelong Labour voters like my mother. (We both voted Labour in 1997 and indeed 2019, and both of us have absolutely no idea who to vote for at the next election, but it won't be Lab/Lib/Con/Green).

 

[yorksrob]

Labour are boxing themselves in by continuing to say very little about what they stand for and relying upon Torys to do the hard work for them. Listen to any interview of a Labour shadow front bencher and they tread a very narrow road refusing to have an opinion on anything that deviate from the message. Labour to seem think this is the clever approach but it starts to look like a dictatorship to me and those don't knows will either go elsewhere or not bother to vote.

You can never say too much about what you intend to do when in opposition, lest the Government steal your idea !

 

[Typhoon]

I suspect they're thinking that this approach worked for them in 1997 - aside from the 'five pledges' card, and some specifics on things like devolution, they didn't really say all that much then about what they would do in office. But I'm not so sure it will work this time, especially with the level of 2019-Tory don't knows which aren't showing any signs of going to Labour, and may well swing back largely Tory.

Currently they're not managing to remotely appeal to semi-floating voters like myself, or lifelong Labour voters like my mother. (We both voted Labour in 1997 and indeed 2019, and both of us have absolutely no idea who to vote for at the next election, but it won't be Lab/Lib/Con/Green).

The problem they have is that once Labour comes up with any sort of policy the right wing media (and there is a lot more of it than there was at the time of the previous elections) makes it headline news and it detracts from the current strife amongst the Conservatives. For instance, Milliband E. (shadow climate change) spoke off message about reparations for colonialism and suddenly, according to some of the right wing press, we were giving reparations to China - front page. And anything Rayner A. says is distorted to the extreme.

What I suggest will happen next time, if things don't improve for the government, is a significant proportion of those who voted Conservative last time will simply stay at home.

 

[nw1]

The problem they have is that once Labour comes up with any sort of policy the right wing media (and there is a lot more of it than there was at the time of the previous elections) makes it headline news and it detracts from the current strife amongst the Conservatives. For instance, Milliband E. (shadow climate change) spoke off message about reparations for colonialism and suddenly, according to some of the right wing press, we were giving reparations to China - front page. And anything Rayner A. says is distorted to the extreme.

What I suggest will happen next time, if things don't improve for the government, is a significant proportion of those who voted Conservative last time will simply stay at home.

Indeed, and remember that (I suspect) anti-Conservative vote will be much more motivated than the pro-Conservative vote this time. There is no Boris and no "Get Brexit Done*" to motivate people to vote for the Tories.

I suspect many of us are itching to get out there and tactically vote to get this bunch of jokers out. If the don't-knows stay at home, it'll be a battle of those of us who have strong opinions, and I suspect the anti-Tories will win on this particular battle. And then there are the Johnsonists who might (unless Boris returns) also stay at home.

(*registered trademark A.B. de P. Johnson, 2019. Usage of this term is strictly subject to licensing restrictions; for enquiries please send mail to Conservative IP Ltd., 1220 Partigate Avenue, Uxbridge).

 

[MikeWM]

The problem they have is that once Labour comes up with any sort of policy the right wing media (and there is a lot more of it than there was at the time of the previous elections) makes it headline news and it detracts from the current strife amongst the Conservatives. For instance, Milliband E. (shadow climate change) spoke off message about reparations for colonialism and suddenly, according to some of the right wing press, we were giving reparations to China - front page. And anything Rayner A. says is distorted to the extreme.

Yes, but I do want people running the country who are willing to say what they think should be done, independent of how the wretched media will twist what they say, and preferably *before* we decide whether to vote for them. That's one of the many problems we have with the current lot, their manifesto was slim and even so they've thrown away most of it and done entirely other stuff instead.

Also, part of the problem is that the message when they are 'on message' is mostly meaningless platitudes like 'have the best growth in the G7' and 'fix the NHS'. The few things they have got specific about are hardly things that are enticing, because basically they have been/are presenting the same offering as the Tories but more so (on covid restrictions, Ukraine, net zero, the Online 'Safety' Bill, etc. etc.) At least with Corbyn there was a clear difference of policies on the table, whether you liked those ideas or not they were something to debate and get passionate about.

What I suggest will happen next time, if things don't improve for the government, is a significant proportion of those who voted Conservative last time will simply stay at home.

In the 'Red Wall', for example, I expect you're right. The question is how many 2019 Labour voters will do the same, and right now I think it is going to be rather more than people expect.

--

I suspect many of us are itching to get out there and tactically vote to get this bunch of jokers out.

Possibly so, and certainly the current government is a disaster, but I find it hard to describe how unenthusiastic I am about replacing Sunak, Hunt and Barclay with Starmer, Reeves and Streeting, both because I don't like them either, and also I don't expect better policies from them.

 

[brad465]

The problem they have is that once Labour comes up with any sort of policy the right wing media (and there is a lot more of it than there was at the time of the previous elections) makes it headline news and it detracts from the current strife amongst the Conservatives. For instance, Milliband E. (shadow climate change) spoke off message about reparations for colonialism and suddenly, according to some of the right wing press, we were giving reparations to China - front page. And anything Rayner A. says is distorted to the extreme.

What I suggest will happen next time, if things don't improve for the government, is a significant proportion of those who voted Conservative last time will simply stay at home.

The other problem is, although the passage of time is making this less of a problem, that you cannot make many policies when an election is a long way off, as circumstances could easily change that make it out of date by the time the election comes round (this obviously doesn't apply in Government, although if it's controversial and not in the manifesto immediate implementation is best avoided). I suspect the pledges/missions/policies outlined this week by Labour are ones they are confident either won't be done by the current Government, and/or will still be relevant should Labour win power, bar some minor tweaking where necessary, especially with no more than 18 months before the next election is likely to be called.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I suspect the pledges/missions/policies outlined this week by Labour are ones they are confident either won't be done by the current Government, and/or will still be relevant should Labour win power, bar some minor tweaking where necessary, especially with no more than 18 months before the next election is likely to be called.

The pledges Labour have made are these:

1. Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7
2. Build an NHS fit for the future
3. Make Britain’s streets safe
4. Break down the barriers to opportunity at every stage
5. Make Britain a clean energy superpower

(Can't provide a link, since this is from an email from Labour)

I think it's self-evident that these are ambitions, not policies, since there's no indication of how Labour plans to achieve any them; and Labour is (correctly IMO) describing them as 'missions'. They are also all things that basically no-one is going to disagree with as aims, and are fairly timeless, so you're correct that they'll still be relevant at the next election. All Labour are really doing is indicating where their priorities lie.

 

[brad465]

First Damian Green, now Theo Clarke of Stafford has been deselected. The common link is they did/said something that helped bring down Johnson, with speculation grassroot Tories are taking revenge against anyone who did so:

Stafford MP deselected one week after maternity leave return

Conservative Theo Clarke says she received abuse after announcing her plans to take time off.

www.bbc.co.uk

The Conservative MP for Stafford, Theo Clarke, has been deselected.
Ms Clarke, who has represented the town since 2019, said she was "deeply disappointed" not to have been adopted as candidate by a constituency association committee.
In a statement posted on Twitter, the politician said she had faced abuse after announcing plans to take maternity leave.
She says she now intends to seek the support of rank and file members.
"Living at home in the new constituency and working here, I stood on a record of successfully bringing investment into Stafford such as millions for mental health services and crucial infrastructure," Ms Clarke said on Friday.
She added: "Our town will soon see investment from the Levelling Up Fund and the Shared Prosperity Fund is already transforming the town centre with the Shire Hall due to fully reopen soon.
"I tirelessly campaigned for these wins, they will make a difference and make Stafford an even greater, better place to live, work and raise a family."
Ms Clarke, the niece of former business secretary and North East Somerset Tory MP Jacob Rees-Mogg, was elected as MP for Stafford in 2019 with a majority of more than 14,000 during Boris Johnson's landslide victory.

'Very disappointed'​

The constituency boundaries of her current seat are being revised to take in more rural areas to the west of the town ahead of the next general election.
Her deselection comes less than a week after the new mother returned to Parliament on 20 February, having spent six months on maternity leave after giving birth to her daughter.
In December last year, she revealed she had received dozens of phone calls from angry constituents who had berated her for taking time off.
She added: "I have only returned from maternity this week and I have been very disappointed by the abuse that I have received since I announced I was having a baby.
"The selection committee have made their decision and it is my full intention to go the membership."

Analysis​

By Amara Sophia Elahi, BBC Radio Stoke political reporter
Alongside her role as MP for Stafford, Theo Clarke also held the position of UK Trade Envoy to Kenya until her resignation last July in protest of Boris Johnson's leadership.
In a stinging resignation letter, Ms Clarke rebuked Mr Johnson for his handling of sexual abuse allegations surrounding the then Conservative MP Chris Pincher, who holds the neighbouring seat of Tamworth in Staffordshire.
Ms Clarke was one of dozens of MPs whose resignations ultimately led to Mr Johnson having to stand down as prime minister.
There is speculation, however, that those MPs who played a part in Mr Johnson's downfall are now facing a backlash from Tory grassroots.
Earlier this week the veteran Conservative MP Damian Green was also deselected by his local association.
Both Mr Green and Ms Clarke could still put their names forward however when the selection of MPs goes to the wider constituency membership.

 

[Yew]

The pledges Labour have made are these:



(Can't provide a link, since this is from an email from Labour)

I think it's self-evident that these are ambitions, not policies, since there's no indication of how Labour plans to achieve any them; and Labour is (correctly IMO) describing them as 'missions'. They are also all things that basically no-one is going to disagree with as aims, and are fairly timeless, so you're correct that they'll still be relevant at the next election. All Labour are really doing is indicating where their priorities lie.

Will Sir Keir be following these pledges as diligently as the ones he made in his leadership bid?

 

[nw1]

First Damian Green, now Theo Clarke of Stafford has been deselected. The common link is they did/said something that helped bring down Johnson, with speculation grassroot Tories are taking revenge against anyone who did so:

Stafford MP deselected one week after maternity leave return

Conservative Theo Clarke says she received abuse after announcing her plans to take time off.

www.bbc.co.uk

If such speculation is true, it certainly doesn't make the grassroots Tory Party look good.

 

[yorksrob]

Post deleted

 

[brad465]

From the author of "F**k business", he now says "F**k the Americans":

https://twitter.com/ShippersUnbound/status/1629546706760081409

EXC 2: Robert Buckland tried to persuade Boris Johnson to back Sunak's Brexit deal last week, not least because the White House is leaning on the UK. Johnson's response (in the HoC) was "F**k the Americans!" (Jocular says his team). See the ST long read:

 

[yorksrob]

Post deleted

 

[Gloster]

F**k the communists, who are bankrolling a land war in Europe, would be a more pertinent position at present.

I presume you mean Russia, which cannot be described as a communist state, however it describes itself. It is just a run of the mill corrupt authoritarian near-dictatorship: but F. them, whatever they are.

 

[yorksrob]

Post deleted

 

[Gloster]

No, I mean communist China, who are funding the Russian invasion of Ukrain.

The Communists don't just influence via themselves.

Well, my attitude is that my original comment stands with the substitution of China for Russia in my first sentence and the qualification that China is a lot more competent than Russia. Despite some of the national titles, I don’t think that there are any true communist states left, although some do adopt elements of communist doctrine or practice.

 

[yorksrob]

Post deleted

 

[ainsworth74]

Okay that's quite enough f bombs thank you, even asterisked they're still quite obvious!