Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[brad465]

If Yes Minister came up with this, they'd have been criticised for being too unrealistic:

UK minister for building pylons loses role after campaigning against them

Andrew Bowie wrote last year that concerns among his constituents about new pylons were ‘a priority’

www.theguardian.com

The UK minister responsible for the building of new pylons has been quietly reshuffled after it emerged he had campaigned against the structures in his own constituency.

The energy minister Andrew Bowie had been in charge of energy networks, including building pylons, since he took up his post in February 2023.

In July he wrote on the blog he runs for his constituents in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine that concerns among locals about new pylons were “a priority of mine”. He met local anti-pylon campaigners on multiple occasions.

In December the brief was passed to the climate minister Graham Stuart. No announcement was made but a change has been made on the government website.

A freedom of information request by Politico found that Bowie raised potential conflicts of interest under the ministerial code, recording “a large number of energy companies and organisations working in or on behalf of the energy sector within the minister’s constituency and surrounding constituencies”.

There has been a growing campaign by some Conservative MPs against expanding the National Grid, which needs to happen if enough electricity is to be supplied to UK homes and businesses while allowing for growth and decarbonisation. The MPs say pylons are unsightly.

The Offshore Electricity Grid Task Force is made up of 14 MPs who are campaigning against pylons. Its members include the former secretaries of state Priti Patel, Kemi Badenoch and Thérèse Coffey.

Patel brought their case to parliament in November, asking why the pylons could not be built in the sea. She demanded that ministers opt to “build an offshore grid” and “pull the plug on these awful pylons”.

The energy secretary, Claire Coutinho, has said expanding the grid could be a politically thorny topic, commenting last year: “Of course, it’s a difficult conversation when you tell people that things are going to be built near them.”

Experts have said more pylons would bring down energy bills, allow for renewable energy sources to be connected to homes and mean businesses can set up in more areas.

Simon Cran-McGreehin, the head of analysis at the Energy and Climate Intelligence Unit, said an offshore grid without onshore pylons made no sense.

He said: “The proposed grid investments already include coordinated undersea cables to connect up the UK’s vast offshore wind potential, but at some point those lines have to come onshore to reach customers, otherwise it’s like a ring road without any routes into town.”

The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero declined to comment on the basis it does not comment on ministerial reappointments.

 

[sor]

Not a good week for Sunak or the tories really - R&W (an accredited pollster) is suggesting Labour are leading in every age bracket - including their traditional base of 65+. I would be very worried if I was in CCHQ right now!

Latest GB Voting Intention (3-5 February 2024) - Redfield & Wilton Strategies

Between Saturday and Monday this week, we at Redfield & Wilton Strategies conducted a special, one-off Westminster Voting Intention poll among a …

redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com

 

[najaB]

But it did happen eventually, and today it really is absurd - I would say, probably to the point of qualifying as an outright lie - to claim that the Tory party as a whole is hostile to LGB people. (I realize there's more controversy over the 'T' bit in 'LGBTQ').

It would be just as much of a lie to say that the Tory party as whole are for or against anything, as much as it would be to say that any party is for or against any position.

However, it is neither an exaggeration nor a lie to say that someone holding LGBT-hostile views is much more likely to find a home and people with similar views in the Tory party than they are in any other major party (except maybe whatever Reform is calling itself by the time of the election).

 

[Silenos]

However, it is neither an exaggeration nor a lie to say that someone holding LGBT-hostile views is much more likely to find a home and people with similar views in the Tory party than they are in any other major party (except maybe whatever Reform is calling itself by the time of the election).

Given the ongoing rightward drift in the party, and their apparent appetite for importing the madder Republican positions across the Atlantic, it can surely only be a couple of years before one of the Tory factions starts advocating banning books with gay characters from schools, or making it possible to sack LGBQT people without comeback.

 

[75A]

Given the ongoing rightward drift in the party, and their apparent appetite for importing the madder Republican positions across the Atlantic, it can surely only be a couple of years before one of the Tory factions starts advocating banning books with gay characters from schools, or making it possible to sack LGBQT people without comeback.

I'm sure there will be some people who think that way.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Given the ongoing rightward drift in the party, and their apparent appetite for importing the madder Republican positions across the Atlantic, it can surely only be a couple of years before one of the Tory factions starts advocating banning books with gay characters from schools, or making it possible to sack LGBQT people without comeback.

You mean, as opposed to people with perfectly legitimate gender-critical views being either harrassed into resigning or actually sacked from their jobs purely because of their views, as actually happens today?

Examples:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathleen_Stock

On 28 October 2021, the university announced Stock's resignation from the position following controversy around her views on gender identity; the announcement, written by the school's vice-chancellor, expressed regret that Stock did not "feel able to return to work" and that she had been subject to "bullying and harassment"

https://www.personneltoday.com/hr/open-university-gender-critical-belief-tribunal-case/

A professor who was likened to ‘a racist uncle at the Christmas dinner table’ and accused of being transphobic because of her gender-critical beliefs has succeeded in her claim for harassment, discrimination and constructive dismissal against the Open University.

Professor Jo Phoenix, a lesbian who set up the Gender Critical Research Network (GCRN) at the OU, claimed she felt forced to leave her job as a professor of criminology because the organisation failed to support and protect her from belief-related discrimination and harassment.

Phoenix believes that biological sex is immutable, real and important, and that sex cannot be conflated with gender identity.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68250071

The Green Party discriminated against former deputy leader Dr Shahrar Ali during a row over his gender critical beliefs, a court has ruled.

The court found the Green Party had improperly dismissed Dr Ali as a party spokesperson because it had failed to identify any misconduct.

Whereas what you have offered about the Tory party is just wild speculation with no basis at all in fact. There is basically zero reason to think that the Tory party (and remember, it's a Tory Government that legalised gay marriage) is likely to go down any path of banning pro-gay books.

 

[350401]

Given the ongoing rightward drift in the party, and their apparent appetite for importing the madder Republican positions across the Atlantic, it can surely only be a couple of years before one of the Tory factions starts advocating banning books with gay characters from schools, or making it possible to sack LGBQT people without comeback.

As someone who is LGBT, this is a genuine fear - that the Tories will begin to advocate for a rollback of hard won rights and freedoms. The Trans right issue is one that should be done with a level head and compassion, as it’s a debate about how the rights of one group should be weighted and balanced against another. Megaphone politics and turning this issue into soundbites just does not work.

Looking across the Pond, in the southern states the debate has quickly moved on from trans rights to mainstream LGB rights. Most southern states have brought back a version of section 28, and are advocating for a ban on drag in public. Some groups are now calling for a ban on gay surrogacy, and adoption. The worry is that U.K. conservatives, with their ties to groups like the Heritage foundation begin to copy these policies over here. An element of the Tory Party, including Sunak, seem to think that USA politics translates well to the U.K. Thankfully I don’t think it does, but it’s possible we see the Tories go much more socially conservative under a new leader. And as someone whose rights to adopt and marry could be on the line, that’s quite scary.

In terms of how it impacts today’s politics, I think it’s yet another factor for why anyone under 50 is unlikely to vote for them. I myself voted for Cameron in 10 and 15 and for May in 17 and was a party member during the Cameron years. Their willingness to weaponise trans rights and attack “woke”, combined with an abject failure to build houses and infrastructure means I’ll be voting Labour for the foreseeable future.

 

[dgl]

And I bet they'll use "protecting religious beliefs" as the reason for rolling back rights.
With climate change, money worries, pollution, councils going bust, NHS waiting times and so on you'd have thought there would be more important things to worry about than peoples gender or sexual preference.

 

[Silenos]

remember, it's a Tory Government that legalised gay marriage

Against the wishes of a majority of the parliamentary party, as has already been pointed out. Those people haven’t gone away (apart from the ones who have died, of course).

Suella Braverman, a person who has been touted as a future leader of the party, has said that being gay and fearing persecution for it should not qualify a person for asylum.(1) The Council of Europe, in a 2021 report, expressed concern about rising anti-trans rhetoric in the U.K., explicitly referencing statements by Kemi Badenoch, another widely-tipped future leader.(2) And Liz Truss, a former PM and party leader, spoke against people being able to choose their gender at the launch of her Popular Conservatism movement.(3) And we know that these groups on the right of the party receive funding from some of those far-right foundations like the Heritage Foundation who support the extreme elements of the US Republicans. So I think LGBTQ people have every right to doubt the path the Tories are taking. Trans people, unfortunately, are often the canary in the coal mine when it comes to gay rights, in part because they’re often more visible.

1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-66919416
2. https://assembly.coe.int/LifeRay/EGA/Pdf/TextesProvisoires/2021/20210921-RisingHateLGBTI-EN.pdf
3. https://www.itv.com/news/2024-02-06...atism-as-liz-truss-launches-new-tory-movement

 

[najaB]

There is basically zero reason to think that the Tory party (and remember, it's a Tory Government that legalised gay marriage) is likely to go down any path of banning pro-gay books.

I'm sure I remember the days when the Republican Party in the USA was the pro-free speech party and used to accuse the Democrats of wanting to censor everything. Now they are literally burning books with flamethrowers.

 

[Busaholic]

Having just had a look at the uncorrected version of Hansard (and presuming I have got the whole bit), the only mention of trans people before Sunak’s comment was when Starmer mentioned that the victim’s mother was in the gallery. He used a brief but, in my opinion, neutral phrasing and then went to an unrelated question about the NHS. There were no further references to the matter or related ones until Sunak made his comment. In the light of reading that the comment seems, to me, even more crass and cloth-eared than I had previously thought.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[Thirteen]

Surely the fact there are many LGBT Tories means the chances of a Tory opposition being anti LGBT is fairly slim?

 

[350401]

Surely the fact there are many LGBT Tories means the chances of a Tory opposition being anti LGBT is fairly slim?

You’d hope so, but my experience of the LGBTories is they are Tory first, LGBT second. They have maintained a radio silence on the refusal of the current leadership to ban conversion therapy, they did not criticise the ejection of Andrew Boff, their patron, from the Conservative conference when he very quietly voiced his disagreement with a transphobic speech by Bravermann, and they have not said anything about the continual dog whistle comments by various MPs. I don’t hold out great hope for their ability to stand up to a future leader who, copying the USA, decides to bring in a version of section 28 in the name of “protecting children”.

 

[Thirteen]

You’d hope so, but my experience of the LGBTories is they are Tory first, LGBT second. They have maintained a radio silence on the refusal of the current leadership to ban conversion therapy, they did not criticise the ejection of Andrew Boff, their patron, from the Conservative conference when he very quietly voiced his disagreement with a transphobic speech by Bravermann, and they have not said anything about the continual dog whistle comments by various MPs. I don’t hold out great hope for their ability to stand up to a future leader who, copying the USA, decides to bring in a version of section 28 in the name of “protecting children”.

I doubt Section 28 will ever return, it's a relic of the past

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As someone who is LGBT, this is a genuine fear - that the Tories will begin to advocate for a rollback of hard won rights and freedoms. The Trans right issue is one that should be done with a level head and compassion, as it’s a debate about how the rights of one group should be weighted and balanced against another. Megaphone politics and turning this issue into soundbites just does not work.

I can well imagine, given the prejudice that LGBT people suffered in the recent past, and still suffer in many parts of the World, that you could fear. But I'd also point out that an awful lot of garbage and untruths and scaremongering gets written by 'progressives' - even on this thread - directed against people on the right. So I'd be careful that the fears are about things that are realistic, and are not fears about things that are actually incredibly unlikely. The situation in the UK is very different from the situation in the US, and I can't see the anti-LGB stuff there transferring to the mainstream here: Acceptance of LGB lifestyles as equivalent to heterosexual lifestyles is now just too strong in the UK.

You’d hope so, but my experience of the LGBTories is they are Tory first, LGBT second. They have maintained a radio silence on the refusal of the current leadership to ban conversion therapy,

I would be careful about citing conversion therapy as evidence because that's not purely an LGBT thing. A complete ban on conversion therapy has free speech/freedom of choice implications: If person A wants to try to change in some way, and person B believes they can help A to do so, than it seems in total contradiction to the principles of a free society to prevent A and B from working together. I believe that is the main reason why there is a reluctance to outright ban conversion therapy - it's not anything to do with a hostility to LGBT rights. Personally I think we should be looking to clamp down on the unethical practices that often surround conversion therapy (misleading claims, any pressure on people to do something they don't really want to do, etc.) rather than banning the whole principle.

 

[Gloster]

I doubt Section 28 will ever return, it's a relic of the past

No, it probably won’t, but then, who would have thought fifteen years ago that we would leave the EU? Do not panic, but don’t be complacent.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Suella Braverman, a person who has been touted as a future leader of the party, has said that being gay and fearing persecution for it should not qualify a person for asylum.(1)

Thanks for providing the link. But I don't see that as an anti-gay thing. It looks to me like what Suella Braverman is pointing out is that, given that we don't have unlimited capacity to give asylum, the people we give asylum to need to be the people who most desperately need it. That means, people who are facing actual current or imminent persecution - not people who are merely suffering from discrimination that falls short of persecution, or people who haven't actually suffered anything but have some suspicion/fear that they might face discrimination in the future. In that context, it seems to me perfectly reasonable to say that a gay person shouldn't be able to claim asylum just because they are gay and think they might face discrimination: You're not refusing that person because they are gay - you're refusing them because there other people (including other gay people) whose situation is much more dire and who are therefore the people you need to prioritise for help.

 

[Enthusiast]

...but then, who would have thought fifteen years ago that we would leave the EU?

I did. Towards the end of the Noughties disenchantment with the UK's EU membership was beginning to become more prevalent and it was no longer considered heresy to suggest such an event. Quite honestly, if it had not happened in 2016 there would be stronger calls now to look at the question. Put plainly, the country is simply divided on the issue and that division has been growing for probably 30 years. Whether we are in or out roughly half the population (+/- a couple of percent or so, depending on recent world events) will be unhappy. That's one of the principle reasons those who criticise the format of the 2016 referendum suggest a "super-majority" should have been required to leave. They believe it's quite acceptable to have (say) 64% of the electorate unhappy, just so long as they are not in that 64% and their votes on the matter are almost twice as valuable as those with the opposing view.

 

[najaB]

That means, people who are facing actual current or imminent persecution - not people who are merely suffering from discrimination that falls short of persecution, or people who haven't actually suffered anything but have some suspicion/fear that they might face discrimination in the future.

And that is the reality of how the system currently works. Each claim is evaluated on its own merits and if there is no danger to life or liberty it will be denied.

But the fact is that there are still an alarming number of countries where same sex relations are illegal and, unfortunately, in some of them carry the death penalty.

The fact that Ms Braverman suggests that the system is broken indicates, to me at least, that she is in favour of tightened up the rules. So I fear that if she had her way, being gay in a country where homosexual acts are subject to capital punishment wouldn't count as grounds for asylum until the rope is actually around your neck.

 

[Cowley]

Just a reminder that we do have a dedicated thread for Brexit matters which would be better for discussing that particular topic:
https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/brexit-matters.211154/unready

 

[The Ham]

And I bet they'll use "protecting religious beliefs" as the reason for rolling back rights.
With climate change, money worries, pollution, councils going bust, NHS waiting times and so on you'd have thought there would be more important things to worry about than peoples gender or sexual preference.

Generally as long as religion organisations aren't forced to do anything (for example churches be forced to marry a homosexual couple) then most religious organisations won't be so that bothered about what rights are given to any group.

If there's no expansion of rights (which seams unlikely from the current government) then most of the rights have existed for some time and hasn't generally been of significant concern.

Therefore rolling back rights makes no sense "to protect religious beliefs". Especially given the fairly small number of people who actually regularly attend a faith community. It should also be remembered that some of those who are most likely to be have their beliefs protected are likely to be Jews and Muslims (which is unlikely to be overly liked by many who otherwise may think this was a good thing).

Additionally, such a step could raise questions amongst other groups (for example atheists) as to if religion is getting to much power.

Basically, whatever you do it'll be complex and may upset those it's aimed at getting on side.

 

[Thirteen]

The list of MPs not standing at the next election is getting bigger. Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for Westminster and City of London is standing down at the next election although she has a genuine reason to stand down, her husband, Alex Aiken has accepted a job in the UAE.

 

[Typhoon]

The list of MPs not standing at the next election is getting bigger. Nickie Aiken, the Conservative MP for Westminster and City of London is standing down at the next election although she has a genuine reason to stand down, her husband, Alex Aiken has accepted a job in the UAE.

They might have been struggling to hold the seat in any case, majority of less than 4,000 in last two elections, Mrs Aiken - a one term MP - had name recognition (former Council leader), strong 'Remain' constituency, candidates for LibDem, Labour, Green and Reform already selected.

Their biggest asset might be that the main rival is not obvious - in 2017, Labour were the runners up while in 2019 it was the LibDems' candidate Chuka Umunna (formerly of Labour and Change)

Whatever the position of the Conservatives after the election, with the number of MPs standing down or likely to lose marginals, it looks like they will have a pretty inexperienced cohort. This might mean that the leader has a choice of prematurely promoting the untried, restoring those who have been found wanting in the past, or giving positions to those who previous leaders have found too unacceptable (pick names from any of the half dozen or so fringe groups on the right, for instance) for the cabinet/ shadow cabinet. Parliamentary democracy depends on having a shadow cabinet that can hold the cabinet to account, and a cabinet that can defend its position. I fear that in a year's time we may not have that.

(For those advocating Reform, my constituency has a named candidate, and now, unusually, there is a fair bit about them but just a name and a blob, but most is just amplified slogans. I want some idea of what they have actually done - doesn't need to be anything wonderful, setting up a (very) small business, running a playgroup or kids football team, on a school PTA, to me organising (and taking part) in litter picking on the beach/ by a river is a plus. These show some involvement with the community not just sitting on the sofa having a moan*. Anyone can rewrite some stuff from HQ - even AI).

* - from the number of unfilled candidates, I reckon I could get a constituency. I can sit on a sofa and paraphrase Reform mantras, it isn't exactly hard.

 

[jfollows]

The estimates for GDP have been revised down today:

• 2Q23 0% growth (previously +0.2%)
• 3Q23 -0.1% (previously 0%)

which could lead to a "technical" recession earlier - if 4Q23 is also a contraction.
Of course, Rishi will spin this that it's only "technical", it's only a "mild" recession anyway, the economy is well-placed for the future, etc.
What were his 5 pledges again .....?

Today's Observer (https://www.theguardian.com/busines...will-be-no-laughing-matter-for-hunt-and-sunak):

All eyes at the Treasury this week will be on estimates of economic growth in the final three months of 2023. A contraction in gross domestic product (GDP) in the fourth quarter would spell embarrassment for the government and disaster for Rishi Sunak.

The second of the prime minister’s five pledges was to have the economy growing by the end of the year. Instead, it is widely expected that the Office for National Statistics (ONS) assessment of fourth-quarter activity will show that the economy contracted by 0.1%, after also shrinking by 0.1% in the third quarter (revised from an estimate of no growth). That would mean the UK was in a recession during the second half of 2023, albeit a shallow one. An economy is considered to be in recession after two consecutive quarters of contraction.


The shallowness of the downturn is unlikely to stop Labour from ramping up its criticism of the government’s economic prowess. While much of the damage dates from the Liz Truss premiership and her chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng’s kamikaze budget, Jeremy Hunt promised that his steady hand on the tiller would provide the stability needed for companies to begin investing again.

Yet Thursday’s GDP figures are expected to show that UK manufacturing was in recession all year and business investment negative, undermining Hunt’s claims. Corporate insolvencies are rising, with construction, retail and hospitality the worst-affected sectors.

It remains touch and go whether the MPC will be able to reduce interest rates as soon as May, as we and most investors expect

Samuel Tombs, Pantheon

Nevertheless, Gabriella Willis, a UK economist at Santander, says Hunt can look forward to better times. Not only is it possible the recession may later be re-evaluated by the ONS, with contraction turning into growth, but 2024 generally is forecast to be a better year.


“The UK recession, if confirmed, looks set to be as short and shallow as they come. We see reasons to be a little more upbeat on 2024, with surveys for January suggesting 2024 started on a better footing, shrugging off the year-end lethargy,” she said.

The Bank of England will be focusing on how fast pay is rising. Officials are concerned that labour market data due on Tuesday will show that despite the economic gloom, wages continued to rise in the dying months of 2023, which could mean inflation rising again later this year, limiting the scope for interest rate cuts.

In a busy week for UK economic data, the ONS will also publish its inflation figures for January on Wednesday. Analysts say the signals are likely to be mixed, giving the Bank’s monetary policy committee (MPC) a headache when it meets next month. Wages are expected to have increased between November and December by about 0.4%, which for a single month represents a strong boost to disposable incomes. The annual figure for the average wage rise could remain at 6.5% – the same as it was in November, and well ahead of inflation.

Catherine Mann, a former investment bank economist who started her career at the US Federal Reserve and is a member of the MPC, said in a recent speech that she feared companies were planning to put up prices this year even though their costs had fallen sharply.


A few days after Mann’s speech, Sarah Breeden, a Bank insider who was promoted to the MPC last year, said she wanted to see wages growth fallingbefore she would consider slicing back the cost of borrowing from its current level of 5.25%.

Samuel Tombs, chief UK economist at Pantheon Macroeconomics, said the labour market was weakening, but not at the pace needed for the central bank to cut interest rates imminently. “It remains touch and go whether the MPC will be able to reduce [interest rates] as soon as May, as we and most investors expect,” he said.

Inflation is proving a head-scratcher for all central banks after steep falls last autumn were reversed in the run-up to Christmas.

Financial markets expect the UK consumer prices index (CPI) to rise again in January to 4.2%, from 4% in December and 3.9% in November.

However, the recent increases are expected to be reversed during the spring, with CPI possibly falling below the Bank’s 2% target by June.

This prediction has encouraged financial markets to bet that a cut in the interest rate is coming sooner rather than later.

Bank governor Andrew Bailey is worried that speculation about early interest rate cuts has already brought down mortgage rates and that an economic rebound, while modest, is in train. It means the path to much lower interest rates, whenever it begins, could be long and winding.

 

[Howardh]

In just wonder where those paying a lot more on their mortgages will find money to spend to boost the economy, albeit many will find that their power bills are relatively cheaper than 22/23?

 

[Senex]

Parliamentary democracy depends on having a shadow cabinet that can hold the cabinet to account, and a cabinet that can defend its position. I fear that in a year's time we may not have that.

How long is it since we really had a cabinet of heavyweights and a shadow cabinet capable of genuinely holding the government to account?

 

[317 forever]

I guess having some unknown instead of Kwarteng could be either good or bad for the Tories. On the one hand the person will not have a "reputation", on the other hand they won't have the incumbent advantage.



Blair is undoubtedly the second-least-bad PM of my remembered lifetime (Thatcher onwards).

Least-bad is his successor.



Who seem to not only be right-wing economically, but full on anti-woke populist too. From the Guardian live news feed (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...s-morgan-bet-conservatives-labour-uk-politics):



You wouldn't believe she was Lib Dem in 1994, would you? Mind you, in veering strongly rightwards in later life, she has quite a lot in common with that other former anti-monarchist, John Lydon.

What we can say about Liz Truss is that she is not self-conscious about her public image

 

[Richard Scott]

How long is it since we really had a cabinet of heavyweights and a shadow cabinet capable of genuinely holding the government to account?

Unfortunately a long time ago. This is my issue with politicians now, none of them have any ability to see the job through and no-one has a proper vision anymore.
Seems to be an issue in many other countries too.

 

[johnnychips]

From The Observer article:

The annual figure for the average wage rise could remain at 6.5% – the same as it was in November, and well ahead of inflation.

Whose wages have gone up like that? Genuine question. Mine haven’t (teaching) and the rail workers’ haven’t.

 

[Gloster]

From The Observer article:

The annual figure for the average wage rise could remain at 6.5% – the same as it was in November, and well ahead of inflation.

Whose wages have gone up like that? Genuine question. Mine haven’t (teaching) and the rail workers’ haven’t.

Directors of water companies?