When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[RT4038]

The standard Tory approach - you know that £20 pw boost you lazy, scrounging, fraudulent, workshy scum have enjoyed spending on mobile phones, booze, fags and flat screen TV's? - well we want it back to give to our rich chums.

The truth is for many people that £20 has been a godsend and has helped improve thier lives. I know when I was on benefits that an extra £20 would go a long way in buying better food ( and on some really hard weeks SOME food), heating my home, meaning I could have the lights on longer, drive to job interviews rather than try to get a warrant for public transport and, god forbid, mean I might think ( think mind you) about buying a pint of beer in a pub like a real man.

I do wish people, especially Tories, actually understood what life on benefits is really like. They are very quick to comment, especially on things they know nothing about and especially when thier favoured rag has told them what to think. Have you ever claimed benefits? It isn't like the picture the Mail presents!

A sensible, pragmatic Tory party would have found a way to ensure that a the £20 uplift became part of the benefits payment long term. In red wall areas in particular this would have reduced the backsliding to Labour that we are seeing.

The benefit system needs to be pitched at the point where the minimum number of people make living on benefits a lifestyle choice. As there are as many different circumstances as there are people, lines have to be drawn and there will be losers and winners. Without unreasonable intrusion and too many value judgements into peoples lives, I don't see any other outcome. Where those lines are drawn are always going to be controversial and have negative impacts on some. Maybe an extra £20 (or 40 or 60...) per week and not bother to go for work.....

We all probably know someone in both camps - I certainly do.

I think that makes it easy to make statements and decisions about benefits when they have never needed them.

About as easy as taxing 'other people' and then giving it away as handouts .....

 

[takno]

I don't know the circumstances of the person you refer to, and I'm sorry to hear if that person was impacted badly by austerity. I might however understand more than you think - I also knew people who were affected by austerity. In fact I myself was affected, not so much by austerity but by other policies of the Cameron/Clegg administration. But the difference is - I don't presume malice: I understand that the Government has to make all sorts of compromises in order to run the country: It's simply impossible to make everyone's life trouble-free, and equally pretty much impossible for the Government to do anything significant without it adversely affecting someone. And that's particularly true if you're in a situation like that of 2010 where, as a whole, the UK had been living beyond its means and something needed to be done to fix it - which (again) is pretty much impossible without standards of living suffering. Regrettably, we're in much the same situation today, although because of different causes.

You seem to think it's malicious not to increase benefits - but the trouble is: One person's benefit increase is another person's tax increase in order to pay for the benefit and that in itself can cause hardship. So what's the Government supposed to do? For that reason, I don't presume people are monsters just because, in their honest attempts to balance all the competing interests involved in maintaining the economy/etc. their policies cause some people to lose out.

I think the fundamental problem is that the whole "living beyond its means" argument was always obvious nonsense. It's just not the way government finance works, and yet Cameron and Osborne relentlessly trotted it out to justify truly dramatic and damaging cuts to government. Those cuts have been almost entirely negative in their impact on the economy, and have left a more fragmented, depressed and uncooperative society and have been catastrophic in their impact on civic society generally.

You can either argue that Cameron and Osbourne were pursuing these policies because they were terrible idiots, which certainly isn't out of the question, or because for ideological reasons they really wanted to force the UK down this terrible path. It's basically malicious or incompetent, there isn't another option which explains the policies and actions they took

 

[DarloRich]

The benefit system needs to be pitched at the point where the minimum number of people make living on benefits a lifestyle choice.

MOST people don't choose to "make a living on benefits" - that's the kind of nonsense we need to get away from. As with taxation there will always be those on the fiddle but they are in the minority, at least in my experiance.

About as easy as taxing 'other people' and then giving it away as handouts

Well, this government seems quite good at taxing normal people and exempting the richest. I pay higher rate tax now and would happily pay more to help those less fortunate. As I say, I have been there and know what it is like.

 

[nw1]

For some reason Liz Truss reminds me of Teresa May.

She reminds me of a cross between Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson.

 

[jfollows]

She reminds me of a cross between Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson.

In that she's bossy and incompetent?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

She reminds me of a cross between Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson.

In what respect...

 

[nw1]

Thank the lord Shapps didn't get there.

Not a fan of his, but not the worst candidate by any means.

In that she's bossy and incompetent?

The populism of Johnson and the hardline economic attitude of Thatcher ("Britannia Unchained").

In what respect...

See reply to @jfollows.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

See reply to @jfollows.

I was trying to visualize a pictorial image of such a "cross" in genetic terms....

 

[nw1]

Ah yes. Because smearing the other lot by falsely making out that they had some kind of horrible evil motive, and thereby presenting the people you disagree with as if they are horrible monsters, is just so funny isn't it! Hilarious. And repeatedly using these kinds of smears isn't remotely damaging to democracy or to a tolerant society where people respect different viewpoints, is it...

I don't think @Lost property was calling Cameron and Osborne "monsters". To my mind, it was just a piece of cutting (and rather funny) satire.

If we can't make fun of our politicians we really have lost it. The right have plenty of form in this respect (satirising left-leaning politicians) too.

 

[jfollows]

Jeremy Hunt is reported as pretty much giving up the contest for leadership, looks like acceptance of the inevitable.

 

[nw1]

Jeremy Hunt is reported as pretty much giving up the contest for leadership, looks like acceptance of the inevitable.

This shows, to me, that the Conservative Party is riddled with small-c conservatism.

While I have fundamentally disagreed with Hunt on a range of things in the past 10 years, and would not call myself a fan of his, he does represent the moderate wing of the party and would, to me, have been the obvious choice

I hope there is some point at which the British electorate will see that the Conservative Party of 2022 is welded to outdated and quite frankly rather reactionary ideas if it rejects a relative moderate like Hunt in the early stages. I note that other relative moderates, Shapps and Javid, have pulled out too. I sincerely hope we are not stuck with them until 2029 and the country does not drift further to the right and further towards isolationism and small-c conservatism. Really, the Conservatives need to lose an election, and lose it badly, to be shown that the direction they're obviously heading now - Johnson or no Johnson - is the wrong one if you are even the slightest of supporters of progressive policies.

Johnson himself was, it appears, perhaps not the problem after all. The problem appears to be endemic throughout the Conservative Party, if the moderate candidates are falling so early on in the contest.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think the fundamental problem is that the whole "living beyond its means" argument was always obvious nonsense. It's just not the way government finance works, and yet Cameron and Osborne relentlessly trotted it out to justify truly dramatic and damaging cuts to government. Those cuts have been almost entirely negative in their impact on the economy, and have left a more fragmented, depressed and uncooperative society and have been catastrophic in their impact on civic society generally.

I wouldn't say 'living beyond its means' was nonsense. There is certainly an issue that, when you cut Government spending, you also tend to reduce revenue (the multiplier effect) - and that makes things a bit more complicated than the 'household budget' analogy - which I'm guessing is what you're thinking of. But at the same time there's an equally important issue that the Government can't keep endlessly and permanently borrowing/printing more money without limit without it eventually ruining the economy. Personally I would quibble with the particular way Cameron/Osborne went about austerity, but their focus on the need to reduce the deficit was sound - and most definitely not nonsense.

You can either argue that Cameron and Osbourne were pursuing these policies because they were terrible idiots, which certainly isn't out of the question, or because for ideological reasons they really wanted to force the UK down this terrible path. It's basically malicious or incompetent, there isn't another option which explains the policies and actions they took

You're missing out the other (and rather more likely) explanation: That they were fully aware of other issues that complicated the picture, and made their decisions in the light of that awareness: For example, the need to get more innovation/private investment to boost the economy, which tends to favour lower taxes and lower Government spending. The belief that private enterprise tends to usually achieve things more efficiently than the Government can. The need to incentivise people to work and be more productive (because as a nation, if we don't produce things, we can't consume them!) - remember, back in 2010, one of the big issues of the day was that welfare benefits were - as I understand it - structured so that large numbers of people would get more money by living on benefits than if they went out to work). And so on. When you take into account all those things, it becomes perfectly possible to see how people like Cameron and Osborne could conclude that their path was the best one (even if you don't agree with it), without having to presume they are idiots or worse.

 

[jfollows]

This shows, to me, that the Conservative Party is riddled with small-c conservatism.

While I have fundamentally disagreed with Hunt on a range of things in the past 10 years, and would not call myself a fan of his, he does represent the moderate wing of the party and would, to me, have been the obvious choice

I hope there is some point at which the British electorate will see that the Conservative Party of 2022 is welded to outdated and quite frankly rather reactionary ideas if it rejects a relative moderate like Hunt in the early stages. I note that other relative moderates, Shapps and Javid, have pulled out too. I sincerely hope we are not stuck with them until 2029 and the country does not drift further to the right and further towards isolationism and small-c conservatism. Really, the Conservatives need to lose an election, and lose it badly, to be shown that the direction they're obviously heading now is the wrong one.

Johnson himself was, it appears, perhaps not the problem after all. The problem appears to be endemic throughout the Conservative Party, if the moderate candidates are falling so early on in the contest.

I don't disagree with you, it's become the Blue Anarchist Party in recent years, and it's not just because of Boris Johnson as you say. It seems to reflect a sea change in the view of voters, and I'm not convinced that this is because of "older voters" which seems too simplistic.
Technically I didn't vote Conservative in 1992, but I would have done had I not been living abroad, and I certainly wasn't going to vote Conservative in 1997 and haven't done since.
I think there's an argument about the "middle ground" but I accept Dominic Cummings' thesis to some extent that this isn't represented by a schoolteacher in Nuneaton any more (which was my view of the floating voter in the past).
Like you, I hope that the Conservatives lose the next election badly. I was happy with the 2010 result, and not too unhappy about the 2015 result, but since then I've little more than contempt for most of them. But democracy means that my views on their own count for a little, and it's going to be interesting to see where the majority goes.

 

[DarloRich]

Jeremy Hunt is reported as pretty much giving up the contest for leadership, looks like acceptance of the inevitable.

The question is who he puts his support behind.

 

[nw1]

I don't disagree with you, it's become the Blue Anarchist Party in recent years, and it's not just because of Boris Johnson as you say. It seems to reflect a sea change in the view of voters, and I'm not convinced that this is because of "older voters" which seems too simplistic.

That would be the worrying thing. When in pessimistic mood I often wonder whether the UK population as a whole has become more small-c conservative and obsessed with such things as excessive patriotism (whether deserved or not) and keeping out immigrants; things that appared to be deeply unfashionable in the late 80s, let alone 90s or 00s.

I think age is one divide, with the boomer and pre-boomer generations containing a higher percentage of people with such views than Gen X or the millennials; but as you say it's not the only thing, I know plenty of older liberals and know of plenty of younger reactionaries. Nonetheless one does wonder whether, as the generation that spent most of their adult lives in the more liberal years of the 90s and 00s becomes more dominant in the electorate, the pendulum will swing back in the coming years.

Nonetheless I have made some observations, such as more Union Jack and England flags appearing in houses (and this is not during a jubilee, international football tournament, etc - but generally) in recent years, representing a growth in (some might say vacuous) patriotism.

You mention Nuneaton in passing, it's interesting that under one Tory majority government (Major 1992) it was a Labour gain, under another (Johnson 2019) it was an easy Tory hold. Does this represent a wild swing to the right for middle England since 1992, or have there been very specific socio-economic changes in the town of Nuneaton specifically since the days of Major?

I sincerely hope I am being unduly negative when I make such observations and Britain isn't heading down a path towards endemic small-c conservatism. But more optimistically, I think it's just a phase (particularly when one considers the more left-leaning views of younger people, making generalisations of course; but also more and more people realising the empty promises of Brexit, for example, and realising that immigrants are not the devil incarnate) and we will start to move towards a more liberal outlook again. Maybe it will be too late for 2024, but if the Tories win again in 2024 I do suspect the 2029 election will be a heavy defeat for them. Perhaps 2024 is the new 1992, and 2029 the new 1997. Mind you, that would make 2022 the new 1990, and the general mood does seem to be far to the right of what it was in 1990.

Also I don't really want to wait until 2029, by which time I will be getting seriously old!

 

[WelshBluebird]

But the difference is - I don't presume malice

I mean when you say look at how those claiming various disability benefits have been treated over the last 12 years, it is either malice or incompetance. Take your pick, but neither is a good look for the government. I'm talking about things like assessments ignoring actual medical advice, or the insanely high appeal success rate and the like. Either the government has wanted to hurt disabled people, or it is so incompetant that it can't manage the benefits system properly resulting in unnecessary suffering and wasted time and money in regards to the appeals etc.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

If we can't make fun of our politicians we really have lost it.

Yet any politician daring to make fun of the electorate would receive the wrath of all those do-gooders who always surface at times like that.

I mean when you say look at how those claiming various disability benefits have been treated over the last 12 years, it is either malice or incompetance. Take your pick, but neither is a good look for the government.

I would love this matter to take taken to the Supreme Court in order to establish that malice has been proved in law and not just the feeling of an individual.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Nadhim Zahawi and Jeremy Hunt knocked out of the Tory leadership contest

Rishi Sunak - 88 votes
Penny Mordaunt - 67 votes
Liz Truss - 50 votes
Kemi Badenoch - 40 votes
Tom Tugendhat - 37 votes
Suella Braverman - 32 votes
--------
Nadhim Zahawi - 25 votes
Jeremy Hunt - 18 votes

 

[Bald Rick]

Nadhim Zahawi and Jeremy Hunt knocked out of the Tory leadership contest

Rishi Sunak - 88 votes
Penny Mordaunt - 67 votes
Liz Truss - 50 votes
Kemi Badenoch - 40 votes
Tom Tugendhat - 37 votes
Suella Braverman - 32 votes
--------
Nadhim Zahawi - 25 votes
Jeremy Hunt - 18 votes

poor Jeremy Hunt. Given that he had 20 people nominate him (excluding himself), and that only 18 voted for him (including himself), it means that at least three people who nominated him voted for someone else.

 

[najaB]

poor Jeremy Hunt. Given that he had 20 people nominate him (excluding himself), and that only 18 voted for him (including himself), it means that at least three people who nominated him voted for someone else.

Reminds me of someone who ran for office and received fewer votes than voters who lived in his house. That must've been awkward!

 

[Busaholic]

Where will Hunt and Zahawi votes go? I'd think the former's to Tugenhadt and the latter's to Morduant if they follow the advice of their original choices, which many will not do of course. Braverman the next one out, with her votes to Truss in the main, as the latter has convinced the Lunacy Twins Nadies and Mogg of her true Brexit credentials now?

Reminds me of someone who ran for office and received fewer votes than voters who lived in his house. That must've been awkward!

He couldn't even falsify their votes? What sort of politician would he have made?!

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

poor Jeremy Hunt. Given that he had 20 people nominate him (excluding himself), and that only 18 voted for him (including himself), it means that at least three people who nominated him voted for someone else.

shows the games they are playing with each other and they want us to believe they have any credibility

 

[birchesgreen]

Reminds me of someone who ran for office and received fewer votes than voters who lived in his house. That must've been awkward!

There was a case a while ago of someone who received 0 votes (i think it may have been in a council election), he later said he'd forgotten to vote for himself.

 

[Busaholic]

There was a case a while ago of someone who received 0 votes (i think it may have been in a council election), he later said he'd forgotten to vote for himself.

Strange, because you have to receive nominations from electors in the ward concerned.

 

[Mag_seven]

We have decided to lock this thread for the moment whilst the Tory leadership campaign is underway, discussion of which can be found here:

2022 Conservative Leadership Election - Liz Truss chosen as party leader (and subsequent reshuffle)

I realise that we've got the existing "Where did it go wrong for the Tories?" thread, but I'm interested to who the forum thinks should be the next leader, and therefore the next prime minister. It will come as no surprise that I'd rather there wasn't a Conservative PM at all, but we are where...

www.railforums.co.uk