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

[Intercity 225]

That's possible I guess. Were there (before Brexit) areas of the UK that had received EU funding and where the EU flag was plastered all over the places that had been improved? If so, where?

They can be found - I’ve attached a few images that I’ve taken myself over the years. These are also just the ones that sprang immediately to mind, I’ve seen many more but then again I’m probably more likely to notice them than most because I’m a huge Europhile!

Incidentally, and regrettably in my view, all areas where these photos were taken also heavily voted for Brexit so the “plastering” had no or very little impact on the wider electorate.

To answer the main question this thread is about, the Tories are currently in a very strong position and I can see this lasting for about a decade. But they have lost voters over the past five years - me included.

Prior to the EU referendum I nearly always voted Conservative (I was even a party member for a period) but I haven’t in any election at any level since. Despite having serious reservations about Johnson, I would’ve considered voting for them for the first time since 2015 in the next general election (whenever that may be) but I can’t if they insist on extremely hiking the corporation tax rate as they’re currently proposing. We should be stimulating business growth not attacking it, it’s our best way of recovering from the double economic punches of leaving the single market and the lockdowns.

And herein lies the Tories problem - nobody is quite sure what they stand for any more. Indeed they’ve actually gone considerably left wing on economic policy and tied that in with a considerably authoritarian social policy - that’s a toxic combination for people like me… and there are millions of us.

They’ll remain in power though until Labour find someone with charisma to lead them - a Blair 2.0 if you will. Starmer is not that man and they need to get shut ASAP. The Labour Party isn’t blessed with talent at the moment but if I were to pick someone who is possibly up to the challenge it’d be Jess Phillips.

 

[brad465]

When will it all go wrong for the Tories? When the public wake up to the gross corruption the Financial Times have been exposing yesterday and today:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

A secretive club for major Conservative donors known as the ‘Advisory Board’ has been holding regular meetings and calls with Prime Minister Boris Johnson and the chancellor Rishi Sunak.

 

[yorksrob]

When will it all go wrong for the Tories? When the public wake up to the gross corruption the Financial Times have been exposing yesterday and today:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

Ah yes, at the bottom of the article it suggests that these members are "free marketeers" i.e the same Arthur Daley types who hijacked the party from the one nation patriots such as Churchill and Macmillan.

They'd be the first to flog the Nations assets to the Commies in the name of "the market".

 

[Butts]

I suspect that's probably it: A response to public opinion. If you really wanted to reward nurses etc. who worked in the pandemic, then the logical way to do it would be a bonus for people who worked during the last year, rather than a pay rise: A pay rise rewards nurses who will be working in future years - that's not necessarily the same people as nurses who were working during the pandemic (though there's obviously a fair bit of overlap between the two groups).

NHS Staff in Scotland and Wales got a bonus last year did they not ?

Are NHS Staff still on scales dependent on service where they get an automatic pay rise every year until they hit the top of the scale ?

If so the Union keeps very quiet about it during negotiations that are made public.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

When will it all go wrong for the Tories? When the public wake up to the gross corruption the Financial Times have been exposing yesterday and today:

Subscribe to the Financial Times

A subscription to the Financial Times provides you with the insights and perspective you need to succeed, now.

on.ft.com

The article is behind a paywall so I can't read it and I guess most other people can't. Could you clarify the nature of the gross corruption that you are alleging?

 

[brad465]

The article is behind a paywall so I can't read it and I guess most other people can't. Could you clarify the nature of the gross corruption that you are alleging?

I did gift link it but I believe after a certain number of clicks it runs out and they don't allow more than a line or so to be copied out.

In answer to your question the "Advisory board" is a secretive club that appears to have been uncovered where Johnson and Sunak have attended secret meetings with donors who pay at least £250k a year. The FT say some meetings have been used to try and call for lower taxes and spending cuts, and recently members have voiced criticism at all the "state intervention" recently. The Tory party has claimed the funding has nothing to do with Government policy and they declare all donations to the Electoral Commission.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I did gift link it but I believe after a certain number of clicks it runs out and they don't allow more than a line or so to be copied out.

Ah OK, that sounds fair enough.

In answer to your question the "Advisory board" is a secretive club that appears to have been uncovered where Johnson and Sunak have attended secret meetings with donors who pay at least £250k a year. The FT say some meetings have been used to try and call for lower taxes and spending cuts, and recently members have voiced criticism at all the "state intervention" recently. The Tory party has claimed the funding has nothing to do with Government policy and they declare all donations to the Electoral Commission.

Thanks for the explanation. But are you sure that merits the description, 'gross corruption'? What you're describing seems like a hyped up version of, 'Prime Minister meets some voters who tell him their opinions about the Government'. By itself, that's not corruption - it's democracy! The fact that it's people who've donated lots of money to the Tory party gives it a bit of a whiff of 'what's going on here?' because most of us don't really like the idea that people with money might have more influence, and I can well imagine Labour trying to exploit that. But for it to constitute actual corruption, you'd need to prove that there's something more than simply talking to people. After all, Trade Unions give lots of money to Labour and in return their leaders often get to do a lot of networking within Labour and are able to influence Labour policy. Is that any different?

 

[edwin_m]

Political donors getting preferential access to the top people in government does smack of corruption, especially as they seem to want to keep it quiet. The difference with Labour is that it's a bit more open, and the union members constitute a much larger group of people (though a trade union leader using their clout to push a personal viewpoint within Labour is less acceptable).

 

[Typhoon]

I did gift link it but I believe after a certain number of clicks it runs out and they don't allow more than a line or so to be copied out.

In answer to your question the "Advisory board" is a secretive club that appears to have been uncovered where Johnson and Sunak have attended secret meetings with donors who pay at least £250k a year. The FT say some meetings have been used to try and call for lower taxes and spending cuts, and recently members have voiced criticism at all the "state intervention" recently. The Tory party has claimed the funding has nothing to do with Government policy and they declare all donations to the Electoral Commission.

It has been reported elsewhere today including at Elite Tory donors’ secret meetings with Johnson and Sunak; new lobbying allegations for Cameron; MPs’ £100k summer hospitality bonanza (westminster-daily.com)

Conservative prime minister Boris Johnson and his chancellor Rishi Sunak are holding secret meetings with elite Tory donors who are part of an“Advisory Board” of members who have given at least £250,000 to the Conservative party.

The meetings are reported to be part of Tory co-chair Ben Elliot’s “mission to modernise” the party’s fundraising efforts with the Financial Times describing the club “as a means of connecting major Conservative backers with its top figures.”

Conservative officials have confirmed the existence of the Advisory Board which meets “occasionally” with Johnson and Sunak “for an update on the political landscape”. The Advisory Board does not appear anywhere in any party document yet one donor said members of the club have used discussions to call for government spending cuts and lower taxes.

One meeting was held at the Kensington home of the banker Rishi Khosla, hosted by PR company Hawthorn Advisors, co-founded by Elliot, and Quintessentially, the “concierge service for the rich founded by Elliot, the Conservative party co-chairman.”

The Advisory Board is “like the very elite Quintessentially clients membership: one needs to cough up £250,000 per annum or be a friend of Ben”, said Mohamed Amersi, a businessman and Tory donor.

The FT quotes a “well-placed Tory” referring to a “250 club” adding, “it is like whisky: you push the price to see how high you can raise the price”.

In May, the Times reported that Elliot’s concierge service had “admitted to a string of accounting failures and making illegal payments to shareholders” – with £1.4 million paid out “when it did not have adequate reserves to do so.”

The influential ConservativeHome website states: “Elliot is a more significant figure than his title, Co-Chairman of the Conservative Party, might suggest. Just as Andrew Feldman was David Cameron’s man in CCHQ, so Elliot controls the party organisation for Johnson”

Westminster Daily is new to me, it describes itself as

... an independent news site focused on UK politics published by WD media corp. A team of journalists aims to bring readers a fresh perspective on the latest developments—from the corridors of Parliament, to summits at Chequers, to legislative debates at Stormont.

Our team is committed to making the world a better, fairer place through quality nonpartisan journalism. We’re ready to hold the powerful to account, and to dig for difficult truths to share with our readers.

Our vision is to build an ever-closer relationship with our audience and to continue our mission of promoting and sustaining liberal journalism in perpetuity.

How accurate that is, I don't know (I can describe myself as 'tall, dark and handsome' but sadly none of that is true). It does quote from a number of sources which are not all obviously anti-Conservative and later in the same piece it is critical of Cameron, Starmer and Ashworth.

 

[brad465]

Thanks for the explanation. But are you sure that merits the description, 'gross corruption'? What you're describing seems like a hyped up version of, 'Prime Minister meets some voters who tell him their opinions about the Government'. By itself, that's not corruption - it's democracy! The fact that it's people who've donated lots of money to the Tory party gives it a bit of a whiff of 'what's going on here?' because most of us don't really like the idea that people with money might have more influence, and I can well imagine Labour trying to exploit that. But for it to constitute actual corruption, you'd need to prove that there's something more than simply talking to people. After all, Trade Unions give lots of money to Labour and in return their leaders often get to do a lot of networking within Labour and are able to influence Labour policy. Is that any different?

I would argue for all political investments/bribes donations of this kind to be banned, regardless of which political party would receive them, as party of a wider overhaul of our political system to make it an actual democracy, including PR voting, democratic reform of the House of Lords, among others.

 

[wireforever]

Well with the comments made by Boris today it will be a OBE for him (out before Easter).To say Thatcher did us all a favour climate change wise by shutting the coal mines shows how out of touch he is.

 

[Dai Corner]

Well with the comments made by Boris today it will be a OBE for him (out before Easter).To say Thatcher did us all a favour climate change wise by shutting the coal mines shows how out of touch he is.

When I heard that on the News earlier I thought he was trolling the 'everything bad that's ever happened is Thatcher's fault' brigade. You still hear that said in the South Wales Valleys, where the Welsh Labour Government have just about finished the job, four decades later.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

When I heard that on the News earlier I thought he was trolling the 'everything bad that's ever happened is Thatcher's fault' brigade. You still hear that said in the South Wales Valleys, where the Welsh Labour Government have just about finished the job, four decades later.

I think you're correct. Boris's reported statement, "Thanks to Margaret Thatcher who closed so many coal mines across the country where we had had a big early start and we’re now moving rapidly away from coal altogether." is basically correct. Obviously Mrs. Thatcher wasn't at the time thinking about climate: She was motivated by, believing that it was wrong for the Government to continue subsidising inefficient, uneconomic, industries - and the benefits for the environment came as a fortuitous side-effect. But the statement is still correct, and it seems astonishing that anyone would see it as in the least bit controversial to point it out. But Boris's turning it into a joke with the subsequent remark, "I thought that would get you going" does rather suggest that he knew that Labour would find an excuse to take offence anyway - and surprise, surprise - that's exactly what Keir Starmer has done!

 

[Busaholic]

I think you're correct. Boris's reported statement, "Thanks to Margaret Thatcher who closed so many coal mines across the country where we had had a big early start and we’re now moving rapidly away from coal altogether." is basically correct. Obviously Mrs. Thatcher wasn't at the time thinking about climate: She was motivated by, believing that it was wrong for the Government to continue subsidising inefficient, uneconomic, industries - and the benefits for the environment came as a fortuitous side-effect. But the statement is still correct, and it seems astonishing that anyone would see it as in the least bit controversial to point it out. But Boris's turning it into a joke with the subsequent remark, "I thought that would get you going" does rather suggest that he knew that Labour would find an excuse to take offence anyway - and surprise, surprise - that's exactly what Keir Starmer has done!

It's a 'Let them eat cake' remark, met with groans by Scottish Tory representatives (amazingly, there are some, as there's no IQ test before casting a vote.)

 

[daodao]

It's a 'Let them eat cake' remark, met with groans by Scottish Tory representatives (amazingly, there are some, as there's no IQ test before casting a vote.)

That is somewhat harsh. In essence there are 2 party groups to choose from in Scotland, depending on the view taken on the Independence question: the Socialist/Nationalist party (SNP) vs. the Liberal/Conservative Unionist group, of which the Tories form the major party. The Scottish branch of the Labour party has collapsed into the gap in the middle, for which the blame lies at the feet of Tony Blair by introducing devolution and thus threatening the long-term existence of the UK. Thus many intelligent Unionists in Scotland have little choice other than to vote Tory.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Controversial take: Never.

There's enough people who'll blindly vote for them regardless of how inept or corrupt they are that Boris will just solder on and and on.

They are not alone in having some followers of the type you cite above.

 

[Typhoon]

Controversial take: Never.

There's enough people who'll blindly vote for them regardless of how inept or corrupt they are that Boris will just solder on and and on.

That depends on what question you are answering - I suspect the answer to 'When will it all go wrong for Johnson' is when Mrs Johnson sees how little money they have in the bank, is fed up with not having a 'proper house' (although I gather she has a bolt hole somewhere), wants to be able to do what she likes on any given day, is tired of meddling in politics and can't stand the sniping at her husband from those who are supposed to be on his side.

It's a question of whether he can get the timing right, most go on just that little bit too long.

 

[birchesgreen]

Question of how long it is before he decides to get his leg over with someone else.

 

[nlogax]

I don't see it going wrong for Johnson. He'll be PM for as long as he wants. Through some political sleight of hand or a magic ruffle of the haystack barnet he has become a Teflon PM. Utterly unaccountable and no-one in his camp - his party or his voters - seem to care less.

 

[alex397]

Nothing necessarily wrong with the point Boris was making (that being the reduction of coal mining being good for the environment), but with such a hugely divisive topic you’d think he would choose his words a bit more carefully and not make it look like a joke. But that’s Boris!

 

[nlogax]

But that’s Boris!

And unfortunately that's what people seem to like about him. 'Lovable buffoon, he's so bumbling and funny' etc etc. Honestly, if I could get him in aerosol form I'd spray him on my carpets. Better than Scotchgard at resisting anything that comes his way.

 

[BrokenSam]

And unfortunately that's what people seem to like about him. 'Lovable buffoon, he's so bumbling and funny' etc etc. Honestly, if I could get him in aerosol form I'd spray him on my carpets. Better than Scotchgard at resisting anything that comes his way.

Haha. Think I'm going to shamelessly steal this line.

 

[edwin_m]

Saying things that are offensive to groups of people who are unlikely ever to vote for him is part of his technique, to keep the core vote onside which may be enough to keep him in power under our electoral system. But some of that base is former mining areas, where people will be reminded of how the Tories were hated a generation ago.

 

[Geezertronic]

Saying things that are offensive to groups of people who are unlikely ever to vote for him is part of his technique, to keep the core vote onside which may be enough to keep him in power under our electoral system. But some of that base is former mining areas, where people will be reminded of how the Tories were hated a generation ago.

Seems to a political tool as Labour think everyone is stupid, even those who vote Labour

 

[alex397]

Seems to a political tool as Labour think everyone is stupid, even those who vote Labour

Everyone?

 

[edwin_m]

Seems to a political tool as Labour think everyone is stupid, even those who vote Labour

Not sure what this is meant to mean - are some words missing?

 

[Geezertronic]

Everyone?

Not sure what this is meant to mean - are some words missing?

Well at least Northern England according to Emily Thornberry who, in 2019/2020 apparently took legal action when the comment "I’m glad my constituents aren’t as stupid as yours" was attributed to her by ex-Labour MP Caroline Flint in relation to those who voted Leave (whether they voted Labour or not), but I don't remember seeing the results of any legal action.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Well at least Northern England according to Emily Thornberry who, in 2019/2020 apparently took legal action when the comment "I’m glad my constituents aren’t as stupid as yours" was attributed to her by ex-Labour MP Caroline Flint in relation to those who voted Leave (whether they voted Labour or not), but I don't remember seeing the results of any legal action.

According to Guido Fawkes (sorry, only source I could find) Emily Thornberry never proceeded with the legal action. link

Off the back of the TikTok doing the rounds, a source close to Ms Flint relays the unsurprising news that Thornberry is not proceeding with the threatened legal action, and it was “obviously just done to shut down journalists during leadership debate, as Caroline would’ve won”. Shocker.

 

[Typhoon]

Well at least Northern England according to Emily Thornberry who, in 2019/2020 apparently took legal action when the comment "I’m glad my constituents aren’t as stupid as yours" was attributed to her by ex-Labour MP Caroline Flint in relation to those who voted Leave (whether they voted Labour or not), but I don't remember seeing the results of any legal action.

I'm not even sure that Emily Thornberry was the voice of Corbyn's Labour; she is certainly not the voice of Starmer's Labour. I reckon she is only in the shadow cabinet to show it represents all voices of Labour and it was her or Long Bailey and Long Bailey pressed the self destruct button first. Thornberry has a track record of 'foot in mouth' disease.

I think there is something in what you are saying, that some* Labour members/ representatives/ officials do feel that they know what's better for constituents. It has happened for years, certainly in the eighties and I suspect periods before that as well. I would suggest that is less true since the last election; I would say that Labour is in 'listening mode', whether it hears what it listens to, we await to find out. This phenomenon is not unique to the left.

* perhaps even 'many' at times.

 

[Butts]

I'm not even sure that Emily Thornberry was the voice of Corbyn's Labour; she is certainly not the voice of Starmer's Labour. I reckon she is only in the shadow cabinet to show it represents all voices of Labour and it was her or Long Bailey and Long Bailey pressed the self destruct button first. Thornberry has a track record of 'foot in mouth' disease.

I think there is something in what you are saying, that some* Labour members/ representatives/ officials do feel that they know what's better for constituents. It has happened for years, certainly in the eighties and I suspect periods before that as well. I would suggest that is less true since the last election; I would say that Labour is in 'listening mode', whether it hears what it listens to, we await to find out. This phenomenon is not unique to the left.

* perhaps even 'many' at times.

You mean Lady Nugee multi-millionairess owner of property worth around Five Million and wife of a Lord Justice of Appeal