Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Typhoon]

In other Tory news I see Boris is sticking his oar in again, by coming out strongly against any attempts to suspend arms sales to the Israeli government. As a populist, this is a surprisingly partisan position for him to take on the matter given that the UK population as a whole is not similarly partisan.

Boris Johnson: Shameful to call for UK to end arms sales to Israel

Some MPs have urged the UK to reassess how it supports Israel after aid workers were killed in air strikes this week.

www.bbc.co.uk

I disagree. I would say wholly predictable. His intent is to undermine Sunak, knowing that he is in a difficult diplomatic position. He also wants to grab the headlines, which he did. I am reminded of the quote by Wilde 'There is one thing that is worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about' (yes, I know, different context). He was a useless Foreign Secretary who, I suspect, only cared/ cares about the Conservative Party for as long as there was/ is the possibility of personal power, and will repeat his attacks on all and sundry while the Mail gives him the opportunity purely in the interest of self publicity. I get more insight by reading this thread than from anything 'The Trolley' writes.

 

[bahnause]

I say this as (generally) supporter of the EU, and an EU passport holder (so it doesn't even apply to me) - but the ESTA has lowered my opinion of the USA, and I expect the same to apply to ETIAS wrt EU.

That would be somewhat hypocritical given the fact that this system has been endorsed and approved by the UK. It was also known before Brexit that this system would come into force.

UK backed plan to charge non-EU travellers to enter Europe

 

[Gloster]

I disagree. I would say wholly predictable. His intent is to undermine Sunak, knowing that he is in a difficult diplomatic position. He also wants to grab the headlines, which he did. I am reminded of the quote by Wilde 'There is one thing that is worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about' (yes, I know, different context). He was a useless Foreign Secretary who, I suspect, only cared/ cares about the Conservative Party for as long as there was/ is the possibility of personal power, and will repeat his attacks on all and sundry while the Mail gives him the opportunity purely in the interest of self publicity. I get more insight by reading this thread than from anything 'The Trolley' writes.

I wonder if Johnson’ support of Israel is because he is building support for a longterm bid to return to the top. Braverman’s even more determined defence of the country’s recent actions probably has the same basis, but she may not be looking so far into the future. If I understand the situation correctly, the extreme fundamentalist Christian groups in the US, who are close to the far-right wing of the Republican Party (and that is FAR-right) have a tendency to support and back Israel, whatever that country does. Johnson is cuddling up to them in the hope of gaining money, influence and powerful backing for when he has another tilt at getting into Number 10; Braverman is the same.

I realise that there are those who think that Johnson has given up and is just going to make money and trouble. I am afraid that I think that his ego is not yet satisfied and he will try again, believing that he will be seen as the returning saviour of the country or the party. But this time he might be a bit wilier.

 

[nw1]

That would be somewhat hypocritical given the fact that this system has been endorsed and approved by the UK. It was also known before Brexit that this system would come into force.

UK backed plan to charge non-EU travellers to enter Europe

It would only be hypocritical if the Government, or Brexiters in general, criticised the ESTA system, given the UK government's obsession with "strong borders".

@Cdd89 did not personally endorse and approve it, and I get the impression they voted Remain, so they are in no way hypocritical, unlike someone who voted Brexit, still supports Brexit, and yet complains about the ESTA.

Wishing, strongly, to stay in the EU (or even rejoin the EU) does not necessarily mean agreeing with all EU policies.

 

[SteveM70]

I realise that there are those who think that Johnson has given up and is just going to make money and trouble. I am afraid that I think that his ego is not yet satisfied and he will try again, believing that he will be seen as the returning saviour of the country or the party. But this time he might be a bit wilier.

Money definitely - he has a voracious appetite for it and by all accounts quite need for it too, given his penchant for siring offspring left right and centre

I'd like to think the rest of it is just agitating and keeping himself in the public eye, but I have a horrible feeling he will attempt some sort of comeback after the next election. And the weird thing is that he's probably a less bad option than the swivel-eyed loons on the right like Badenoch, Braverman & co

 

[nw1]

Money definitely - he has a voracious appetite for it and by all accounts quite need for it too, given his penchant for siring offspring left right and centre

I'd like to think the rest of it is just agitating and keeping himself in the public eye, but I have a horrible feeling he will attempt some sort of comeback after the next election. And the weird thing is that he's probably a less bad option than the swivel-eyed loons on the right like Badenoch, Braverman & co

That's true. I personally believe that Johnson is only interested in power, and nothing else. I personally don't believe he cares either way about Brexit, for example, but saw it as an opportunity to reach the top.

I suspect he is rich enough to easily emigrate to almost any other country with minimal bureaucracy, so Brexit will cause him no personal disadvantage (hence he was willing to support it) but on the other hand I don't think he's a true believer.

Contrast that to the likes of Anderson, Braverman, Gullis and Badenoch who are hard-right culture warriors who, IMO, actually believe the nonsense that they spout.

Perhaps Boris will atone for his sins by coming back on a white horse in 2029 on a populist "Rejoin EU" campaign, highlighting the financial and logistical problems that Brexit has brought and offering an "oven ready" fix. As he doesn't IMO care either way, he would probably do it if he saw it as a route to power - and he could probably even get away with it...

 

[edwin_m]

I'm not sure that Brexiteer is in quite the same category as Remoaner. To my mind, at least, a Brexiteer is someone who before the referendum refused to acknowledge that there would be any downsides (cf. constant references to "Project Fear". Too many of whom haven't changed their opinion in the slightest and continue to ignore/deny that there have been any downsides.

Remoaner is used by that kind of person to denigrate anyone who doesn't agree with them that Brexit has been an unmitigated success.

Hence I use the term 'Brexit supporter' to refer to people who have, at least, acknowledged that there have been some negatives and 'Brexiteer' to the ones who have their heads in the sand (or firmly ensconced in the distal end of their gastrointestinal tracts).

To me, Brexiteers use the term as a badge of honour, alluding to "Buccaneer" which is how many of them saw the future Britain. I use "Brexiter" for all Brexit supporters, as it's more a neutral term.

 

[Gloster]

To me, Brexiteers use the term as a badge of honour, alluding to "Buccaneer" which is how many of them saw the future Britain. I use "Brexiter" for all Brexit supporters, as it's more a neutral term.

I use another word which is not allowed on the forum.

 

[nw1]

I'm not sure that Brexiteer is in quite the same category as Remoaner. To my mind, at least, a Brexiteer is someone who before the referendum refused to acknowledge that there would be any downsides (cf. constant references to "Project Fear". Too many of whom haven't changed their opinion in the slightest and continue to ignore/deny that there have been any downsides.

Also "Brexiteer" is not fundamentally insulting, merely descriptive. "Remoaner", on the other hand, is explicitly insulting.

 

[Yew]

Also "Brexiteer" is not fundamentally insulting, merely descriptive. "Remoaner", on the other hand, is explicitly insulting.

Perhaps we should go for "Remainiac"? For those hard-remainers that want to joinn Schengen and the Euro; I'n not sure they exist outside of Nigel Farrages wildest fantasies though!

 

[birchesgreen]

Ah yes "buccaneers of business". I forgot that gem.

 

[Typhoon]

I wonder if Johnson’ support of Israel is because he is building support for a longterm bid to return to the top. Braverman’s even more determined defence of the country’s recent actions probably has the same basis, but she may not be looking so far into the future. If I understand the situation correctly, the extreme fundamentalist Christian groups in the US, who are close to the far-right wing of the Republican Party (and that is FAR-right) have a tendency to support and back Israel, whatever that country does. Johnson is cuddling up to them in the hope of gaining money, influence and powerful backing for when he has another tilt at getting into Number 10; Braverman is the same.

I realise that there are those who think that Johnson has given up and is just going to make money and trouble. I am afraid that I think that his ego is not yet satisfied and he will try again, believing that he will be seen as the returning saviour of the country or the party. But this time he might be a bit wilier.

Weren't his last words in the Commons as PM 'Hasta la vista, baby'? This, I believe, means something like 'See you later' or 'Bye for now' - sufficiently vague so that, should he not succeed, he can claim that wasn't what he meant. He probably spent more time thinking that through than on reviewing much of his governments legislation. I do agree that Braverman is the worst of the two, however I'm not sure that she can get so many neutral voters on side.

 

[najaB]

Perhaps we should go for "Remainiac"? For those hard-remainers that want to joinn Schengen and the Euro; I'n not sure they exist outside of Nigel Farrages wildest fantasies though!

If only because "Remain" is no longer an option or a thing. Another reason why the term "Remoaner" makes no sense to anyone who's thinking has moved on since 2016.

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps we should go for "Remainiac"? For those hard-remainers that want to joinn Schengen and the Euro; I'n not sure they exist outside of Nigel Farrages wildest fantasies though!

If we hadn't been led to believe all foreigners are out to kill us or replace us, I would love to live in an alternative reality where we had signed up to be part of the Schengen Area, with all the freedom of movement benefits we could have gained (for one, no issues running trains to lots more destinations via the tunnel). We would still have had our right to protect our borders to those outside the area.

Sadly we didn't move towards that outcome and opted for Brexit instead, and the rest is history.

If only because "Remain" is no longer an option or a thing. Another reason why the term "Remoaner" makes no sense to anyone who's thinking has moved on since 2016.

Indeed. Now you're looking at starting a process towards re-joining, or at least opting for freedom of movement and a customs union. I suspect we'll get the latter.

 

[takno]

Perhaps we should go for "Remainiac"? For those hard-remainers that want to joinn Schengen and the Euro; I'n not sure they exist outside of Nigel Farrages wildest fantasies though!

The Euro is a stretch, but I'm at a loss to understand why we didn't just join Schengen in the first place. It's not like we're enforcing some kind of super-strict controls which aren't matched by the rest of Europe anyway.

For reasons I've already mentioned, like you I have a negative opinion of ESTA schemes in general. The US, or more specifically the Bush administration started it (probably as a kneejerk reaction to 9/11), and for a while it stayed there, but now it seems to be spreading round the western world.

I had an ESTA in 1996, so if it was implemented by a Bush it wasn't the 9/11 one. Sure you didn't have to fill it out in advance, but you also didn't get any level of confirmation that you'd be let in before you arrived in the US, and you had to pay for it at the border in USD cash as well. The advance aspects of it are frankly a benefit, and while I don't love the biometrics, fingerprints are something the US have always had a weird obsession with for everyone.

I believe the EU one is a single fingerprint, which hopefully should just go a bit smoother than having to depend on facial biometrics.

 

[najaB]

Indeed. Now you're looking at starting a process towards re-joining, or at least opting for freedom of movement and a customs union. I suspect we'll get the latter.

I think that we'll likely be EFTA in all but name within twenty years, maybe as few as ten.

 

[317 forever]

Money definitely - he has a voracious appetite for it and by all accounts quite need for it too, given his penchant for siring offspring left right and centre

I'd like to think the rest of it is just agitating and keeping himself in the public eye, but I have a horrible feeling he will attempt some sort of comeback after the next election. And the weird thing is that he's probably a less bad option than the swivel-eyed loons on the right like Badenoch, Braverman & co

He could seek nomination to be the Tory candidate at the Richmond, Yorkshire by-election

 

[SteveM70]

He could seek nomination to be the Tory candidate at the Richmond, Yorkshire by-election

True

And then ask Lord Bamford if he wouldn't mind being a jolly good chap and buying him the house the current MP lives in for Boris to use on the three days a year he spends in the constituency

 

[najaB]

True

And then ask Lord Bamford if he wouldn't mind being a jolly good chap and buying him the house the current MP lives in for Boris to use on the three days a year he spends in the constituency

It all smacks of 18th-century rotten boroughs.

 

[nw1]

I had an ESTA in 1996, so if it was implemented by a Bush it wasn't the 9/11 one. Sure you didn't have to fill it out in advance, but you also didn't get any level of confirmation that you'd be let in before you arrived in the US, and you had to pay for it at the border in USD cash as well. The advance aspects of it are frankly a benefit, and while I don't love the biometrics, fingerprints are something the US have always had a weird obsession with for everyone.

I visited the US a few times around the turn of the millennium and there was no ESTA, just a paper "visa waiver" form to fill in on the plane. No charge, just a simple case of filling in the form and handing it in.

The only time I needed an ESTA was in the early 2010s.

 

[Undaunted]

Indeed. Now you're looking at starting a process towards re-joining,...

As someone who voted to remain within the EU the prospect of re-joining has its attractions. However, why would the EU want us back? We have caused them (as well as ourselves) inordinate expense through the whole process of leaving and I imagine that us suggesting we'd now like to start the process of re-joining would be met with hysterical laughter. I'm afraid we need more time to reflect on the real costs of leaving before we can convince the EU and ourselves that we are ready to be a constructive member. We, and the EU, cannot waste more time and money following the UK's whims.

In the meantime, the best we can hope for is some degree of convergence to start neutralising the worst aspects of the oven-ready turkey gifted to us by Mr Johnson.

 

[takno]

I visited the US a few times around the turn of the millennium and there was no ESTA, just a paper "visa waiver" form to fill in on the plane. No charge, just a simple case of filling in the form and handing it in.

The only time I needed an ESTA was in the early 2010s.

Ah yes sorry, ESTA is the name for the electronic version. The paper form had exactly the same questions on as the online version, conferred exactly the same rights, and once the data had been entered into the computer had much the same digital footprint. The only meaningful change apart from convenience was the fingerprint scanning, and that had more to do with the fingerprint reader technology getting affordable than anything else.

 

[Falcon1200]

However, why would the EU want us back?

For the huge financial contribution that the UK would be expected to make in order to rejoin, if nothing else?

 

[edwin_m]

I can't see the EU wanting the UK back unless there is a strong concensus across the population and across all major political parties. They don't want to go through the pain of negotiating terms with a future Labour government* only for the Tories to come in and cancel it before joining or even worse decide to leave again after joining. Also no UK-wide political party, even the LibDems, want to re-open what was an extremely divisive issue while a significant slice of the population would oppose any change and many of those favourable in principle would not want a repeat of the chaos of 2019.

So it would have to wait for the current senior Tory leadership to diametrically change their views, or for them to leave the political scene and be replaced by others with an opposite outlook, or for the party as a whole to decline into terminal insignificance without a replacement party with a similar attitude supplanting it. Given demographics (older Leave voters being replaced by younger more pro-EU ones) and increasing numbers of former Brexiters regretting their choice, public opinion may ultimately be strongly enough in favour and the Tories might then back it as a matter of political survival. That may happen in time but not anytime soon.

*Noting this is not Labour policy at present.

 

[Gloster]

For the huge financial contribution that the UK would be expected to make in order to rejoin, if nothing else?

I suspect that by the time we can seriously consider rejoining and being allowed to rejoin we will be one of the pooper countries in Europe and be a net receiver. But not in my lifetime, I am afraid.

 

[D6130]

one of the pooper countries in Europe a

Freudian slip?....or simply a typo?

 

[brad465]

The Tories seem very focused on trying to counter Reform, but given recent news I wouldn't be surprised if they don't challenge the Tories much because their prospective candidates are so controversial they can't find enough sane ones to stand everywhere:

Richard Tice defends Reform's vetting procedures after candidates dropped

The party has now ditched or suspended at least 12 candidates over offensive comments on social media.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reform UK's leader has defended his party's vetting procedures after a string of its candidates were dropped.
At least 12 of the party's general election candidates have been ditched or suspended over offensive social media posts.
Richard Tice said Reform was "the fastest party to get rid of candidates" when they had acted inappropriately.
He added that he would not take any lessons from the Conservatives over the issue.
Mr Tice told BBC Radio 4's Today programme the Tories had "a bunch of sexual weirdos permeating", later clarifying he was referring to last week's Westminster honeytrap scandal.
Conservative MP William Wragg admitted he was coerced into giving other MPs' phone numbers to an as-yet unknown person on a gay dating app.
Earlier this month, Reform dropped two candidates over accusations they made racist comments on social media.
Then over the weekend, the Mail on Sunday uncovered a series of offensive remarks from three more candidates.
With the number of prospective parliamentary candidates deemed unsuitable now reaching double figures, Mr Tice was asked if the party's vetting was adequate.
"We deliberately put candidates out into the public domain early," Mr Tice said, arguing it was "good that actually we are opening our candidates to open scrutiny from other people".
He added: "I'm not taking lessons from the Tory Party that's got a bunch of sexual weirdos permeating, defending the indefensible which is inexcusable. We know the Labour party is still unfortunately riddled with antisemitism."

Mr Tice claimed it was more difficult for "a small, entrepreneurial fast-growing party" to vet its candidates.
"We haven't got £30m-£40m a year like the Tory Party and the Labour Party have got to do their vetting," he said.
"We operate on a fraction of that. That's why we welcome the extra scrutiny."
The latest Reform candidates to be dropped include Pete Addis, who was standing for the party in South Shropshire until he was removed after making sexist remarks and using a racial slur on social media.
Amodio Amato was the party's candidate in Stevenage but made a series of false posts about high-profile ethnic minority politicians, such as claiming there would be "a Muslim army run by Sadiq Khan".
Meanwhile, Iris Leask has been suspended as the candidate in West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine pending an investigation, after suggesting former Defence Secretary Ben Wallace "should be left to die" in Afghanistan.
Reform has pledged to stand candidates in every seat across England, Scotland and Wales at the next general election.
The other major parties have also had to drop candidates over offensive comments but Reform has had to axe a larger number.

 

[nw1]

I suspect that by the time we can seriously consider rejoining and being allowed to rejoin we will be one of the pooper countries in Europe and be a net receiver. But not in my lifetime, I am afraid.

I would echo @najaB's post above, and suspect that while we may not rejoin, we will move significantly closer, particularly in the 5-10 year time frame (i.e the next-but-one government) - provided a right-wing Tory party do not get in again by 2029.

I suspect that from 2030 onwards, demographics alone will push things strongly in the "closer to EU" direction. If I remember right 1970 was the birth year when votes flipped from majority-Brexit to majority-Remain. So by 2030-2035, people in their early 60s or younger will have tended remain. By the late 2030s, essentially all the working age population will be of the "remain" generation.

I'm not sure how old you are but I suspect things will be a lot better by 2035. For example I can see rejoining the single market, and, while there may not be complete FoM, I can see UK/EU immigration (both ways) as being easier, i.e. elevated to a privileged status without full FoM. There might be more bureaucracy and checks than full FoM, but it won't, I suspect, be near-impossible for ordinary mortals, i.e. you won't be required to have very specialist skills to emigrate to the UK or EU.

Of course if Braverman or Badenoch become PM in 2029 (God help us!), then we're back to square one. I suspect this won't happen though, particularly if there is a Trump presidency which will likely turn people off right-wing populism.

 

[RT4038]

I'm not sure that Brexiteer is in quite the same category as Remoaner. To my mind, at least, a Brexiteer is someone who before the referendum refused to acknowledge that there would be any downsides (cf. constant references to "Project Fear". Too many of whom haven't changed their opinion in the slightest and continue to ignore/deny that there have been any downsides.

So the term Brexiteer would be hardly used then - were there really many (any?) people who thought there would be no downsides ? Ignoring the downsides (on the basis that upsides, either now or in the future, are worth the downsides now) can be understood, especially if those downsides are not particularly impactful on their lives.

Also "Brexiteer" is not fundamentally insulting, merely descriptive. "Remoaner", on the other hand, is explicitly insulting.

This sounds like the derogatory name you(as an EU membership supporter) give to those who wish to be outside of the EU is fine, but you don't like what you get called..... I suggest not giving anyone such labels would be better.

As someone who voted to remain within the EU the prospect of re-joining has its attractions. However, why would the EU want us back? We have caused them (as well as ourselves) inordinate expense through the whole process of leaving and I imagine that us suggesting we'd now like to start the process of re-joining would be met with hysterical laughter. I'm afraid we need more time to reflect on the real costs of leaving before we can convince the EU and ourselves that we are ready to be a constructive member. We, and the EU, cannot waste more time and money following the UK's whims.

Quite agree, and the people who pushed through Brexit knew exactly that. Hence why it had to be pushed through, however imperfect, during the small window of opportunity that presented itself.

I suspect that by the time we can seriously consider rejoining and being allowed to rejoin we will be one of the pooper countries in Europe and be a net receiver. But not in my lifetime, I am afraid.

Quite possibly, and to a different EU to the setup now, and I agree not in my lifetime. As to whether as one of the poorer countries, I am not so pessimistic.

 

[nw1]

Ah yes sorry, ESTA is the name for the electronic version. The paper form had exactly the same questions on as the online version, conferred exactly the same rights, and once the data had been entered into the computer had much the same digital footprint. The only meaningful change apart from convenience was the fingerprint scanning, and that had more to do with the fingerprint reader technology getting affordable than anything else.

The paper forms I filled in had no charge, though - so there must be a difference.

This sounds like the derogatory name you(as an EU membership supporter) give to those who wish to be outside of the EU is fine, but you don't like what you get called..... I suggest not giving anyone such labels would be better.

No, it's because "Brexiteer" has no negative word within it, while "Remoaner" does. A simple and very objective criterion.

"Brexiteer" could in fact be seen as positive, because it sounds like "pioneer", a word with generally positive connotations.

"Remoaner" basically implicitly says "your opinions are not valid; put up or shut up".