Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DynamicSpirit]

According to his fan-papers the Telegraph and one of the Mail/Express (forget which) it's to launch his vision for the next 5 years, or something.

If you can't even remember which paper it was - did you actually read the story before posting to complain about it? My own memory isn't that good but I'm pretty sure if within the last few hours I'd properly read a story - sufficiently well to be able to express an informed opinion about it, I'd at least remember which paper I'd read it n! (Maybe if it was something from 3 months ago I'd have forgotten which paper it was)

And a very doom-laden vision, too, according to the front pages of these papers. Increasing threats from Russia and China; the world will change more in the next 5 years than the last 20 (really? The past 5 years have brought quite enough, thank you so much, it's now time for a bit of stability). Only the Tories can save the UK from disaster. etc. etc.

Quite the opposite of what I want, personally. I want a party who offers hope, progress and positivity. Not one who offers nothing but fear-mongering, doom-mongering and paranoia

No time for Sunak's dark and despondent doom mongering at all. Five years time, I can imagine Sunak, by then a billionaire, lording it all over us with his cheesy grin. "The NHS has completely broken, the cost of living has spiralled even further. But stop complaining. I, Rishi Sunak, have stopped the UK from being a Chinese colony. If I hadn't drained money from the NHS to pour into defence, we would now all be slaves for the Chinese. Aren't I great!"

You might well be right, but have you considered the possibility that it would be wise to wait for his speech to hear what he actually says before you start jumping to assumptions about what he's going to say then loudly complaining about loads of stuff he might or might not say but he hasn't actually yet said?

 

[nw1]

If you can't even remember which paper it was - did you actually read the story before posting to complain about it? My own memory isn't that good but I'm pretty sure if within the last few hours I'd properly read a story - sufficiently well to be able to express an informed opinion about it, I'd at least remember which paper I'd read it n! (Maybe if it was something from 3 months ago I'd have forgotten which paper it was)

I just browsed the front pages, enough to get a rough impression of what it was all about. To be honest the Mail and Express are so similar that it's easy go get mixed up between the two....

 

[jfollows]

The premise that we're living in dangerous and difficult times may be true, although I think the case is overstated, but the idea that the best solution is a government of Rishi Sunak, Grant Shapps, and previously people like Liz Truss, Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg is for the birds.

It's a message that will go down well with the people who're going to vote Conservative anyway.

But "most" people hate the Conservatives now, don't believe anything they say and simply don't listen to them anyway. Of course, what "most" means is open to interpretation but I'm convinced that - in the absence of a seismic event which can't be foreseen before the next election - Labour is going to win a large majority in it.

Some cling to a fantasy of a "hung parliament" and if Rishi is one of these then any little bit helps his cause, of course.

The Conservatives are clinging on now and making use of the bully pulpit as much as they can, but will run out of time and have to choose either to go for a January election (no, I don't think they will) or else call an election at a time of their own choosing before then, but today isn't the day to make that call.

You might well be right, but have you considered the possibility that it would be wise to wait for his speech to hear what he actually says before you start jumping to assumptions about what he's going to say then loudly complaining about loads of stuff he might or might not say but he hasn't actually yet said?

Actually the problem these days is that there’s no point waiting because it’s all revealed hours beforehand in the media. If it weren’t, then it might be worth listening to, but these days it’s a posturing exercise when we all know what’s going to be said in advance.

 

[Gloster]

Is it just possible that Sunak's 'major speech' later today announces the long-awaited date? I'm really getting desperate, but promise this'll be my last prediction of one.

More likely he is going to have a go at student and other protests that go against government policy, suggesting that they are a threat to democracy. This will either be followed by measures that further restrict peaceful protest or ‘open a debate’, which will be rigged to the same end.

 

[nw1]

More likely he is going to have a go at student and other protests that go against government policy, suggesting that they are a threat to democracy. This will either be followed by measures that further restrict peaceful protest or ‘open a debate’, which will be rigged to the same end.

Well, to me, he does have past form for taking an anti-protest line. He doesn't ban them but seems to be constantly criticising them.

To me Sunak comes across as someone who is an utter conformist, the polar opposite of a rebel. I just don't think he even understands marches and protests and why people would want to take part in them, as they have never been part of his world.

 

[jfollows]

It seemed to me to be an incoherent and inconsistent speech primarily because Sunak tried to combine two different things which I'd say are mutually exclusive:

• You can't trust Labour for a number of reasons, they don't have policies and Starmer supported Corbyn etc.
• It's about the future and not about the past

If Sunak had distanced himself significantly from the past in terms of Boris Johnson and Liz Truss when he got the job, then perhaps the second point would have more merit, but he didn't. And I think most voters will think that it's about the future indeed, one which does not include the Conservative party.

 

[takno]

I know he's not exactly a man of the people or a natural politician, but surely he can see that "war with Russia and China" isn't a winning manifesto pledge?

 

[jfollows]

I also like (https://twitter.com/Samfr?ref_src=t...ch-labour-tories-latest-politics-news-updates)

Another, more basic, problem is that he campaigns with the emotional range of a bored HR director doing a training session for new starters.

 

[nw1]

I know he's not exactly a man of the people or a natural politician, but surely he can see that "war with Russia and China" isn't a winning manifesto pledge?

I find it ironic that he is calling Labour the doom and gloom merchants.

It is himself, surely? He's the one going on and on about potential threats from Iran and China and "threats" from immigration.

And why is he about the future and Labour the past? There's a suggestion on the BBC page (not Sunak's own words, for point of clarification) that it might be because he is under 45 and Starmer is over 60!

In essence the prime minister is trying to portray himself as the personification of the future.

The 44 year old against the 60 something Labour leader.

See:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-69001479?ns_mchannel=social&ns_source=twitter&ns_campaign=bbc_live&ns_linkname=6641eb43e5702a5b8f6bb3ec%26The%20PM%20wants%20to%20portray%20himself%20as%20a%20man%20of%20the%20future%262024-05-13T10%3A28%3A20.088Z&ns_fee=0&pinned_post_locator=urn:asset:10a93b6b-29a4-41d9-b0f0-8a305d75d249&pinned_post_asset_id=6641eb43e5702a5b8f6bb3ec&pinned_post_type=share

Also, he's still going on about how wonderful Brexit is, which is very tiresome. Doesn't he realise that if he wants to appeal to the middle ground, he needs to take a neutral line on the matter? Really, he should just shut up about it and not even mention it.

 

[takno]

And why is he about the future and Labour the past? There's a suggestion on the BBC page (not Sunak's own words, for point of clarification) that it might be because he is under 45 and Starmer is over 60!

That's in interesting pitch. People under 50 aren't going to vote for him whatever, and people over 50 are going to look at this pathetic over-eager whippersnapper and decide they like the voice of age and experience.

 

[AlistairCowell]

I know he's not exactly a man of the people or a natural politician, but surely he can see that "war with Russia and China" isn't a winning manifesto pledge?

BBC News: Rishi Sunak to warn next few years "most dangerous" for UK in major speech:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69000303

What he said "most dangerous" for the UK in the next few years today really concerns me. He also said that Putin’s recklessness have taken Britain closer to a dangerous nuclear escalation than at any point since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. What I don't want to see is a nuclear war, or any wars including World War 3 to be fair. Putin would regret himself if he does press the button to launch nuclear weapons.

 

[AM9]

Quite possibly there might be those on the far right who would advocate such a solution

With of course a bypass scheme that the wealthy (and trusted friends) could buy their way into.

 

[jfollows]

BBC News: Rishi Sunak to warn next few years "most dangerous" for UK in major speech:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69000303

What he said "most dangerous" for the UK in the next few years today really concerns me. He also said that Putin’s recklessness have taken Britain closer to a dangerous nuclear escalation than at any point since the 1962 Cuban missile crisis. What I don't want to see is a nuclear war, or any wars including World War 3 to be fair. Putin would regret himself if he does press the button to launch nuclear weapons.

The politicians get seduced by the spooks who convince them that the world is going to pot and forget that Putin and others have children too. It helps Sunak to talk up the danger at the moment. I don’t doubt that it’s greater than it has been, but common sense will prevail on bothsides in the end, I believe. I can be wrong of course …..

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The politicians get seduced by the spooks who convince them that the world is going to pot and forget that Putin and others have children too. It helps Sunak to talk up the danger at the moment. I don’t doubt that it’s greater than it has been, but common sense will prevail on bothsides in the end, I believe. I can be wrong of course …..

I would say the danger from Russia has been there for many years but it's only because of Ukraine that we've really woken up to it. As one example that hasn't been reported on much, it seems that even now Russia is actively jamming GPS signals in order to disrupt commercial flights in Europe:

A GPS jamming attack in the Baltic region that prompted a Finnish airline to pause some flights to Estonia for a month was probably launched from Russia, according to officials and an analyst.

The jamming incidents are part of an ongoing pattern of GPS interference in Europe. A NATO military official told New Scientist that the attacks have escalated significantly since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

“It’s really never been a question of whether or not this is Russia – who else could it be?” says Dana Goward at the Resilient Navigation and Timing Foundation, a Virginia-based non-profit focused on protecting and augmenting GPS signals. Goward says that, since December, “we’ve had more and more observations and analysts determining that yes, it is Russia”.

I would go further than Rishi Sunak and say that for all practical purposes - whether we like it or not - Russia has already declared war on us - it's just that Russia is fighting it using subterfuge and electronic warfare, continually pushing to see how far it can go without the West bothering to respond, and hasn't escalated to 'conventional' weapons.

But back to Sunak's speech - there's a redacted transcript of it here. Most of the focus is actually on future prosperity etc. and is optimistic in tone. There's only a small part mainly at the start where he's talking about dangerous times and security threats (not just from Russia but wars in and threats from other countries) - but of course that's the bit of the speech most of the media has picked up on.

 

[SteveM70]

Most of the focus is actually on future prosperity etc. and is optimistic in tone. There's only a small part mainly at the start where he's talking about dangerous times and security threats (not just from Russia but wars in and threats from other countries) - but of course that's the bit of the speech most of the media has picked up on.

The gov.uk page you linked to is headed "PM speech on security" so perhaps that's hardly surprising

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The gov.uk page you linked to is headed "PM speech on security" so perhaps that's hardly surprising

Haha! Oh yeah, good catch! So the speech wasn't entirely as the header made it out to be.

 

[bspahh]

The text for Sunak's speech earlier today at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-security-13-may-2024 starts

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak makes a speech at Policy Exchange on security.

From: Prime Minister's Office, 10 Downing Street and The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP
Published 13 May 2024
Delivered on: 13 May 2024 (Transcript of the speech, exactly as it was delivered)

The Rt Hon Rishi Sunak MP
Please note: Political content has been redacted from this transcript.
[Please note political content redacted here.]

I feel a profound sense of urgency. Because more will change in the next five years than in the last thirty.
I’m convinced that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous yet the most transformational our country has ever known.
So the question we face today is this: Who has the clear plan and bold ideas to deliver a secure future for you and your family?
...

I can't see the unredacted text on the Conservative's WWW site. However, there is a transcript at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DJdvM8JoTSL3TyxRmmR_NsFFP6OOkbXwjPQKsLUG0vA/edit

‘Checked against delivery’ version of the Prime Minister’s speech via No 10 press office

A SECURE FUTURE

Introduction – the future versus the past

At some point, in the second half of this year, we will all go to the polls and make a choice. Not just about Conservatives vs Labour. Or Sunak vs Starmer. It will be a choice between the future and the past. I remain confident that my party can prevail.
Not because of our record alone, but because we will be the only party really talking about the future. And not with vague, lofty platitudes. But with bold ideas and a clear plan that can change our society for the better and restore people’s confidence and pride in our country.
I feel a profound sense of urgency. Because more will change in the next five years than in the last thirty. I’m convinced that the next few years will be some of the most dangerous yet the most transformational our country has ever known. So the question we face today is this: Who has the clear plan and bold ideas to deliver a secure future for you and your family?
...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I can't see the unredacted text isn't on the Conservative's WWW site. However, there is a transcript at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DJdvM8JoTSL3TyxRmmR_NsFFP6OOkbXwjPQKsLUG0vA/edit

At some point, in the second half of this year, we will all go to the polls and make a choice.
<snip>
So the question we face today is this: Who has the clear plan and bold ideas to deliver a secure future for you and your family?

I have a feeling that if that's the question at the election, the answer is going to be, Not you, mate!

 

[nw1]

The text for Sunak's speech earlier today at https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-speech-on-security-13-may-2024 starts


I can't see the unredacted text on the Conservative's WWW site. However, there is a transcript at

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DJdvM8JoTSL3TyxRmmR_NsFFP6OOkbXwjPQKsLUG0vA/edit

Certainly starts in an alarmist way, even if the rest contains other content, including some rather predictable political positions. The headline aim is clearly to scare people off voting Labour.

Plus, I'm not so sure about the text "you and your family". To me that's a little non-inclusive and fails to appreciate that many in the middle and younger generations in particular do not have children. As a relatively young man, born in the 1980s, I'd expect him to appreciate this!

I see he appears to have confirmed it will be "the second half of this year". June is now impossible I suspect in any case; but he appears to have ruled out January. I guess July is theoretically still possible, though July isn't a great time of year for an election as it's the start of holiday season. August is plain silly; September means August campaigning which is also silly; and December is plain silly unless your name is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson. So I guess he's implictly confirmed that it will be October or perhaps November.

 

[AlterEgo]

Plus, I'm not so sure about the text "you and your family". To me that's a little non-inclusive and fails to appreciate that many in the middle and younger generations in particular do not have children.

Surely "you and your family" also references those of us who have parents, siblings, and so on?

 

[birchesgreen]

Isn't it supposed to be "hard working families"? Has he gone woke?

 

[DustyBin]

Surely "you and your family" also references those of us who have parents, siblings, and so on?

Indeed. I get that some people really (really!) dislike Sunak and the Tories, but even so....

 

[nw1]

Indeed. I get that some people really (really!) dislike Sunak and the Tories, but even so....

It just seems to underline the rather conventional view of the world that the Tories and Sunak still have. Maybe it's me, but "family" to me first and foremost implies children. Particularly in this context which seems to imply "those you are responsible for".

Which is fine if you have children, but that shouldn't be the assumption for everyone.

 

[jfollows]

It just seems to underline the rather conventional view of the world that the Tories and Sunak still have. Maybe it's me, but "family" to me first and foremost implies children.

Oh, fair enough, but I don’t have children and it doesn’t mean “children” to me.

 

[Enthusiast]

I have a feeling that if that's the question at the election, the answer is going to be, Not you, mate!

The problem is, that added to your answer you should append, "...nor anybody else from the pool of politicians which UK voters have to choose from".

Maybe it's me, but "family" to me first and foremost implies children. Particularly in this context which seems to imply "those you are responsible for".

Which is fine if you have children, but that shouldn't be the assumption for everyone.

It is you and that isn't the assumption.

Plenty of people have no children but they are still members of a family. In any case you are not being excluded (whatever that might mean). When you read of "...you and your family..." all you have to do is to ignore the bit after "you." If somebody referred to "you and your pets" and you didn't have any pets would you assume you were excluded by that as well? The statement includes you and some other group of which you are not part because you do not qualify. It doesn't exclude you.

 

[nw1]

The problem is, that added to your answer you should append, "...nor anybody else from the pool of politicians which UK voters have to choose from".

In your opinion, of course.

 

[Enthusiast]

In your opinion, of course.

Of course.

But I would imagine if you did a poll of the reasons why people intend to vote the way they do in the next GE, you would probably find more people voting to keep those they dislike the most out, than you would find people voting to get those they prefer most in.

 

[Busaholic]

Of course.

But I would imagine if you did a poll of the reasons why people intend to vote the way they do in the next GE, you would probably find more people voting to keep those they dislike the most out, than you would find people voting to get those they prefer most in.

I agree. It's a sad state of affairs, and how we've got to this position is complicated but the internet and then the proliferation of social media casts a pall over everything, and now we've got so-called A1 to confuse the picture exponentially more aided by hostile states, bad actors, and all the rest. I could go all Corporal Fraser any minute.... ''doooomed, I tell ye.''

 

[birchesgreen]

Yesterday, vote Tory to keep the country safe from Labour who want to disband the armed forces or something.

Today, the RN to withdraw two more frigates.

 

[ainsworth74]

I agree. It's a sad state of affairs, and how we've got to this position is complicated but the internet and then the proliferation of social media casts a pall over everything, and now we've got so-called A1 to confuse the picture exponentially more aided by hostile states, bad actors, and all the rest. I could go all Corporal Fraser any minute.... ''doooomed, I tell ye.''

I do occasionally wonder if part of this isn't still the long shadow of the Expenses Scandal back in 2009? Clearly, politicians were not held in particularly high regard before 2009 either but I wonder if that wasn't the moment that things really began to flip and the hatred became more widespread and more visceral? Followed by the explosion of social media toxicity and polarisation, add a dose of austerity cutting services to the bone, and then the whatever you would call the last five years since 2019 and I wonder if that isn't why we land where we are?

It honestly is quite a problem. I'm clearly one of those people who is interested in politics and policy but there's not a cat in hells chance I'd want to be an MP in the current climate. Even though the job by itself would be a pretty chunky pay increase for me, the nature of the job sounds utterly awful these days. Thousands of abusive messages, up to an including death threats, if you're doing the job properly incredibly long hours of work, etc etc. That's probably enough to put off a lot of potentially good MPs before we even consider the issues with party selection (both who gets through the sift to put themselves forward and then how they're selected by the constituency party).

Is it any wonder therefore that the quality of politicians is utterly dreadful? And yet I don't see anyway out of this doom spiral.