Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[brad465]

Labour on the other hand is less divided because the membership now overwhelmingly has the kind of middle-class-liberal-socialist philosophy that sees itself as strongly internationalist, and the traditional trades-union-interest viewpoint that would in the past have been against immigration now has very little influence. It seems to me the divisions within Labour are more to do with electoral strategy at a time when the leadership realises that the public on the whole wants lower immigration.

The recent immigration stats being at record highs actually helps Labour in the short term, not just because it makes the Tories look like it's out of control under them, but should, as currently expected, Labour get into government they can easily bring them down to pre-2021 levels and look like they're in control of the matter (I believe they've pledged a cap/max aim of 200,000). Most of the pro-immigration groups in Labour/opposition parties appear to have just sat back recently and let the Tories fight themselves over the high levels (especially with Jenrick resigning and this salary cap u-turn), rather than defend it.

 

[The Ham]

It seems to me the divisions within Labour are more to do with electoral strategy at a time when the leadership realises that the public on the whole wants lower immigration.

I'm not sure that the public on the whole wants lower immigration, they want to be able to use the NHS within a reasonable timeframe, they want to be able to have a good job, they want to be able to afford their bills, etc.

The recent immigration stats being at record highs actually helps Labour in the short term, not just because it makes the Tories look like it's out of control under them, but should, as currently expected, Labour get into government they can easily bring them down to pre-2021 levels and look like they're in control of the matter (I believe they've pledged a cap/max aim of 200,000). Most of the pro-immigration groups in Labour/opposition parties appear to have just sat back recently and let the Tories fight themselves over the high levels (especially with Jenrick resigning and this salary cap u-turn), rather than defend it.

If Labour are smart they change the rules, so student visas aren't part of the count unless the person stays here beyond graduation. In a stroke they'd show a massive drop in the numbers.

Whilst some will criticise them for shifting the goalposts, however I'm not sure that many would look too deeply beyond the headlines.

 

[nw1]

I'm not sure that the public on the whole wants lower immigration, they want to be able to use the NHS within a reasonable timeframe, the EU want to be able to have a good job, they want to be able to afford their bills, etc.

"The EU" is a typo for "they" I presume? But I completely agree with your post, the whole immigration thing is IMO a red herring. Most simply don't care either way, I suspect.

 

[Gloster]

the whole immigration thing is IMO a red herring. Most simply don't care either way, I suspect.

I would agree that there are only a relatively few swing voters who have not otherwise decided which way they will vote or on what basis they will make their. However, the Conservatives are so bereft of ideas and ability that the only thing that they can think of doing is to make the one issue on which they might be able to outflank Labour on into the absolutely overwhelming, if not sole, issue at the next election. It is a pretty desperate measure to say, ‘OK, we have made a mess of it so far, but we have some great ideas for the future to solve the problem’, but if you can persuade the electorate, or certain parts of it, that the opposition’s answers to the ‘only important problem facing this country’ are useless, you have got a card of some sort. So their friends in the media are already talking things up.

 

[The Ham]

Really? Can you point me to any remarks by the Government to the effect that it is Labour's fault that immigration is currently so high? (Coz I'm sure you wouldn't have made that up, would you... )

Whilst not pointing to why the UK current had high immigration woes like that at the end of this article are fairly routine:

Labour considers processing asylum seekers overseas

The party is exploring whether some could have their claims assessed before they travel to the UK.

www.bbc.com

The government's Minister for Countering Illegal Immigration Michael Tomlinson said Labour's plans were not "a deterrent to stop the boats, it just throws open the front door to Britain, increasing immigration.

"The EU" is a typo for "they" I presume? But I completely agree with your post, the whole immigration thing is IMO a red herring. Most simply don't care either way, I suspect.

Yes sorry, now corrected.

 

[SteveM70]

If Labour are smart they change the rules, so student visas aren't part of the count unless the person stays here beyond graduation. In a stroke they'd show a massive drop in the numbers.

I think that would be the worst thing Labour could do. Any political party that comes into power and changes how a measure is calculated so that the headline number is more favourable to them will (rightly) be pilloried for fiddling the figures rather than fixing the problem

If you’re confident you can change something, keep the measure the same so you can demonstrate your success like-for-like

 

[The Ham]

I think that would be the worst thing Labour could do. Any political party that comes into power and changes how a measure is calculated so that the headline number is more favourable to them will (rightly) be pilloried for fiddling the figures rather than fixing the problem

If you’re confident you can change something, keep the measure the same so you can demonstrate your success like-for-like

It depends on how much people pay attention to the raw data. However, over the next few years there's likely to be a reduction due to the reduced need for Afghanistan, Ukraine and Hong Kong travel to the UK. As such, even if someone were to question the like for like data it would still show a fall.

 

[jmh59]

Finally - a Brexit benefit from these twerps https://www.theguardian.com/busines...e-anyone-uk-looks-to-bring-back-silly-measure

I mean I've always (not!) wanted to buy wine in 568ml (1 pint) bottles - maybe they can put wine in milk bottles to save on re-machining bottle plants.

“Is this really the best this Conservative government can offer?” Lib Dem Sarah Olney said. “Instead of fixing the crisis in our NHS, cleaning up our rivers and tackling crime, this Conservative government has been spending its time developing plans to introduce a new bottle of wine size. You couldn’t make it up. Sunak and his government should be flat out fixing the very real crises our country faces, not debating wine.”

 

[Enthusiast]

If as part of that you can get reciprocal access for our citizens including pensioners to go off and live somewhere else then so much the better. Basically if you start from the proposition that being in the single market is an obvious move, and add on other counties as you need them then you are probably in a better position

So let me understand this. We encourage immigration into the UK because the country is either unwilling or unable to educate its young people and provide them with useful skills (and perhaps a decent work ethic). Presumably the carrot is they will have a "better life" than in their own countries.

At the same time, because we are unwilling or unable to care for our older folk, we then encourage them (who have probably received a decent education and had a decent work ethic) to up sticks in their dotage to occupy the spaces which the youngsters arriving in the UK have left vacant. They should be encouraged to "go [or insert any other word of your choice] off and live somewhere else" rather than spend their retirement years in the country most of them have lived all their lives and to which they have contributed both financially and by their labours.

A few questions arise from that strategy:

1. What happens to the young UK citizens who have not been blessed with a decent enough education to make them employable?

2. What is in it for the older UK citizens who are encouraged to leave the UK to settle in a country which young people are leaving to seek a better life?

3. What happens in the donor countries which have seen their population denuded of young people, whose education they have funded, to see them replaced with older people who will be unable to contribute greatly to their economy?

4. (The Eternal Question, never answered satisfactorily) What happens in the UK when the young people who have settled here for a better life, eventually get old (as, incredible as it may seem, they will)?

The suggestion that such a population exchange should be encouraged is ludicrous and mildly offensive.

"The EU" is a typo for "they" I presume? But I completely agree with your post, the whole immigration thing is IMO a red herring. Most simply don't care either way, I suspect.

It depends very much who you ask.

If you visit most cities or large towns you will find that many people (I would suspect "most" - including many immigrants) very certainly do care. In many of these places "beds in sheds" are very much the norm. If you look at the local planning applications, you will find a multitude of entries to build "offices", "gymnasiums", "art studios" in back gardens. These are euphemisms for additional living accommodation as the applicants have no intention of using them for the stated purpose. You will also see some more genuine applicants wishing to build "granny annexe" type developments. Basically, back gardens are disappearing under concrete. Large family homes are being converted to "Houses of Multiple Occupation". Far more serious is the problem of people living in tents and other makeshift accommodation. These are not only apparent on the streets; areas of common land are now seeing "communities" develop with a number of people living a nomadic life.

All this is being done to provide accommodation for population numbers which are expanding unsustainably. But of course housing is just one aspect. Pressure on essential services - particularly health and education - is enormous. Speak to people in those areas and ask those trying to secure a doctor's appointment or a place for their child at school and see whether only a few of them care that the population is increasing by many hundreds of thousands every year.

The entire strategy is utter lunacy on so many levels.

 

[jfollows]

The Guardian (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...inheritance-tax-and-helping-first-time-buyers) reports that scrapping Inheritance Tax is on the cards again - that's to say it's being considered. It further points out that 50% of the amount of tax reduced would go to 1% of the wealthiest in the UK.
It's become an "emotional" tax I think. Some people get very worked up about it. Personally I couldn't care less what happens with any money in my estate when I'm dead, because I'll be dead. Someone, somewhere will benefit somewhat from it, good for them, it'll be more than they're expecting because they won't be expecting anything in the first place. So it is what it is.
However I can't see it going down well with the "red wall" voters, but perhaps the Tories have written them all off now, and are sticking to their power base?
Labour's not going to counter the Inheritance Tax tactic, if it comes to pass, I don't think; they should stick to the facts that it affects hardly anyone and only the rich when it does. Replacing the lost money by - say - an increase in VAT would significantly affect and hurt the less well-off.

EDIT Apparently the IHT thing was on the front page of The Telegraph today (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-67825269), but I don’t normally read this paper. The “wealthiest 1%” probably does, though.

 

[Yew]

If you visit most cities or large towns you will find that many people (I would suspect "most" - including many immigrants) very certainly do care. In many of these places "beds in sheds" are very much the norm. If you look at the local planning applications, you will find a multitude of entries to build "offices", "gymnasiums", "art studios" in back gardens. These are euphemisms for additional living accommodation as the applicants have no intention of using them for the stated purpose.

Of course, given the massive rises in home working, the majority of people looking to build a garden office must obviously be looking to cram immigrants in it, rather than use it as as office to work from home in.

You will also see some more genuine applicants wishing to build "granny annexe" type developments. Basically, back gardens are disappearing under concrete.

Large family homes are being converted to "Houses of Multiple Occupation".

That is no different to in student areas? And I'm not entirely sure how this is a bad thing? Families are generally smaller than they used to be, and in many areas, the once leafy suburban boulevards that these houses adorned are now busy inner-city streets that wouldn't be the first choice to raise a family on.

Far more serious is the problem of people living in tents and other makeshift accommodation. These are not only apparent on the streets; areas of common land are now seeing "communities" develop with a number of people living a nomadic life.

This all rather points back to the real problem, we've not been building enough housing for the last 40 years, and therefore prices hae risen at unsustainble rates and priced many people out of the markets that they would historically choose.

 

[jon0844]

There's a bus from Hatfield to Queensbury and it goes along a street not too far from the destination, and from the top deck you can see that almost every home with a garage has converted it (you can tell from seeing doors and windows) into what I am certain is accommodation, not home offices. I first saw these five years ago, but people were converting garages into rooms far further back than that.

 

[SteveM70]

However I can't see it going down well with the "red wall" voters, but perhaps the Tories have written them all off now, and are sticking to their power base?

The problem is that whilst only 4% of estates are liable for inheritance tax at the moment (so presumably slightly more than 4% of the living would be positively affected by it being abolished), about a third * of people who expect to inherit something think they’d currently have to pay.

As long as the Tories have ill-informed voters out there they’ll think they have a chance


* survey for the TUC said 32%, another said 31%

 

[birchesgreen]

There's a bus from Hatfield to Queensbury and it goes along a street not too far from the destination, and from the top deck you can see that almost every home with a garage has converted it (you can tell from seeing doors and windows) into what I am certain is accommodation, not home offices. I first saw these five years ago, but people were converting garages into rooms far further back than that.

Probably more likely because children don't leave home now until much later and so need more space at home for a bit of privacy (for all concerned) rather than immigrants.

 

[najaB]

Probably more likely because children don't leave home now until much later and so need more space at home for a bit of privacy (for all concerned) rather than immigrants.

And even with immigration out of the picture, native-born population growth has outpaced housebuilding.

 

[jfollows]

The problem is that whilst only 4% of estates are liable for inheritance tax at the moment (so presumably slightly more than 4% of the living would be positively affected by it being abolished), about a third * of people who expect to inherit something think they’d currently have to pay.

As long as the Tories have ill-informed voters out there they’ll think they have a chance


* survey for the TUC said 32%, another said 31%

That's a good observation, and I hadn't thought about it that way.
You can't help ignorance and stupidity, but most people don't inherit very often in their lives, so it's understandable that people don't often think about it either.
It'd help the counter-argument to be clear here - eg you don't pay a penny of tax on money that you inherit, nor do you pay stamp duty on property that you inherit, the latter being unclear to me until I inherited property myself.

 

[Typhoon]

The problem is that whilst only 4% of estates are liable for inheritance tax at the moment (so presumably slightly more than 4% of the living would be positively affected by it being abolished), about a third * of people who expect to inherit something think they’d currently have to pay.

As long as the Tories have ill-informed voters out there they’ll think they have a chance


* survey for the TUC said 32%, another said 31%

Additionally, some of those 4% will end up paying very little compared to the value of the estate because it just creeps into the inheritance tax band.

There does need to be more explanation, however, for instance of the Residents Nil Rate Band (I didn't know about it even though I was a potential beneficiary).

This might seem like an admission that the next election is lost so they will milk the treasury for as much as they can. Labour should give examples showing typical situations where no or little inheritance tax is paid (and examples where it would - people with second and third homes, possibly those with houses with moats, those whose wives have lots of dosh).

The Guardian reports that scrapping Inheritance Tax is on the cards again - that's to say it's being considered. It further points out that 50% of the amount of tax reduced would go to 1% of the wealthiest in the UK.
It's become an "emotional" tax I think. Some people get very worked up about it. Personally I couldn't care less what happens with any money in my estate when I'm dead, because I'll be dead.

Likewise.

I am more worried about Care Home fees, which I hadn't realised reform had been knocked back to October '25!

 

[gg1]

The problem is that whilst only 4% of estates are liable for inheritance tax at the moment (so presumably slightly more than 4% of the living would be positively affected by it being abolished), about a third * of people who expect to inherit something think they’d currently have to pay.

As long as the Tories have ill-informed voters out there they’ll think they have a chance


* survey for the TUC said 32%, another said 31%

That's further exacerbated by the right wing media's repeated misrepresentation of the tax, for example this quote from a Daily Mail article last month:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...-Red-Wall-backlash-death-tax-cut-wealthy.html

The levy is charged at 40 per cent for estates worth more than £325,000, with an extra £175,000 allowance towards a main residence if it is passed to children or grandchildren.

This infers the beneficiaries of an estate above this threshold are liable for 40% tax on the entire estate rather then the true figure of 40% of the amount above the £325,000/£500,000 threshold.

 

[jon0844]

Probably more likely because children don't leave home now until much later and so need more space at home for a bit of privacy (for all concerned) rather than immigrants.

Of course before the pandemic and Brexit, these 'homes' featured quite a lot on the TV as being illegally converted, unsafe, with rogue landlords letting the 'room' to multiple occupants.

Frankly, I'd much rather they were just spare rooms for an existing household or a home office.

 

[AlistairCowell]

Chancellors budget announced for Wednesday 6th March 2024:

Budget to be held on 6 March, says Treasury

The speech could be the government's last opportunity to make tax changes before a general election.

www.bbc.com

 

[Busaholic]

EDIT Apparently the IHT thing was on the front page of The Telegraph today (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/blogs-the-papers-67825269), but I don’t normally read this paper. The “wealthiest 1%” probably does, though.

Doubt it, though some might look at the financial pages. The 1%, if they read anything, would incline to the FT and The Times I'd think. The Telegraph is the home of the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' Tory party male faithful, middle class, perhaps aspiring to be part of the 1%. though their wives, often called Daphne, might buy the Daily Mail when they're out shopping. I know that's a stereotype, but sometimes they can be surprisingly accurate.

 

[jon0844]

We can't underestimate the power and influence of those in Tunbridge Wells, given Rishi said he'd make sure they got some of that levelling up money - and has since gone on to curtail HS2 and shift money south for things like road repairs....

 

[Typhoon]

Doubt it, though some might look at the financial pages. The 1%, if they read anything, would incline to the FT and The Times I'd think. The Telegraph is the home of the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' Tory party male faithful, middle class, perhaps aspiring to be part of the 1%. though their wives, often called Daphne, might buy the Daily Mail when they're out shopping. I know that's a stereotype, but sometimes they can be surprisingly accurate.

I cannot vouch most of that but the good people of Tunbridge Wells (the town, not the borough) have been so disgusted that of the councillors they voted to represent them on the Borough Council, 15 are Lib Dem (including the Council leader and the Mayor), 7 are Labour, 2 are from an independent group and only 2 are Conservatives. Less than a quarter of those on the Borough Council are Conservative (mostly representing outlying villages).

Unfortunately, their MP is one the better ones in Kent (Greg Clark).

(I think you'll find that Daphne gets the shopping delivered by Ocado after all, they don't even have a Waitrose!)

That's further exacerbated by the right wing media's repeated misrepresentation of the tax, for example this quote from a Daily Mail article last month:
This infers the beneficiaries of an estate above this threshold are liable for 40% tax on the entire estate rather then the true figure of 40% of the amount above the £325,000/£500,000 threshold.

Not a fat lot of those living in, for example, Ashfield or Stoke-on-Trent North will benefit from that from looking at the properties for sale currently.

 

[Gloster]

Wasn’t Tunbridge Wells one of the councils one of those that the Conservatives lost to a local party after poor financial management lead to unpopular cuts. I must admit that I don’t follow developments there so I might be confusing it with somewhere else.

 

[Typhoon]

Wasn’t Tunbridge Wells one of the councils one of those that the Conservatives lost to a local party after poor financial management lead to unpopular cuts. I must admit that I don’t follow developments there so I might be confusing it with somewhere else.

There were problems over a vanity project which the Independent group got stuck into, and also proposed housing developments. As in other areas (and not just Conservative), parties that have been in control for years, stop listening. There are also a few rather downmarket areas in the town itself (where Labour do alright). I would have thought that Johnson's shenanigans Partygate and all) would have gone down badly with the average T. Wells voter, the Borough voted decisively to remain.

 

[Busaholic]

I cannot vouch most of that but the good people of Tunbridge Wells (the town, not the borough) have been so disgusted that of the councillors they voted to represent them on the Borough Council, 15 are Lib Dem (including the Council leader and the Mayor), 7 are Labour, 2 are from an independent group and only 2 are Conservatives. Less than a quarter of those on the Borough Council are Conservative (mostly representing outlying villages).

Unfortunately, their MP is one the better ones in Kent (Greg Clark).

(I think you'll find that Daphne gets the shopping delivered by Ocado after all, they don't even have a Waitrose!)

Greg Clark is/was a great mate of David Gauke, but failed to join the rebellion against Johnson that got so many of a more liberal persuasion losing the Tory whip and thus not being able to retain their seats in the 2019 election. It always has been less right wing than many other less well-heeled parts of Kent, choosing a succession of more liberal-minded Tory candidates, a bit like Bromley. When I went to work for the Probation Service in Kent in 1980, though, I was amazed to find it had the biggest drug problem in the county, rather than Medway, Thanet or Gravesend. Sir Patrick Mayhew was a rather grand, but affable, government minister when I managed to meet him as local MP once.

Clark's gathering of party members to hear Sunak speak, a video of which went viral, certainly saw an overwhelming male, white, well-healed middle aged to elderly grouping.

Daphne probably gets her shopping delivered by Waitrose, as Ocado have now changed to M&S, but she'll 'pop out' to her local convenience store 'to help keep them going' and just happen to grab a Mail while she's there. I know these people!

 

[Cowley]

Some of the stuff about housing fitted into the existing thread below a little better so we’ve moved it:

The housing crisis and ways to fix it?

"not relaxing planning laws to make it easier to develop in an AONB" then I suppose I am a conservative! ;) Mods note - split from here. I generally find that AONB's (Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty) are usually a synonym for "Areas where posh people don't want things like housing for us...

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[brad465]

Reform UK held a press conference today and announced Ben Habib is their candidate in the Wellingborough by-election, suggesting they are taking this seriously and making a Labour victory more likely:

Reform leader Richard Tice turns fire on Labour as he calls for election

Richard Tice warns of "Starmergeddon" and rules out electoral pact with Tories in new year speech.

www.bbc.co.uk

Reform UK leader Richard Tice has warned the country faces "Starmergeddon" if it elects Labour, as he called for a general election.
The rebranded Brexit Party, which is on about 9% in the polls, has previously focused its attacks on the Tories.
But Mr Tice claimed a government led by Sir Keir Starmer would be a "disaster".
He ruled out an electoral pact with the Tories - and said he was "confident" Nigel Farage would play a role in Reform's campaign but did not say how.
Sir Keir is due to make his own new year speech on Thursday, as Labour steps up campaigning ahead of a general election, expected as soon as the spring.
There has been speculation Mr Farage, who is Reform UK's honorary president and helped found the party in 2018, could make a return to front-line politics after his stint in the I'm A Celebrity jungle.
However, he was not among the "special guests" promised at Reform's new year press conference and Mr Tice said the former UKIP leader said was "still assessing" the extent of the role he would play in helping the party.
Mr Farage is not expected to make another bid to become an MP after failing to get elected to the UK Parliament seven times, but could be given a campaigning role.

Mr Tice used his speech to criticise both Labour and the Tories, accusing them of betraying working class voters on immigration.
In an attempt to tap into a sense of disillusionment among some Tory voters, Mr Tice claimed the government had "opened the borders to mass uncontrolled immigration of a scale that this country has never seen before".
Meanwhile, he said the country faced "a catastrophic cocktail of economic incompetence" if Labour won power.
Mr Tice added: "Only Reform UK is now the party of the working class, who will stop mass immigration, who will scrap net zero, who will help solve the cost of living crisis."
Setting out a number of the party's key policies, he said Reform supported increasing the threshold when people start paying income tax to £20,000, as well as cutting fuel duty and taxes for businesses.
He called for a freeze on non-essential immigration and a "one-in, one-out" policy.
At the press conference, Mr Tice also revealed former MEP Ben Habib as Reform's candidate for the Wellingborough by-election, which was triggered by the recall of former Tory MP Peter Bone.

 

[jfollows]

Reform UK held a press conference today and announced Ben Habib is their candidate in the Wellingborough by-election, suggesting they are taking this seriously and making a Labour victory more likely:

Reform leader Richard Tice turns fire on Labour as he calls for election

Richard Tice warns of "Starmergeddon" and rules out electoral pact with Tories in new year speech.

www.bbc.co.uk

Keir Starmer will be celebrating tonight.
Reform UK's policies make Liz Truss's policies look sensible, but they'll eat into the Conservative vote in so many ways and in so many places to the benefit of Labour and LibDem.
He'll be ordering the champagne for the Wellingborough by-election, when is that exactly? (EDIT Not yet determined, to answer my own question.)
The only thing Starmer needs to do is to take out a hit on Nigel Farage to prevent him from coming back again, mind you he might get help from Rishi Sunak to do this.

 

[edwin_m]

Keir Starmer will be celebrating tonight.
Reform UK's policies make Liz Truss's policies look sensible, but they'll eat into the Conservative vote in so many ways and in so many places to the benefit of Labour and LibDem.
He'll be ordering the champagne for the Wellingborough by-election, when is that exactly? (EDIT Not yet determined, to answer my own question.)
The only thing Starmer needs to do is to take out a hit on Nigel Farage to prevent him from coming back again, mind you he might get help from Rishi Sunak to do this.

He might be better off leaving Farage be to make a bigger hole in the Tory vote.

Then again, that means the rest of us will be faced with his detestable smugness once again.