• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

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

Status
Not open for further replies.

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
You mean Lady Nugee multi-millionairess owner of property worth around Five Million and wife of a Lord Justice of Appeal :E
I don't want to be unkind or discourteous ... but we do not address people by the titles of their spouses, the Shadow Secretary for International Trade has a name and its not 'Lady something', we know what her name is and it is inappropriate and, frankly, sexist to speak in those terms. (paraphrase)

There is no need to prostrate yourself.

Thank you for reminding me of what I think was one of Bercow's finest hours.

But going back to your point, yes, and it is for that reason that I suspect that they will try to keep her in the shadows for as long as she remains in the Commons. I do have some sympathy for her as she had some tough times growing up. We were never quite in the 'free school meals' cohort (I suspect we would never have claimed) but I knew some that were and there was a definite stigma towards them.

But we need to get back to Mr Symonds.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
But we need to get back to Mr Symonds.
Who is he?

Lady Nugee is the correct form of address for Emily Nugee (nee Thornbury).

In the context of the Westminster parliament, no one ever referred to Margaret Roberts, or for that matter Constance Gore-Booth**, Nancy Langhorne, Shirley Catlin, Barbara Betts or Theresa Brazier, all of whom subsequently gained titles.

** Constance Gore-Booth was the first elected female MP, but in view of her political affiliation never took her seat at Westminster; she was the daughter of an aristocrat.
 
Last edited:

Dai Corner

Established Member
Joined
20 Jul 2015
Messages
6,786
Who is he?

Lady Nugee is the correct form of address for Emily Nugee (nee Thornbury).

In the context of the Westminster parliament, no one ever referred to Margaret Roberts, or for that matter Constance Gore-Booth**, Nancy Langhorne, Shirley Catlin, Barbara Betts or Theresa Brazier, all of whom subsequently gained titles.

** Constance Gore-Booth was the first elected female MP, but in view of her political affiliation never took her seat at Westminster; she was the daughter of an aristocrat.
Likewise, the Welsh Parliament don't refer to their Health Minister as Baroness Morgan, though she was already a life peer before seeking election to that legislature.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Who is he?

Lady Nugee is the correct form of address for Emily Nugee (nee Thornbury).

In the context of the Westminster parliament, no one ever referred to Margaret Roberts, or for that matter Constance Gore-Booth**, Nancy Langhorne, Shirley Catlin or Barbara Betts, all of whom subsequently had titles.

** Constance Gore-Booth was the first elected female MP, but in view of her political affiliation never took her seat at Westminster.
But no-one refers to Pritti Sawyer, Liz O'Leary, Esther Davies, Chloe McFadzean, Victoria Kenward, or Lady Lancaster of Kimbolton all of whom serve or have served under Johnson. Claire Perry, who served under Theresa May, took her first husband's surname but not her second, when she remarried.

It should be a woman's right to choose the name she is identified by.

Many women choose to keep their maiden name in their professional life because that is the name they were established by and known by, and I would imagine that the law is one such profession - Lady Hale (who was President of the Supreme Court) did so; the arts certainly is another, it is by no means unknown in education and I would imagine business. It is also helpful if the marriage does not last!

It is rare but not unknown for a man to take his wife's name.

Catlin and Betts were ennobled because of their achievements, not their husband's, and they could, I believe, have chosen the name by which they wished to be identified by in the House of Lords. That is why we have Lord Deben (formerly John Gummer). Working on the same principle, should Thornberry be ennobled in her own right, she could choose the name she is known by.

Gore-Booth and Langhorne were over a hundred years ago, all men and some women had only just been given the vote. Langhorne would have been helped in her campaign by using the name of the previous MP, her husband.

Thatcher may have been known as such but it was her father, not her husband, whose values drove her. The latter was not the world's most successful businessman (walking past his factory and those close by as a child convinced me that I did not want to follow my father and grandfathers into industry).
(In a desperate attempt to link it with the thread title) I wonder whose values Mr Johnson is driven by?
Likewise, the Welsh Parliament don't refer to their Health Minister as Baroness Morgan, though she was already a life peer before seeking election to that legislature.
On the gov.wales website she is referred to as Eluned Morgan, Morgan being her name at birth, not the name of her husband.
 

johnnychips

Established Member
Joined
19 Nov 2011
Messages
3,772
Location
Leeds
Anyway, unless Keir Starmer decides to actually oppose something, and put forward some radical policies, Boris can carry on as long as he wants.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
8,958
Location
Taunton or Kent
Anyway, unless Keir Starmer decides to actually oppose something, and put forward some radical policies, Boris can carry on as long as he wants.
He is opposing stuff now, although that includes the easement that happened on the 19th July. We won't hear about radical policies until the party conference I suspect, especially as he's in the middle of his summer campaign where he should be getting ideas.

There are reports that Sunak and Johnson are at loggerheads about the upcoming budget/spending review contents, with Sunak wanting to pursue his fiscal responsibility beliefs and Johnson being the opposite as one might expect. Such disagreement isn't unusual, but given the times we're in if one wins over the other quite notably, a notable section of Tory support will be upset: if Johnson's rash spending wins over most, the southern/rural Tory base won't be pleased, but if Sunak announces no extra spending and/or more austerity, the new red wall Tory areas will be disappointed. Sunak is also still polling very highly in approval ratings among party members, with +74, but Johnson is down to +3, a drop of 36 points on the previous month and the forth worst score for cabinet members, so the end might be near on current outlooks.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
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.
I understand your reasoning. I have a lot of Scottish ancestry on both sides of my family, though I've hardly been to the country at all. I'm intrinsically opposed to Scottish nationalism, though I can see more and more why the idea might become less unattractive as the U.K.s Prime Minister and government make such an appalling mess of virtually everything, and Nicola Sturgeon is undoubtedly an impressive politician personally. What a shame she can't lead Labour!
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
9,000
Location
SE London
Anyway, unless Keir Starmer decides to actually oppose something, and put forward some radical policies, Boris can carry on as long as he wants.

It's OK... Keir Starmer has decided to oppose something: He's opposing jokes - see this Twitter video he's made about Boris's recent joke about Mrs. Thatcher closing coal mines and the environment.

Seriously... look at anger in Keir's face and in his voice in that video. You'd think he was talking about someone murdering his grandmother or something, not about someone cracking a rather unfunny joke. I'm not sure if Keir is against all jokes or only jokes about Margaret Thatcher, or only jokes that Tories make, but I guess if he becomes Prime Minister, then to be on the safe side we should probably all start avoiding any humour. :lol:

(More seriously: Something doesn't quite add up in his video. He claims to have represented the NUM in court before the closures. Is that possible? As I recall, the closures mostly happened in the early to mid 80s. According to Wikipedia, Keir didn't complete his studies until 1986 and then spent a year as a magazine editor, only becoming a barrister in 1987).
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
7,186
Location
Birmingham
Yeah he is opposing a buffoon making a joke about something which destroyed communities, wrecking lives and no doubt costing quite a few too (indirectly). How dare he eh?
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
Yeah he is opposing a buffoon making a joke about something which destroyed communities, wrecking lives and no doubt costing quite a few too (indirectly). How dare he eh?
Bojo is entitled to crack a joke about this matter. The criticism from the dour humourless Starmer is not warranted and gives the impression that he is a killjoy.
 
Last edited:

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,936
Location
North West
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.
Given that there was a 74% vote for Scottish devolution in 1997, there is likely to have been a greater hunger for independence by now had devolution not been introduced. Mind you, the Scottish Parliament has given the SNP a more open platform for promoting independence than a greater group of SNP MPs or SNP-led Councils could have done.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

I understand your reasoning. I have a lot of Scottish ancestry on both sides of my family, though I've hardly been to the country at all. I'm intrinsically opposed to Scottish nationalism, though I can see more and more why the idea might become less unattractive as the U.K.s Prime Minister and government make such an appalling mess of virtually everything, and Nicola Sturgeon is undoubtedly an impressive politician personally. What a shame she can't lead Labour!
She famously joined the SNP aged 16. Had she joined Labour instead she could have been Prime Minister by now. ;)
 
Last edited:

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,867
Location
Nottingham
It's OK... Keir Starmer has decided to oppose something: He's opposing jokes - see this Twitter video he's made about Boris's recent joke about Mrs. Thatcher closing coal mines and the environment.

Seriously... look at anger in Keir's face and in his voice in that video. You'd think he was talking about someone murdering his grandmother or something, not about someone cracking a rather unfunny joke. I'm not sure if Keir is against all jokes or only jokes about Margaret Thatcher, or only jokes that Tories make, but I guess if he becomes Prime Minister, then to be on the safe side we should probably all start avoiding any humour. :lol:

(More seriously: Something doesn't quite add up in his video. He claims to have represented the NUM in court before the closures. Is that possible? As I recall, the closures mostly happened in the early to mid 80s. According to Wikipedia, Keir didn't complete his studies until 1986 and then spent a year as a magazine editor, only becoming a barrister in 1987).
The miners' strike was in the 1980s but most of the closures were in the 1990s.

I can absolutely see why Keir Starmer is angry about this. To anyone who was even slightly paying attention at the time, the impression was left that the Tory government cared not at all about the mining communities - we had oil money at the time that could have been used to set them up with other work that was beneficial to the workers and to the general economy. It seems that Johnson is up to the usual populist trick of finding an "other" group to rile up as a means of keeping his base on side, but he may just have miscalculated in this case. Many of those areas lent him their support in 2016 and 2019, but I'd say that support was very conditional and it would be very prone to flip back to the "same old Tories" viewpoint. He needs to hang on to it to counteract all the other people he has alienated.
 

Scotrail314209

Established Member
Joined
1 Feb 2017
Messages
2,449
Location
Edinburgh
Oh dear.


Allies of Rishi Sunak have insisted he is focused on the health of the economy in his job as chancellor following reports suggesting an "apoplectic" Boris Johnson threatened to demote him to the position of health secretary.

The Sunday Times reported that a furious Boris Johnson suggested the move after the leak of a letter from the chancellor calling for the easing of travel restrictions, suggesting they were damaging the economy and leaving the UK at a disadvantage to its European Union rivals, ahead of the relaxations announced on Wednesday.

The newspaper reported that the first Mr Johnson knew of the letter was when details of it appeared in the media, suggesting officials had failed to flag it for his attention.

The Sunday Times reported this left the PM furious and questioning the motives of the leaker, with the letter appearing to undermine agreed policy and make it look like the Treasury was trying to push him into action.

A senior source told the newspaper: “He said: ‘I’ve been thinking about it. Maybe it’s time we looked at Rishi as the next secretary of state for health. He could potentially do a very good job there.’

“In an open meeting, after ranting about Rishi, he then suggested the chancellor could be demoted in the next reshuffle.”

In the same article it also lists Liz Truss as a replacement with Jacob Rees-Mogg as her deputy.

Although a reshuffle is not expected imminently, the Sunday Times reported that Mr Johnson has previously considered International Trade Secretary Liz Truss as a potential chancellor, with Jacob Rees-Mogg as her deputy.

"The PM keeps talking about Liz Truss," a source said.

"He's always got on quite well with her. He thinks she's controllable."
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Oh dear.




In the same article it also lists Liz Truss as a replacement with Jacob Rees-Mogg as her deputy.
I'm not sure Rees-Mogg would want to be deputy to anyone. Even as Leader of the House, he has expressed his own views on subjects like the NHS Pass; he is definitely not controllable and, I suspect, has views similar to that of Sunak on travel.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
18 Aug 2015
Messages
7,186
Location
Birmingham
I did think Sunak would fall foul of The Johnson when he started putting his signature on things and building up his own profile, a narcissist like The Johnson can't bear that kind of thing.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
8,958
Location
Taunton or Kent
Oh dear.




In the same article it also lists Liz Truss as a replacement with Jacob Rees-Mogg as her deputy.

According to the FT, top Tories are warning against this:


Senior Conservative MPs have warned Boris Johnson not to move against Rishi Sunak, following weekend reports that the UK prime minister had threatened to demote his chancellor.

The article also goes onto suggest at the next reshuffle it's more likely Johnson will use it to bring in stronger individuals to rival Sunak, rather than depose, so Johnson becomes harder to undermine compared to all energy against him being drawn to Sunak.
 

yorkie

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Administrator
Joined
6 Jun 2005
Messages
73,767
Location
Yorkshire
He is opposing stuff now....
Problem for me is, he has not opposed the stuff I wanted opposing and has opposed stuff I generally wanted doing. I've ruled out voting Labour indefinitely as the party appears to be extremely pro-restriction/lockdowns and my MP (York Inner) is one of the absolute worst.

Of course this is all in the hands of others; it makes absolutely no difference who I vote for (and still wouldn't, even if I moved to another part of the city!); York Outer is never going to vote in Labour and York Inner is never going to vote in the Tories.
 

tbtc

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Dec 2008
Messages
17,891
Location
Reston City Centre
Given that there was a 74% vote for Scottish devolution in 1997, there is likely to have been a greater hunger for independence by now had devolution not been introduced. Mind you, the Scottish Parliament has given the SNP a more open platform for promoting independence than a greater group of SNP MPs or SNP-led Councils could have done

I think that devolution eased the pressure on demands for independence - it'd have had a much better case to argue for it

(as a Scot, I'm against independence but I'd find it much harder to oppose if decisions over Scottish laws were being made at Westminster or in the Scottish Office)

I can absolutely see why Keir Starmer is angry about this.

Starmer really has to play big on this one - something for "red wall" voters to rally around, something for the party "faithful" to rally around, some red meat, something to show a big difference between him and Johnson

(even though this is a bit of an awkward issue for Labour in a way, given the "northern working class voters angry about pit closures" and "middle class voters with a significant view of green credentials, who'd be horrified at the prospect of filthy coal")

"The PM keeps talking about Liz Truss," a source said.

"He's always got on quite well with her. He thinks she's controllable."

...wasn't the point of Sunak that he would be controllable?

That's why he got the job - Javid refused to be cowed by Cummings - Sunak was happy (desperate?) to accept the big job on whatever terms Johnson was offering - so that fact that this guy chosen to be compliant and subservient has gone rogue doesn't reflect well on Johnson's judgement - can't find a good lapdog!

(I don't know what the point of briefings like this are though - openly telling Truss that she's seen as an easily manipulated political lightweight?)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
26,867
Location
Nottingham
(I don't know what the point of briefings like this are though - openly telling Truss that she's seen as an easily manipulated political lightweight?)
Being a political lightweight she probably wouldn't realise the implications, or if she did she'd be easily manipulated into accepting them.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
According to the FT, top Tories are warning against this:




The article also goes onto suggest at the next reshuffle it's more likely Johnson will use it to bring in stronger individuals to rival Sunak, rather than depose, so Johnson becomes harder to undermine compared to all energy against him being drawn to Sunak.
I don't suppose it suggests who these 'stronger individuals' might be, and into what role? He booted out many of the independently minded Conservatives two years ago, several stood down at the election, others are closet Remainers (who might do little to dampen criticism of Brexit), some wouldn't serve under Johnson, and, to be honest, I don't see a great deal of talent in the second rung of government - when I listen to Any Questions, where a lot of them appear, I'm struck by how inept they are. Ok, there might be one or two who are any good but they are largely keeping their heads down. My overriding impression of the Johnson cabinet is them sitting round the cabinet table chanting in unison about how many nurses they were going to employ, schools they were going to build, etc.

Does he also not realise that by promoting strong individuals they might be a rival to himself? Besides Sunak, Javid is in a strong position; if he promotes more strong individuals, he may find he has a coup on his hands. He showed no loyalty to his predecessor, others may feel they have no loyalty to him. He could do well to read a book on the history of the Roman Empire, there are many readily available.
 

daodao

Established Member
Joined
6 Feb 2016
Messages
3,358
Location
Dunham/Bowdon
He could do well to read a book on the history of the Roman Empire, there are many readily available.
He is very familiar with classical history - he read Literae humaniores, an undergraduate course focused on classics, at Oxford.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
He is very familiar with classical history - he read Literae humaniores, an undergraduate course focused on classics, at Oxford.
He has also written at least one book on the subject. (I thought there was one on the Emperors themselves but can't track it down, it was surprisingly good, it might just be senility setting in).

The problem with some in academia is that they have the knowledge but can't necessarily apply it in a practical situation.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
In the same article it also lists Liz Truss as a replacement with Jacob Rees-Mogg as her deputy.
Has April 1st come round already?! If so, can I nominate my parrot Toby, who has more sense than both the above combined, and a much more interesting vocabulary. :D
 

dgl

Established Member
Joined
5 Oct 2014
Messages
2,638
JRM being bossed around by a woman will never happen, he's believes he's from a time when men have ultimate power over women despite the fact that he can't even be trusted with electric power!
 

Butts

Veteran Member
Joined
16 Jan 2011
Messages
11,602
Location
Stirlingshire
JRM being bossed around by a woman will never happen, he's believes he's from a time when men have ultimate power over women despite the fact that he can't even be trusted with electric power!

Ah those were the day's - it was a myth unfortunately :E
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,671
JRM being bossed around by a woman will never happen, he's believes he's from a time when men have ultimate power over women despite the fact that he can't even be trusted with electric power!
Don't believe all that schtick, he knows enough about modern media and its methods as he needs to advance his own career: the other total myth that he's scrupulously polite at all times is hokum too. He's a nasty piece of work and he'd have all us 'peasants' (as he undoubtedly sees us in reality) back in our 'place' at a flash should we have the ultimate misfortune of him gaining more power still. I'd almost rather see Galloway as P.M. That really would be Devil and Deep Blue Sea stuff.
 

Typhoon

Established Member
Joined
2 Nov 2017
Messages
3,540
Location
Kent
Looks to me most of the mines were closed in the 60's! (Who was in charge then?) And are we all green now or aren't we?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Coal_Mining_Jobs.png
There is an interesting discussion about this at:
pit closures in 1960s and 1980s (welshcoalmines.co.uk)

One entry seems to summarise it:
During the sixties there was virtually full employment and wages outside the mining industry were much higher therefore there was very little opposition nationally to these closures,although there were some notable local exceptions such as Cambrian , Werntarw , glyncastle in South Wales To highlight the position in the South Wales coalfield, in the Rhondda area in the earl 60s even after pits had been closed to man the so called long life pits the area was still short of over seven hundred men , miners were leaving knowing that the future was not looking so bright, but as i stated there was plenty of work in other industries for them, and in easier occupations and earning more money.. Where as in the eighties unemployment was very high and there was very little hope of getting a job if the local pit closed down, the mining industry was a last bastion in many areas whereby men could still earn a decent living , that is why there was such a great opposition to pit closures in the eighties , unlike the sixties.
I would also add a response to your question 'Who was in charge then'

Start of the sixties - October 1963 Harold MacMillan (Conservative)
October 1963 - October 1964 Sir Alec Douglas Home (Conservative)
October 1964 - end of the sixties Harold Wilson (Labour)

I would also add that from your chart the number of men employed (which is what the chart shows) seems to have started to decline at the end of the 1950s. Using an informative chart at The death of UK coal in five charts - Our World in Data I find that between 1958 and 1960 (MacMillan PM), the number employed dropped by 92,000. In fact the number of those employed in mining between 1958 and 1964 dropped by a similar number to those lost during Wilson's first term in office.

The difference surely is that coal imports were negligible in the fifties, even in 1970 it was only 79,000 tonnes, but by 1990 it was 14.78 million tonnes. Coal jobs in the '50s and '60s were lost because there was less demand. Coal was used less on the railways, use by industry almost halved as did that by the domestic consumer - we had had enough of smog. (sources - as above and Coal production and imports in the United Kingdom (ourworldindata.org)
In the 80's and 90's we still used it but shipped it in.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top