Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[nw1]

How so?

I'm not the poster you're replying to, but: I hope it's not going to be the case that people perceive Sunak as "strong" after this and this is some kind of turning point.

 

[ainsworth74]

Thought that one was well known. Reputed to be The Sun's headline that said "If Labour win this election will the last person to leave the country please turn off the lights?"
Also Spitting Image had a sketch with Kinnock and Hattersley say "Winning thus election should be as easy as falling off if a log" then showing them spinning round and around the log.
We're a number of marginal seats that Conservatives won to give them a small majority.

Nono I get 1992 I meant how tonight's result swing the election in the Tories favour to help set up a 1992 in 2023.

 

[Richard Scott]

Nono I get 1992 I meant how tonight's result swing the election in the Tories favour to help set up a 1992 in 2023.

Oh, OK. I misunderstood.

 

[Luke McDonnell]

I cannot see this affecting the polls the Rwanda issue is not a top priority amongst most voters except some hardcore right wing voters

 

[Gloster]

I'm not the poster you're replying to, but: I hope it's not going to be the case that people perceive Sunak as "strong" after this and this is some kind of turning point.

Rather my feeling. The Conservatives are setting the next election up to be effectively a referendum on immigration, with a bit of anti-woke and pro-motorist thrown in. With the help of their friends in the media it will be wall to wall ‘Conservatives will stand up to this while Labour will throw your granny out of her house and give it to an illegal immigrant.’ The slightest sign of humanity by Labour’s policy makers will be portrayed as abject surrender of the rights of the true-born Englishman, while anything the Conservatives do is a measured and legal (yes, if we say it is legal, it is legal) reaction to foreigners who are…well, being foreign. ‘So support the Conservatives unless you want one as a neighbour.’ (Shades, although the Conservatives would probably object to that word, of Smethwick in the 1964 election.)

And of course you also have Labour’s habit of dissolving into different factions when they seem to have a chance of power. Blair-Brown were strong enough to keep that in check: I am not sure about Starmer.

 

[DunsBus]

Rather my feeling. The Conservatives are setting the next election up to be effectively a referendum on immigration, with a bit of anti-woke and pro-motorist thrown in. With the help of their friends in the media it will be wall to wall ‘Conservatives will stand up to this while Labour will throw your granny out of her house and give it to an illegal immigrant.’ The slightest sign of humanity by Labour’s policy makers will be portrayed as abject surrender of the rights of the true-born Englishman, while anything the Conservatives do is a measured and legal (yes, if we say it is legal, it is legal) reaction to foreigners who are…well, being foreign. ‘So support the Conservatives unless you want one as a neighbour.’ (Shades, although the Conservatives would probably object to that word, of Smethwick in the 1964 election.)

And of course you also have Labour’s habit of dissolving into different factions when they seem to have a chance of power. Blair-Brown were strong enough to keep that in check: I am not sure about Starmer.

Exactly that. 2019 was run on "get Brexit done" and Boris was rewarded with a majority of 80. 2024 will be run on "we sent the boats back", the media will go all out to paint Labour in a bad light and the Conservatives will remain in office.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Exactly that. 2019 was run on "get Brexit done" and Boris was rewarded with a majority of 80. 2024 will be run on "we sent the boats back", the media will go all out to paint Labour in a bad light and the Conservatives will remain in office.

Thats certainly a credible scenario and with Labour sitting on the fence over everything that will start hurting them if Sunak can make ground back

 

[SuspectUsual]

Somewhat less close than had been insinuated, but nevertheless far from a glorious triumph. I presume, from the numbers, that there weren't any Conservatives who voted against the bill?

Not that it really means anything - has anyone outside Cabinet proclaimed themselves satisfied with the bill as it is? And pleasing one group looks increasingly more like alienating all the other factions.

The right wing headbangers organised themselves so enough abstained to make a point, but not so many as to risk a government defeat. Francois implied as much in his interview

 

[najaB]

Exactly that. 2019 was run on "get Brexit done" and Boris was rewarded with a majority of 80. 2024 will be run on "we sent the boats back", the media will go all out to paint Labour in a bad light and the Conservatives will remain in office.

Is "stopping the boats" really going to win enough votes to make people forget the complete and total ****show of the last 13 years? If so then I'm activating my bug out plan a few years earlier than planned.

 

[DunsBus]

Is "stopping the boats" really going to win enough votes to make people forget the complete and total ****show of the last 13 years? If so then I'm activating my bug out plan a few years earlier than planned.

If the media have anything to do with it, then yes. We now live in an era where people are more interested in reality television than in real life and will believe anything which the papers print. An episode of Yes Prime Minister had the famous line "Sun readers don't care who runs the country as long as she's got big tits." The line may have been said for laughs nearly forty years ago, but how accurate it has turned out to be.

 

[Thirteen]

TBH I think Labour will win simply because the Conservatives are a spent force in terms of the general population. Don't underestimate the power of the disillusioned voter.

 

[nw1]

I suppose the question is: is "the boats" a big enough issue for most people?

I certainly hope not.

I'd hope that Sunak doing absolutely nothing, apparently, to fix the problems of the NHS is a bigger factor for most.

If Sunak does win, it will say very, very bad things about the UK as a whole. It will show that the UK has become basically a reactionary right wing country, terminally afflicted by xenophobia, where keeping immigrants out is more important than anything else. And if the Tories win again, the country risks becoming like Singapore, with the same party in power for possibly half a century: if they aren't voted out now. I'm beginning to wonder if they ever will be.

For democracy's sake, the Tories absolutely have to lose next year, otherwise I wonder if they ever will.

I'm wondering what the consensus on here is regarding whether this event is some kind of turning point and whether there is now a real risk of Sunak winning next year?

 

[jfollows]

I'm wondering what the consensus on here is regarding whether this event is some kind of turning point and whether there is now a real risk of Sunak winning next year?

I don't believe it's any kind of turning point of significance.
Most people have made up their minds and no longer listen to or take notice of anything Sunak and his party does any more.
The "small boats" things is a confected crisis which does not impinge on the majority of voters in any way. That's not to say it doesn't have an effect, but politically it's more about not leaching votes to Reform UK (which would cost Conservatives seats, see Jenrick above for example) than it is about realistically winning the election.
They also only have one playbook, the same person in charge (Isaac Levido), in 2019 it was "get Brexit done", now it will be "stop the boats" but the difference is that nobody cares about the latter whereas even I wanted the "Brexit" thing finished even though I'd never go so far as voting for Boris at the time. It won't work. It's a totemic thing - "look, see, we've sent 10 people to Rwanda before calling the election" but the figures don't stack up, it's a tiny number, hundreds of people, versus the hundreds of thousands allowed into the UK by the same government - properly in my view, but not in everybody's.
The Conservatives want to make us care about "immigration" because they want to be seen to be doing something about it. But the reality is that only a few people actually care, despite the efforts of the Daily Mail and so on.
For Sunak to win, Kier Starmer has to be discovered in a compromising situation with a goat, or something like that, so as long as Labour don't do anything silly they'll be fine. Whilst I'm not totally convinced by them, I will be voting Labour in Tatton as the most likely way of defeating Esther McVey and the Conservatives, and I think there will be a lot of anti-Conservative tactical voting at the next election.
Oh yes, and Cleverly seems to be spouting the usual lies today, something about not being worried about losing the Third Reading. Well, he is and he should be, we all know he is, we all know he's lying, but it's what they do.

EDIT And your point is important, there are many more important things for the government to fix than “small boats” but it can’t, lack of vision, determination and competence, but I think most people know it. They care more about their winter bills than they do about refugees.

 

[DunsBus]

I suppose the question is: is "the boats" a big enough issue for most people?

I certainly hope not.

I'd hope that Sunak doing absolutely nothing, apparently, to fix the problems of the NHS is a bigger factor for most.

If Sunak does win, it will say very, very bad things about the UK as a whole. It will show that the UK has become basically a reactionary right wing country, terminally afflicted by xenophobia, where keeping immigrants out is more important than anything else. And if the Tories win again, the country will become like Singapore, with the same party in power for possibly half a century: if they aren't voted out now. I'm beginning to wonder if they ever will be.

For democracy's sake, the Tories absolutely have to lose next year, otherwise I wonder if they ever will.

I'm wondering what the consensus on here is regarding whether this event is some kind of turning point and whether there is now a real risk of Sunak winning next year?

I'd say that it's not just a real risk but a real possibility. I've seen three elections during my lifetime (1983, 1992 and 2019) where a supposedly-unpopular party has remained in office after polling day.

 

[edwin_m]

I'd say that it's not just a real risk but a real possibility. I've seen three elections during my lifetime (1983, 1992 and 2019) where a supposedly-unpopular party has remained in office after polling day.

In 1983 and 2019, and possibly in 1992 also, this was mainly due to Labour alienating too many swing voters at least as much as to the actions of the Conservatives. Is it surprising that Starmer is avoiding doing so, to the extent of annoying his own core vote? (who have nowhere else to go).

 

[3141]

Interesting that on each of those occasions there was an important factor that helped to bring about the unexpected result.

I'm not sure that in 1983 the result was unexpected, but the factor that affected it was Michael Foot. Margaret Thatcher was reported to have said that she wanted there to be an election while he was still the Labour leader. There were internal Labour divisions leading to the establishment of the Social Democratic Party.

In 1992 it was the big Sheffield rally, described in some reports as "Labour triumphalism", with apparently incoherent remarks by Neil Kinnock trying to get his mouth round some suitable words.

In 2019 there were two factors. One was Brexit, about which even some Remainers were thinking "For God's sake let's get this sorted out". The other was Jeremy Corbyn, whose programme didn't have the widespread support he assumed.

So you can be "unpopular" but the outcome will depend to what degree, and also whether there is some factor which may upset what may seem the likely result.

In 2024 the likelihood is that the degree of unpopularity the Conservatives have succeeded in acquiring, the perceived lack of competence, the very public divisions and the tiredness (and who wouldn't be tired after Brexit, the changes of leader, and Covid?) will lead to a big defeat, which won't be averted by whatever may have been done in connection with the boats.

 

[sor]

Exactly that. 2019 was run on "get Brexit done" and Boris was rewarded with a majority of 80. 2024 will be run on "we sent the boats back", the media will go all out to paint Labour in a bad light and the Conservatives will remain in office.

and that was on a vote share swing of a massive, triumphant, sensational.... 1.2%.

I can't see it working again this time. While mainland Europe seems to be taking a right wing populist turn, we've already had it, and we've seen that the promises have not materialised. Combine that with the corruption and the cost of living.

The right wing headbangers organised themselves so enough abstained to make a point, but not so many as to risk a government defeat. Francois implied as much in his interview

Quite. a lot of people across the internet seem to be losing their mind and suggesting that Sunak's got it done, in reality it's all about whether it passes at third reading with or without any amendments that the ERG and the "five families" (puke) may offer. It won't go through the lords anyway.

 

[nw1]

Interesting that on each of those occasions there was an important factor that helped to bring about the unexpected result.

I'm not sure that in 1983 the result was unexpected, but the factor that affected it was Michael Foot. Margaret Thatcher was reported to have said that she wanted there to be an election while he was still the Labour leader. There were internal Labour divisions leading to the establishment of the Social Democratic Party.

Add to that the Falklands getting out the patriotic vote.

I wasn't really old enough to follow politics at the time, and couldn't vote in 1987 never mind 1983, but looking at the opinion polls the Tories started leading in summer 1982, a year earlier. So I doubt the 1983 result was a shock one to anybody.

In 1992 it was the big Sheffield rally, described in some reports as "Labour triumphalism", with apparently incoherent remarks by Neil Kinnock trying to get his mouth round some suitable words.

Also in 1991 the Tories were often ahead, so it's not strictly a good comparator. Major replacing Thatcher had a significant effect. And it's too late to install a socially-liberal John Major figure now, not that there would be many MPs which would qualify in any case.

In 2019 there were two factors. One was Brexit, about which even some Remainers were thinking "For God's sake let's get this sorted out". The other was Jeremy Corbyn, whose programme didn't have the widespread support he assumed.

True, while I would have much preferred Corbyn for all manner of reasons, I can see that he was a bit radical for much of the UK population. Starmer is sufficiently bland and MOR to not turn too many people off, left or right.

 

[Magdalia]

I'm not sure that in 1983 the result was unexpected, but the factor that affected it was Michael Foot. Margaret Thatcher was reported to have said that she wanted there to be an election while he was still the Labour leader. There were internal Labour divisions leading to the establishment of the Social Democratic Party.

I am old enough to remember 1983.

At the time, the Labour manifesto was infamously described, by Gerald Kaufman MP, as "the longest suicide note in history".

Two of the major policies, heavily criticised at the time, were withdrawal from the EEC and a National Minimum Wage.

 

[jfollows]

I am old enough to remember 1983.

At the time, the Labour manifesto was infamously described, by Gerald Kaufman MP, as "the longest suicide note in history".

Two of the major policies, heavily criticised at the time, were withdrawal from the EEC and a National Minimum Wage.

Plus unilateral nuclear disarmament I think. So there were some bonkers ones too! I get your point …..

 

[najaB]

I'm wondering what the consensus on here is regarding whether this event is some kind of turning point and whether there is now a real risk of Sunak winning next year?

Anecdote isn't data and all that, but I don't know anybody who really cares that much about small boats.

I struggle to believe that there's anybody who, while they are sitting in their house shivering because it's too expensive to heat, with empty cupboards that are too expensive to fill, while they suffer in pain because they can't get a doctor's appointment and dare not go outside because of a fear of petty crime that won't be detected or punished who thinks "Good thing that we spent £200 million to send 100 people to Rwanda".

 

[jfollows]

We could be heading towards a small economic recession, thought necessary by some as a cost of controlling inflation, but nonetheless it could end up that we're in a "technical" recession following two consecutive quarters of negative growth (4Q23 followed by 1Q24) and this could happen at a "bad" time for the Conservatives to call an election in spring 2024.
It's a numbers game, but the Conservatives have been crowing recently about how "they" have prevented the economy going into recession whilst everyone knows the pain of food and energy bills, so it'd only be just if they suffered because we actually ended up in a technical recession even though nobody would actually feel any worse off.
It'd be something for their opponents to throw at them for sure, if they were all campaigning for an election.

 

[nw1]

I am old enough to remember 1983.

At the time, the Labour manifesto was infamously described, by Gerald Kaufman MP, as "the longest suicide note in history".

Two of the major policies, heavily criticised at the time, were withdrawal from the EEC and a National Minimum Wage.

Well, although the first one was utter nonsense, the second was quite sensible.

 

[simonw]

I'd say that it's not just a real risk but a real possibility. I've seen three elections during my lifetime (1983, 1992 and 2019) where a supposedly-unpopular party has remained in office after polling day.

1983 was never in doubt as a Tory win. I remember canvassing back then and although we tried to put a,brave face on things, the outcome was apparent from the getgo.

A few years before the government was deeply unpopular, but by 1983 the Tories had one the Falklands war and the opposition was split sympathetically Labour 26% and SDP/Liberals 25%. With proportional representation, the Tories would have been out of power, but we don't have PR.

2019 Boris and his get Brexit done and disillusionment about Corbyn plus a lack of recovery of the LDs meant a Tory victory wasn't unexpected.

So only 1992 was a surprise and even then there were signs.

 

[edwin_m]

1992 had the Kinnock "victory rally" a few days before the vote, which was considered to set the wrong tone (and no doubt so amplified by the Tory press).

 

[Thirteen]

We've already had four elections in a 13 year period and it would be unlikely for the Torys to scrape through a fifth win.

 

[jfollows]

1992 had the Kinnock "victory rally" a few days before the vote, which was considered to set the wrong tone (and no doubt so amplified by the Tory press).

This highlights the danger of postal voting, because something like this would be much less likely to impact the election result today.
In 1992 I was living in the USA and I didn't have a vote in the election. It was "too hard" to get a postal or a proxy vote, although technically it was possible in some ways.
I'd have voted Conservative anyway then, but I just didn't vote for the only time since 1983.
Today I'd vote by post - I have done for a number of years - and this sort of thing would be irrelevant because I vote as soon as I receive my postal ballot.
Not that it's wrong, it's just a problem with postal voting. In the unlikely event I ever get a call from a canvasser, it's likely that I've already posted my vote anyway. And I can't react to last-minute events.

 

[najaB]

Not that it's wrong, it's just a problem with postal voting. In the unlikely event I ever get a call from a canvasser, it's likely that I've already posted my vote anyway. And I can't react to last-minute events.

Other that something apocalyptic like finding out that your chosen candidate is an actual criminal, surely reacting to last-minute events is actually a bad idea. Your vote should, ideally, be based on the history of the candidate and/or party that you lend your support.

 

[Busaholic]

Other that something apocalyptic like finding out that your chosen candidate is an actual criminal, surely reacting to last-minute events is actually a bad idea. Your vote should, ideally, be based on the history of the candidate and/or party that you lend your support.

My sister voted for Brexit by postal ballot in May 2015, but a combination of Jo Cox's murder and my gentle quizzing of her beliefs had led her to bitterly regret it by Referendum Day. I suspect the result would have been even closer if the postal votes were excluded.

 

[Richard Scott]

My sister voted for Brexit by postal ballot in May 2015, but a combination of Jo Cox's murder and my gentle quizzing of her beliefs had led her to bitterly regret it by Referendum Day. I suspect the result would have been even closer if the postal votes were excluded.

That's over a year before the referendum!