Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[najaB]

Well, not really. He correctly pointed out that Starmer has U-turned on multiple promises he made when campaigning to be Labour leader, and threw in that Starmer has also been a bit equivocal on the question of what is a women - something that does actually matter to a lot of women who have spent their lives coping with various forms of sexism.

So, essentially, his cutting criticism of Starmer is that he's changed his position on a complex issue with no clear answer.

What's that saying about being savaged by a dead sheep?

 

[Gloster]

So, essentially, his cutting criticism of Starmer is that he's changed his position on a complex issue with no clear answer.

What's that saying about being savaged by a dead sheep?

It was Denis Healey describing an attack by Geoffrey Howe as being like being ‘savaged by a dead sheep’. That was back in the dim and distant year of 1978, when insults were (reasonably) good-natured, and not just wild and frequently distorted accusations.

 

[DarloRich]

Well, not really. He correctly pointed out that Starmer has U-turned on multiple promises he made when campaigning to be Labour leader, and threw in that Starmer has also been a bit equivocal on the question of what is a women - something that does actually matter to a lot of women who have spent their lives coping with various forms of sexism. Brianna Ghey's murder was of course utterly awful, but Sunak's remarks were focused on Starmer's record and quite clearly had nothing to do with her murder - other apparently than in the eyes of some people who like to manufacture outrage at the slightest opportunity [1]. If anything, I'd say the people who should apologise are those on the Labour benches who have just tried to turn that appalling murder into a political football.

[1] And yes, I do realise that people on the Tory side have also manufactured outrage on other occasions.

Why make excuses for Sunak? He was out of order with his comments and should apologise. They were VERY badly timed to the extent that they are distasteful.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Yes, whatever can be said about the man himself, his first ministry got a lot of stuff done. Minimum wage, civil partnerships, big cut in child poverty rates, maternity and paternity rights, statutory paid holidays, Good Friday agreement, (possibly controversial) devolution. I might add the Human Rights Act, if only because it annoys those on the far right. I can think of at least three PMs I would put below him - Johnson, Truss and Home, The latter completely ineffective! Probably Callaghan as well. Johnson just didn't do much (except get photographed), why Conservatives want him back, I don't know. He has been found out.

You have to balance that with opening the borders to uncontrolled immigration from the accession countries in 2000 ( which nobody else did) which ultimately set us on the course to Brexit.

Launching a policy of increasing take up of higher education,as laudable as it appears at face value, has given rise to a lack of vocational trainees and exacerbated the immigration issue to fill the skills gap.

Then we have the PFI ticking time bomb that they cynical exploited to keep infrastructure expenditure off the countries debt bill. The local authorities are seeing the true cost of that policy now.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing but we can see from afar the true extent of his work.

Why make excuses for Sunak? He was out of order with his comments and should apologise. They were VERY badly timed to the extent that they are distasteful.

Get over yourself. DS explained it perfectly.

 

[nw1]

Shall we say he's done a Gordon Brown?! If he doesn't eat humble pie pretty quickly with a direct apology to the right person he's more stupid than I thought.

And of course Tory MPs (I forget who, but there were two individuals, both anonymous nobodies) were defending him on the radio.

 

[DarloRich]

Get over yourself. DS explained it perfectly.

if you cant see why the timing of such a statement was poor you should pop to Specsavers!

The point made by Sunak may or may not be valid but the timing was not. To make such statements while the mother of a victim of a horrible murder (which occurred because her child was in the group of people traduced) was visiting/viewing parliament was crass, insensitive and distasteful.

I maintain: he should apologise. Not to do so makes this more of a story.

 

[nw1]

You have to balance that with opening the borders to uncontrolled immigration from the accession countries in 2000 ( which nobody else did)

Some of us think that was a good thing.

Some of us think that was a good thing. Blair's big, big mistake was the Iraq war; aside from that, he was easily the second-least-worst PM of my remembered lifetime (Thatcher onwards). He was certainly much less bad than the dire Cameron, Johnson, Truss and now Sunak.

Why make excuses for Sunak? He was out of order with his comments and should apologise. They were VERY badly timed to the extent that they are distasteful.

Also remember that it isn't just "manufactured outrage". One of the people calling for an apology was Brianna's father. I don't really understand why people are attempting to defend Sunak, other than for party-political reasons.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Some of us think that was a good thing. Blair's big, big mistake was the Iraq war; aside from that, he was easily the second-least-worst PM of my remembered lifetime (Thatcher onwards). He was certainly much less bad than the dire Cameron, Johnson, Truss and now Sunak.

I suppose it depends if you see the correlation with Brexit and then which side of the fence you were on then or are now ?

I don't agree re Cameron , he inherited a car crash and like Blair made a mistake in the middle east but that aside he did OK in my opinion. The obvious stick to beat him with is Brexit but he didn't want it and campaigned against it so you can't blame that on him.

if you cant see why the timing of such a statement was poor you should pop to Specsavers!

The point made by Sunak may or may not be valid but the timing was not. To make such statements while the mother of a victim of a horrible murder (which occurred because her child was in the group of people traduced) was visiting/viewing parliament was crass, insensitive and distasteful.

I maintain: he should apologise. Not to do so makes this more of a story.

Well we will have to respectfully disagree then.

 

[DarloRich]

Well we will have to respectfully disagree then.

No problem - as I said it is the timing not the content ( poorly expressed as it was imo) that I find distasteful.

 

[edwin_m]

I can't see that choosing not to impose transitional controls had much impact on the Brexit vote 15 years or so on. People who objected to the increased immigration would just have done so when the transition period ended.

On the other hand, much as they didn't want it, Cameron and Osborne bear a big part of the responsibility for Brexit by alienating much of the electorate through austerity and by kneecapping the LibDems during the coalition. With Labour under Corbyn and the Remain Tories under orders to play nice, there was no effective counter to the lies that came from Leave.

 

[najaB]

Then we have the PFI ticking time bomb that they cynical exploited to keep infrastructure expenditure off the countries debt bill. The local authorities are seeing the true cost of that policy now.

I know two wrongs don't make a right, and "whataboutism" isn't productive, but at least we got public buildings, schools and hospitals out of the PFI deals.

Something on the order of £100B disappeared as pure waste (and fraud!) during Covid: track and trace was almost £40B, we spent another £40B or so on PPE that we couldn't use, and the Treasury has written off something like £16 in fraud that they're not going to try and recover.

 

[Typhoon]

You have to balance that with opening the borders to uncontrolled immigration from the accession countries in 2000 ( which nobody else did) which ultimately set us on the course to Brexit.

Launching a policy of increasing take up of higher education,as laudable as it appears at face value, has given rise to a lack of vocational trainees and exacerbated the immigration issue to fill the skills gap.

Then we have the PFI ticking time bomb that they cynical exploited to keep infrastructure expenditure off the countries debt bill. The local authorities are seeing the true cost of that policy now.

I am not saying he was the best, but I can find worse. With Blair I can find things to put in the 'tick' box but not with Johnson or Truss, I would say MacMillan was better, although he tailed off at the end, Attlee definitely better (considering he inherited a war ravaged country) but his final years were not good (he was exhausted, as were many of his cabinet, many didn't survive). Churchill - his finest hours were before my time but he was OK in the '50s. Heath was pretty poor. We haven't been graced with the highest quality of PMs.

I don't agree re Cameron , he inherited a car crash and like Blair made a mistake in the middle east but that aside he did OK in my opinion. The obvious stick to beat him with is Brexit but he didn't want it and campaigned against it so you can't blame that on him.

He sought of campaigned against it. He showed little backbone in standing up to those on his own side politically who were talking bilge. There was no passion there. From what I remember Brown was a more prominent advocate of Remain than Cameron and he had been dismissed from office.

You have to balance that with opening the borders to uncontrolled immigration from the accession countries in 2000 ( which nobody else did) which ultimately set us on the course to Brexit.

Some of us think that was a good thing.

Blair's big, big mistake was the Iraq war; aside from that, while far from perfect he was easily the second-least-worst PM of my remembered lifetime (Thatcher onwards). He was certainly much less bad than most of his successors.

In retrospect, I don't think it was a good thing as it deprived those countries of much needed talent (but I take your point). Regarding the people themselves, those I have met have, in my opinion, been an asset to this country on the whole. I have found them to be hard working, respectful, appreciative, helpful. They have been willing to adapt to our ways. We, on the other hand, ... As part of my job, I spoke to a woman from Lithuania; I was the first person she had spoken to casually who had heard of the country and knew where it was (and something about it). We expect people to have perfect English, however, when we go abroad ... I'm guilty, I've been to France, resorted to pointing in shops! What I think did make a difference was the 'Breaking Point' poster, where most of the faces were not white (and implied that Turkey was in the waiting room for entry)!

Totally agree about the Iraq war - we don't learn - Suez was another disaster!

 

[Tester]

You have to balance that with opening the borders to uncontrolled immigration from the accession countries in 2000 ( which nobody else did) which ultimately set us on the course to Brexit.

Bit in bold - accuracy is important.

Two other countries did.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

We expect people to have perfect English, however, when we go abroad ... I'm guilty, I've been to France, resorted to pointing in shops! What I think did make a difference was the 'Breaking Point' poster, where most of the faces were not white (and implied that Turkey was in the waiting room for entry)!

Totally agree about the Iraq war - we don't learn - Suez was another disaster!

In fairness the yanks sawed us of in Suez and we've never been the same since!

Totally agree re MFL we are shocking as a country.

Bit in bold - accuracy is important.

Two other countries did.

OK, perhaps I should have said that we didn't need to do it when we did

I can't see that choosing not to impose transitional controls had much impact on the Brexit vote 15 years or so on. People who objected to the increased immigration would just have done so when the transition period ended.

In my experience of working in construction it did.
Even as late as the 2010's there was a lot of resentment from the lower skilled elements of the workforce because the rates of pay were depressed.

No problem - as I said it is the timing not the content ( poorly expressed as it was imo) that I find distasteful.

What I find frustrating is that the views and opinions and feelings of a small segment of the population seem to be given greater prominence than 50%+ of the population.
Not that you were doing that but it is common in " fashionable " circles.

 

[nw1]

He sought of campaigned against it. He showed little backbone in standing up to those on his own side politically who were talking bilge. There was no passion there. From what I remember Brown was a more prominent advocate of Remain than Cameron and he had been dismissed from office.

Also, Cameron was wholly responsible for the decision to run the badly-designed referendum (as in, allowed to pass on a tiny majority from 37% of the electorate) in the first place. The motivation, I believe, was purely fear of UKIP depriving the Tories of a majority in 2015.
Cameron could easily have decided to either not run the referendum at all, or implement one which required a definitive majority (60% of those who voted, or more than 50% of the entire electorate) to pass. But he didn't.

(Of course, I realise that for those who support Brexit, they would probably have a different view).

Furthermore I didn't think much of his austerity, which is doubtless one of the causes of councils not having much money now.

 

[JamesT]

Also, Cameron was wholly responsible for the decision to run the badly-designed referendum (as in, allowed to pass on a tiny majority from 37% of the electorate) in the first place. The motivation, I believe, was purely fear of UKIP depriving the Tories of a majority in 2015.
Cameron could easily have decided to either not run the referendum at all, or implement one which required a definitive majority (60% of those who voted, or more than 50% of the entire electorate) to pass. But he didn't.

Parliament as a whole generally supported the referendum bill. It passed 544 to 53 on the second reading. I seem to recall there were amendments proposed at the time to add a threshold to the vote, but they were clearly defeated.
The Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 provides an example of what happens to an issue where you put a threshold into the vote. As to not running the referendum, the LibDems and tuition fees would have been an extremely fresh reminder of what happens if you don't at least appear to be delivering manifesto commitments.

 

[nw1]

Parliament as a whole generally supported the referendum bill. It passed 544 to 53 on the second reading. I seem to recall there were amendments proposed at the time to add a threshold to the vote, but they were clearly defeated.

The Tory party as a whole (who had a majority) would have just done what Cameron wanted and toed the party line, as MPs of ruling parties always do. Labour were presumably anxious not to lose too many Brexiter votes. But at the end of the day, Cameron instigated it. Parliament were then effectively steamrollered into voting for it.

The Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 provides an example of what happens to an issue where you put a threshold into the vote.

Had to read up on this, but I would say the threshold was fair. I am actually (much) more sympathetic to Scottish devolution/independence than Brexit, but even still, I would use the same argument. Radical change requires a significant majority, and the status quo was thus the appropriate outcome in 1979 as that significant majority was absent. If Scotland was really desperate for devolution, it would have voted much more convincingly for it.

With Brexit we have ended up with radical change and considerable loss of freedom on the support of just 37% of the electorate. I'm sure I'm not the only one to consider that unreasonable, though the root cause is the design of the referendum; I can understand why May then felt duty-bound to implement it afterwards. Hence I have far more condemnation for Cameron than I do for May.

As to not running the referendum, the LibDems and tuition fees would have been an extremely fresh reminder of what happens if you don't at least appear to be delivering manifesto commitments.

But at the end of the day, Cameron decided to put it in the manifesto in the first place. He didn't have to do that.

Even as late as the 2010's there was a lot of resentment from the lower skilled elements of the workforce because the rates of pay were depressed.

Blame the employers who chose exploit the situation to pay less, not the immigrants.

 

[najaB]

What I find frustrating is that the views and opinions and feelings of a small segment of the population seem to be given greater prominence than 50%+ of the population.

The true measure of a society is how it treats its most marginalised and disadvantaged.

 

[Busaholic]

Also remember that it isn't just "manufactured outrage". One of the people calling for an apology was Brianna's father. I don't really understand why people are attempting to defend Sunak, other than for party-political reasons.

I don't think that, for once, this was 'manufactured outrage.' You could see Starmer's disbelief, embarassment even, that Sunak had said this. It was almost as if Johnson was back. Sunak is now down in Cornwall continuing to dig the hole he's got himself in. If he continues, Tory MP representation here, currently at 100%, may go down to 16.67% rather than the 33.33% that's currently projected (with enough tactical voting, it might even be 0.00%!)

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

The true measure of a society is how it treats its most marginalised and disadvantaged.

Not if it overrides serious concerns from other underrepresented sectors of society.

 

[jon0844]

Well, not really. He correctly pointed out that Starmer has U-turned on multiple promises he made when campaigning to be Labour leader, and threw in that Starmer has also been a bit equivocal on the question of what is a women - something that does actually matter to a lot of women who have spent their lives coping with various forms of sexism. Brianna Ghey's murder was of course utterly awful, but Sunak's remarks were focused on Starmer's record and quite clearly had nothing to do with her murder - other apparently than in the eyes of some people who like to manufacture outrage at the slightest opportunity [1]. If anything, I'd say the people who should apologise are those on the Labour benches who have just tried to turn that appalling murder into a political football.

[1] And yes, I do realise that people on the Tory side have also manufactured outrage on other occasions.

I know you like to play devil's advocate and defend the Tories, but I think it's probably wise to sit this one out. Rishi or his advisors should have realised he needs to apologise, but it seems he doubled down instead.

Who exactly is advising him?!

Now this is going to make multiple news cycles instead of one.

 

[Norm_D_Ploom]

Blame the employers who chose exploit the situation to pay less, not the immigrants.

That's fine and a perfectly acceptable response.

The counter argument of course would be that were they not here the rates would not have been depressed.

Although ultimately of course someone will always take a role and people will always find an excuse for not taking one.

 

[Gloster]

We should not go overboard about what Sunak said: it wasn’t the most offensive comment that could have been made. However, it was inappropriate and ill-advised at any time, and crassly insensitive when the victim’s mother was in the Commons. However, instead of shutting up and hoping the furore will die away, the Conservatives seem to be stoking the fires and keeping things going by their ‘Sunak didn’t say anything wrong and it is all Starmer’s fault’ line. As Badenoch seems to one of the cheerleaders for this, one wonders it is a ploy to undermine Sunak while appearing to support him. The longer it remains in the news agenda, despite the papers concentrating on the Royals, the worse will be people’s opinion of Sunak.

 

[najaB]

Not if it overrides serious concerns from other underrepresented sectors of society.

I don't get the point you're trying to make. They would, by definition, be one of the marginalised and disadvantaged groups.

We should not go overboard about what Sunak said: it wasn’t the most offensive comment that could have been made. However, it was inappropriate and ill-advised at any time, and crassly insensitive when the victim’s mother was in the Commons.

Exactly. Just own the mistake and it goes away.

 

[Typhoon]

Exactly. Just own the mistake and it goes away.

A lesson that Johnson and other supposedly intelligent human beings has never quite learned. This is an opportunity for Sunak to show he is better than his predecessor-but-one. Also he needs to put that particular statement to sleep - if he repeats it, he will be accused of insincerity (rightly).

 

[jon0844]

We should not go overboard about what Sunak said: it wasn’t the most offensive comment that could have been made. However, it was inappropriate and ill-advised at any time, and crassly insensitive when the victim’s mother was in the Commons. However, instead of shutting up and hoping the furore will die away, the Conservatives seem to be stoking the fires and keeping things going by their ‘Sunak didn’t say anything wrong and it is all Starmer’s fault’ line. As Badenoch seems to one of the cheerleaders for this, one wonders it is a ploy to undermine Sunak while appearing to support him. The longer it remains in the news agenda, despite the papers concentrating on the Royals, the worse will be people’s opinion of Sunak.

As the party and many of its members lurch further to the right, they'll actually think it's the right thing to do - because it continues to stoke fears of trans people, and LGBTQ+ in general. A lot of their supporters will be commending Rishi, and using it as another tool to attack Labour. They might be outraged by the murder itself, but I bet many said awful things about Brianna Ghey too (if in doubt, look online for yourself).

They will actually think this is going to win them more votes.

Now I wonder what they do with the U-turn on the £28bn green pledge from Labour. They don't believe in green issues, so surely this is a good thing - but of course they're going to say how weak Kier is, and how important it was for the environment!

It's a bit like when Fox joined in on the attack on Taylor Swift, and started to attack her for using a private jet given the damage to the climate. Erm, stop, rewind - Fox now thinks climate change is a thing?! Whoops.

 

[Howardh]

I'm on holiday so have missed the finer details of transgate, it all looks a bit shocking and I feel he's personally having a go at me. He should look at himself and think "I'm not cut out for this, California's nice at this time of year, I'm off".

Anyhow, one friend of mine wrote that all those right wing enough to vote for him will anyway, which looks around the 20-25% judging by the polls, all he's doing is disenfranchising everyone else, bit by bit.

 

[ainsworth74]

Well, not really. He correctly pointed out that Starmer has U-turned on multiple promises he made when campaigning to be Labour leader, and threw in that Starmer has also been a bit equivocal on the question of what is a women - something that does actually matter to a lot of women who have spent their lives coping with various forms of sexism. Brianna Ghey's murder was of course utterly awful, but Sunak's remarks were focused on Starmer's record and quite clearly had nothing to do with her murder - other apparently than in the eyes of some people who like to manufacture outrage at the slightest opportunity [1]. If anything, I'd say the people who should apologise are those on the Labour benches who have just tried to turn that appalling murder into a political football.

Presumably Brianna's father should also apologise for turning it into a political football as he has also said that Sunak should apologise?

 

[jon0844]

Now it seems the real issue is how we found out about who was in the public gallery, as HoC rules say they can't make reference to visitors.

So Rishi and the Tories in general are the victims here.

Plus, the cesspit which is X, shows many posters going down the 'a trans woman isn't a woman' and the like too - so in that regard, Rishi will be seen as a hero. But he just can't seem to work out that he shouldn't be after votes from these people.

 

[Howardh]

Now it seems the real issue is how we found out about who was in the public gallery, as HoC rules say they can't make reference to visitors.

So Rishi and the Tories in general are the victims here.

Think all parties have done that in the past, referred to a person or group looking on.

Memory fails me, didn't the House stand to applaud someone in the gallery ma while ago? Can anyone confirm that?