nlogax
Established Member
Purely from the perspective of political entertainment I can't wait. It'll be a bag of
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (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!
Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.
- Thread starter Cowley
- Start date
Purely from the perspective of political entertainment I can't wait. It'll be a bag of
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Trying to mislead the electorate may give you a victory in the short term but tends to have consequences, as Blair found after Iraq. Especially as it became clear that the result of both deceptions was very damaging.
I agree they should be cut some slack for honest mistakes in an unprecedented situation, and that Partygate represented intolerable rashness in adopting the exact behaviours that everyone else had been told to avoid in the interests of survival. On PPE, it's not unknown for the government to short-circuit normal procurement policies in an emergency but it's not acceptable that in doing so they reverted to suppliers with no obvious credentials other than their political connections. Furthermore, on this and also on other Covid frauds, they've shown very little interest in pursuing those responsible.
But there was a kerfuffle with a Scottish Minister over breaking the rules, and Keir Starmer's 'Beergate' - I have no doubt that any Party in power would have suffered such things. Maybe another would have handled things better, and not tried to lie their way out (Barnard Castle, Partygate etc) but who knows? Maybe another party wouldn't have had their Health minister philandering (or their Leader?) , but then Tony Blair had a similar issue with a Foreign Secretary that was not exactly popular. inevitably the Party in power will get a drubbing when such an unpopular and disruptive thing as Covid happens on their watch.
Gloster
Established Member
As far as I can see only four MPs have resigned their seat after leaving their party since 1945. Carswell and Reckless did get re-elected, as did Dick Taverne in 1972, but Bruce Douglas-Mann failed to do so 1982. Plenty have sat tight, but lost their seat at the next election: they seem to do better if they move to a safer seat. (So will Anderson suddenly be looking forward to articulating the silent thoughts of the residents of somewhere like Windsor or Henley?)
This is not a detailed or scientific survey, so E&OE.
Just to point out: Beergate had absolutely no substance to it. It was twice investigated, the second time due to pushing by a Conservative MP, and they found nothing; it was not even a case of suspicions but nothing certain. They found nothing. I trust you are not one of those who keep mentioning it in the hope that people will get confused and start thinking that Starmer’s behaviour was as bad as Johnson et al’s.
Anderson effectively called out Reform last November for trying to "bribe" him to join their party (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-67536235)
and had previously described Tice as (https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1876025/lee-anderson-reform-uk-nigel-farage-richard-tice but well reported elsewhere)
so no love lost between the two of them, for sure.
Kite159
Veteran Member
Was that the event the Durham police commissioner was also in attendance?
Gloster
Established Member
No, she was not present: the allegation has been made before and satisfactorily disproved. She did not become Commissioner until shortly afterwards, although the election to replace the acting Commissioner may have taken place. That kite won’t fly.
3141
Established Member
I think this is a very significant factor. We not only see it in relation to politics, but also in all kinds of personal matters, where people have the opportunity to be unpleasant about those whose views they don't agree with. It all adds up to a growth of intolerance and, sometimes, hatred.
Yes. Brexit and Covid were both crises that were inevitably going to cause bitterness and recrimination. It seems to me that we have an increasing tendency to speak as if those making decisions at the time should have had the hindsight that we have today.
There have been changes of view and allegiance by MPs for 200 years at least. Some did, in the past, resign so that their electors could express their view, but I think that most did not. On balance I'd agree that having to resign your seat when you switch party is a good idea.
But what would happen then? The MP who has switched party would most probably lose his/her seat. That would be a disincentive to announcing you were switching. If you held a senior office you'd probably find the conflicts too much to handle and would soon resign anyway. A backbencher might be able to keep their new opinions to themselves for longer.
In practice, the Conservatives reckon that someone who switches to Labour should resign and face a by-election, but Labour don't mind. When a Labour member switches to the Conservatives, they urge him/her to resign, but the Conservatives are quite happy if he doesn't.
That's right, and Boris must take the blame over the way his personal actions caused his whole party's reputation to suffer, with the result that that people on here and elsewhere blame "the Tories" for having prevented them from being with dying relatives while partying away in no. 10.
Returning to Brexit, it's interesting that the leading figures such as Johnson (a Leaver because he saw an opportunity to advance his career) and Rees-Mogg (pursuing a myth of Britain becoming a "sovereign nation" once again) apparently failed to realise how much they were going to fragment their own party.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
In the case of Brexit they had plenty of expert advice and chose to ignore most of it.
Or knew that and carried on anyway.
The breaking rules race to the bottom was clearly won by the Tories, yet there are still some here who try to use it a mitigation for the government's abuse of it's own rules.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
He will be booted out at the GE more likely by Ashfield Independents who control the local council and who fielded a candidate in 2019 that came second.
Tories be happy to see the back of him i suspect.
In doing so they got rid of more than a few potentially awkward colleagues, the likes of Ken Clarke, Rory Stewart, David Gauke, Nicholas Soames, Dominic Grieve, Philip Hammond either temporarily or permanently. Worked OK in 2019. but not since most actually had ability, something noticeably lacking around the cabinet table.
Nicholas Lewis
Established Member
Indeed it was a calamity and Corbyn should have worked with May rather than just gloating to bring her down which ultimately did him no favours either
Purple Train
Established Member
It won't be much better if the Independent candidate wins!
I assume you are referring to Mr. Zadrozny. May be worse - I don't think Anderson has been 'up before the beak' yet.
Gloster
Established Member
But one should point out that when he was in court the CPS offered no evidence and the charges were dismissed. The more recent allegations have not yet come to court, so he is at present innocent of anything. However, I can see a lot of mud being slung: somewhere he appeared to be claiming that the first charges were a stitch up. It is a nice little problem: do you vote for someone who has not been found guilty or even tried for anything in case they did do something or do you avoid voting for someone who might turn out to be entirely innocent and the victim of an opponent’s and potential victor’s party’s machinations?
Welcome to a modern election: who lies the most, wins the most.
|Thanks for the update. The number two, however, does not seem to have escaped though. Anything like that just looks bad. Frequently people refer to 'brown envelopes' when relating to local government, with little evidence. Here, careless driving, harassment of neighbours, and failing to declare an interest, to which he pleaded guilty, will reflect badly on the party.
Soyrce - https://www.nottinghampost.com/news/local-news/tom-hollis-fined-after-nottinghamshire-9078735
I don’t have a clue what the two of you are talking about - is it important? Can you summarise?
The deputy leader was also charged and plead guilty and has been fined for the three offences listed (in the article).
Not sure what expert advice was given, and ignored, that was going to enable departure from the Single Market, or more precisely the strings that were attached to being in the Single Market. No doubt plenty of expert advice not to do that, but that completely misses the point.
Quite possibly, but job done and not easily reversed. Rest is collateral damage to be put right by someone else.
edwin_m
Veteran Member
Why? Almost all well-informed experts were in favour of keeping as close to the EU as possible.
Indeed it is, but that's not a reason to let them off the hook for the disastrous decisions made by various people in the past 14 years.
And so they did, by and large, with the caveat that the strings that came with membership of the Single Market are cut as a red line.
I guess 'disaster' is a bit of a subjective term, and that all Governments make such decisions in the eyes of someone/people?
DynamicSpirit
Established Member
Hard to respond to this without knowing what particular expert advice you're referring to, but I'm going to guess the issue is that the experts you're referring to would be economists and they were (doubtless, correctly) advising what to do to maximise GDP growth - which would basically be, as you say, stay as close to the EU as you possibly can: As far as possible, do Brexit in name only. The problem being that while that advice may well be economically correct, it wasn't consistent with the referendum result - so it basically came down to a choice between following the experts and respecting democracy. If my guesses are correct, that makes it a rare case where following expert advice was not the correct thing to do.
Last edited:
DerekC
Established Member
In his interview with Chris Mason on BBC News this evening, Anderson's line was "I want my country back, like my 80 year-old parents". Well, I guess they might vote for him.
There is another thread for this, where your claims of "respecting democracy" have already been answered many times.
There has never been a vote to leave the European Economic Area, as such there was no deomocratic mandate to leave it.
With respect that does not make sense. Why is "doing Brexit in name only" not consistent with the referendum?
Given that Leave only got marginally more votes (13 Leave for every 12 Remain), a Brexit in name only would be very consistent indeed with the referendum. More consistent than any other outcome, in fact.
If you want to make other arguments for leaving the single market, fine. But what you have said here is in no way a valid reason.
Back to Mr Anderson, and a surprising lack of coverage on the front pages. The Express and Mail would want to de-emphasise it, of course, as it demonstrates disunity in the populist right - but surprised some of the other papers don't mention it.
Last edited:
Can you show me where in the Brexit referendum the leave voters democratically stated the type of Brexit they wanted?
bahnause
Member
The Brexit referendum has very little to do with democracy. I come from a country where referendums are deeply rooted in democracy. Such an indifferently framed question is no basis for a democratic vote, as the outcome and therefore expectations were completely open. As a result, not even those in favour can agree on a solution. There is therefore no majority in favour of this kind of Brexit, but rather numerous minorities without a unified goal.
Such a referendum would inevitably lead to a second vote in our country, where a final agreement would be debated.