Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[SteveM70]

Shouldn’t she be at home representing her constituents?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

The only person she represents is herself

 

[The Ham]

I'm surprised that no one is asking for there to be a ban to stop woke members of parliament supporting those protesting:

Rishi Sunak backs protesting farmers at Welsh Conservative conference

The prime minister tells farmers "we've got your back" at the Welsh Conservative conference.

www.bbc.com

Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has publicly backed protesting farmers in Wales.

Mr Sunak met campaigning farmer Gareth Wyn Jones and others outside the Welsh Conservative conference in Llandudno.

"We're going to do everything we can because we've got your back," the Conservative prime minister said.

 

[nw1]

I'm surprised that no one is asking for there to be a ban to stop woke members of parliament supporting those protesting:

Rishi Sunak backs protesting farmers at Welsh Conservative conference

The prime minister tells farmers "we've got your back" at the Welsh Conservative conference.

www.bbc.com

So it's all Labour's fault, apparently, by the looks of it.

Climate change is of course a real thing, so the "trees" dictat might be good for us in the long term.

The Conservatives siding with short-termism, as they always do. And blaming Labour, as they always do.

Meanwhile, more delights from a Welsh Tory (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-68227005):

A politician has been accused of disrespect after he suggested Prestatyn has as many as 15 barber shops that could be criminal enterprises.
Conservative Gareth Davies said the only businesses doing well on the high street were barbers, car washes, vape shops and other "potential money laundering fronts".
Labour said it was "harmful to make such sweeping statements".
The Welsh Conservatives accused Labour of decimating high streets.
The Vale of Clwyd Member of the Senedd (MS), who represents Prestatyn, made the comments in a debate on the Welsh government budget on Tuesday evening.

The real cause of the decline of the high street is good old unregulated free-market economics, I suspect. And remind me which party is the biggest supporter of that?

 

[Typhoon]

So who is responsible for farmers' problems?

I don't know, but presumably the Government must take some of the blame. If they weren't, I doubt they would be protesting outside a Conservative conference.

Surely not. It must be the Eu/ the French/ migrants in small boats/ 'woke' culture/ lefty civil servants/ the war in Ukraine/ Blair/ the Bank of England (delete as appropriate).

To give him his due, Sunak is a long way from being the worst at deflecting the blame on others (he simply doesn't take responsibility much of the time) I personally put it down to 'market forces', I'm not sure whose idea that was.

 

[takno]

I'm surprised that no one is asking for there to be a ban to stop woke members of parliament supporting those protesting:

Rishi Sunak backs protesting farmers at Welsh Conservative conference

The prime minister tells farmers "we've got your back" at the Welsh Conservative conference.

www.bbc.com

It's a pretty weird thing to say to sheep farmers. I mean they presumably do talk to sheep farmers in Cumbria who are being battered at least as badly by the Tories agricultural policies. Maybe he just didn't finish the sentence, and intended to say "we've got your backs in our sights"

 

[JamesT]

So it's all Labour's fault, apparently, by the looks of it.

Climate change is of course a real thing, so the "trees" dictat might be good for us in the long term.

The Conservatives siding with short-termism, as they always do. And blaming Labour, as they always do.

Planting trees is not necessarily a win in climate change terms - https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20200521-planting-trees-doesnt-always-help-with-climate-change

As a result, there is a delicate balance between trees’ ability to take in CO2, reducing warming, and their tendency to trap additional heat and thus create warming. This means planting trees only helps stop climate change in certain places.

Specifically, according to a 2007 study that has been repeatedly confirmed, the best place to plant new trees is the tropics, where trees grow fastest and thus trap the most CO2. In contrast, planting trees in snowy regions near the poles is likely to cause a net warming, while planting them in temperate climates – like that of the UK, much of Europe and parts of the US – may have no net effect on climate.

Meanwhile if it’s reducing the productive area of land for farming, that implies more imports of food are required to make up for the food not being produced domestically.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The real cause of the decline of the high street is good old unregulated free-market economics, I suspect. And remind me which party is the biggest supporter of that?

No, it's not unregulated free market economics making the high street decline. It's a combination of, an outdated rating system that makes it phenomenally expensive to run businesses based in high streets, a planning system and council decisions that too often have favoured out-of-town retail parks over high streets, and a transport and tax system that too often provides hidden subsidies to motorists by not charging them sufficiently for the harm cars cause, thereby causing more people to go to out of town retail parks rather than high streets. The only thing where free market economics comes in is in the free choice that most of us increasingly make to purchase goods online rather than in physical shops.

 

[nw1]

Surely not. It must be the Eu/ the French/ migrants in small boats/ 'woke' culture/ lefty civil servants/ the war in Ukraine/ Blair/ the Bank of England (delete as appropriate).

To give him his due, Sunak is a long way from being the worst at deflecting the blame on others (he simply doesn't take responsibility much of the time) I personally put it down to 'market forces', I'm not sure whose idea that was.

Sorry, I did edit my post when I realised they were not protesting at the Conservatives, but at Labour.

 

[317 forever]

At the risk of repeating the obvious - when people voted in 2019, they did so in the knowledge that the next election was supposed to be this May. The Tories then granted themselves additional time through repealing the FTPA. It wasn't "short lived" in the sense that it had a defined end date. It was permanent legislation.

There absolutely is an ethical issue there. They gave themselves the maximum amount of time permissible under the parliament acts (any extension beyond 5 years can be indefinitely vetoed by the Lords) and they cannot seriously pretend that they had a right to do so. The correct approach would have been to adhere to the May date for this parliament - whether through law or a voluntary commitment - and then go to flexible 5 years max after that.

And as I said, there's a further ethical issue in that this government's attempts to cling on for possibly a couple more months is going to cost the taxpayer a lot of money to run a second national-scale election

I don't know whether plans to scrap the Fixed Term Parliament Act were in the Tory manifesto or not.

If so, we could have anticipated this Parliament extended to the full 5 years if chosen by the 2023-24 Prime Minister.

If not, we would indeed have had no reason to anticipate the GE being any later than May 2nd 2024.

 

[dgl]

30p Lee has been suspended

Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over 'Islamists' comments

The party suspends Lee Anderson over claims "Islamists" had "got control" of London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

www.bbc.co.uk

The former Tory deputy chairman has been suspended from the party after "refusing to apologise" for comments aimed at Sadiq Khan.
Lee Anderson told GB News on Friday "Islamists" had "got control" of the mayor of London.
Mr Khan described the remarks as "pouring fuel on the fire of anti-Muslim hatred".
Losing the Tory whip essentially expels Mr Anderson from his party in Parliament.
Pressure had been mounting on Rishi Sunak to take action over the comments from the Ashfield MP after Mr Khan criticised a "deafening silence" from the prime minister and his Cabinet.
Just over an hour after Mr Khan's criticism, a spokesperson for the Tory party's chief whip Simon Hart said: "Following his refusal to apologise for comments made yesterday, the chief whip has suspended the Conservative whip from Lee Anderson MP."

 

[birchesgreen]

50p Lee has been suspended

Lee Anderson: MP suspended from Tory party over 'Islamists' comments

The party suspends Lee Anderson over claims "Islamists" had "got control" of London Mayor Sadiq Khan.

www.bbc.co.uk

i thought it was 30p or is this after inflation?

 

[SteveM70]

So they’ve suspended him, but because he refused to apologise, not because of what he said. They really are a spineless bunch. He has no place in any public facing role with attitudes like his. Maybe he could join Reform

 

[DynamicSpirit]

So they’ve suspended him, but because he refused to apologise, not because of what he said. They really are a spineless bunch. He has no place in any public facing role with attitudes like his. Maybe he could join Reform

Eh? They've suspended him - which I think is correct because what he said about Sadiq Khan is totally wrong. Is that not enough? What part of suspending Lee Anderson makes the Tories 'spineless'? Isn't suspending him exactly what should happen? Whether they give the reason as his failure to apologise or the original comments really is just splitting hairs.

 

[SteveM70]

Eh? They've suspended him - which I think is correct because what he said about Sadiq Khan is totally wrong. Is that not enough? What part of suspending Lee Anderson makes the Tories 'spineless'? Isn't suspending him exactly what should happen? Whether they give the reason as his failure to apologise or the original comments really is just splitting hairs.

The statement says he has been suspended for refusing to apologise, not for what he said. The inference therefore is that had he apologised he wouldn’t have been suspended, and his comments in themselves are not seen as enough to deserve suspension. That’s why they’re spineless

“A spokesperson said on Saturday afternoon that Mr Anderson had been suspended from the Conservative party for refusing to apologise for his comments.” Source - LBC

“A spokesperson for the Tory party's chief whip Simon Hart said: "Following his refusal to apologise for comments made yesterday, the chief whip has suspended the Conservative whip from Lee Anderson MP."” Source - BBC

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The statement says he has been suspended for refusing to apologise, not for what he said. The inference therefore is that had he apologised he wouldn’t have been suspended, and his comments in themselves are not seen as enough to deserve suspension. That’s why they’re spineless

Do you not think that anyone should be given the chance to apologise for and retract unacceptable comments that they have made. After all, most of us at times say things in the heat of the moment that we realise on reflection were wrong and that we should not have said. Presumably that was not the case for Lee Anderson's remarks because he's refused to apologise, but I would think that, if you believe in due process and in being fair to people, you'd expect someone in his situation to be given the chance to do so before suspending them. That appears to be exactly what has happened. (And before anyone accuses me of bias, I recently said pretty much exactly the same thing about the former Labour candidate in Rochdale, in post #1418 of the Labour thread. (Is there any way to link directly to a post?)

 

[nlogax]

He's had the whip withdrawn because of what he said *and* for not apologising for it. Can't have the latter without the former.

 

[SteveM70]

Do you not think that anyone should be given the chance to apologise for and retract unacceptable comments that they have made. After all, most of us at times say things in the heat of the moment that we realise on reflection were wrong and that we should not have said. Presumably that was not the case for Lee Anderson's remarks because he's refused to apologise, but I would think that, if you believe in due process and in being fair to people, you'd expect someone in his situation to be given the chance to do so before suspending them. That appears to be exactly what has happened. (And before anyone accuses me of bias, I recently said pretty much exactly the same thing about the former Labour candidate in Rochdale, in post #1418 of the Labour thread. (Is there any way to link directly to a post?)

It depends what it is. I think in this case, where a senior member of the governing party makes a baseless racist comment about a senior opposition politician a line has been crossed and apology or no apology he should be suspended and then subjected to the formal disciplinary process.

Just my opinion. Others may think it’s less serious than I do.

As it is, I suspect Anderson will be off to Reform shortly

 

[Busaholic]

So they’ve suspended him, but because he refused to apologise, not because of what he said. They really are a spineless bunch. He has no place in any public facing role with attitudes like his. Maybe he could join Reform

Maybe? I'd say it was a cast-iron certainty, to be shortly followed by Farage succeeding Richard Tice as leader. After that will come the strategic decision to not contest all seats at the next General Election, withdrawing from many, if not all, Tory-held ones.

So, Liz Truss appears on Steve Bannon's TV show and doesn't say a word when he praises Tommy Robinson as a hero. Mind you it probably didn't register in her massive mind until about 3 days later.

She probably thinks he's the one who sang '2-4-6-8 Motorway' with that popular combo way back.

 

[Silenos]

She probably thinks he's the one who sang '2-4-6-8 Motorway' with that popular combo way back.

well, certainly not ‘Sing if you’re glad to be gay’

 

[brad465]

Suspending Anderson is correct, but now Truss also needs to be suspended: firstly for going to the US to speak at a convention when she should be acting as an MP in the UK, second because she's associated with a group who at the convention openly spoke about overthrowing democracy.

 

[nw1]

Good news about Anderson, if around 12 months later than it should have happened as he has made inflammatory comments more or less throughout his time in government - albeit none of them quite as bad as what he said about Sadiq Khan.

Do you not think that anyone should be given the chance to apologise for and retract unacceptable comments that they have made. After all, most of us at times say things in the heat of the moment that we realise on reflection were wrong and that we should not have said. Presumably that was not the case for Lee Anderson's remarks because he's refused to apologise, but I would think that, if you believe in due process and in being fair to people, you'd expect someone in his situation to be given the chance to do so before suspending them. That appears to be exactly what has happened. (And before anyone accuses me of bias, I recently said pretty much exactly the same thing about the former Labour candidate in Rochdale, in post #1418 of the Labour thread. (Is there any way to link directly to a post?)

Yes, hover over the "bookmark" icon to get a URL, then remove "/bookmark" off the end.

 

[Mojo]

Yes, hover over the "bookmark" icon to get a URL, then remove "/bookmark" off the end.

Or, the easier option is to right click on the post number in the top right of every post, and you can just copy the link if your browser allows. If it doesn't you could click the link and just copy it from the address bar.

 

[nw1]

As it is, I suspect Anderson will be off to Reform shortly

He seems to be listed as the Tory candidate for Ashfield on Wikipedia, with some other person as the Reform candidate. But now, who knows?

That said, Ashfield seems to be swinging Tory more than the UK average, going against the grain in 2017 which was relatively poor for the Tories, with a tiny Labour majority in 2017 against a healthy one in 2015. It wouldn't surprise me if Ashfield is one of the seats the Tories manage to hold; with a 70% Brexit vote it does seem to be a highly small-c conservative trending area. Plus, Labour dropped to as low as third place in 2019, behind the Ashfield Independents' candidate. So, assuming he's let back into the party, I suspect Anderson will still be in Parliament in 5 years' time.

 

[The Ham]

Good news about Anderson, if around 12 months later than it should have happened as he has made inflammatory comments more or less throughout his time in government - albeit none of them quite as bad as what he said about Sadiq Khan.


Yes, hover over the "bookmark" icon to get a URL, then remove "/bookmark" off the end.

The other thing you can do is quote part of what is relevant (using the quote button rather than reply and clicking on insert quotes in the thread you wish to reply to), this gives users the ability to go to the post in question by clicking on the user name but also allows then to see what was said.

As with most things there's a few ways you can do it, and it's down to personal preference.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Or, the easier option is to right click on the post number in the top right of every post, and you can just copy the link if your browser allows. If it doesn't you could click the link and just copy it from the address bar.

Oh, cool! Thanks (and to @nw1 and @The Ham ). Just tried it and it worked. That answers something that was vaguely nagging at the back of my mind for ages.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Suspending Anderson is correct, but now Truss also needs to be suspended: firstly for going to the US to speak at a convention when she should be acting as an MP in the UK, second because she's associated with a group who at the convention openly spoke about overthrowing democracy.

Definitely she was off her head with some comments made to Steve Bannon

 

[Busaholic]

He seems to be listed as the Tory candidate for Ashfield on Wikipedia, with some other person as the Reform candidate. But now, who knows?

That said, Ashfield seems to be swinging Tory more than the UK average, going against the grain in 2017 which was relatively poor for the Tories, with a tiny Labour majority in 2017 against a healthy one in 2015. It wouldn't surprise me if Ashfield is one of the seats the Tories manage to hold; with a 70% Brexit vote it does seem to be a highly small-c conservative trending area. Plus, Labour dropped to as low as third place in 2019, behind the Ashfield Independents' candidate. So, assuming he's let back into the party, I suspect Anderson will still be in Parliament in 5 years' time.

Do you think Ashfield will want to be let back into the party anyway? I believe he's been wanting to play the martyr and be sacked for some time now. Like Reg Prentice and John Horam before him, he'll probably be a serial leaver of political parties. If he's a real fantasist, which is quite possible, he might even see himself as emulating Winston S.Churchill in that regard. If he does join Reform I'm sure it'll be on the condition that he becomes their candidate for Ashfield.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Do you think Ashfield will want to be let back into the party anyway? I believe he's been wanting to play the martyr and be sacked for some time now. Like Reg Prentice and John Horam before him, he'll probably be a serial leaver of political parties. If he's a real fantasist, which is quite possible, he might even see himself as emulating Winston S.Churchill in that regard. If he does join Reform I'm sure it'll be on the condition that he becomes their candidate for Ashfield.

yet Sunak appointee him as deputy chair and gave him free reign

 

[takno]

He seems to be listed as the Tory candidate for Ashfield on Wikipedia, with some other person as the Reform candidate. But now, who knows?

That said, Ashfield seems to be swinging Tory more than the UK average, going against the grain in 2017 which was relatively poor for the Tories, with a tiny Labour majority in 2017 against a healthy one in 2015. It wouldn't surprise me if Ashfield is one of the seats the Tories manage to hold; with a 70% Brexit vote it does seem to be a highly small-c conservative trending area. Plus, Labour dropped to as low as third place in 2019, behind the Ashfield Independents' candidate. So, assuming he's let back into the party, I suspect Anderson will still be in Parliament in 5 years' time.

I thought that was mostly attributable to the whole drama around Anderson having previously been notable in the local Labour party, and some specific local issues with SportsDirect being seen to prefer cheap Eastern European workers for their warehouse rather than having a positive impact on local unemployment. It's not clear that either of those will be a net positive for the Tories in the next election. We'll see though.