Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DustyBin]

Because if, and I stress if as I'm not convinced that this will ever arise, we do end up in a situation where there just aren't enough jobs for people to do we have the choice of either consigning millions of our fellow citizens to misery on benefits which barely cover their living costs with no possibly hope of ever escaping that or we can look at something like UBI as a way of ensuring at least some minimum standard of living that isn't utterly precarious.

I certainly don't think we need UBI right now, I'm not sure we'll ever need UBI (for reasons of both history and those that you've outlined yourself) but I can certainly foresee a future in which we do need something like it so we might as well toy with the idea now and try running experiments to see if our assumptions are borne out in reality. Better to have it as tool in our locker and never need it because, as has always been the case, new jobs arise to replace those that are lost than the reverse of having millions out of work, with no prospect of finding work and no ideas what we can do with them other than consign them to misery.

Interesting post!

My instant reaction when I heard about the trial was that it's a ridiculous idea. However, after thinking about it further I'm not so sure. Firstly, there's the question around AI, and completely agree with your final sentence in particular. Then there's the fact that the current benefits system isn't exactly efficient, and nor does it deliver value for money for the tax payer. The main questions for me at this stage are how much would a UBI be, will it encourage or discourage entrepreneurism and/or work, and could it affect inflation and how would this be controlled? The trial may go some way to answer the second question, the others probably not so much.

Inevitably(!) I absolutely would not support this becoming some kind of wealth redistribution tool. We all know that those who really can afford to shoulder the biggest burden (or however they want to put it) aren't the ones who would actually do so....

 

[PsychoMouse]

UBI is inevitable IMO, maybe not for a few decades but it's coming. AI replacing jobs which aren't being created elsewhere is a very realistic future to envisage.

People also seem to forget that it would completely replace the benefits and pensions systems. Everybody will get that money from the time they finish school until they die, if you work you earn more on top if you don't you wont die of starvation.

People that can work are going to want to maximise their income and those which can't due to health circumstances or lack of available jobs can afford to exist.

As for funding; R&D, staffing etc costs will be reduced to almost zero overnight. Imagine how much money the UK would save if NHS bureaucracy was handled by AI, or disease research, or any other arduous time-inefficient process you can think of.

It's not any form of wealth redistribution is just the world adjusting to unprecedented rapid technological advancement. The industrial revolution created millions of jobs to build things, this is going to be the opposite and the world needs to be ready.

 

[nw1]

It's not any form of wealth redistribution is just the world adjusting to unprecedented rapid technological advancement. The industrial revolution created millions of jobs to build things, this is going to be the opposite and the world needs to be ready.

And this is why I think there needs to be regulation. I realise it isn't very fashionable in a free-market society, but jobs need to be preserved, by legislation controlling unethical uses of AI, including using it solely to cut the wages bill without any actual tangible benefits.

I'm not convinced that new jobs will "just appear", and if you're relying on people becoming entrepreneurs and dreaming up their own business idea, not everyone has the aptitude to do this. Many people just want to follow the conventional route of applying for a job, starting work and getting a steady and reliable income.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The industrial revolution created millions of jobs to build things, this is going to be the opposite and the world needs to be ready.

The Industrial Revolution also created a lot of poorly-paid, dangerous, disposable jobs, including from sectors such as weaving that were previously highly skilled and well paid.

The owners of the factories made huge profits for themselves (Saltaire and Port Sunlight are famous because of how unusual that level of care for staff was), and the workers worked long days in dangerous conditions.

We see similar happening again with the likes of Amazon. Amazon’s tech chooses/inspires what you want to buy and when, but a human is left to pee in a bottle whilst running around a huge warehouse on minimum wage to take it from the shelf.

I’ve got no problem with people being incredibly wealthy, but the level of inequality we see now simply isn’t sustainable.

 

[skyhigh]

Interesting to read that Nadine Dorries still hasn't officially resigned as an MP, unlike the other two...

 

[yorksrob]

It's great to see all this dissaray within the Tory Party at the moment.

The Tories turmoil will be Britain's opportunity (when we eventually get an election)

 

[Gloster]

Interesting to read that Nadine Dorries still hasn't officially resigned as an MP, unlike the other two...

Perhaps it has just sunk in that if she resigns the pay stops and she won’t get any gigs like TalkTV as she is just another ex-MP. And she can’t rely on hanging on to Johnson’s coattails.

I came across a rumour (totally unconfirmed, I will admit) that Johnson tried to trade dropping Dorries‘ peerage for approval of his father’s knighthood and accepting the appointments committee’s decisions quietly, although I wouldn’t trust him to do so. Dorries can probably add her name to the list of women that Johnson has lied to.

 

[Typhoon]

According to the Standard, the race for Uxbridge and South Ruislip is on
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...p&cvid=03c36f3263e84785842c9a31db82bade&ei=18

Rishi Sunak fired the starting gun on Wednesday for a by-election in Boris Johnson’s ex-constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.

The Tory party moved the writs for by-elections in the west London seat and in the North Yorkshire constituency of Selby and Ainsty.

Nigel Adams, a close ally of Mr Johnson, has quit as the local MP in this area.

The by-elections are now set to take place between 21 and 27 working days from the writs being moved.

They are therefore due to happen before the Commons rises on July 20.

He'll hope that everyone forgets over the summer! (The Tory's will need to get a candidate in place, Labour's has been for some time.)

 

[brad465]

Trying to emulate the one she loves by copying his narcissism it seems:

Nadine Dorries delays resignation until peerage information is released

Nadine Dorries says her name was removed from Boris Johnson's resignation honours list.

www.bbc.co.uk

Former cabinet minister Nadine Dorries has said she will not resign until she gets more information on why she was denied a peerage.
The Boris Johnson ally announced last Friday she would be standing down as MP for Mid Bedfordshire "with immediate effect".
Ms Dorries accused Rishi Sunak's team of removing her name from Mr Johnson's resignation honours list.
In a tweet, she said she had requested all correspondence around her removal.

Ms Dorries said she had put in Subject Access Requests to the House of Lords Appointments Commission (HOLAC), Cabinet Secretary and the Cabinet Office.
Subject Access Requests allow an individual to receive a copy of all their personal data held by a government department.
Freedom of Information expert Martin Rosenbaum has pointed out that under the Data Protection Act 2018, the right of access to personal data does not apply to data processed for the honours system.
In a multi-tweet thread Ms Dorries said she had requested copies of WhatsApp messages, texts, emails and meeting minutes. relating to the process of her nomination for the House of Lords
Once she receives them she will "take the time to properly consider the information I am provided", Ms Dorries added.
She went on to say it is "absolutely my intention to resign" but "this process is now sadly necessary".
She added that her "office continues to function as normal and I will of course continue to serve my constituents".
Before Ms Dorries' announcement, No 10 said it was important for her constituents to have "certainty".
"It is obviously unusual to have an MP say they will resign with immediate effect and for that not to take place," the prime minister's press secretary added.

Hat-trick of by-elections​

Mr Johnson also announced he was leaving Parliament on Friday, ahead of a Commons report expected to accuse him of misleading MPs over the Partygate scandal, which is due to be published on Thursday.
Nigel Adams, one of Mr Johnson's other close allies, stood down as an MP on Monday, following reports his name was also removed from the list of approved peerages.
The by-elections to replace them were triggered on Wednesday, with 3 July or 20 July the possible polling dates.
While Ms Dorries remains a member of Parliament, she can turn up in the House of Commons chamber to make her views known.
Anything she says would be covered by parliamentary privilege, allowing her to be outspoken on any issue, without fear of legal consequences.
The Conservatives - who are trailing Labour in national polls - wanted to conclude swift campaigns before Parliament's summer recess and for any political pain from the by-elections to be short and sharp.
But if Ms Dorries keeps her party waiting, she could force them into a potentially divisive by-election later on - for example, ahead of the autumn party conference season.

 

[brad465]

The Privileges Committee has released its report on Johnson, and not only concluded he deliberately misled Parliament, but was recommended a 90 day suspension and to not receive a former member's pass:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-65876914

The Privileges Committee concludes Boris Johnson should have been suspended from the House for 90 days.

It says he deliberately misled the House, the Committee, impugned the Committee and was "complicit in the campaign of abuse and attempted intimidation of the Committee."

It adds "We recommend that he should not be entitled to a former Member's pass."

 

[ainsworth74]

The Privileges Committee has released its report on Johnson, and not only concluded he deliberately misled Parliament, but was recommended a 90 day suspension and to not receive a former member's pass:

Ruddy nora! 90 days! I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest a suspension of that length was likely! I wonder if that got bumped up following his antics at the end of last week?

 

[OuterDistant]

"Tonight's top story: Boris Johnson deliberately misled Parliament. Also tonight, Pope confirmed Catholic."

 

[WatcherZero]

Also says dozens more cases at Chequers revealed by the diary would have been investigated if they hadnt only been passed it at the last second but his defence for the Chequers parties is 'My wife was pregnant'.

 

[nw1]

Ruddy nora! 90 days! I'm not sure I've heard anyone suggest a suspension of that length was likely! I wonder if that got bumped up following his antics at the end of last week?

90 days. That means that he can just about go on a nice sunny holiday in the Schengen area and then be allowed back in Parliament when he returns, and still conform to the travel restriction that he himself was instrumental in imposing on us.

A more appropriate punishment for Boris (and probably Dorries, too) would, of course, be only being allowed into Parliament for 90 days out of every 180, until such time as we get some form of FoM back.

 

[D6130]

90 days. That means that he can just about go on a nice sunny holiday in the Schengen area and then be allowed back in Parliament when he returns, and still conform to the travel restriction that he himself was instrumental in imposing on us.

A more appropriate punishment for Boris (and probably Dorries, too) would, of course, be only being allowed into Parliament for 90 days out of every 180, until such time as we get some form of FoM back.

This!

 

[brad465]

90 days. That means that he can just about go on a nice sunny holiday in the Schengen area and then be allowed back in Parliament when he returns, and still conform to the travel restriction that he himself was instrumental in imposing on us.

A more appropriate punishment for Boris (and probably Dorries, too) would, of course, be only being allowed into Parliament for 90 days out of every 180, until such time as we get some form of FoM back.

You can fit 2 Liz Truss premierships into that as well.

The report says it got increased from 20 to 90 as a result.

Won't stop his fascism-enabling sycophants attacking the committee and any other institution that finds genuine wrongdoing against Johnson.

 

[Purple Train]

The Privileges Committee has released its report on Johnson, and not only concluded he deliberately misled Parliament, but was recommended a 90 day suspension and to not receive a former member's pass:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-65876914

He's been in Parliament so little that he wouldn't be in for the next 90 days even if he was free to do so!

 

[SteveM70]

He's been in Parliament so little that he wouldn't be in for the next 90 days even if he was free to do so!

According to Private Eye, he has voted in 3 of the 195 votes held since he stopped being PM. To me, that’s a contempt of parliament (and his constituents) in itself

 

[Howardh]

According to Private Eye, he has voted in 3 of the 195 votes held since he stopped being PM. To me, that’s a contempt of parliament (and his constituents) in itself

To be fair I'd rather him not vote at all.

 

[Typhoon]

According to Private Eye, he has voted in 3 of the 195 votes held since he stopped being PM. To me, that’s a contempt of parliament (and his constituents) in itself

Dorries is not much better - 10! Including five on amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill (all same day), three on the Levelling-Up bill (all same day)' She hasn't spoken since she stopped being Secretary of State (in Parliament that is). A new book is expected next year.

 

[43096]

He's been in Parliament so little that he wouldn't be in for the next 90 days even if he was free to do so!

I’m surprised there isn’t a move for the 90 days ban to still be implemented, to start from when/if he gets elected as an MP again. That would leave him open to an immediate recall petition, therefore making him rather more unelectable in the first place.

 

[SteveM70]

Dorries is not much better - 10! Including five on amendments to the Illegal Migration Bill (all same day), three on the Levelling-Up bill (all same day)' She hasn't spoken since she stopped being Secretary of State (in Parliament that is). A new book is expected next year.

They're just bone idle, and it really irks me.

Moreover, Johnson doesn't spend time in his constituency and hasn't held any sort of surgery for constituents since he ceased being PM. Now, the amount of casework won't have changed, but he doesn't get involved at all. Which means the work is done by his staff, and because their workload is greater, the staffing costs are greater, which essentially means that the taxpayer is both paying for him to be an MP and paying again for others to do his work

 

[Cowley]

There’s a separate thread for the UBI stuff here now:

Could a Universal Basic Income (UBI) work?

mods note - split from the Conservative Party thread. To those opposed to UBI, how would you feel about a minimum living standard instead? Basic housing and sufficient food to ensure nutritional needs are met so that nobody starves or goes homeless?

www.railforums.co.uk

 

[Typhoon]

They're just bone idle, and it really irks me.

Moreover, Johnson doesn't spend time in his constituency and hasn't held any sort of surgery for constituents since he ceased being PM. Now, the amount of casework won't have changed, but he doesn't get involved at all. Which means the work is done by his staff, and because their workload is greater, the staffing costs are greater, which essentially means that the taxpayer is both paying for him to be an MP and paying again for others to do his work

Not only that, the staff member won't have the same sort of influence that an MP has. I have contacted my MP from time to time and an 'I've talked to ...', 'I've contacted ..., if nothing gets done. let me know', 'I've told them to keep me updated ...', 'I would try ... instead, if that doesn't work, get back to me' makes a difference. I know people who have been at their wits end, gone to an MP's surgery and come away knowing there is someone on their side.

It is no good the staff member saying that the they have sent Mr Johnson a memo because there isevery likelihood that it would be used to line Dilyn's litter tray.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Which means the work is done by his staff, and because their workload is greater, the staffing costs are greater, which essentially means that the taxpayer is both paying for him to be an MP and paying again for others to do his work

In fairness to de Pfeffel, in most constituencies it is the staff who do the work, the MP just rocks up to claim the credit. Alan Campbell, Labour MP for Tynemouth, is incredibly lazy but you wouldn’t know it from how he claims credit for everyone else’s work.

 

[Gloster]

It is probably better that an MP’s office staff sort out constituency problems as they should have the time to do the job properly. However, the MP should be available both to keep himself informed about problems that have a wider import and to provide a bit of muscle when necessary. I would be a bit worried about Johnson getting involved: he would probably end up getting the constituent imprisoned in Iran.

 

[MikeWM]

Whatever one thinks of Johnson specifically - and I'm certainly no fan - it is very disturbing that the House of Commons now apparently thinks it can determine who sits in it *after* they have been fairly and duly elected by their constituency.

The only people who should be able to elect a representative to the House of Commons, and the only people who should be able to remove them again, are the electorate. Indeed, this is one of the main reasons that MPs aren't allowed to resign and have to go through an absurd workaround instead. This sets an incredibly dangerous precedent that the House of Commons appears to think it is more important than the electorate, whereas in actuality its very right to exist - and to pass laws we have to obey - stems from the will and consent of the electorate.

Ironically - though I'm sure this isn't the reason he's done it! - Johnson has arguably shown a greater respect for democracy by resigning his seat, thus ensuring his constituents will (sooner) continue to have representation in parliament.

 

[SteveM70]

Whatever one thinks of Johnson specifically - and I'm certainly no fan - it is very disturbing that the House of Commons now apparently thinks it can determine who sits in it *after* they have been fairly and duly elected by their constituency.

The only people who should be able to elect a representative to the House of Commons, and the only people who should be able to remove them again, are the electorate.

And that’s exactly what should have happened here. The committee intended to impose a suspension which would almost certainly have led to a by-election, which would have given the constituents the final say on the matter

But Johnson did as Johnson does - he ran away and shirked responsibility. Not sure how that’s the system at fault

 

[MikeWM]

And that’s exactly what should have happened here. The committee intended to impose a suspension which would almost certainly have led to a by-election, which would have given the constituents the final say on the matter

If that was their intent, why didn't they impose a 10-day suspension, which would have been sufficient to trigger a recall petition?

Though even then, I think it would be hugely preferable to change the act that allows for such petitions to apply *whenever* an MP is censured by a vote in Parliament, and remove the deeply undemocratic suspension process altogether.

 

[43096]

If that was their intent, why didn't they impose a 10-day suspension, which would have been sufficient to trigger a recall petition?

Though even then, I think it would be hugely preferable to change the act that allows for such petitions to apply *whenever* an MP is censured by a vote in Parliament, and remove the deeply undemocratic suspension process altogether.

It’s not undemocratic. If Johnson wasn’t such a coward then the final say on the 90 days would have been with the full House of Commons, i.e. by all our elected representatives. How this that undemocratic?