• 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.

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,260
Location
York
BREAKING: Andrew Mitchell has been appointed Deputy Foreign Secretary

Why is there the need for this role? What would he do that Cameron hasn't done?
BREAKING: Energy Minister Graham Stuart has resigned from Rishi Sunak’s government

Never heard of him, neither have most of the British public most likely.

Lee Anderson’s wife - a prominent Tory councillor - has been suspended by the party while they investigate a photo that apparently shows her campaigning for Reform UK.

If Sinead Anderson is found to have campaigned for a rival party, it would be a breach of party rules.Mr Anderson defected from the Tories to Reform last month, but his wife remained a senior councillor in Notts County Council’s Conservative group. A picture posted by Mr Anderson on Twitter last Saturday appears to show Mrs Anderson in the background of a group campaigning for Alan Graves, Reform’s candidate in the East Midlands mayoral election.The door-knocking session took days just days before Mr Anderson announced a ‘non-aggression pact’ with former Tory colleague Ben Bradley - who is standing for the Tories in the same election. It would be the fourth job for Mr Bradley, who is also the MP for Mansfield, a councillor and leader of Nottinghamshire County Council.

A Conservative Party spokesperson said: “Mrs Anderson has been suspended pending investigation. The Conservative Party has a robust complaints process in place. This process is rightly a confidential one, so that complainants can come forward in confidence."

Approached for comment by the Sunday Mirror, Mr Anderson did not deny it was his wife in the picture, instead repeatedly asking: “How do you know it’s her?”Steve Carr, an independent councillor on Notts County Council, asked the local party to confirm whether Mrs Anderson would remain a member of their group. A member of the Tories’ disciplinary team replied: “Thank you for submitting your complaint to the Member Governance Team. I can confirm that it has been safely received and is currently being reviewed.”

Mr Carr said: “I thank the Conservative Party for confirming they are looking into this matter.He suggested we publish this story, and that he would “have some fun” afterward. Mrs Anderson did not respond to requests for comment.“Councillor Sinead Anderson is a senior member of Nottinghamshire County Council and it is only right that is being looked into. People have a right to know whether such a senior conservative, making key decisions over our children’s education is actively supporting Reform and their controversial views.Carr said if she was actively campaigning against her own council leader is "a matter for Ben Bradley".Mrs Anderson earns £28,209.78 a year as a Conservative County Councillor. She earns £12,314.82 a year as Deputy Cabinet Member for Children and Families – one of the most senior roles on the Council.

Looks like Reform could gain a Councillor in Ashfield.
 
Last edited:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,705

Yew

Established Member
Joined
12 Mar 2011
Messages
6,553
Location
UK
I know that the economy is pretty bad, but does Ben Bradley really need four jobs to make ends meet?
 

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,592
Location
North West
I guess Reform might also appeal to moderately socially-conservative people (i.e. not homophobes and racists) who consider the Tories incompetent. I guess these are who they are hoping to attract.

I certainly don't think there's clear water between less-extreme Reform people and the likes of Braverman and Gullis. Indeed, there might be Reformists who are more socially liberal than Braverman and Gullis!

Really, the Tories should abandon their socially-conservative, right-wing populist agenda to Reform, and let Reform stand up for that POV as Reform is built to represent it. People like Braverman, Badenoch and Gullis should follow Anderson into Reform. Meanwhile, they (the Tories) should move more back to something in the Cameron or Major mould (economically-conservative but socially-liberal) though obviously it's too late to do that now, people wouldn't take them seriously. Still, that's what I hope they stand on in 2029. I still won't vote for them (ever - Hard Brexit is an unforgivable sin) but it would certainly mean I'd regard a return of the Tories with much less dread.
If Penny Mordaunt keeps her Portsmouth North seat, she could become the "Kinnock" who repairs the party sufficiently to enable a new leader to take over after the 2028/29 General Election. This new leader will ideally never have been a Minister in this Tory government (apart from say Tom Tugendhat) or will be from the 2024 intake. This new leader could then conclude the party's transformation back to One Nation Tory then back into government.

All the right-wing and/or EU bashing can then be just Reform territory, no longer damaging the Tory party.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,334
There's been a LOT of fuss about Anglia Rayner about the possibility of owning £1,500 in Capital Gains Tax, however to put it in perspective even at the maximum owed of £3,500 all 650 MP's could be voted in as Labour MP's and they all could own £3,500 in taxes and that's then repeated for the next 26 terms of parliament (assuming 5 years for each term of parliament that's 2154 before that ends) and it still wouldn't quite reach the £60 million of the PPE which was paid to Moan (that's before you consider any of the other PPE payments or things like YouGov shares held in trust).

However it's more likely that Labour would average 300 per term of parliament, which would be 285 years from now, or 2309!!!

Therefore it's very likely that it's been made into a storm to try and distract from their own behaviour.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,845
Location
Scotland
Wragg has left the Tories and stepped down as Vice Chairman of the 1922 Committee. I'm surprised it took him so long to be honest.
Posting the link here, since it's relevant to the Wragg saga. There's a lot of mystery about who was behind the blackmail attempts and their motiviation:
When news broke of men at Westminster being targeted by flirtatious WhatsApp messages from mysterious figures calling themselves "Charlie" or "Abi" many assumed it was a classic honeytrap.
Some MPs were quick to point the finger at Russia, China and other "hostile states" suspected of using nefarious tactics to obtain compromising material.
But it now looks a lot less straightforward than that. Security sources are steering us away from the hostile state theory.
So who was behind the scam (if that's what it was)? And what did Charlie and Abi want?
Here is what we know - and, almost as importantly, what we don't know about one of the weirdest, and most troubling, stories to hit Westminster in a long time.
Source: BBC News
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,260
Location
York
The much-debated bill will now return to the upper chamber for further scrutiny on Tuesday.

It comes as reports suggest the UK held talks with other countries, including Armenia, about replicating the scheme.

The plan to send some asylum seekers to Rwanda has faced setbacks since it was first announced in April 2022 by Boris Johnson's government.

The bill, which declares Rwanda safe, is likely to pass this week - with the government majority meaning any further amendments made by peers should be overturned.

It will not become law until both Commons and Lords agree on the final wording, a process known as parliamentary ping-pong.

It will now returns to the Lords, where peers are set to review it on Tuesday - possibly making additional changes that could extend the parliamentary disputes.In the vote on Monday, MPs rejected six amendments, one of which would have granted a removal exemption for people who had supported the UK's armed forces overseas.

The government also rejected calls to exempt victims of modern slavery from the Rwanda scheme, instead proposing its own amendment that would provide an annual report on the impact of the policy on victims, which then passed.
As reported in the Times, internal government documents show Costa Rica, Ivory Coast and Armenia have been considered as options for similar schemes, if Rwanda proves successful.

The BBC has seen some of the documents, which are from several months ago, and understands the list is accurate.

The early stage plans are described by sources as in a "holding pattern", with other countries keen to see if the Rwanda plan actually gets going before trying anything similar themselves.

Other African nations, including Morocco, Tunisia, Namibia and Gambia, "explicitly declined" to enter technical discussions, according to the Times.

Sir Matthew Rycroft, the top civil servant at the Home Office said the document was "out of date" and it should not be assumed there are active negotiations with other countries.

He told the Commons Public Accounts Committee the Foreign Office had assessed a lot of countries but only "a tiny number" had progressed to the next stage.

A government spokesperson said the UK "is continuing to work with a range of international partners to tackle global illegal migration challenges" but its current focus was on passing the Rwanda bill and putting plans in place to get flights off the ground as soon as possible.

This will just make passing the Bill through the House of Lords even harder. Can't see this Bill, or a similar Bill for the countries listed in the quoted article passing the Lords anytime soon.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,708
Location
Redcar
How far we've fallen that an ammendment to require that a government complies with domestic and international law gets voted down by the Tories.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,260
Location
York
NEW: Rishi Sunak will now use leased RAF Voyagers to fly migrants to Rwanda after airlines refused to take part RAF personnel or AirTanker staff will be used to man the flights "whether they like it or not"

The article that is linked further down in the tweet is paywalled. This comes after Rwandan flag carrier RwandAir decided that they didn't want to take part in this.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,260
Location
York
BREAKING: Rishi Sunak suffers a major Tory rebellion as his anti-smoking bill passes its second reading Yes: 383 No: 67 106 Tory MPs abstained while 57 Tory MPs voted against, including six ministers

Among those who voted against are Liz Truss, Suella Braverman and Kemi Badenoch. Former Deputy Chairman of the Tories, Lee Anderson, also voted against the Bill. Seems like the more right wing of the Tories are outraged that the bill passed and wanted to stop it from going through.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,845
Location
Scotland

The article that is linked further down in the tweet is paywalled. This comes after Rwandan flag carrier RwandAir decided that they didn't want to take part in this.
It's worth noting that the main reason that airlines have declined to take part is because they believe that the plan violates international law and don't want to end up being tried as accomplices.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,136
It's worth noting that the main reason that airlines have declined to take part is because they believe that the plan violates international law and don't want to end up being tried as accomplices.
Have the airlines said this? Which "International Law" is there that might see a commercial organisation "tried" as an accomplice to government sanctioned action? Which court would undertake such a trial and what powers would they have to penalise the miscreant airlines?

More likely, I fancy, is that the airlines fear reputational damage if they participate.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,845
Location
Scotland
Have the airlines said this?
Publicly? Of course not.
Which "International Law" is there that might see a commercial organisation "tried" as an accomplice to government sanctioned action?
Airlines are businesses, and as such their officers can be prosecuted. There's also precedent for transportation providers being tried in civil court for breaches of human rights (cf. a judgement against SNCF for transporting Jews to the concentration camps - though that was overturned on appeal since it was shown that they had acted under compulsion).
Which court would undertake such a trial and what powers would they have to penalise the miscreant airlines?
I suspect that the ECHR might well take on such a case, and they could impose fines or penalise the officers of the company.
More likely, I fancy, is that the airlines fear reputational damage if they participate.
The reputational damage that would go along with being named in a court case no doubt being foremost in their minds.
 

Silenos

Member
Joined
13 Dec 2022
Messages
302
Location
Norfolk
Have the airlines said this? Which "International Law" is there that might see a commercial organisation "tried" as an accomplice to government sanctioned action?
I would guess the ‘law’ they might be worried about would be the 1951 Refugee Convention, especially articles 31 and 32. If I recall correctly most of the objections to the Rwanda bill have related to that.
 

bspahh

Established Member
Joined
5 Jan 2017
Messages
1,738
I would guess the ‘law’ they might be worried about would be the 1951 Refugee Convention, especially articles 31 and 32. If I recall correctly most of the objections to the Rwanda bill have related to that.

https://www.ohchr.org/en/instrument...onvention-relating-status-refugees#article-31 says:

Article 31 - Refugees unlawfully in the country of refuge

1. The Contracting States shall not impose penalties, on account of their illegal entry or presence, on refugees who, coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened in the sense of article 1, enter or are present in their territory without authorization, provided they present themselves without delay to the authorities and show good cause for their illegal entry or presence.

2. The Contracting States shall not apply to the movements of such refugees restrictions other than those which are necessary and such restrictions shall only be applied until their status in the country is regularized or they obtain admission into another country. The Contracting States shall allow such refugees a reasonable period and all the necessary facilities to obtain admission into another country.

Article 32 - Expulsion

1. The Contracting States shall not expel a refugee lawfully in their territory save on grounds of national security or public order.

2. The expulsion of such a refugee shall be only in pursuance of a decision reached in accordance with due process of law. Except where compelling reasons of national security otherwise require, the refugee shall be allowed to submit evidence to clear himself, and to appeal to and be represented for the purpose before competent authority or a person or persons specially designated by the competent authority.

3. The Contracting States shall allow such a refugee a reasonable period within which to seek legal admission into another country. The Contracting States reserve the right to apply during that period such internal measures as they may deem necessary.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,136
I suspect that the ECHR might well take on such a case, and they could impose fines or penalise the officers of the company.
The ECHR has no powers to prosecute individuals or corporate bodies and certainly none to impose penalties on them or companies' officers. Only parties contracted to the Convention can be brought before its court. You spoke of them being "tried as accomplices". They would be complicit of nothing more than working under contract to the government, which was operating under the terms of a law that it had introduced.

I would guess the ‘law’ they might be worried about would be the 1951 Refugee Convention, especially articles 31 and 32. If I recall correctly most of the objections to the Rwanda bill have related to that.
Somewhat off topic, but A31 gives protection to those "...coming directly from a territory where their life or freedom was threatened..." Nobody arriving into the UK from France fits that definition. Some time ago the UN unilaterally decided that such a definition was too restrictive and thus protection under the Convention was afforded to those simply seeking their destination of choice. The signatories to the Convention were not, however, asked if they agreed to such a fundamental change.

But back to my point. Individuals or corporations cannot be prosecuted for allegedly breaching an international treaty. Like the ECHR, only signatories to the UN Convention can see action against them for alleged breaches. These are not "international laws" but agreements which the signatories have pledged to comply with (and from which, unlike laws, they can withdraw).

As much as I would like to see unauthorised entries to the UK stopped, I have no time for the Rwanda plan. I think it is stupid, expensive, will achieve nothing and in fact I strongly doubt anybody will ever be removed from the UK under its terms. But the idea that the boss of BA will be hauled up before the courts - let alone the ECHR - and see fines imposed is simply fanciful nonsense. I can understand airlines not wanting to have anything to do with the plan. But they should simply say "we don't believe it's morally right/it's nonsensical/we're afraid of what our customers would think" or whatever. None of them are declining because their CEO dislikes the idea of being dragged off in chains to the Strasbourg court.
 

DustyBin

Established Member
Joined
20 Sep 2020
Messages
3,632
Location
First Class
But they should simply say "we don't believe it's morally right/it's nonsensical/we're afraid of what our customers would think" or whatever. None of them are declining because their CEO dislikes the idea of being dragged off in chains to the Strasbourg court.

Yesterday Sky News reported that RwandAir were concerned about the optics and potential reputational damage; I heard nothing about the legalities or CEOs being tried.

There’s nothing to say that should the plan ever be implemented (which IMO in won’t) it would even be illegal. In reality though, trying to keep it within the confines of international law is going to be extremely difficult, and exactly why the plan is unworkable.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,182
Location
SE London
Airlines are businesses, and as such their officers can be prosecuted. There's also precedent for transportation providers being tried in civil court for breaches of human rights (cf. a judgement against SNCF for transporting Jews to the concentration camps - though that was overturned on appeal since it was shown that they had acted under compulsion).

Really? I'm sure I recall a long previous discussion on railforums about human rights in which it was being claimed repeatedly that the current human rights framework is designed to protect people from actions by Governments, not by other people - implying that you can't hold private people/organisations accountable for human rights abuses [*]. I would assume the reason SNCF could have action brought against it would be that it's a nationalized company.

[*] As I recall, the context was that I was arguing that rights should go hand in hand with responsibilities and some individuals were responding that you can't link rights to responsibilities because rights are designed solely as protections against Government actions, not actions by anyone else.

(EDIT: I see @Enthusiast has also replied and confirmed my understanding of he law)
 
Last edited:

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,172
Location
Birmingham
These scandals are becoming routine.


A Conservative MP has lost the party whip after an investigation was launched following claims that he misused campaign funds.

Mark Menzies, 52, also faced allegations that he made a late-night call to a 78-year-old aide asking for help because he had been locked up by “bad people” demanding thousands of pounds for his release.

The Fylde MP disputes the allegations reported by the Times, but the Conservative party is looking into the claims and taking them seriously. A spokesperson for the chief whip, Simon Hart, said on Wednesday night: “Following a call with the chief whip, Mark Menzies has agreed to relinquish the Conservative whip, pending the outcome of an investigation.”

According to the newspaper, £14,000 given by donors for use in Tory campaign activities was transferred to Menzies’ personal bank accounts and used for private medical expenses.

The MP, who is one of Rishi Sunak’s trade envoys, is also said to have called his 78-year-old former campaign manager at 3.15am in December, claiming he was locked in a flat and needed £5,000 as a matter of “life and death”.

The sum, which rose to £6,500, was eventually paid by his office manager from her personal bank account and subsequently reimbursed from funds raised from donors in an account named Fylde Westminster Group, it is alleged.

According to a source close to Menzies, the MP had met a man on an online dating website and gone to the man’s flat, before going with another man to a second address where he continued drinking. He was sick at one point and several people at the address demanded £5,000, claiming it was for cleaning up and other expenses.

The source said Menzies decided to pay them because he was scared of what would happen otherwise but did not have the funds to transfer the money from his own savings.

There are other occasions when Menzies is said to have used money from campaign funds to cover his personal expenses. In 2020, he allegedly sought £3,000 to cover medical bills, but he did not repay the money and instead asked for and received a further £4,000, the Times reported.

The newspaper said a source close to the MP disputed this account and said the former campaign manager had been the one who suggested Menzies use funds from the business account to pay his personal medical expenses, but she is understood to deny this.

A further £7,000 was received by Menzies from the account in November, it is alleged.

In a statement to the Times, Menzies said: “I strongly dispute the allegations put to me. I have fully complied with all the rules for declarations. As there is an investigation ongoing, I will not be commenting further.”

A party spokesperson said: “The Conservative party is investigating allegations made regarding a member of parliament. This process is rightfully confidential.

“The party takes all allegations seriously and will always investigate any matters put to them.”

Liberal Democrat deputy leader Daisy Cooper said it was “frankly appalling” that the Conservative party had been aware of the allegations for more than three months. “When our national security faces threats on many fronts, it is deeply concerning that some MPs are so open to traps, threats and manipulations,” she said.

“Rishi Sunak must suspend the whip for Mark Menzies immediately, while all the relevant authorities investigate the matter.”

A decade ago, Menzies quit as a ministerial aide following allegations about his behaviour by a Brazilian male escort.
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,260
Location
York
Rishi Sunak's Rwanda bill has been delayed until Monday as peers inflict another defeat on the government

Flights could now be delayed from taking off in June

Even June is optimistic in my opinion.
These scandals are becoming routine.

He was suspended far quicker than other Tory MPs who have been involved in a scandal as of late.
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,456
Location
Up the creek
He was suspended far quicker than other Tory MPs who have been involved in a scandal as of late.

Once the newspapers got to hear of it. The Conservatives seem to have known about it for three months and been investigating it. In my opinion, based on what has become known, an accusation of this type (potential fraud and misuse of funds) should have had a quick initial investigation to see if there was likely to be truth in the matter and then, if there was, removal of the whip. In most other jobs someone who did this would expect suspension or restrictions on their employment, but, hey, he is only governing the country.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
29,322
Location
Fenny Stratford
I think the Chief Whip just has to press F7 on his keyboard nowadays.
it will be worn away by now! This emerging issue with the above MP seems very dodgy. Locked in a flat by "bad people" and a "ransom" paid. Really?

Amazing that he had the whip withdrawn only when the Times broke the story. It is reported they knew about it for 3 months!
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,081
Once the newspapers got to hear of it. The Conservatives seem to have known about it for three months and been investigating it. In my opinion, based on what has become known, an accusation of this type (potential fraud and misuse of funds) should have had a quick initial investigation to see if there was likely to be truth in the matter and then, if there was, removal of the whip. In most other jobs someone who did this would expect suspension or restrictions on their employment, but, hey, he is only governing the country.
I would have thought it would have been a police matter by now, but perhaps because it's Conservative party money rather than expenses they are able to let it ride.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,057
Location
Taunton or Kent
Whatever happens with the Rayner investigation, the Tories have lost any moral highground they may have had to attack Labour over it after this story came out.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,182
Location
SE London
I would have thought it would have been a police matter by now, but perhaps because it's Conservative party money rather than expenses they are able to let it ride.

I guess it depends if the money used was donated in good faith on the basis that it would be used for campaigning. I'm not sure of the details of the law but that would sound to me close to fraud (and reminiscent of a certain Scottish campervan) if it was used for other purposes.

At any rate what we know so far is utterly weird ... locked in a room, had to pay a ransom, but apparently didn't go to the police about it??? Methinks there's a lot more to come out of this story.
 

Top