• 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.

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,263
Location
SE London
Politicians of all parties pretty much always try to interpret election results in the best possible light for their own party and in the worst possible light for their opponents (while also at the same time trying to play up the threat of how terrible it'd be if their opponents got in and how that might happen if people don't vote). I think that's probably the light in which you have to look at Rishi Sunak's comments.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

NeilCr

Member
Joined
26 Feb 2019
Messages
184
This may make some difference



Matt Singh
@MattSingh_
Wow – that's some serious tactical swing

In Con/Lab wards:
LAB +9
LD no change

In Con/LD wards:
LAB +2
LD +6

I think using just the NEV is interesting but a bit of a blunt tool

They are saying themselves that it is a projection not a prediction
 

ChrisC

Established Member
Joined
7 Oct 2018
Messages
1,633
Location
Nottinghamshire
It seems to me that the Tory Party are in denial and are firing off in the wrong directions. Sunak is saying this, and Braverman is claiming they did badly because they were not right-wing enough. Few seem to be admitting that perhaps the Tories are too right wing and not concerned enough about people's real problems. You're also hearing them claim that they've got lots of exciting things to do in the next 5 months. Well they haven't done anything worthwhile in the past 4.5 years, why will they in the next 5 months?

Not sure if Andy Street has said anything yet, but I suspect he might be the voice of reason within the party. (Could he become a future party leader, I wonder - he seems to be a rare example of a relatively popular Tory).

Admittedly no-one would take a move back to the centre at this late stage seriously. Really what they ought to do is recognise they will lose, do nothing except call a GE ASAP (June 27th has a nice ring to it), and re-group, hopefully as something more centrist.
I certainly think that the Tories are too right wing at the present time, and any move further to the right will not win them more support, but alienate even more former Tory voters who have always been more to the centre.
It‘s slightly right of centre voters like myself, who have always voted Conservative, who in recent years have lost their support. Braverman and her supporters might win a few former Tories back from Reform but will just result in more people like me being more likely to vote Lib dem or even Labour.

I have never voted Labour and have always said that I never will. For the first time in well over 40 years at the last General Election I did not vote Conservative. Living in the East Midlands area where so many former Labour voters voted Conservative for the first time I didn‘t vote for them for the first time. There was no way that I was going to vote for Boris and his Brexit. I somewhat threw my vote away and voted Lib dem in an area where they stand no chance of winning. There wasn‘t really any other choice for me as I couldn’t vote for a Labour Party led by Corbyn.

There are lots of people I know who like me will not vote for the current crowd of Tories we have in power now. I certainly won’t when there is always the danger that people like Braverman and Reece Mogg could take over. If Starmer were to declare himself more openly pro Europe and take the Labour Party a bit more in that direction, even I might be persuaded to vote Labour at the next election. Those of us just to the right of centre, who voted Remain and traditionally had similar views to Tory MPs like Ken Clarke, don’t really have much choice at the moment.
 
Last edited:

317 forever

Established Member
Joined
21 Aug 2010
Messages
2,611
Location
North West
Looks like the Conservatives have got Transport Secretary Mark Harper on Laura Kuenssberg show this morning.

No doubt will be lots of nothing fluffy words about election results, and no positive policy.
Although he is the Transport Secretary, the subject of this week's Aslef strikes never even came up.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
25,014
Location
Nottingham
Yes it appears Labour are not picking up enough votes (vote percentage) in areas they need to win. People may be fed up with current Government but that doesn't mean they will automatically vote Labour instead.

You only need few percent scattering votes between LibDem, Reform, and Greens etc and and it leaves Labour candidates in some marginals struggling to swing the seat to winning margin.
John Curtice disagrees, for two key reasons:
  • Reform UK stood in very few seats, so voters who would prefer to vote for Reform might have voted Conservative in these elections. They propose to stand in every seat at the general election.
  • Tactical voting by LibDem and Labour supporters switching to the other when they are best placed to beat the Tory.

We perhaps should not be surprised that the prime minister has seized upon an extrapolation of Thursday's local election results that pointed to the prospect that the general election could result in a hung parliament in which Labour would be the largest party.
 

Busaholic

Veteran Member
Joined
7 Jun 2014
Messages
14,165
John Curtice disagrees, for two key reasons:
  • Reform UK stood in very few seats, so voters who would prefer to vote for Reform might have voted Conservative in these elections. They propose to stand in every seat at the general election.
  • Tactical voting by LibDem and Labour supporters switching to the other when they are best placed to beat the Tory.

There are so many things to ponder, but it appears the Tory MPs (and Ministers) planning to unseat Sunak before the election is called have acknowledged it isn't going to happen. There are two main reasons for this. The first was that they didn't wait for the West Midlands Mayoral result, having been misinformed a day earlier not only that Street was safe, but that Labour had conceded defeat, despite the fact that counting the votes hadn't even started! They'd then made the mistake of briefing journos to this effect. Second, the only candidate ready to be inserted into the P.M. role was Penny Morduant, who wasn't considered acceptable to many on the right of the party.

The position of Reform UK is very crucial to how the election result pans out, just as it was in 2019. If, once again, they abandon their plan to stand in all GB seats and thereby let the Tories off their hook, it'll probably save multiple members of the latter. There is also an alternative credible story doing the rounds that Farage may well stand for Reform in Clacton, where he'd be expected to win, probably after announcing he'd become leader of that party. The story continues by linking Farage and Johnson camps in talks to try to re-introduce the latter to the Commons in a by-election soon after the General Election and a new Tory leadership election after that. Then, when Johnson returns after getting the membership vote to resume as P.M., Farage becomes a Tory, maybe gets appointed as British Ambassador to a Trumpian USA and the rest of us are left in this dystopian wilderness. All this does appear to be being discussed, and not just by Truss, Dorries, Rees-Mogg and other assorted right wing loonies.
 

The Ham

Established Member
Joined
6 Jul 2012
Messages
10,372
John Curtice disagrees, for two key reasons:
  • Reform UK stood in very few seats, so voters who would prefer to vote for Reform might have voted Conservative in these elections. They propose to stand in every seat at the general election.
  • Tactical voting by LibDem and Labour supporters switching to the other when they are best placed to beat the Tory.


On the second point see the fairly low voter numbers for the Lib Dems and Greens in the London Mayoral vote (both at 145,000 vs the 812,000 for the conservative candidate and the winning 1,088,000 for Labour).

Which reminds me, a certain candidate in the London Mayoral election saying "I've heard lively things about Richmond, North Yorkshire", so that could be an interesting run off.

Of course, the local hustings between the current PM and Count Binface would be quite a draw!
 

Gloster

Established Member
Joined
4 Sep 2020
Messages
8,571
Location
Up the creek
In a normal situation there wouldn’t be a leadership challenge because there is every likelihood that the party will suffer a defeat of such magnitude that it would be career-ending for the leader: most of the candidates are looking towards their careers, rather than ‘the good of the party’ and will keep clear. (I wonder why Braverman has suddenly cut back her criticism of Sunak.) However, there may still be some who think that they have the answer, probably by moving further to the right, and could lead the party to glorious victory. We shall have to see.

Reform is the problem. It is quite possible that they will do a deal, possibly (as suggested above) one that will give a couple of its leaders a safe seat. Have many constituencies with retiring MPs still to select their candidates or will we see a sudden spate of enablements in places where Reform should do well?
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,239
Location
Birmingham
New Argentinian President Javier Milei was told in a TV interview that Liz Truss considers him to be her favourite modern conservative leader, Milei answered "Quién?" ("Who?").
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,283
New Argentinian President Javier Milei was told in a TV interview that Liz Truss considers him to be her favourite modern conservative leader, Milei answered "Quién?" ("Who?").

Ah, the man who is a cross between Donald Trump and a Michael Palin Monty Python character.

But, like the insult. ;)
 

YorkRailFan

On Moderation
Joined
6 Sep 2023
Messages
1,351
Location
York
A super-rich Tory donor who is in charge of the party's property portfolio has been hit with a £4.5million tax bill for unpaid VAT on an apartment block reportedly used by prostitutes and their clients.

HMRC has ruled that Dr Christopher Moran’s company which owns the London block - previously nicknamed “Ten Floors of Whores” - failed to charge VAT to short term occupiers of hundreds of apartments, including sex workers and their pimps.Dr Moran’s lawyers said escort allegations were a “grotesque exaggeration” and his property company which owns and runs Chelsea Cloisters took a “zero tolerance policy” towards prostitution. He has been a director of the Conservative Party’s property arm C&UCO Properties Limited since 2006, though it is ultimately controlled by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak.A 2018 investigation found more than 100 sex workers registered at Chelsea Cloisters, known to some punters as “Sodom and Gomorrah”. We can report that Dr Moran’s firm Realreel Limited which owns the building has been landed with a £4.5million VAT bill after HMRC ruled it incorrectly claimed revenue from Chelsea Cloisters was exempt.Realreed Limited hadn’t taken professional advice on its VAT status since 1991 and so was hit with another £685,800 penalty for carelessness, which was suspended. Realreed contested both HMRC decisions at a tax tribunal and lost.Dr Moran’s lawyers told the Mirror: “HMRC conducted numerous inspections, over many years, without having previously raised any objection to the company’s VAT position in respect of those activities. The proceedings were contested on the basis of advice received from Leading Counsel, and the Decision is currently subject to an appeal on the advice of Leading Counsel, such that it would be inappropriate for our clients to comment further.”But Jo Maugham of the Good Law Project said: "Whilst the Tories hound a working class woman, Angela Rayner, over £1,500, which tax experts don't think she owes, a company controlled by Rishi Sunak has as its director a man who failed to pay £4.5million in tax he owed on apartments used for trafficking and prostitution. It's always one rule for the rich and another for the rest of us, isn't it?"138437485146
Reelreed has donated £140,000 to the Conservative Party, while Dr Moran has donated a further £410,000 either personally or through another company. Most of this cash has been donated since it was revealed in 2018 his business had benefited from the rents paid by sex workers. Dr Moran’s firm Golden Lane Securities Limited has given the party £250,000 between 2019 and last August.Reporters from the Sunday Times were able to make bookings with prostitutes at 23 separate flats at Chelsea Cloisters, including 15 let by Dr Moran’s firm. Dr Moran’s lawyers said: “The Sunday Times’ coverage reflected a grotesque exaggeration of the incidence of the use of Chelsea Cloisters by escorts. Chelsea Cloisters is one of the largest serviced apartment complexes in the UK (if not in Europe), with over 650 apartments and more than 1,000 guests at any one time.“Even at that time (2018), the incidence of escorts using its rooms was relatively minuscule, including when compared with similar complexes in London. Chelsea Cloisters has always adopted a strict, zero tolerance policy towards escorts and takes such matters extremely seriously. Chelsea Cloisters takes immediate and firm steps to discourage them and, where escorts have indeed been found to be using its rooms, taking immediate (but of course lawful and humane) steps to evict them.”Services such as maids, dry cleaning, Wi-Fi, luggage storage and linen changes were provided by a sister company, Chelsea Cloisters Services Limited, also owned by Dr Moran, and which did charge VAT. A First Tier Tax Tribunal agreed with the HMRC that Chelsea Cloisters offered an “establishment similar to a hotel” and so was not exempt from VAT on letting income. It dismissed Realreed’s appeal against liability for the £4.5million tax charge. And it also dismissed its appeal against the additional £685,800 penalty for being careless in submitting an inaccurate VAT return.Realreed said that HMRC had not challenged its VAT arrangements for many years, until 2019. But the tribunal judgement states: “Did Realreed itself take reasonable care? The short answer to that question is “No”.” There was “no evidence of Realreed ever having taken considered professional advice about its VAT affairs” or that it sought reassurance from HMRC.HMRC told Reelreed in February 2019 that the transactions were taxable supplies of accommodation and not exempt. It made an assessment for unpaid VAT of £4.8million for the period from 2015 to 2019. Realreed hired former Chief Constable Sir Hugh Orde as a director in April 2019, reportedly to help stamp out criminality.

Another day, another scandal involving a Tory Donor. The media will focus on it for a day or two before dropping it, whilst the Daily Mail is still going on about Angela Rayner.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,283
Meanwhile one of the Mail and Express (I forget which) is going on about Jenrick still claiming that there is too much immigration, as if that is somehow the root of all Tory woes.

As a non-Tory I will say the opposite: the Tories' to me extremely-hardline approach to immigration is probably the main reason nowadays why I wouldn't vote for them in a million years. I don't understand why Jenrick seems to think the Tories are too soft; we now have the most hostile environment for immigration in my adult lifetime, and with Cleverly's measures last winter, not just EU - but from the world in general.
 

birchesgreen

Established Member
Joined
16 Jun 2020
Messages
5,239
Location
Birmingham
They are stuck in a cul-de-sac, all they care about are right-wing newspapers, alt-right grifters and the echo chambers of their WhatsApp groups.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,107
Location
Taunton or Kent
Meanwhile one of the Mail and Express (I forget which) is going on about Jenrick still claiming that there is too much immigration, as if that is somehow the root of all Tory woes.

As a non-Tory I will say the opposite: the Tories' to me extremely-hardline approach to immigration is probably the main reason nowadays why I wouldn't vote for them in a million years. I don't understand why Jenrick seems to think the Tories are too soft; we now have the most hostile environment for immigration in my adult lifetime, and with Cleverly's measures last winter, not just EU - but from the world in general.
He was also Immigration Minister, so if he really thinks there is too much he should have done something about it himself when he had the chance.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,188
As a non-Tory I will say the opposite: the Tories' to me extremely-hardline approach to immigration is probably the main reason nowadays why I wouldn't vote for them in a million years. I don't understand why Jenrick seems to think the Tories are too soft; we now have the most hostile environment for immigration in my adult lifetime, and with Cleverly's measures last winter, not just EU - but from the world in general.
What "extremely hard line approach" are you referring to?

Migration into the UK over the last five years (2019-23) was 788k, 662k, 891k, 1.23m and 1.18m. That's a total of 4.7m or 950k per annum. How many would you see admitted under a less severe approach? Or are you confusing what some politicians say with what actually happens?
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,283
What "extremely hard line approach" are you referring to?
Rwanda? "Stop The Boats"? Housing asylum seekers in dodgy ships? Cleverly's new visa restrictions?

That isn't hardline compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s; really?
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
2,739
Rwanda? "Stop The Boats"? Housing asylum seekers in dodgy ships? Cleverly's new visa restrictions?

That isn't hardline compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s; really?
The Germans were housing immigrants on the Bibby Stockholm in the 90s, the Dutch in the 00s. We're clearly just catching up to the rest of Europe how we deal with asylum seekers.
 

Enthusiast

Member
Joined
18 Mar 2019
Messages
1,188
Rwanda? "Stop The Boats"? Housing asylum seekers in dodgy ships? Cleverly's new visa restrictions?

That isn't hardline compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s; really?
The first three are to do with asylum, not migration. I would suggest they are necessary to deter people who are in no danger but simply don't like it where they are. The last is necessary because unprecedented numbers of people (compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s) are seeking to settle here and, strange as it may seem, the UK simply does not have the resources to accommodate them. So some form of rationing is necessary - which doesn't seem to be working.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,263
Location
SE London
The first three are to do with asylum, not migration. I would suggest they are necessary to deter people who are in no danger but simply don't like it where they are. The last is necessary because unprecedented numbers of people (compared to the 80s, 90s, 00s and 10s) are seeking to settle here and, strange as it may seem, the UK simply does not have the resources to accommodate them. So some form of rationing is necessary - which doesn't seem to be working.

And to add to that, I'm even sure how housing asylum seekers in ships is even supposed to be 'hardline'? The reason that's being done is that we have, by historical standards, an extraordinarily high number of asylum seekers waiting to be processed. And, whatever criticisms you might make of waiting times or why there are so many, the fact is that they have to be housed somewhere - and this is at a time when there is vastly insufficient accommodation in the UK even for people who already legally live here, If it's possible, by using boats, to quickly provide additional accommodation so that fewer asylum seekers are occupying hotels or other places that are actually needed by other people, that would seem to make pragmatic sense. Nothing to do with being 'hardline' or anything. (Although I realise there are questions about the cost etc.)
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
25,014
Location
Nottingham
And to add to that, I'm even sure how housing asylum seekers in ships is even supposed to be 'hardline'? The reason that's being done is that we have, by historical standards, an extraordinarily high number of asylum seekers waiting to be processed. And, whatever criticisms you might make of waiting times or why there are so many, the fact is that they have to be housed somewhere - and this is at a time when there is vastly insufficient accommodation in the UK even for people who already legally live here, If it's possible, by using boats, to quickly provide additional accommodation so that fewer asylum seekers are occupying hotels or other places that are actually needed by other people, that would seem to make pragmatic sense. Nothing to do with being 'hardline' or anything. (Although I realise there are questions about the cost etc.)
Perhaps that has something to do with the government letting the backlog build up in the first place?

In other news, Natalie Elphicke has just crossed the floor. Perhaps better discussed on the Labour thread.
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,283
The point I'm trying to make, though, is not whether Tory immigration policy is good or bad - but whether it's hardline or, as Jenrick seems to think, not.

So things like Rwanda, housing asylum seekers in boats, "Stop The Boats" and Cleverly's visa restrictions, are, to me, evidence that the Government is pursuing a hardline immigration policy, and therefore I fail to understand the point Jenrick is making.
 

najaB

Veteran Member
Joined
28 Aug 2011
Messages
30,923
Location
Scotland
If it's possible, by using boats, to quickly provide additional accommodation so that fewer asylum seekers are occupying hotels or other places that are actually needed by other people, that would seem to make pragmatic sense.
The contract is expected to cost over £1B. Not sure how pragmatic that is.
 

DynamicSpirit

Established Member
Joined
12 Apr 2012
Messages
8,263
Location
SE London
The contract is expected to cost over £1B. Not sure how pragmatic that is.

And of course I did acknowledge the cost in my post. I think there are really two separate issues here: 1. Is it, in principle, a good idea to house asylum seekers in any additional accommodation that can be quickly made available (such as boats)? A: Yes, obviously it is a good idea in principle. 2. How much should it cost to convert a boat to house people semi-permanently and is the Government paying a sensible amount? A: The amount looks absurd, so something seems to have gone wrong there. Not atypical for stuff the Government does to cost absurdly high amounts, so the problem here probably has more to do with how the Government evaluates and awards contracts than with immigration policy.
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
27,789
Location
Redcar
The contract is expected to cost over £1B. Not sure how pragmatic that is.
Personally speaking I'd rather spend the £1bn, if that is the cost, in increasing the capacity of the Home Office to process claims. To be fair, I think that this is beginning to happen and more caseworkers are being employed and will hopefully become productive (and more so) as time goes on. But good grief we've gone from a position whereby 68% of initial applications were decided within 12 months (and 35% within 6) in 2019 to one where only 21% were being decided within 12 months for the year ending 31 March 2023 and 14% were waiting for more than three years (stats via Migration Observatory, scroll down to Figure 8 where you can play with the table).

For me that's part of the real answer to a lot of these problems. Swift decisions and rapid appeals (with suitable legal assistance) followed by a quick deportation once the process has been concluded. No-one should hanging around for years waiting for an initial decision on their asylum claim.
 

Top