Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[52290]

I agree. It's a sad state of affairs, and how we've got to this position is complicated but the internet and then the proliferation of social media casts a pall over everything, and now we've got so-called A1 to confuse the picture exponentially more aided by hostile states, bad actors, and all the rest. I could go all Corporal Fraser any minute.... ''doooomed, I tell ye.''

Private Fraser please!

 

[birchesgreen]

I agree. It's a sad state of affairs, and how we've got to this position is complicated but the internet and then the proliferation of social media casts a pall over everything, and now we've got so-called A1 to confuse the picture exponentially more aided by hostile states, bad actors, and all the rest. I could go all Corporal Fraser any minute.... ''doooomed, I tell ye.''

Paper? More a foolscap folio man myself.

 

[DustyBin]

It just seems to underline the rather conventional view of the world that the Tories and Sunak still have. Maybe it's me, but "family" to me first and foremost implies children. Particularly in this context which seems to imply "those you are responsible for".

Which is fine if you have children, but that shouldn't be the assumption for everyone.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one; I don't have children but I certainly have family, so I'm struggling to see anything "sinister" in Sunak's choice of words....

I do occasionally wonder if part of this isn't still the long shadow of the Expenses Scandal back in 2009? Clearly, politicians were not held in particularly high regard before 2009 either but I wonder if that wasn't the moment that things really began to flip and the hatred became more widespread and more visceral? Followed by the explosion of social media toxicity and polarisation, add a dose of austerity cutting services to the bone, and then the whatever you would call the last five years since 2019 and I wonder if that isn't why we land where we are?

It honestly is quite a problem. I'm clearly one of those people who is interested in politics and policy but there's not a cat in hells chance I'd want to be an MP in the current climate. Even though the job by itself would be a pretty chunky pay increase for me, the nature of the job sounds utterly awful these days. Thousands of abusive messages, up to an including death threats, if you're doing the job properly incredibly long hours of work, etc etc. That's probably enough to put off a lot of potentially good MPs before we even consider the issues with party selection (both who gets through the sift to put themselves forward and then how they're selected by the constituency party).

Is it any wonder therefore that the quality of politicians is utterly dreadful? And yet I don't see anyway out of this doom spiral.

I totally agree with yourself, @Enthusiast and @Busaholic in this regard. I think there are a number of factors as you say, some self-inflicted and others less-so, but ultimately it's a sorry state of affairs. Like you I don't see an obvious way out unfortunately.

 

[nw1]

I do occasionally wonder if part of this isn't still the long shadow of the Expenses Scandal back in 2009? Clearly, politicians were not held in particularly high regard before 2009 either but I wonder if that wasn't the moment that things really began to flip and the hatred became more widespread and more visceral? Followed by the explosion of social media toxicity and polarisation, add a dose of austerity cutting services to the bone, and then the whatever you would call the last five years since 2019 and I wonder if that isn't why we land where we are?

It honestly is quite a problem. I'm clearly one of those people who is interested in politics and policy but there's not a cat in hells chance I'd want to be an MP in the current climate. Even though the job by itself would be a pretty chunky pay increase for me, the nature of the job sounds utterly awful these days. Thousands of abusive messages, up to an including death threats, if you're doing the job properly incredibly long hours of work, etc etc. That's probably enough to put off a lot of potentially good MPs before we even consider the issues with party selection (both who gets through the sift to put themselves forward and then how they're selected by the constituency party).

Is it any wonder therefore that the quality of politicians is utterly dreadful? And yet I don't see anyway out of this doom spiral.

Call me naive but I am a bit more cautiously optimistic about Labour.

I think the governments of Johnson, Truss and Sunak in particular have been dreadful, both in policy and general conduct.

I actually wouldn't say the same about the Cameron government, even though I profoundly disagreed with his and Osborne's austerity programme (to put it mildly). The Cameron years seemed more like Thatcher: economically right-wing and rather brutal policies I profoundly disagreed with but there was a certain professionalism. This has been missing from the overgrown Student Conservative Association members who have been running the country since 2019 and who (unlike Cameron and Thatcher, perhaps) actually don't seem to care one iota about the future of this country. They only care, IMO, about their own power, ego and wealth.

I am a bit mystified by the Elphicke affair but I do think things will start to get somewhat better if Labour get into power.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one; I don't have children but I certainly have family, so I'm struggling to see anything "sinister" in Sunak's choice of words....

Fair enough. For point of record I didn't consider the words sinister, just a bit non-inclusive.

 

[Busaholic]

I am a bit mystified by the Elphicke affair but I do think things will start to get somewhat better if Labour get into po

Cue for a song?

 

[nw1]

Cue for a song?

I honestly didn't twig that when I typed it!

 

[baza585]

It just seems to underline the rather conventional view of the world that the Tories and Sunak still have. Maybe it's me, but "family" to me first and foremost implies children. Particularly in this context which seems to imply "those you are responsible for".

Which is fine if you have children, but that shouldn't be the assumption for everyone.

I have a family which includes my children, but also my parents, my siblings, their children and so on. i am not responsible for all of them but they are all my family.

Family seems a perfectly reasonable expression to encompass the people that matter to you, in the context used in the speech.

If you choose to take offence, that is your right (in this country though not in some others!) but please don't assume everyone will share your offence. It feels like you wanted to find something to criticise Sunak for; surprised you chose this point given the very wide range of options available!

 

[Enthusiast]

Family seems a perfectly reasonable expression to encompass the people that matter to you, in the context used in the speech.

And of course there may be some individuals who have no people that matter to them. Would they feel "excluded" when hearing the term "you and your families"? Only if they're incredibly hyper-sensitive (which may perhaps explain why they have no people that matter to them )

 

[nw1]

I have a family which includes my children, but also my parents, my siblings, their children and so on. i am not responsible for all of them but they are all my family.

Family seems a perfectly reasonable expression to encompass the people that matter to you, in the context used in the speech.

If you choose to take offence, that is your right (in this country though not in some others!) but please don't assume everyone will share your offence. It feels like you wanted to find something to criticise Sunak for; surprised you chose this point given the very wide range of options available!

You're probably right. Maybe I've just had it up to here with Sunak's social conservatism (his persistent condemnation of Gaza protests, for example) and over-thought this particular comment as being another example of the same. Plus of course "hard-working families", as another poster said, is a well known cliche used by certain politicians.

 

[najaB]

Returning to a theme earlier in the thread, it seems that the government is moving ahead with plans to restrict sex education in the continuing culture wars:

Schools in England will be banned from teaching sex education to children under nine, in new government guidance expected to be published on Thursday.

The BBC has not seen the new guidelines but a government source said they also included plans to ban any children being taught about gender identity.

Head teachers have said there is no evidence of a widespread problem with age-inappropriate materials.

One union has said the review is "politically motivated".

The statutory guidance on relationships, sex and health education (RSHE) - which schools must follow by law - is currently under review.

That review was announced by Prime Minister Rishi Sunak following concerns that some children were being exposed to "inappropriate content".

BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69013002

What was it someone was saying about this government being friendly to the LGBTQ+ community?

 

[Typhoon]

I couldn't find any reference to this earlier, apologies if it has been raised:

The head of the Home Office section that detains and processes asylum seekers for deportation to Rwanda has halted recruitment and is drawing up plans for staff cuts after demands from Jeremy Hunt, leaked documents show.

Stuart Skeates, the director general for strategic operations at Illegal Migration Operations Command (IMOC), wrote to colleagues on Tuesday to say his department had been told to cut the numbers of staff to “pre-pandemic levels”, in line with the chancellor’s plans.

In an email, Skeates said he “had not anticipated” that the department, central to Rishi Sunak’s immigration policy, would be asked to make the cuts demanded of others in Whitehall.

IMOC job vacancies have already been taken down from its website. The Home Office is also “urgently reviewing” job offers to people who have not yet started in their roles, the leaked documents show.

This seems suspiciously like 'we will send a trickle over to Rwanda to show the policy is "working" and keep our fingers crossed that the numbers come down'. If they were being serious they would want to make a show of it - quick processing, planeloads going out. Part of the reason that they are in this mess appears to be that there are too few processing asylum claims. Unless it is 'We are going to lose the election anyway, just send a few back, then it will be someone else's problem'. I wish I thought they knew what they were doing!

https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/ukne...1&cvid=9583ae9c594845c58c8a7186ed898bb8&ei=62

Regards 'Family' - my parents are deceased (one fairly recently, the other over half a century ago), as are their siblings, no surviving siblings of my own or 'significant other' now, and two nephews have passed on. I regard my family as my remaining nephews and their families*, in particular their children as they are going to have a really tough time of it and if there is anything I can do ...

I will be an outlier but 'family'(and its importance) will mean different things to different people. Some are closer than others. I find politicians tend to use the word in a way that they hope will resonate with as many as possible, unfortunately it will have a different effect on some

(* - well, most of them, if I am being honest.)

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Returning to a theme earlier in the thread, it seems that the government is moving ahead with plans to restrict sex education in the continuing culture wars:

Some people might think that, avoiding teaching - say - 6-year-olds about sex is common sense. But no, I guess in today's warped world, any attempt to avoid sexualising young children can be rubbished as 'culture wars'

(To be fair I can see two sides of it to some extent: You arguably want young children to know at least enough to be able to report abuse, but there are probably good reasons for not teaching any more than that).

BBC News: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-69013002

What was it someone was saying about this government being friendly to the LGBTQ+ community?

As far as I can see, nothing in these proposals is unfriendly to the LGB community. The only possible question mark is over the 'T' bit because the Government are proposing that teachers are required to point out (correctly) that different people have different views on the question of trans identity, and it's not a settled matter. I would think though you'd have to have pretty intolerant views to object to recognising that there are different sides to the debate.

 

[ainsworth74]

(To be fair I can see two sides of it to some extent: You arguably want young children to know at least enough to be able to report abuse, but there are probably good reasons for not teaching any more than that).

I guess it's a good job that that's all that happens before they're nine then! No-one is teaching six year olds about sex, if they're teaching them anything at all. They might teach them about appropriate relationships, what they should do if somebody makes them feel uncomfortable, and similar but that's about it. Once they get to nine they might then move onto beginning to talk about puberty and what that entails but considering it starts on average these days around the age of eleven or twelve, nine is probably about the right time to introduce that topic. The closest you might get to actually talking about sex is in answer to the question "where babies come from" but that may well crop up in science anyway! It's not about sexualising young children. I would highly suggest people who are concerned speak to some primary school teachers or go and poke around a local primary schools website. You will find that what they're actually teaching, as opposed to what certain culture warriors say they're teaching, is very sensible.

 

[nw1]

As far as I can see, nothing in these proposals is unfriendly to the LGB community. The only possible question mark is over the 'T' bit because the Government are proposing that teachers are required to point out (correctly) that different people have different views on the question of trans identity, and it's not a settled matter. I would think though you'd have to have pretty intolerant views to object to recognising that there are different sides to the debate.

I would say schools need to teach in a trans-inclusive way, otherwise you could be bringing up children who then go on to be transphobic, or bully trans people. Any form of LGBTQ+ - phobia needs to be dealt with as soon as it becomes apparent. I'm not sure your average 9-year-old would really have any concept about the issues (though I was 9 in the 1980s, so it's possible things have changed since then). But certainly, as soon as kids become aware of sexuality, whatever age that is these days, it needs to be tackled.

"Banning any children from being taught about gender identity" sounds worrying to me. Very authoritarian, and the Government attempting to stamp its own socially-conservative view of the world onto teachers who probably have far more experience with people facing these issues than most of the Cabinet. And what does "any children" mean? Primary-school age? Or under 13? Under 16? Legally, a child is anyone under 16 and if you're banning gender identity education for 15-year-olds, then quite frankly that is a really extreme position.

 

[Typhoon]

I guess it's a good job that that's all that happens before they're nine then! No-one is teaching six year olds about sex, if they're teaching them anything at all. They might teach them about appropriate relationships, what they should do if somebody makes them feel uncomfortable, and similar but that's about it. Once they get to nine they might then move onto beginning to talk about puberty and what that entails but considering it starts on average these days around the age of eleven or twelve, nine is probably about the right time to introduce that topic. The closest you might get to actually talking about sex is in answer to the question "where babies come from" but that may well crop up in science anyway! It's not about sexualising young children. I would highly suggest people who are concerned speak to some primary school teachers or go and poke around a local primary schools website. You will find that what they're actually teaching, as opposed to what certain culture warriors say they're teaching, is very sensible.

Absolutely. Even if it doesn't affect them directly, a child needs to know that their best friend having two mums or two dads is perfectly normal. just as having two parents of difference ethnic backgrounds, or religion, or just one parent, is. Kids live in the real world. If they are not given information by people they trust, they will get it from sources that I wouldn't trust - social media!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I guess it's a good job that that's all that happens before they're nine then! No-one is teaching six year olds about sex,

That's fair enough. But if, as you say, young children are not being taught about sex anyway, then what is the objection to the Government making sure that state of affairs continues? The only thing I can think of is you could argue it's unnecessary regulation if they are regulating against something that doesn't happen. But that doesn't sound like a 'culture wars' objection.

 

[ainsworth74]

Absolutely. Even if it doesn't affect them directly, a child needs to know that their best friend having two mums or two dads is perfectly normal. just as having two parents of difference ethnic backgrounds, or religion, or just one parent, is. Kids live in the real world. If they are not given information by people they trust, they will get it from sources that I wouldn't trust - social media!

That's absolutely the other aspect to this. Whether we think it's a good idea or not (and I'd tend to suggest not!) the reality is that children have smartphones, increasingly numbers of them, and they access Social Media. There was a report out from Ofcom the other month on this very topic:

Nearly a quarter of UK five-to-seven-year-olds now have their own smartphone, Ofcom research suggests.

Social media use also rose in the age group over last year with nearly two in five using messaging service WhatsApp, despite its minimum age of 13.

The communications regulator warned parental enforcement of rules "appeared to be diminishing."

It also said the figures should be a "wake up call" for the industry to do more to protect children.

In its annual study of children's relationship with the media and online worlds, Ofcom said the percentage of children aged between five and seven who used messaging services had risen from 59% to 65%.

The number on social media went up from 30% to 38%, while for livestreams it increased from 39% to 50%. Just over 40% are reported to be gaming online - up from 34% the year before.

Over half of children under 13 used social media, contrary to most of the big platforms' rules, and many admitted to lying to gain access to new apps and services.

"I think this is a wake up call for industry. They have to take account of the users they have, not the users that their terms and conditions say they have," Mark Bunting, from Ofcom's Online Safety Group told BBC News.

"We've known for a long time that children, under the age limit on a lot of the most popular apps, are widely using those apps, and companies are now under a legal obligation to take steps to keep those children safe," he added.

[...]

Ofcom: Almost a quarter of kids aged 5-7 have smartphones

The regulator calls the data a "wake up call", and says parents and industry need to do more.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now I think that parents are mental for letting their children on smartphones and social media that young but a) I don't have children so don't get the pressures that parents may do and b) we live in the real world not the ideal world. Considering the number of children that are online, at a young age, ensuring that they have age appropriate relationship/sex education at an early stage has got to be a sensible idea.

Going on those numbers from Ofcom if we wait until their nine then already at least 38% of them would already be on Social Media. A third! We can't just pretend it can wait to help them understand what appropriate relationships look like and what to do if they're made to feel uncomfortable until they turn nine is not credible surely?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Absolutely. Even if it doesn't affect them directly, a child needs to know that their best friend having two mums or two dads is perfectly normal. just as having two parents of difference ethnic backgrounds, or religion, or just one parent, is. Kids live in the real world.

You don't need to teach gender identity for children to know that having say, two mums, is normal: You just need to teach basic values of tolerance of all non-harmful lifestyles! and to be honest, these days, same sex relationships are so embedded in our culture that, outside some ethnic minority/religious communities, it's unlikely that any children are going to have any problem with them anyway. We're not living in the 1970s any more!

 

[ainsworth74]

That's fair enough. But if, as you say, young children are not being taught about sex anyway, then what is the objection to the Government making sure that state of affairs continues? The only thing I can think of is you could argue it's unnecessary regulation if they are regulating against something that doesn't happen. But that doesn't sound like a 'culture wars' objection.

Lack of trust fundamentally for me. I don't trust this Government to act in a proportionate and reasonable way if they think that they can win some positive media coverage by saying something that is potentially harmful. I will withhold judgement until the actual guidelines are published on Thursday but I'm concerned because I've seen very little to suggest that this Government is likely to come up with a positive improvement. Particularly considering they're inventing a problem which does not exist and saying that they're going to tackle the problem that they've invented.

 

[najaB]

Some people might think that, avoiding teaching - say - 6-year-olds about sex is common sense. But no, I guess in today's warped world, any attempt to avoid sexualising young children can be rubbished as 'culture wars'

Sex education ≠ sexualisation!

You don't need to teach gender identity for children to know that having say, two mums, is normal: You just need to teach basic values of tolerance of all non-harmful lifestyles!

And that's exactly what 'teaching' gender identity consists of: that you should have tolerance for people whose body doesn't match their gender.

 

[Gloster]

And that's exactly what 'teaching' gender identity consists of: that you should have tolerance for people whose body doesn't match their gender.

Tolerance: that is the the T-word that the Conservative don’t want to see encouraged. (I know that I have a habit of being flippant, but this is not intended to be.)

 

[Purple Train]

I would say schools need to teach in a trans-inclusive way, otherwise you could be bringing up children who then go on to be transphobic, or bully trans people.

I think that's a bit of a jump, from "children taught that there are two sides of the debate" (which was, I think, what @DynamicSpirit was after) to "children who hate trans people". Personally my view is that, if you trust the kids enough to teach them this, you trust them enough to make their own minds up, rather than trying to teach things one way or another. If you don't trust them to make their own minds up from the information you give them, you don't teach them the information.

 

[najaB]

I think that's a bit of a jump, from "children taught that there are two sides of the debate" (which was, I think, what @DynamicSpirit was after) to "children who hate trans people".

I'm not even convinced that there are two sides to debate. Gender dysphoria is a recognised psychological condition (it's in the DSM!), so debating it is as useful as debating the existence of depression or bi-polar disorder.

 

[The Ham]

That's absolutely the other aspect to this. Whether we think it's a good idea or not (and I'd tend to suggest not!) the reality is that children have smartphones, increasingly numbers of them, and they access Social Media. There was a report out from Ofcom the other month on this very topic:

Ofcom: Almost a quarter of kids aged 5-7 have smartphones

The regulator calls the data a "wake up call", and says parents and industry need to do more.

www.bbc.co.uk

Now I think that parents are mental for letting their children on smartphones and social media that young but a) I don't have children so don't get the pressures that parents may do and b) we live in the real world not the ideal world. Considering the number of children that are online, at a young age, ensuring that they have age appropriate relationship/sex education at an early stage has got to be a sensible idea.

Going on those numbers from Ofcom if we wait until their nine then already at least 38% of them would already be on Social Media. A third! We can't just pretend it can wait to help them understand what appropriate relationships look like and what to do if they're made to feel uncomfortable until they turn nine is not credible surely?

If you were to ask many children if they've used a messaging app like Messenger or WhatsApp, chances are they'd say yes, the question is in what way?

For example a parent may call their siblings so that the two cousins could talk to each other using such an app, or likewise calling a parent so that a grandchild/grandparent can talk to each other. Even then the child could be being supervised.

That's very different to giving a 7 year old open access to a phone and messaging apps and letting them go off to their room alone.

 

[najaB]

That's very different to giving a 7 year old open access to a phone and messaging apps and letting them go off to their room alone.

That's true, but I have zero reason to doubt that some parents do give their children unsupervised access to mobile devices and/or computers from too early an age.

 

[alex397]

I guess it's a good job that that's all that happens before they're nine then! No-one is teaching six year olds about sex, if they're teaching them anything at all. They might teach them about appropriate relationships, what they should do if somebody makes them feel uncomfortable, and similar but that's about it. Once they get to nine they might then move onto beginning to talk about puberty and what that entails but considering it starts on average these days around the age of eleven or twelve, nine is probably about the right time to introduce that topic. The closest you might get to actually talking about sex is in answer to the question "where babies come from" but that may well crop up in science anyway! It's not about sexualising young children. I would highly suggest people who are concerned speak to some primary school teachers or go and poke around a local primary schools website. You will find that what they're actually teaching, as opposed to what certain culture warriors say they're teaching, is very sensible.

Hear hear!

 

[takno]

I'm not even convinced that there are two sides to debate. Gender dysphoria is a recognised psychological condition (it's in the DSM!), so debating it is as useful as debating the existence of depression or bi-polar disorder.

I think the debate mostly centres around whether some places should, for the comfort and safety reasons be reserved for people with specific equipment, and whether medicalising the issue in children, who often change their minds later, is s sensible and helpful course of action.

In both cases I think the debate on both sides has been unhelpfully personalised and polarised by a lack of information. Far better that kids get the information early from less angry sources, so that they can learn a basic respect for other people's decisions and concerns. It also arguably allows them to resist people on the internet pushing them towards essy "solutions" for the relatively everyday feelings and worries they have.

 

[DustyBin]

I think the debate mostly centres around whether some places should, for the comfort and safety reasons be reserved for people with specific equipment, and whether medicalising the issue in children, who often change their minds later, is s sensible and helpful course of action.

In both cases I think the debate on both sides has been unhelpfully personalised and polarised by a lack of information. Far better that kids get the information early from less angry sources, so that they can learn a basic respect for other people's decisions and concerns. It also arguably allows them to resist people on the internet pushing them towards essy "solutions" for the relatively everyday feelings and worries they have.

I completely agree.

 

[Purple Train]

I think the debate mostly centres around whether some places should, for the comfort and safety reasons be reserved for people with specific equipment, and whether medicalising the issue in children, who often change their minds later, is s sensible and helpful course of action.

In both cases I think the debate on both sides has been unhelpfully personalised and polarised by a lack of information. Far better that kids get the information early from less angry sources, so that they can learn a basic respect for other people's decisions and concerns. It also arguably allows them to resist people on the internet pushing them towards essy "solutions" for the relatively everyday feelings and worries they have.

Indeed.

 

[najaB]

I think the debate mostly centres around whether some places should, for the comfort and safety reasons be reserved for people with specific equipment, and whether medicalising the issue in children, who often change their minds later, is s sensible and helpful course of action.

In both cases I think the debate on both sides has been unhelpfully personalised and polarised by a lack of information. Far better that kids get the information early from less angry sources, so that they can learn a basic respect for other people's decisions and concerns. It also arguably allows them to resist people on the internet pushing them towards essy "solutions" for the relatively everyday feelings and worries they have.

That's fair enough, but I still hear people insisting that gender dysphoria doesn't exist. That kind of 'debate' is unhelpful at best, and downright dangerous at worst.