The Conservative Party under Kemi Badenoch

[317 forever]

I actually wonder whether the "green shoots of recovery" for the Tories are already in place.

They came comparatively close to having centre ground MP James Cleverly as leader. The Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride, himself a leadership candidate at the time, voted Remain.

Meanwhile David Gauke has rejoined the party. (Admittedly Dominic Grieve applied to rejoin but this did not materialise at this stage).

Their only seat gain at the General Election was Leicester East. They have a moderate MP Shivani Raja who herself voted Remain. Her strategy of painting herself as not just a local candidate but as the opposition to the incumbent Labour City Council was brilliant (although she was blessed by having a divided opposition).

So, I know this is only a limited straw poll. But if these 4 are typical of the future Tory party, their worst days may just be moving behind them now.

 

[nw1]

I actually wonder whether the "green shoots of recovery" for the Tories are already in place.

They came comparatively close to having centre ground MP James Cleverly as leader. The Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride, himself a leadership candidate at the time, voted Remain.

Meanwhile David Gauke has rejoined the party. (Admittedly Dominic Grieve applied to rejoin but this did not materialise at this stage).

Their only seat gain at the General Election was Leicester East. They have a moderate MP Shivani Raja who herself voted Remain. Her strategy of painting herself as not just a local candidate but as the opposition to the incumbent Labour City Council was brilliant (although she was blessed by having a divided opposition).

So, I know this is only a limited straw poll. But if these 4 are typical of the future Tory party, their worst days may just be moving behind them now.

I am not a Conservative but I now consider myself an "ABR" (Anyone But Reform) voter.

It does appear that the hardline approach of Badenoch is winning them relatively little favours, and as I've said on that thread, the other parties are unlikely to pick up support by aping Reform.

It's time the Tory Party moved back to their traditional centre-right position and drop the culture war stuff because Reform "own" that in any case. Their traditional position was always a combination of right-wing economically but much less so socially, and I think they'll win back more people than they lose by returning to that position.

I'm not into right-wing economic policy but a centre-right Tory government would be very much more palatable than a Reform one. For that reason I am hoping they do move in that direction.

To me it seems that the Tories have two options - merge or otherwise ally with Reform, or fade into obscurity and let Reform replace them.

Or 3) as I said above move back to a centre-right position, drop the culture war stuff, and become who they were in the 1990-2015 period again. Essentially a more economically-right-wing version of Labour or the Lib Dems. Surely that would be a good strategy?

 

[MotCO]

I actually wonder whether the "green shoots of recovery" for the Tories are already in place.

They came comparatively close to having centre ground MP James Cleverly as leader. The Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride, himself a leadership candidate at the time, voted Remain.

Meanwhile David Gauke has rejoined the party. (Admittedly Dominic Grieve applied to rejoin but this did not materialise at this stage).

Their only seat gain at the General Election was Leicester East. They have a moderate MP Shivani Raja who herself voted Remain. Her strategy of painting herself as not just a local candidate but as the opposition to the incumbent Labour City Council was brilliant (although she was blessed by having a divided opposition).

So, I know this is only a limited straw poll. But if these 4 are typical of the future Tory party, their worst days may just be moving behind them now.

You seem to be saying that the best way to have a Tory government would be to move to the left and occupy the centre ground, rather than have a right wing Thatcherite-lite (or maybe just Thatcherite) government. I think a lot of Conservative voters were disappointed by the liberal leanings of the last 10 years or so, and want to move to the right, hence one of the reasons for Reform being so popular. They want less public spending, lower taxes etc, which did not happen under Rishi and co. They want immigration brought under control, which, apart from the aborted Rwanda scheme, was not tackled by Rishi and his predecessors. (Why did Rishi call as General Election before the Rwanda scheme was implemented, which, if it worked, could have saved him?)

One of the attractions of Reform is that they are not one of the other parties, tarnished by the actions (inactions?) of the past. I'm not sure how the Tories will overcome this - look at how ineffective her PMQ performances have been, hampered by being accused of not taking the actions when they were in power that she is criticising Starmer of.

 

[nw1]

You seem to be saying that the best way to have a Tory government would be to move to the left and occupy the centre ground, rather than have a right wing Thatcherite-lite (or maybe just Thatcherite) government. I think a lot of Conservative voters were disappointed by the liberal leanings of the last 10 years or so, and want to move to the right, hence one of the reasons for Reform being so popular. They want less public spending, lower taxes etc, which did not happen under Rishi and co. They want immigration brought under control, which, apart from the aborted Rwanda scheme, was not tackled by Rishi and his predecessors. (Why did Rishi call as General Election before the Rwanda scheme was implemented, which, if it worked, could have saved him?)

One of the attractions of Reform is that they are not one of the other parties, tarnished by the actions (inactions?) of the past. I'm not sure how the Tories will overcome this - look at how ineffective her PMQ performances have been, hampered by being accused of not taking the actions when they were in power that she is criticising Starmer of.

Worked for the Tories before, how about now?
Specifically, a centre-right position won elections for the Tories in 1992, 2010 and 2015.

All three of them, Tories, Reform and even Labour, seem to be chasing the same group of voters and not really caring too much about the rest of us.
Strategically I think both the Tories and Labour need to accept that the hardline anti-immigration, anti-woke lot will probably just vote Reform in any case, and go after other sections of the electorate.
The Tories could then position themselves as being right-wing economically but more liberal socially. In that way they have a pitch which is different from both Labour (more centrist economically) and Reform (more right-wing socially).

I know, from speaking to people directly, that a lot of people were attracted to Cameron in 2010 and 2015 precisely because he was seen as careful on public spending (too careful IMO, but that's irrelevant to this argument) but more liberal socially. The current Tories have chased that kind of voter away.

In particular I'm not sure what the liberal leanings of the past 10 years have been, exactly. Neither the Tories nor Labour have been especially socially liberal. We've had Brexit and additional immigration restrictions, the latter seemingly supported by Labour. If anything, the period since 2016 has been IMO the most socially-conservative era since Thatcher.

 

[JamesT]

Worked for the Tories before, how about now?
Specifically, a centre-right position won elections for the Tories in 1992, 2010 and 2015.

All three of them, Tories, Reform and even Labour, seem to be chasing the same group of voters and not really caring too much about the rest of us.
Strategically I think both the Tories and Labour need to accept that the hardline anti-immigration, anti-woke lot will probably just vote Reform in any case, and go after other sections of the electorate.
The Tories could then position themselves as being right-wing economically but more liberal socially. In that way they have a pitch which is different from both Labour (more centrist economically) and Reform (more right-wing socially).

I know, from speaking to people directly, that a lot of people were attracted to Cameron in 2010 and 2015 precisely because he was seen as careful on public spending (too careful IMO, but that's irrelevant to this argument) but more liberal socially. The current Tories have chased that kind of voter away.

In particular I'm not sure what the liberal leanings of the past 10 years have been, exactly. Neither the Tories nor Labour have been especially socially liberal. We've had Brexit and additional immigration restrictions, the latter seemingly supported by Labour. If anything, the period since 2016 has been IMO the most socially-conservative era since Thatcher.

Brexit did tend to overshadow things, but May's government legislated a binding Net Zero target and started working on Self-ID for Trans people.

Although the last few governments have talked a tough line on immigration, they've presided over record numbers so by deeds have been liberal.

I don't think any of the COVID or post-Covid governments have been around long enough to get into social policy.

 

[takno]

Brexit did tend to overshadow things, but May's government legislated a binding Net Zero target and started working on Self-ID for Trans people.

Although the last few governments have talked a tough line on immigration, they've presided over record numbers so by deeds have been liberal.

I don't think any of the COVID or post-Covid governments have been around long enough to get into social policy.

I think that May became a relatively liberal and sensible PM in the end. Sadly that was only after she finally flushed her awful SPADs Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill, who were responsible for much of her idiocy when home secretary, and subsequently were a major part of the awful red-lines which prevented us from doing any kind of sensible Brexit, and were responsible for the catastrophic 2017 election campaign which left us with such a broken parliament.

Sadly I see that Nick Timothy was rewarded for his stupidity with a safe seat, and is now an MP. So that's yet another Tory MP who would probably actually make a worse leader than Badenoch.

 

[MotCO]

I know, from speaking to people directly, that a lot of people were attracted to Cameron in 2010 and 2015 precisely because he was seen as careful on public spending (too careful IMO, but that's irrelevant to this argument) but more liberal socially. The current Tories have chased that kind of voter away.

Net Public Sector debt under George Osborn rose from 65.4% in May 2010 to 80.5% in July 2016 (as a percentage of GDP, excluding public sector banks). The 'Austerity Chancellor' is a bit of a myth. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...axes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

​

 

[takno]

Net Public Sector debt under George Osborn rose from 65.4% in May 2010 to 80.5% in July 2016 (as a percentage of GDP, excluding public sector banks). The 'Austerity Chancellor' is a bit of a myth. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...axes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

He was pretty austere with many areas of public finances, but a combination of tax cuts and failure to grow the economy more than compensated for that. There were also large protected areas like the NHS, where they were forced by election promises not to cut the budget, so had to make do with wasting a large pile of it instead. Bringing Network Rail's debt onto the public balance sheet didn't help much either.

A recklessly incompetent chancellor in most respects. With the creation of both all that debt and the OBR, he has also done a huge amount to prevent subsequent chancellors from improving the situation.

 

[deltic]

Badenoch seems to be rapidly losing her MPs. Her negative comments over the India and US trade deals being contradicted by other senior Tories who have welcomed them.

She seems to be Johnsonite in her approach to politics, in that she seems to fail to put in the hard graft of getting to grips with the subject she is meant to be commenting on.

 

[The Ham]

Brexit did tend to overshadow things, but May's government legislated a binding Net Zero target and started working on Self-ID for Trans people.

Although the last few governments have talked a tough line on immigration, they've presided over record numbers so by deeds have been liberal.

I don't think any of the COVID or post-Covid governments have been around long enough to get into social policy.

If it weren't for the levels I'd immigration we've seen then we'd already have a falling working age population at the same time as seeing the population of that over 65 rising.

We're already seeing the ratio between 16-64's and over 65's falling. Generally we need a decent number of the former to find the latter.

Anyone who wants net zero immigration, by extension wants cuts to payments to pensioners or for the retirement age to increase - their choice.

 

[nw1]

Brexit did tend to overshadow things, but May's government legislated a binding Net Zero target and started working on Self-ID for Trans people.

Although the last few governments have talked a tough line on immigration, they've presided over record numbers so by deeds have been liberal.

I don't think any of the COVID or post-Covid governments have been around long enough to get into social policy.

Yes, to be fair I used 2016 as the cut-off date due to Brexit but the May government was relatively sane on the whole, and May herself quite a reasonable PM in many ways.

 

[Magdalia]

failure to grow the economy

Osborne, and all of his successors, have failed there.

Net Public Sector debt under George Osborn rose from 65.4% in May 2010 to 80.5% in July 2016 (as a percentage of GDP, excluding public sector banks). The 'Austerity Chancellor' is a bit of a myth. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...axes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

Try telling that to, for example, local government.

The Osborne era was a actually a good time to borrow, with historically low long term interest rates. But the borrowing should have been to finance investment, not to mask the impact of no growth on current expenditure.

We're already seeing the ratio between 16-64's and over 65's falling. Generally we need a decent number of the former to find the latter.

Anyone who wants net zero immigration, by extension wants cuts to payments to pensioners or for the retirement age to increase - their choice.

Almost absolutely. There is one other option, that rarely gets talked about, and that's lowering the school leaving age to bring more 16 and 17 year olds into the labour market.

I see that Nick Timothy was rewarded for his stupidity with a safe seat, and is now an MP.

In West Suffolk, succeeding Matt Hancock.

 

[MotCO]

Anyone who wants net zero immigration, by extension wants cuts to payments to pensioners or for the retirement age to increase - their chchoice.

But it has to be immigrants who pay taxes, rather than those not in employment.

 

[edwin_m]

There is one other option, that rarely gets talked about, and that's lowering the school leaving age to bring more 16 and 17 year olds into the labour market.

Or reversing the Blair policy of getting 50% into further education. There are many jobs where apprenticeship (working productively and earning a wage) are a better route than academic study.

 

[takno]

Almost absolutely. There is one other option, that rarely gets talked about, and that's lowering the school leaving age to bring more 16 and 17 year olds into the labour market.

If you extend the retirement age you are simultaneously increasing the size of the workforce and reducing the size of the pension-force, whilst lowering the school leaving age only increases the workforce size. What's more, because there are less people aged 16-17 than there are aged 68-69, the school-age change would be even less impactful. You'd also expect a far smaller proportion of people to take it up, particularly assuming that you keep 50% going into higher education.

Essentially you'd have well under a quarter as much impact on the imbalance for the same number of years of change.

At the same time, and in spite of various claims about unemployment at the time, we extended education in order to make young people more qualified and more productive by the time they entered the workforce. Further education between 16-18 is arguably the most directly useful and relevant period of education from a jobs point of view, so not putting children through it may actually make the problem worse rather than better.

In West Suffolk, succeeding Matt Hancock.

A kind of one-out-one-in policy on idiots I guess

 

[The Ham]

Almost absolutely. There is one other option, that rarely gets talked about, and that's lowering the school leaving age to bring more 16 and 17 year olds into the labour market.

In 2010 (before the increase to 18 in UK) the percentage of 17 year olds in full time education was 72.8%, so reversing the rules to that would hardly impact the numbers in work.

But it has to be immigrants who pay taxes, rather than those not in employment.

Virtually all immigrants pay taxes, although not all will pay income tax (i.e. VAT).

Should we not allow foreign students to come here (likely not in employment) even though they pay a lot to study here and spend money in the economy.

It could be possible to have asylum seekers working, but that's been stopped in favour of the government paying for them whilst they're claims are processed. The politicians who thought this was a good idea are also likely to have supported cuts in staff processing the claims, which means that the costs of housing then have increased.

Let's say our used to take 100 days from first arrive for applications to be processed and the number in the system was always 10,000 people as you could process 100 people in a day. Now if you cut the numbers being processed to 80 a day, after one day you've got to house an extra 20 people for one day, the next day is now 40 extra people for a day, and by day 4 you're a whole day behind, so from day 5 you're now housing 20 for two extra days and 80 for one extra day and there are now 10,100 in the system.

It then continues to snowball, to the point where you are now housing people on average for 150 days, only now not only are they being housed for longer but there are far more of them to be housed and to add to the impact those who could have otherwise been paying taxes are sat around waiting still.

 

[brad465]

Net Public Sector debt under George Osborn rose from 65.4% in May 2010 to 80.5% in July 2016 (as a percentage of GDP, excluding public sector banks). The 'Austerity Chancellor' is a bit of a myth. https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...axes/publicsectorfinance/timeseries/hf6x/pusf

He was pretty austere with many areas of public finances, but a combination of tax cuts and failure to grow the economy more than compensated for that. There were also large protected areas like the NHS, where they were forced by election promises not to cut the budget, so had to make do with wasting a large pile of it instead. Bringing Network Rail's debt onto the public balance sheet didn't help much either.

A recklessly incompetent chancellor in most respects. With the creation of both all that debt and the OBR, he has also done a huge amount to prevent subsequent chancellors from improving the situation.

How true is this claim that what ended up happening with austerity, was a lot of important work ended up being outsourced to consultants/agencies, which cost more to deliver the same work, but as it was on a different balance sheet didn't bother the Treasury so much?

 

[The Ham]

How true is this claim that what ended up happening with austerity, was a lot of important work ended up being outsourced to consultants/agencies, which cost more to deliver the same work, but as it was on a different balance sheet didn't bother the Treasury so much?

I don't know.

What is likely to be true - by saying there were going to be cuts to services then government (of all levels) staff cut back incase they were going to lose their job. Which then ment that there was less money going around in the economy, which meant that the tax take wasn't as large, meaning that there was a need for more savings to meet the reductions in government borrowing needed to balance the books. Which meant that there were even more people at risk of losing their job. Repeat.

Likewise, tax breaks to the wealthy generally result in then having more money sat in savings. If you really want to see them create jobs then link their tax cuts to the number of people they employ.

For example if anyone with assets of over 10 million had to pay 2% tax on that and it increased by 0.5% for each extra 15 million they had but could reduce that by 0.3% (so employ one person and their tax would fall from 2% to 1.7%) for each person they employ then chances are they would find people to employ if they could do so for a cost of less than £30,000 per staff member as that would cost them less than they would pay in taxes for each £1.6 million in assets they hold above the £10 million threshold.

 

[MotCO]

I don't know.

What is likely to be true - by saying there were going to be cuts to services then government (of all levels) staff cut back incase they were going to lose their job. Which then ment that there was less money going around in the economy, which meant that the tax take wasn't as large, meaning that there was a need for more savings to meet the reductions in government borrowing needed to balance the books. Which meant that there were even more people at risk of losing their job. Repeat.

Or, lower taxes could lead to an increase in private sector jobs - the risks (costs) for private enterprise would be lower, so they would be tempted to take more risks to make more money by starting new projects which would employ more staff which would raise more income tax. Repeat.

 

[GusB]

Or, lower taxes could lead to an increase in private sector jobs - the risks (costs) for private enterprise would be lower, so they would be tempted to take more risks to make more money by starting new projects which would employ more staff which would raise more income tax. Repeat.

Or lower taxes would lead to certain business owners getting wealthier without taking any risks or employing more staff. You're making the rather silly assumption that all business owners care about their staff and the communities in which their businesses operate.

 

[Yew]

Or, lower taxes could lead to an increase in private sector jobs - the risks (costs) for private enterprise would be lower, so they would be tempted to take more risks to make more money by starting new projects which would employ more staff which would raise more income tax. Repeat.

Cutting taxes for those individuals with a low marginal propensity to consume rarely results in more economic activity, as such demographics are less likely to spend that money - more often it goes into savings.

Cutting taxes for businesses can work, as you say, but the impact is often overstated by those with vested financial interests. Particularly compared to using the same budget to provide more direct economic stimuli.

How true is this claim that what ended up happening with austerity, was a lot of important work ended up being outsourced to consultants/agencies, which cost more to deliver the same work, but as it was on a different balance sheet didn't bother the Treasury so much?

I am unsure if this is due to austerity, but it does seem to be that we have a situation where the Civil Service can't pay attractive wages (or perhaps can't have the headcount "on the books") for roles like software developers, and end up using staff augmentation from consultancies.

I've no problem with using consultants for specialist skills that it doesn't make sense for the government to have, or to address surges in demand, but I would not be certain that the current spending on consultants offers value-for-money when viewed holistically.

 

[The Ham]

Or, lower taxes could lead to an increase in private sector jobs - the risks (costs) for private enterprise would be lower, so they would be tempted to take more risks to make more money by starting new projects which would employ more staff which would raise more income tax. Repeat.

That could only work if austerity had lead to lower taxes.

Also, the best way to make that work would be to link reduced taxes to employing people.

For example companies pay taxes on the profits at 50%, however for each person they employ (full time equivalent - 30 hours per week) the tax burden is cut by £50,000 to a minimum value of 12% tax on profits. You could also have the same rule for those with high values of assets (although a different tax rate and adjustment) and earning over £100,000 (yes many would just employ a family member, but each person can only count once across income, profits and assets, which would mean some very wealthy people with large amounts of assets would need to employ eater a lot of people).

Companies could be tempted to declare profits in the UK which are otherwise offshored, due to the low rate of corporation tax that they could pay if they employ a lot of people anyway.

Other companies could employ people just so they pay less taxes, but in doing so those people would spend their wages, which would go around within the economy which would increase taxes being paid.

However having set the cut higher than a 30 hour week minimum wage job wage those who want staff to work hard would probably have to pay more than the minimum wage as there would be people (say) employing a full time housekeeper (cooking and cleaning) but not having 30 hours of tasks for them to actually do which would set the rate of pay for (say) bar staff higher than minimum wage.

However that's likely to be fine as there would likely be more people spending money in those places which needed to pay their staff above minimum wage (but not so much more that they needed more staff).

 

[takno]

That could only work if austerity had lead to lower taxes.

Also, the best way to make that work would be to link reduced taxes to employing people.

For example companies pay taxes on the profits at 50%, however for each person they employ (full time equivalent - 30 hours per week) the tax burden is cut by £50,000 to a minimum value of 12% tax on profits. You could also have the same rule for those with high values of assets (although a different tax rate and adjustment) and earning over £100,000 (yes many would just employ a family member, but each person can only count once across income, profits and assets, which would mean some very wealthy people with large amounts of assets would need to employ eater a lot of people).

Companies could be tempted to declare profits in the UK which are otherwise offshored, due to the low rate of corporation tax that they could pay if they employ a lot of people anyway.

Other companies could employ people just so they pay less taxes, but in doing so those people would spend their wages, which would go around within the economy which would increase taxes being paid.

However having set the cut higher than a 30 hour week minimum wage job wage those who want staff to work hard would probably have to pay more than the minimum wage as there would be people (say) employing a full time housekeeper (cooking and cleaning) but not having 30 hours of tasks for them to actually do which would set the rate of pay for (say) bar staff higher than minimum wage.

However that's likely to be fine as there would likely be more people spending money in those places which needed to pay their staff above minimum wage (but not so much more that they needed more staff).

This sounds like a recipe for low productivity tag, which only causes further problems when it comes to the demographic spread

 

[The Ham]

This sounds like a recipe for low productivity tag, which only causes further problems when it comes to the demographic spread

Only if there's no extra people being employed.

If someone who is "working" in a non job would otherwise be unemployed then them being paid by someone other than the state is saving money.

Likewise, if those non jobs reduce the working population to do other jobs then there would be a need for more automation - which would increase productivity.

Also, the productivity data (as the non working data) is partly reliant on information from ONS's Labour Force Survey which has been highlighted recently as not necessarily having good data due to poor response rates.

 

[edwin_m]

If someone who is "working" in a non job would otherwise be unemployed then them being paid by someone other than the state is saving money.

Likewise, if those non jobs reduce the working population to do other jobs then there would be a need for more automation - which would increase productivity.

I think you're slightly contradicting yourself here.

Incentivise employers to employ more people and you risk lowering their competitiveness, particularly against overseas companies that don't have that incentive.

And the employers of the "other jobs" would also be incentivised to try to find more people rather than invest in automation.

Not saying its wholly a bad idea, but it would need some careful thought to minimise perverse incentives.

 

[MotCO]

Incentivise employers to employ more people and you risk lowering their competitiveness, particularly against overseas companies that don't have that incentive.

Not if you are increasing total output, or even better, producing increased output at a reduced unit price due to spreading overheads over the greater output.

 

[DarloRich]

This seems to be poor alleged behaviour.

An MP has been charged with two counts of sexual assault that allegedly happened at London's Groucho Club, the Metropolitan Police have said.

Central Suffolk and North Ipswich Conservative MP Patrick Spencer is accused of the attacks, which were said to have happened in August 2023.

The 37-year-old will appear at Westminster Magistrates' Court on 16 June.

In a statement, the force said it had issued the charges related to two women.

Suffolk MP Patrick Spencer MP charged with two sex assaults

Central Suffolk and North Ipswich MP Patrick Spencer is accused of two counts of sexual assault.

www.bbc.co.uk

 

[brad465]

This seems to be poor alleged behaviour.

Suffolk MP Patrick Spencer MP charged with two sex assaults

Central Suffolk and North Ipswich MP Patrick Spencer is accused of two counts of sexual assault.

www.bbc.co.uk

If this goes all the way to vacating the seat and subsequent by-election, it will be the Tory leader's* worst nightmare. Reform will likely sweep the seat as the Tory party is up whatsit creek, compounded by the potential means of departure being a scandal (which always weighs on the incumbent party), while Labour, despite being second, won't gain from it as they're the incumbent governing party, even if they have improved things by the time said election is held.

*It's not unreasonable to think Badenoch will be gone by the time there might be a by-election here, but if she is still in post, losing this will be what sends her packing.

 

[Bald Rick]

It's not unreasonable to think Badenoch will be gone by the time there might be a by-election here, but if she is still in post, losing this will be what sends her packing.

Private Eye has a brilliant fake ‘opinion piece’ from “Dee Nial” that says

“…All my focus is on Kemi, cheering her on! You know what they say, the Conservatives’ secret weapon is loyalty, and no matter what happens, no matter what screaming catastrophe may be visited on us, we should all back Kemi’s decision to resign. Should she decide to resign of course.”

 

[Egg Centric]

https://x.com/elshadkarbasi/status/1928020755037507898

(link goes to:

Statement from Sadiq Khan: I am aware of the distressing footage from Stratford showing a man targeting members of our fare evading community™ I want to reassure all our communities™, law-abiding or not, that we will not let hate divide us London is open to everyone

further quoting

Sadiq Khan is driving a proud city into the ground. Lawbreaking is out of control. He's not acting. So, I did.

from Robert Jenrick, along with a video by Robert Jenrick confronting alleged ticket evaders)



I see Robert Jenrick has a second career as a ticketing vigilante now.

Without in any way condoning fare evasion, how pathetic is he?

We need a suspicious transactions to politicians by Richard Desmond vigilante instead.