LEAVE the Conservative Party and save your country!

pblakeney

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

kingstongraham

rick_chasey said:

Either way, the point remains; I think it is generally a good idea not to immediately unpick what the previous government has put in.

So you think the Labour party should crack on with the Rwanda scheme plans?

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Either way, the point remains; I think it is generally a good idea not to immediately unpick what the previous government has put in.

So you think the Labour party should crack on with the Rwanda scheme plans?

There is a difference between planned and implemented.

rick_chasey

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Either way, the point remains; I think it is generally a good idea not to immediately unpick what the previous government has put in.

So you think the Labour party should crack on with the Rwanda scheme plans?

I think if you can make the argument that what the previous government has put in is illegal or can provide sufficient evidence that it is not working as intended and flag that up in the manifesto then I think there is obviously room for exceptions.

But in general stable countries and stable democracies work on the basis you maintain a level of continuity.

kingstongraham

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Either way, the point remains; I think it is generally a good idea not to immediately unpick what the previous government has put in.

So you think the Labour party should crack on with the Rwanda scheme plans?

There is a difference between planned and implemented.

So if they manage to get it through the courts and fly some people to Rwanda, you think Labour should not immediately stop it?

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Jezyboy

You'd have had to be paying unusually close attention to politics in 2019 to recognise the name Rishi Sunak, let alone predict him as the next Chancellor.

pblakeney

kingstongraham said:

pblakeney said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Either way, the point remains; I think it is generally a good idea not to immediately unpick what the previous government has put in.

So you think the Labour party should crack on with the Rwanda scheme plans?

There is a difference between planned and implemented.

So if they manage to get it through the courts and fly some people to Rwanda, you think Labour should not immediately stop it?

Well, yes in that specific example.
I doubt it will be implemented though.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Unfortunately we are moving closer and closer to U.S. style politics.

Pross

kingstongraham said:

In what way did anyone vote for this? It wasn't in the manifesto, and it's not been put before parliament. It's just a diktat from the consultant in charge.

Manifesto:

Consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings of HS2 and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome

Exactly. Yes, we have a representative democracy and it's a pet hate of mine when people demand referenda on every contentious issue or moan they haven't got a voice. However, when a Party is elected on the basis of manifesto pledges and then not only fails to deliver them but reverses them and acts like they were introduced by some opposition Party prior to their term it can't really be called representative democracy. As for expecting people to have seen this coming when the Tories got an 80 seat majority, I'm struggling to see the logic. With that large majority I would have thought the expectation for most would be that they would steamroller through their manifesto policies irrespective of any opposition not u-turn on nearly all of them.

kingstongraham

Pross said:

kingstongraham said:

In what way did anyone vote for this? It wasn't in the manifesto, and it's not been put before parliament. It's just a diktat from the consultant in charge.

Manifesto:

Consider the findings of the Oakervee review into costs and timings of HS2 and work with leaders of the Midlands and the North to decide the optimal outcome

Exactly. Yes, we have a representative democracy and it's a pet hate of mine when people demand referenda on every contentious issue or moan they haven't got a voice. However, when a Party is elected on the basis of manifesto pledges and then not only fails to deliver them but reverses them and acts like they were introduced by some opposition Party prior to their term it can't really be called representative democracy. As for expecting people to have seen this coming when the Tories got an 80 seat majority, I'm struggling to see the logic. With that large majority I would have thought the expectation for most would be that they would steamroller through their manifesto policies irrespective of any opposition not u-turn on nearly all of them.

If this had gone to a new vote in parliament to stop it, that would be representative democracy.

rjsterry

rick_chasey said:

kingstongraham said:

rick_chasey said:

Either way, the point remains; I think it is generally a good idea not to immediately unpick what the previous government has put in.

So you think the Labour party should crack on with the Rwanda scheme plans?

I think if you can make the argument that what the previous government has put in is illegal or can provide sufficient evidence that it is not working as intended and flag that up in the manifesto then I think there is obviously room for exceptions.

But in general stable countries and stable democracies work on the basis you maintain a level of continuity.

Would not be at all surprised if there was a judicial review of Sunak's decision on HS2 given the complete lack of any consultation and fake list of alternative projects.

Pross

Those manifesto points were:

1. Increase the number of nurses by 50,000
2. Leave the EU in January 2020
3. No income tax, VAT or National Insurance rises
4. Pensions will rise by at least 2.5% per year
5. No-one will sell their home to pay for care
6. Reach net zero by 2050
7. Spend £6.3bn on 2.2 million disadvantaged homes (getting them up to suitable standards of insulation).
8. Introduce a points-based immigration system (to reduce net migration to less than 100,000).
9. Continue the roll out of universal credit (reduce poverty through changes to tax and benefits).
10. Create 250,000 extra childcare places (help parents by making childcare available in the holidays).
11. Student finances (freeze of tuition fees at £9,250 likely to continue).
12. A new Manchester to Leeds rail line (plus £2bn to fill potholes).
13. Launch a democracy commission (to look into the constitutional power balance).

Which of these are on target, which are still aims and which have resulted in u-turns? By my reckoning they have done item 2 (in the minimal sense without having dealt with any of the predicted issues it created), item 4 (surprise, surprise!) and item 11 but there's a few I'm not sure on. Item 1 is allegedly on track but it was from a figure that had significantly dropped in previous years. Item 3 has had a double u-turn, I'm pretty sure we haven't got anywhere with 5, key milestones for item 6 have been pushed back, item 7 I don't know but seriously doubt, item 8 they introduced the system but net immigration in 2022 was over 600,000 so they are concentrating on the small percentage arriving unofficially, no idea on item 9 but I don't think they have reduced poverty, no idea on item 10, not sure of the latest with item 12 (was this one of the existing schemes that HS2 funding is being given to?) and if item 13 has happened they're doing a pretty shoddy job. Is that the body a few MPs have been moaning about after getting a telling off?

rick_chasey

I think it is fair to not judge a government on what they promised pre covid, tbh.

I can't stand the govt and I think they're deliberately wrecking the country because they know they're out this coming election.

Dorset_Boy

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Brown became leader and PM in June 2007, and was kicked out of No10 in the May 2010 election, so a smidge under 3 years between the Labour party giving him leadership and the electorate getting to vote on him.

kingstongraham

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Brown became leader and PM in June 2007, and was kicked out of No10 in the May 2010 election, so a smidge under 3 years between the Labour party giving him leadership and the electorate getting to vote on him.

The previous two who didn't get elected to PM were Major, who stayed on until almost the full 5 years since the 1987 election, Callaghan who put in 3 years before calling an election well into the 5th year of the parliament, Douglas-Home who was only one year but that was the full 5 years of the parliament. Macmillan gave it 2 years 9 months before an election, but he was the last one who didn't leave it as late as he could (probably because he increased his majority).

Jezyboy

rick_chasey said:

I think it is fair to not judge a government on what they promised pre covid, tbh.

I can't stand the govt and I think they're deliberately wrecking the country because they know they're out this coming election.

I think it's fair to accept that the original pledges in a manifesto might not be deliverable after a pandemic.

OTOH they seem to have no intention of even working towards much of it now.

First.Aspect

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Brown became leader and PM in June 2007, and was kicked out of No10 in the May 2010 election, so a smidge under 3 years between the Labour party giving him leadership and the electorate getting to vote on him.

The previous two who didn't get elected to PM were Major, who stayed on until almost the full 5 years since the 1987 election, Callaghan who put in 3 years before calling an election well into the 5th year of the parliament, Douglas-Home who was only one year but that was the full 5 years of the parliament. Macmillan gave it 2 years 9 months before an election, but he was the last one who didn't leave it as late as he could (probably because he increased his majority).

Okay, wrong on that then.

Something is particularly wrong this time around though. Perhaps it's just the total about face on most of their manifesto and the fact it's a third PM.

Is that not unprecedented?

rjsterry

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Brown became leader and PM in June 2007, and was kicked out of No10 in the May 2010 election, so a smidge under 3 years between the Labour party giving him leadership and the electorate getting to vote on him.

The previous two who didn't get elected to PM were Major, who stayed on until almost the full 5 years since the 1987 election, Callaghan who put in 3 years before calling an election well into the 5th year of the parliament, Douglas-Home who was only one year but that was the full 5 years of the parliament. Macmillan gave it 2 years 9 months before an election, but he was the last one who didn't leave it as late as he could (probably because he increased his majority).

Okay, wrong on that then.

Something is particularly wrong this time around though. Perhaps it's just the total about face on most of their manifesto and the fact it's a third PM.

Is that not unprecedented?

I think it is the attempt to completely bypass parliament and govern from no.10 only. Strategic decisions of national importance with decades-long impacts should not be taken in isolation by a single person with a handful of SPADs

Jezyboy

I think what was almost unprecedented was the leadership competition which was run like an election campaign with televised debates, different and new manifestos.

The precedent was probably Boris getting in.

briantrumpet

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Brown became leader and PM in June 2007, and was kicked out of No10 in the May 2010 election, so a smidge under 3 years between the Labour party giving him leadership and the electorate getting to vote on him.

The previous two who didn't get elected to PM were Major, who stayed on until almost the full 5 years since the 1987 election, Callaghan who put in 3 years before calling an election well into the 5th year of the parliament, Douglas-Home who was only one year but that was the full 5 years of the parliament. Macmillan gave it 2 years 9 months before an election, but he was the last one who didn't leave it as late as he could (probably because he increased his majority).

Okay, wrong on that then.

Something is particularly wrong this time around though. Perhaps it's just the total about face on most of their manifesto and the fact it's a third PM.

Is that not unprecedented?

I think it is the attempt to completely bypass parliament and govern from no.10 only. Strategic decisions of national importance with decades-long impacts should not be taken in isolation by a single person with a handful of SPADs

This feels like yet more Bannonism, wanting to put more 'presidential' power in the hands of the incumbent, which makes authoritarianism much easier.

veronese68

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Brown became leader and PM in June 2007, and was kicked out of No10 in the May 2010 election, so a smidge under 3 years between the Labour party giving him leadership and the electorate getting to vote on him.

The previous two who didn't get elected to PM were Major, who stayed on until almost the full 5 years since the 1987 election, Callaghan who put in 3 years before calling an election well into the 5th year of the parliament, Douglas-Home who was only one year but that was the full 5 years of the parliament. Macmillan gave it 2 years 9 months before an election, but he was the last one who didn't leave it as late as he could (probably because he increased his majority).

Okay, wrong on that then.

Something is particularly wrong this time around though. Perhaps it's just the total about face on most of their manifesto and the fact it's a third PM.

Is that not unprecedented?

I think it is the attempt to completely bypass parliament and govern from no.10 only. Strategic decisions of national importance with decades-long impacts should not be taken in isolation by a single person with a handful of SPADs

This feels like yet more Bannonism, wanting to put more 'presidential' power in the hands of the incumbent, which makes authoritarianism much easier.

Wasn't that something started by Boris? At least they are following his lead in that respect, even if it is completely wrong.

Pross

In case anyone wants a job where your bosses pay you to produce stuff they'll totally ignore (or do the complete opposite to your recommendations) this just came up on my LinkedIn feed

briantrumpet

veronese68 said:

briantrumpet said:

rjsterry said:

First.Aspect said:

kingstongraham said:

Dorset_Boy said:

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

Can I use this current topic to point out that while the next election will be Sunak v Starmer the votes go to the party, and whoever they choose as leader.
The general public will ignore this. Again.

We have historically relied on the parties adhering to convention and, if they change leader mid term (like Major, May and Brown) calling an election a period thereafter that's not insultingly long.

The Tories have ignored this, as they have ignored other norms for several years. I think they will be punished heavily, but the consequences of tearing up the unwritten rule book are probably going to be quite long term.

Just look at the US, where elections and actual votes don't seem to matter.

We need to be really scared of the Tories start demanding recounts.

Brown became leader and PM in June 2007, and was kicked out of No10 in the May 2010 election, so a smidge under 3 years between the Labour party giving him leadership and the electorate getting to vote on him.

The previous two who didn't get elected to PM were Major, who stayed on until almost the full 5 years since the 1987 election, Callaghan who put in 3 years before calling an election well into the 5th year of the parliament, Douglas-Home who was only one year but that was the full 5 years of the parliament. Macmillan gave it 2 years 9 months before an election, but he was the last one who didn't leave it as late as he could (probably because he increased his majority).

Okay, wrong on that then.

Something is particularly wrong this time around though. Perhaps it's just the total about face on most of their manifesto and the fact it's a third PM.

Is that not unprecedented?

I think it is the attempt to completely bypass parliament and govern from no.10 only. Strategic decisions of national importance with decades-long impacts should not be taken in isolation by a single person with a handful of SPADs

This feels like yet more Bannonism, wanting to put more 'presidential' power in the hands of the incumbent, which makes authoritarianism much easier.

Wasn't that something started by Boris? At least they are following his lead in that respect, even if it is completely wrong.

Hmm, quite possibly, though the axing of a major infrastructure policy without parliamentary consent at all that had been in manifestos and explicitly debated and approved by parliament feels like an order of magnitude more brazen.

I feel that it would be appropriate for a rapid legal challenge via the Supreme Court, to question the ability of Sunak to take such executive action: to my mind it is not dissimilar to the illegal proroguing of parliament, though that, of course, included Johnson lying to the Queen too.

Hmm, you might have a point re Johnson, after all.

briantrumpet

Sunak has definitely morphed into satire.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1710326548983640299

pblakeney

I take it "integration" has been cancelled too now?

First.Aspect

pblakeney said:

I take it "integration" has been cancelled too now?

Dunno, Rishi prides himself on his maths skills.

pblakeney

First.Aspect said:

pblakeney said:

I take it "integration" has been cancelled too now?

Dunno, Rishi prides himself on his maths skills.

Primarily breaking the equation down into the smallest component parts?

rjsterry

Oh FFS, they're re-heating the stupid idea that solar farms compete for land with food production.

TheBigBean

rjsterry said:

Oh FFS, they're re-heating the stupid idea that solar farms compete for land with food production.

They do a bit.