My bet has always been the Cleverley wins. I don't think the party want to offer the membership the choice of Badenoch
I think the problem Badenoch has is that she's not popular enough in the parliamentary party to peel off right wing votes, while at some point one of Tugdenhat or Cleverley will drop out and their votes will revert to the other person.
So, you think it will be Jenrick plus one of Tugendhat and Cleverley.
Interesting. You may well be right.
Seems a strong possibility to me. What's left of the Conservative Party membership wont like that though.
That hardly matters. The tories long since gave up on their party members doing any useful function. They don't need their fees, they don't need them to knock on doors.
That's a very good point. In terms of money, the party relies entirely on big donors and the door-to-door campaigning seems to have really fallen away. I am sure they will take the leader vote away from the members if they think they can get away with it.
@Marvin the Martian, how many families do you know where the stay-at-home parent is or was managing more than four children under three-years-old. Examples accepted from the last seventy years.
My Mom never had a paid job untill we started managing pubs. She then got paid for my Dad's day off even though she worked every day.
Prior to this she stayed at home to look after me and my sister. My Dad worked a full day at the foundry. 4 or 5 nights a week, after coming home and having a quick bath ( no showers in Council houses) he would work as a barman. With the wages from 2 jobs we got by.
I do appreciate that this situation might not suit a lot of today's ambitious couples.
My Mom never had a paid job untill we started managing pubs. She then got paid for my Dad's day off even though she worked every day.
Prior to this she stayed at home to look after me and my sister. My Dad worked a full day at the foundry. 4 or 5 nights a week, after coming home and having a quick bath ( no showers in Council houses) he would work as a barman. With the wages from 2 jobs we got by.
I do appreciate that this situation might not suit a lot of today's ambitious couples.
Ok. But can you also appreciate that the circumstances you describe from your own 1950s childhood may not apply now?
How many foundries are there today, for instance?
We lived in a Council house, our Mam was a single mother. We managed. We had some straitened times as my Dad reneged on maintenance payments and out of a false sense of loyalty towards him (she always hoped he'd come back) my mother went without so we kids could eat.
I don't play the Monty Python Yorkshiremen thing - 'You were lucky. We lived in a cardboard box in t'middle o't Road...' - because there were families a lot worse off than we were.
Besides, my mother went to college as a mature student and worked and studied hard, eventually becoming a highly respected remedial teacher.
I don’t use that as a benchmark for everyone else or make value judgements about 'today's ambitious couples' - whoever they might be.
Yes, there are people who are all money, money, money seeking promotion and scrambling up the greasy pole. But not everyone is like that.
It's harder for today's young people to get on the property ladder at all. One of the Gamalielettes has managed it. The other Iives on a narrowboat because she can't afford to buy a house and was fed up of paying rent.
Childcare is expensive because it is labour intensive. You need an adult for every 4 or so children if you've got little ones
Apart from “because that’s what the current regulations say”, why?
You could seriously reduce the cost of childcare by increasing the number of children allowed per adult.
This might be a tangent, but I recently had a short article published on the cost of childcare in 1872.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1872 made education compulsory, but many poor families relied on a daughter aged, say, 9 or 10, to care for her toddler siblings to enable her mother to work. If the 10 year old was at school, there'd be no childcare and the mother's ability to work would be curtailed. It was estimated that thirty to forty families in Aberdeen would be forced onto the Poor Roll if a school aged child was no longer available to provide childcare.
A heavily subsidised Day Nursery was set up, but the simple fact was that if a family was so close to the breadline that the absence at school of the daughter who had provided free childcare could tip them into destitution, then even "heavily subsidised" was not enough. Various efforts were made to find a way to make Nursery childcare cheap enough to be affordable, but it could not be done.
Apart from the use of 9 year olds as cheap / free childcare, much of the 1872 discussion still swirls round today, still unresolved.
Childcare is expensive because it is labour intensive. You need an adult for every 4 or so children if you've got little ones
Apart from “because that’s what the current regulations say”, why?
You could seriously reduce the cost of childcare by increasing the number of children allowed per adult.
This might be a tangent, but I recently had a short article published on the cost of childcare in 1872.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1872 made education compulsory, but many poor families relied on a daughter aged, say, 9 or 10, to care for her toddler siblings to enable her mother to work. If the 10 year old was at school, there'd be no childcare and the mother's ability to work would be curtailed. It was estimated that thirty to forty families in Aberdeen would be forced onto the Poor Roll if a school aged child was no longer available to provide childcare.
A heavily subsidised Day Nursery was set up, but the simple fact was that if a family was so close to the breadline that the absence at school of the daughter who had provided free childcare could tip them into destitution, then even "heavily subsidised" was not enough. Various efforts were made to find a way to make Nursery childcare cheap enough to be affordable, but it could not be done.
Apart from the use of 9 year olds as cheap / free childcare, much of the 1872 discussion still swirls round today, still unresolved.
Mining families in the Durham coalfield used to work on the basis of ‘saving’ one child per generation - right up to the Second World War. My grandfather (b. 1915) was the youngest of 5 that survived (his younger brother died along with his mother…) so he was largely brought up by his oldest sister.
Being the youngest he was the one who stayed at school to 14 and didn’t go down the pit - because that was paid for by the wages of his siblings.
A generation earlier (late 19th century) his Uncle Robert*, also the youngest, was similarly paid for by his siblings to stay in school. He became a professor of chemistry.
So much wasted talent.
*Uncle Robert came to the rescue later by paying for Granddad’s oldest sister (when all the children were grown up) to train as a teacher.
So we have some interesting thinks from a couple of Tory well knows.
Badenoch has said we should get rid of maternity leave and the minimum wage. Also people should start paying for health care directly no NHS. Either she wants to lose the leadership race or she knows something. Maybe she is just out of touch.
Meanwhile Ex MP for the 19 century Reese Mogg has suggested that the Cons step down in a decent amount of seats at the next election in favour of Reform. That way they can have a coalition lead by the Cons.
I'm beginning to wonder if the title of this thread is correct. Maybe it should be "could the Tories cease to be a political farce?", the evidence recently is probably not.
I'm beginning to wonder if the title of this thread is correct. Maybe it should be "could the Tories cease to be a political farce?", the evidence recently is probably not.
Indeed. And because the answer to that question is indeed 'no,' The answer to the thread title is 'yes, it is possible.'
So... I was reading some commentary on the Tory Conference and how up-beat they're feeling.
Over on the Labour Government thread there's been a lot of discussion about the various stories around clothes and other gifts.
Here's the thing. It is objectively a fact that the series of stories - some fair criticism, some ridiculous and at least one, vile - are related to the fact that the government have declared everything. The political reporters are patting themselves on the back for the amazing scoops they've achieved by reading the register of interests.
Anyway, I came to realise that the Tory-friendly press are actually doing the Tories a disservice here. The party has bought into the idea that the Labour government is in trouble and they can just pretend like everything is fine.
It is definitely the case that the new government's communication set-up has lacked a necessary level of professionalism. That will change. The budget will be a key point in the year and tell us where we really are. I think the truth is that the government is doing fine and the Tories' level of denial is just putting off being honest with themselves about the problems and they have. By doing so, they will move further away from where they need to be to pose a meaningful challenge at the next election.
At the moment the candidates are trying to win the leadership and may not be saying what they actually think. Same as Labour early in 2020
That's a fair point about the leadership contenders but the reporting of an upbeat mood refers to the conference as a whole and the general state of denial in the party. If that is an accurate description of where they are, I think the very biased media narrative is not helping them. It just feeds the denial and delusion.
I think it is the case that the political media, which is built on over a decade of client-journalism and the Brexit wars, doesn't know how to be now that the government isn't feeding them anymore. It's a very different world to 1997.
There's a story today that former Prime Minister Johnson was meant to be doing an interview with Laura Kuenssberg but it was cancelled after Laura herself accidentally sent her notes to Johnson. There is speculation that it wasn't an accident.
Anyway, it demonstrates the closeness of certain political journalists to certain politicians. Far too many maintained positive coverage in exchange for their on-going access.
Anyway, as I said, I think this media landscape is helping the Tories wish to hide from reality.
There are two positives to that story, at least they then cancelled the interview - and not platforming Boris Johnson *again*. Because he’d clearly be doing the interview now in order to promote his book.
There are two positives to that story, at least they then cancelled the interview - and not platforming Boris Johnson *again*. Because he’d clearly be doing the interview now in order to promote his book.
I listened to all the speeches of the 4 contenders and I thought they all did well. However, I will not be investing in a Tugend hat. I hope that the eventual leader is able to include all the other 5 candidates in a shadow cabinet
I listened to all the speeches of the 4 contenders and I thought they all did well. However, I will not be investing in a Tugend hat. I hope that the eventual leader is able to include all the other 5 candidates in a shadow cabinet
To me, the speeches (or, the parts I've seen reported) and everything else they've said over the last few weeks have just made it very clear that there are four people who in any sane world would never be allowed near any political power.
To me, the speeches (or, the parts I've seen reported) and everything else they've said over the last few weeks have just made it very clear that there are four people who in any sane world would never be allowed near any political power.
Whilst it is very common that parties turn inward and move towards their base when they are defeated, it is not guaranteed. However, the evidence here is this is exactly what they are doing.
Objectively that is a problem for them as their base has split and I think a large chunk is not coming back anytime soon.
Childcare is expensive because it is labour intensive. You need an adult for every 4 or so children if you've got little ones
Apart from “because that’s what the current regulations say”, why?
You could seriously reduce the cost of childcare by increasing the number of children allowed per adult.
This might be a tangent, but I recently had a short article published on the cost of childcare in 1872.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1872 made education compulsory, but many poor families relied on a daughter aged, say, 9 or 10, to care for her toddler siblings to enable her mother to work. If the 10 year old was at school, there'd be no childcare and the mother's ability to work would be curtailed. It was estimated that thirty to forty families in Aberdeen would be forced onto the Poor Roll if a school aged child was no longer available to provide childcare.
A heavily subsidised Day Nursery was set up, but the simple fact was that if a family was so close to the breadline that the absence at school of the daughter who had provided free childcare could tip them into destitution, then even "heavily subsidised" was not enough. Various efforts were made to find a way to make Nursery childcare cheap enough to be affordable, but it could not be done.
Apart from the use of 9 year olds as cheap / free childcare, much of the 1872 discussion still swirls round today, still unresolved.
Mining families in the Durham coalfield used to work on the basis of ‘saving’ one child per generation - right up to the Second World War. My grandfather (b. 1915) was the youngest of 5 that survived (his younger brother died along with his mother…) so he was largely brought up by his oldest sister.
Being the youngest he was the one who stayed at school to 14 and didn’t go down the pit - because that was paid for by the wages of his siblings.
A generation earlier (late 19th century) his Uncle Robert*, also the youngest, was similarly paid for by his siblings to stay in school. He became a professor of chemistry.
So much wasted talent.
*Uncle Robert came to the rescue later by paying for Granddad’s oldest sister (when all the children were grown up) to train as a teacher.
A little off-topic, but you have reminded me ('wasted talent') of my mate's Dad, who was taught NT Greek by a miner in his pit village in Ayrshire (during the war, I would guess). I have long wondered whether that lack of social mobility is still, 80+ years later, baked-into some base-line assumptions in the way my (UK Methodist) denomination operates; the assumption that if only the poor are given a voice, we will find un-tapped talents and wonderful things will result.
I would still like to believe that is true; but seeing the (lack of) results over the last 30 years in a much more socially-mobile, inner-city council estate context, makes me suspect that we are looking for Greek-speakers in a coal mine away from which people of ability have long been allowed to move to Surrey. If the Tory party (which I ought to be talking about on this thread, sorry) were one-nation noblesse-oblige types, I could almost be persuaded to give benign paternalism a go. As a ministerial model in our church, it has worked much better than anything more progressive.
Childcare is expensive because it is labour intensive. You need an adult for every 4 or so children if you've got little ones
Apart from “because that’s what the current regulations say”, why?
You could seriously reduce the cost of childcare by increasing the number of children allowed per adult.
This might be a tangent, but I recently had a short article published on the cost of childcare in 1872.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1872 made education compulsory, but many poor families relied on a daughter aged, say, 9 or 10, to care for her toddler siblings to enable her mother to work. If the 10 year old was at school, there'd be no childcare and the mother's ability to work would be curtailed. It was estimated that thirty to forty families in Aberdeen would be forced onto the Poor Roll if a school aged child was no longer available to provide childcare.
A heavily subsidised Day Nursery was set up, but the simple fact was that if a family was so close to the breadline that the absence at school of the daughter who had provided free childcare could tip them into destitution, then even "heavily subsidised" was not enough. Various efforts were made to find a way to make Nursery childcare cheap enough to be affordable, but it could not be done.
Apart from the use of 9 year olds as cheap / free childcare, much of the 1872 discussion still swirls round today, still unresolved.
Mining families in the Durham coalfield used to work on the basis of ‘saving’ one child per generation - right up to the Second World War. My grandfather (b. 1915) was the youngest of 5 that survived (his younger brother died along with his mother…) so he was largely brought up by his oldest sister.
Being the youngest he was the one who stayed at school to 14 and didn’t go down the pit - because that was paid for by the wages of his siblings.
A generation earlier (late 19th century) his Uncle Robert*, also the youngest, was similarly paid for by his siblings to stay in school. He became a professor of chemistry.
So much wasted talent.
*Uncle Robert came to the rescue later by paying for Granddad’s oldest sister (when all the children were grown up) to train as a teacher.
A little off-topic, but you have reminded me ('wasted talent') of my mate's Dad, who was taught NT Greek by a miner in his pit village in Ayrshire (during the war, I would guess). I have long wondered whether that lack of social mobility is still, 80+ years later, baked-into some base-line assumptions in the way my (UK Methodist) denomination operates; the assumption that if only the poor are given a voice, we will find un-tapped talents and wonderful things will result.
I would still like to believe that is true; but seeing the (lack of) results over the last 30 years in a much more socially-mobile, inner-city council estate context, makes me suspect that we are looking for Greek-speakers in a coal mine away from which people of ability have long been allowed to move to Surrey. If the Tory party (which I ought to be talking about on this thread, sorry) were one-nation noblesse-oblige types, I could almost be persuaded to give benign paternalism a go. As a ministerial model in our church, it has worked much better than anything more progressive.
I would still like to believe that is true; but seeing the (lack of) results over the last 30 years in a much more socially-mobile, inner-city council estate context, makes me suspect that we are looking for Greek-speakers in a coal mine away from which people of ability have long been allowed to move to Surrey.
One of the most breathtaking lines I've heard in a political debate/meeting *ever* was at a Labour Party conference in the past 10 years when grammar schools came up in a debate.
On being questioned about Labour plans to close the remaining 164 grammar schools in England, the speaker - and I can't for the life of me remember who it was - said (followed by stunned silence and then some nervous laughter as people decided to assume they were trying to be funny...) something along the lines of
'we can close the remaining grammars as in the 80 years since the Butler Education Act anyone with any decent genes has by now escaped to London from the provinces'
Others present thought that was the mask slipping a bit...
Anyway, it demonstrates the closeness of certain political journalists to certain politicians. Far too many maintained positive coverage in exchange for their on-going access.
And it speaks to the values of a organisation that prompted an access journalist to Political Editor.
Anyway, it demonstrates the closeness of certain political journalists to certain politicians. Far too many maintained positive coverage in exchange for their on-going access.
And it speaks to the values of a organisation that prompted an access journalist to Political Editor.
Looking at the BBC story https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdq2944d2no this was very clearly part of his book promotion - so why were they moving EastEnders to schedule this in the first place ? At best this should have been a 15min slot on Graham Norton not a sit down with the political editor.
Looking at the BBC story https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdq2944d2no this was very clearly part of his book promotion - so why were they moving EastEnders to schedule this in the first place ? At best this should have been a 15min slot on Graham Norton not a sit down with the political editor.
Yes, though these days she's primarily the host of the flagship politics show on Sunday, with Chris Mason having replaced her as Political Editor.
Looking at the BBC story https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cpdq2944d2no this was very clearly part of his book promotion - so why were they moving EastEnders to schedule this in the first place ? At best this should have been a 15min slot on Graham Norton not a sit down with the political editor.
Oh yeah, it's blatantly free advertising rather than journalism.
I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather shave my scrotum with a cheesegrater than ever see BJ back on the tele. And I wouldn't wipe my arse on his book for fear of defiling my faeces.
I don't know about anyone else but I'd rather shave my scrotum with a cheesegrater than ever see BJ back on the tele. And I wouldn't wipe my arse on his book for fear of defiling my faeces.
Do I get the impression you don't much care for the mendacious two-faced self serving egocentric priapic git?
Be of good cheer: one day (yes Lord!) he will have his comeuppence ... as we all will, of course. Oh dear!
To me, the speeches (or, the parts I've seen reported) and everything else they've said over the last few weeks have just made it very clear that there are four people who in any sane world would never be allowed near any political power.
Latest Con silliness. Cleverly has been moaning about the government handing back a group of islands to Mauritius while still having access to the UK military site in one of the Islands. As I understand it was the Cons and particularly Cleverly who got the deal going and Lab just completed it.
Latest Con silliness. Cleverly has been moaning about the government handing back a group of islands to Mauritius while still having access to the UK military site in one of the Islands. As I understand it was the Cons and particularly Cleverly who got the deal going and Lab just completed it.
‘Back’ doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Airwaves this morning awash with outraged Chagossians who claim they’ve been left out of the negotiations and sold out to Mauritius (who they hate for treating them as second class citizens). The argument of at least some of them is that they never sought union with Mauritius and they don’t accept Mauritius’ claim….
The Conservatives were very happy to talk, it was *doing* that is unexpected…
Latest Con silliness. Cleverly has been moaning about the government handing back a group of islands to Mauritius while still having access to the UK military site in one of the Islands. As I understand it was the Cons and particularly Cleverly who got the deal going and Lab just completed it.
‘Back’ doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Airwaves this morning awash with outraged Chagossians who claim they’ve been left out of the negotiations and sold out to Mauritius (who they hate for treating them as second class citizens). The argument of at least some of them is that they never sought union with Mauritius and they don’t accept Mauritius’ claim….
It appears from the reported comments from the exiled Chagossians that they're seeing it as handing their homes from one colonial power to another. Which from their perspective, as reported, doesn't seem to be an improvement.
The outrage from the Conservatives, especially those who did all the work in getting the details of this transfer of territory sorted out, is just another example of how bonkers the Conservatives are at the moment.
The outrage from the Conservatives, especially those who did all the work in getting the details of this transfer of territory sorted out, is just another example of how bonkers the Conservatives are at the moment.
I think - though obviously no one is going to come out and say it in as many words - that the outrage comes from the abandonment of the UK position of governments of both colours since Mauritius first pressed a serious claim in the early 1980s. Ie, it's good to talk. It's very good to talk - it keeps everyone happy and away from any chance of violence. The unspoken bit is 'but you're not supposed to let it get to the point of signing anything'
Now, the Tories are in a bit of a bind there because they can't come out and say 'we were negotiating in bad faith' - but that's the position of pretty much every government on earth in at least one of its disputes, and has pretty consistently been the FCO approach to that archipelago from the 1960s...
This isn't the Tories being 'bonkers' - it's light coming in on realpolitik. We'd all better hope that yesterday's announcement turns out to be worth it. The defence world, not least in the US (never mind the UK, is - for want of a better word - 'raising an eyebrow', which is Jim Hacker speech for 'hitting the roof'. Beijing, on the other hand, is probably getting the champagne out.
It is also in part about the rule of law, international arbitration has said it's not our territory.
If we expect others to comply with international law then we need to do so ourselves. We've committed to keeping the military base for at least 99 years, which should allay some security concerns.
We'd all better hope that yesterday's announcement turns out to be worth it. The defence world, not least in the US (never mind the UK, is - for want of a better word - 'raising an eyebrow', which is Jim Hacker speech for 'hitting the roof'.
What evidence is there of this? There were numerous ways of signalling concern in official statements and the one from the White House didn't contain any of these.
I think the deal is rubbish from the point of view of the Chagossians, but for that reason is good for the UK and removes one of the sources of whataboutery when it wants to resort to a bully pulpit on human rights.
Beijing, on the other hand, is probably getting the champagne out.
Mauritius is one of the few African countries outside the BRI and more likely to remain that way if it's guaranteed payments (more or less in perpetuity) for a base it formerly didn't have any recognised claims on worth a damn.
It is also in part about the rule of law, international arbitration has said it's not our territory.
If we expect others to comply with international law then we need to do so ourselves. We've committed to keeping the military base for at least 99 years, which should allay some security concerns.
If we're going to be strictly accurate then the rule of law shouldn't come into it, what with the 2019 decision of the ICJ on the subject being specifically *non binding* and therefore imposing *no* legal obligation on the UK...
In fact, if anything, it could (and probably will be by someone) that the pressure heaped on the UK government to capitulate off the back of a non binding finding actually *undermines* the rule of law.
On the military base, I might struggle to get this out through the laughter... the stance until yesterday, which is probably still the stance of the MOD and the US DoD, is that all the other islands round DG are necessary, and necessary to be kept uninhabited, to guarantee the security of the base on DG. That's now out of the window. As I said, Beijing is very close to the Mauritian government, and they are doing cartwheels. They'll have a base opposite the US/UK base within 15 years IMO.
'Giving the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius' is one thing. The obscene, disingenuous nonsense being spewed by the Tories is another.
The short bit of the history is that when Britain granted Mauritius its independence (Mauritius is essentially one big island with a few small islands), the UK basically said to Mauritius, that you can have independence but we're keeping the Chagos Islands. Previously the Chagos Islands had been considered part of the same territory since the 18th Century, so it was clearly a bit of jerk move by the UK to grant Mauritius independence whilst keeping a bit back. And it is not surprising that Mauritius considered the Chagos islands to be rightfully theirs. However, and it's the key to all this, if the Chagossian people dispute this, then I want to hear what they think! These are the real victims here because the UK forcibly removed them from the Chago islands.
So, this is the real story that needs to be looked at - this is about decolonisation and the UK giving up its claim to the islands is a good thing. Although obviously, it is important that it's done right.
Why did the UK hold on to those Islands and expel the native people who lived there? Diego Garcia. The joint UK/US base there is considered to be of significant strategic importance.
IIRC, there was a case in the late 90s in the UK High Court where Chagossian representatives brought a case against the UK government claiming the islands back. I may be misremembering but I think the Court ruled that the National Defence Needs trumped their rights in English law.
If indeed there are Chagossians who don't want the sovereignty going to Mauritius, I would be stunned if there isn't another court case.
As to the military reaction. The sources I read, said Washington had approved the deal. I cannot imagine any UK government giving up Diego Garcia without agreement across the Pond.
In terms of being a World Power, The US Navy has the Atlantic. They have ports on their East Coast and friendly ports in Europe. They have the Pacific as they again, have ports on the West Coast and another big base in Hawaii - you may have heard of that one... As well as friendly ports in Australia and Japan etc. The big gap in the World is the Indian Ocean which also happens to be close to several potential hot spots. Hence it is not surprising that Diego Garcia has always being considered to be of critical importance. Which is why the UK held on to it when making first Mauritius and then Seychelles independent.
Anyway, that's the story.
The Trash coming from Conservative politicians is just nonsense and as has been pointed out, they are attacking their own policy. The hutzpah is astounding here.
The Trash coming from Conservative politicians is just nonsense and as has been pointed out, they are attacking their own policy. The hutzpah is astounding here.
Where do you stand on the point about 'talk but don't sign anything' being the policy of all British governments on the issue, up to and including the most recent Tories? But no one can come out and say that, which is why it's simultaneously amusing to watch the Tories tying themselves in knots on one hand, and dismaying from the point of view of the dark arts of diplomacy on the other.
I can simultaneously believe that they set up these talks and that they didn't intend them to achieve anything - like all the talks before on the subject held by both Labour and the Tories.
As I said, Beijing is very close to the Mauritian government, and they are doing cartwheels. They'll have a base opposite the US/UK base within 15 years IMO.
You think it'll take them that long?
ETA: I reckon they'll have listening stations in place by Christmas.
The Trash coming from Conservative politicians is just nonsense and as has been pointed out, they are attacking their own policy. The hutzpah is astounding here.
Where do you stand on the point about 'talk but don't sign anything' being the policy of all British governments on the issue, up to and including the most recent Tories? But no one can come out and say that, which is why it's simultaneously amusing to watch the Tories tying themselves in knots on one hand, and dismaying from the point of view of the dark arts of diplomacy on the other.
I can simultaneously believe that they set up these talks and that they didn't intend them to achieve anything - like all the talks before on the subject held by both Labour and the Tories.
I am somewhat skeptical about that view. It would be odd for the diplomatic process to work that way. In one sense, who cares which flag flies, as long as the Royal Navy / US Navy has their base? And if that was the case, I think the noises from the highest levels in Washington would be different.
Conversely, it would explain the statement/ Tweets coming from CCHQ, Cleverly etc. which does certainly make it possible.
For the purposes of this thread, doesn't make the Tories' statements any less ridiculous, of course!!
Apologies for double post but reflecting on the Tories state of denial, there's some polling on people who voted Tory in 2019 and not in '24. Of those who didn't vote, 75% have never not voted before. Of those who voted Reform, only 10% say they would consider voting Conservative again in the next 5 years.
QuietRiot said they're gonna do a special on these findings. I will post a link but the Tories are in a hole and the entire Conference was a call to arms to all Tories to pick up a shovel!
Comments
That's a very good point. In terms of money, the party relies entirely on big donors and the door-to-door campaigning seems to have really fallen away. I am sure they will take the leader vote away from the members if they think they can get away with it.
AFZ
Apart from “because that’s what the current regulations say”, why?
You could seriously reduce the cost of childcare by increasing the number of children allowed per adult.
You could, but that's unlikely to be safe for under 2s.
Prior to this she stayed at home to look after me and my sister. My Dad worked a full day at the foundry. 4 or 5 nights a week, after coming home and having a quick bath ( no showers in Council houses) he would work as a barman. With the wages from 2 jobs we got by.
I do appreciate that this situation might not suit a lot of today's ambitious couples.
Ok. But can you also appreciate that the circumstances you describe from your own 1950s childhood may not apply now?
How many foundries are there today, for instance?
We lived in a Council house, our Mam was a single mother. We managed. We had some straitened times as my Dad reneged on maintenance payments and out of a false sense of loyalty towards him (she always hoped he'd come back) my mother went without so we kids could eat.
I don't play the Monty Python Yorkshiremen thing - 'You were lucky. We lived in a cardboard box in t'middle o't Road...' - because there were families a lot worse off than we were.
Besides, my mother went to college as a mature student and worked and studied hard, eventually becoming a highly respected remedial teacher.
I don’t use that as a benchmark for everyone else or make value judgements about 'today's ambitious couples' - whoever they might be.
Yes, there are people who are all money, money, money seeking promotion and scrambling up the greasy pole. But not everyone is like that.
It's harder for today's young people to get on the property ladder at all. One of the Gamalielettes has managed it. The other Iives on a narrowboat because she can't afford to buy a house and was fed up of paying rent.
They are among the fortunate ones.
This might be a tangent, but I recently had a short article published on the cost of childcare in 1872.
The Education (Scotland) Act 1872 made education compulsory, but many poor families relied on a daughter aged, say, 9 or 10, to care for her toddler siblings to enable her mother to work. If the 10 year old was at school, there'd be no childcare and the mother's ability to work would be curtailed. It was estimated that thirty to forty families in Aberdeen would be forced onto the Poor Roll if a school aged child was no longer available to provide childcare.
A heavily subsidised Day Nursery was set up, but the simple fact was that if a family was so close to the breadline that the absence at school of the daughter who had provided free childcare could tip them into destitution, then even "heavily subsidised" was not enough. Various efforts were made to find a way to make Nursery childcare cheap enough to be affordable, but it could not be done.
Apart from the use of 9 year olds as cheap / free childcare, much of the 1872 discussion still swirls round today, still unresolved.
Mining families in the Durham coalfield used to work on the basis of ‘saving’ one child per generation - right up to the Second World War. My grandfather (b. 1915) was the youngest of 5 that survived (his younger brother died along with his mother…) so he was largely brought up by his oldest sister.
Being the youngest he was the one who stayed at school to 14 and didn’t go down the pit - because that was paid for by the wages of his siblings.
A generation earlier (late 19th century) his Uncle Robert*, also the youngest, was similarly paid for by his siblings to stay in school. He became a professor of chemistry.
So much wasted talent.
*Uncle Robert came to the rescue later by paying for Granddad’s oldest sister (when all the children were grown up) to train as a teacher.
Badenoch has said we should get rid of maternity leave and the minimum wage. Also people should start paying for health care directly no NHS. Either she wants to lose the leadership race or she knows something. Maybe she is just out of touch.
Meanwhile Ex MP for the 19 century Reese Mogg has suggested that the Cons step down in a decent amount of seats at the next election in favour of Reform. That way they can have a coalition lead by the Cons.
Indeed. And because the answer to that question is indeed 'no,' The answer to the thread title is 'yes, it is possible.'
Over on the Labour Government thread there's been a lot of discussion about the various stories around clothes and other gifts.
Here's the thing. It is objectively a fact that the series of stories - some fair criticism, some ridiculous and at least one, vile - are related to the fact that the government have declared everything. The political reporters are patting themselves on the back for the amazing scoops they've achieved by reading the register of interests.
Anyway, I came to realise that the Tory-friendly press are actually doing the Tories a disservice here. The party has bought into the idea that the Labour government is in trouble and they can just pretend like everything is fine.
It is definitely the case that the new government's communication set-up has lacked a necessary level of professionalism. That will change. The budget will be a key point in the year and tell us where we really are. I think the truth is that the government is doing fine and the Tories' level of denial is just putting off being honest with themselves about the problems and they have. By doing so, they will move further away from where they need to be to pose a meaningful challenge at the next election.
AFZ
That's a fair point about the leadership contenders but the reporting of an upbeat mood refers to the conference as a whole and the general state of denial in the party. If that is an accurate description of where they are, I think the very biased media narrative is not helping them. It just feeds the denial and delusion.
I think it is the case that the political media, which is built on over a decade of client-journalism and the Brexit wars, doesn't know how to be now that the government isn't feeding them anymore. It's a very different world to 1997.
There's a story today that former Prime Minister Johnson was meant to be doing an interview with Laura Kuenssberg but it was cancelled after Laura herself accidentally sent her notes to Johnson. There is speculation that it wasn't an accident.
Anyway, it demonstrates the closeness of certain political journalists to certain politicians. Far too many maintained positive coverage in exchange for their on-going access.
Anyway, as I said, I think this media landscape is helping the Tories wish to hide from reality.
YMMV, of course.
AFZ
Yep.
An alternative analysis:
https://inews.co.uk/opinion/four-tory-candidates-spell-one-thing-doom-3305157
https://x.com/bmay/status/1841590143276159056?t=VHhb3fzRUL1DWqZDf4PwOA&s=19
Party members after the speeches.
Whilst it is very common that parties turn inward and move towards their base when they are defeated, it is not guaranteed. However, the evidence here is this is exactly what they are doing.
Objectively that is a problem for them as their base has split and I think a large chunk is not coming back anytime soon.
AFZ
A little off-topic, but you have reminded me ('wasted talent') of my mate's Dad, who was taught NT Greek by a miner in his pit village in Ayrshire (during the war, I would guess). I have long wondered whether that lack of social mobility is still, 80+ years later, baked-into some base-line assumptions in the way my (UK Methodist) denomination operates; the assumption that if only the poor are given a voice, we will find un-tapped talents and wonderful things will result.
I would still like to believe that is true; but seeing the (lack of) results over the last 30 years in a much more socially-mobile, inner-city council estate context, makes me suspect that we are looking for Greek-speakers in a coal mine away from which people of ability have long been allowed to move to Surrey. If the Tory party (which I ought to be talking about on this thread, sorry) were one-nation noblesse-oblige types, I could almost be persuaded to give benign paternalism a go. As a ministerial model in our church, it has worked much better than anything more progressive.
https://uk.pinterest.com/pin/a-short-comic-gives-the-simplest-most-perfect-explanation-of-privilege-ive-ever-seen-funny--573012752573712071/
One of the most breathtaking lines I've heard in a political debate/meeting *ever* was at a Labour Party conference in the past 10 years when grammar schools came up in a debate.
On being questioned about Labour plans to close the remaining 164 grammar schools in England, the speaker - and I can't for the life of me remember who it was - said (followed by stunned silence and then some nervous laughter as people decided to assume they were trying to be funny...) something along the lines of
'we can close the remaining grammars as in the 80 years since the Butler Education Act anyone with any decent genes has by now escaped to London from the provinces'
Others present thought that was the mask slipping a bit...
And it speaks to the values of a organisation that prompted an access journalist to Political Editor.
Sadly, yes.
Yes, though these days she's primarily the host of the flagship politics show on Sunday, with Chris Mason having replaced her as Political Editor.
Oh yeah, it's blatantly free advertising rather than journalism.
Do I get the impression you don't much care for the mendacious two-faced self serving egocentric priapic git?
Be of good cheer: one day (yes Lord!) he will have his comeuppence ... as we all will, of course. Oh dear!
Or a famous German philosopher beginning with 'K' .... (sorry).
Interestingly, it's the people I am most likely to use it use it to refer to who don't seem to get it...
So you didn't actually hear the speeches.
‘Back’ doing a lot of heavy lifting there.
Airwaves this morning awash with outraged Chagossians who claim they’ve been left out of the negotiations and sold out to Mauritius (who they hate for treating them as second class citizens). The argument of at least some of them is that they never sought union with Mauritius and they don’t accept Mauritius’ claim….
The Conservatives were very happy to talk, it was *doing* that is unexpected…
And both Cleverley and Tugendhat held relevant ministerial roles at the time the talks were started, so it was hardly a big surprise.
The outrage from the Conservatives, especially those who did all the work in getting the details of this transfer of territory sorted out, is just another example of how bonkers the Conservatives are at the moment.
I think - though obviously no one is going to come out and say it in as many words - that the outrage comes from the abandonment of the UK position of governments of both colours since Mauritius first pressed a serious claim in the early 1980s. Ie, it's good to talk. It's very good to talk - it keeps everyone happy and away from any chance of violence. The unspoken bit is 'but you're not supposed to let it get to the point of signing anything'
Now, the Tories are in a bit of a bind there because they can't come out and say 'we were negotiating in bad faith' - but that's the position of pretty much every government on earth in at least one of its disputes, and has pretty consistently been the FCO approach to that archipelago from the 1960s...
This isn't the Tories being 'bonkers' - it's light coming in on realpolitik. We'd all better hope that yesterday's announcement turns out to be worth it. The defence world, not least in the US (never mind the UK, is - for want of a better word - 'raising an eyebrow', which is Jim Hacker speech for 'hitting the roof'. Beijing, on the other hand, is probably getting the champagne out.
If we expect others to comply with international law then we need to do so ourselves. We've committed to keeping the military base for at least 99 years, which should allay some security concerns.
What evidence is there of this? There were numerous ways of signalling concern in official statements and the one from the White House didn't contain any of these.
I think the deal is rubbish from the point of view of the Chagossians, but for that reason is good for the UK and removes one of the sources of whataboutery when it wants to resort to a bully pulpit on human rights.
Mauritius is one of the few African countries outside the BRI and more likely to remain that way if it's guaranteed payments (more or less in perpetuity) for a base it formerly didn't have any recognised claims on worth a damn.
If we're going to be strictly accurate then the rule of law shouldn't come into it, what with the 2019 decision of the ICJ on the subject being specifically *non binding* and therefore imposing *no* legal obligation on the UK...
In fact, if anything, it could (and probably will be by someone) that the pressure heaped on the UK government to capitulate off the back of a non binding finding actually *undermines* the rule of law.
On the military base, I might struggle to get this out through the laughter... the stance until yesterday, which is probably still the stance of the MOD and the US DoD, is that all the other islands round DG are necessary, and necessary to be kept uninhabited, to guarantee the security of the base on DG. That's now out of the window. As I said, Beijing is very close to the Mauritian government, and they are doing cartwheels. They'll have a base opposite the US/UK base within 15 years IMO.
'Giving the Chagos Islands back to Mauritius' is one thing. The obscene, disingenuous nonsense being spewed by the Tories is another.
The short bit of the history is that when Britain granted Mauritius its independence (Mauritius is essentially one big island with a few small islands), the UK basically said to Mauritius, that you can have independence but we're keeping the Chagos Islands. Previously the Chagos Islands had been considered part of the same territory since the 18th Century, so it was clearly a bit of jerk move by the UK to grant Mauritius independence whilst keeping a bit back. And it is not surprising that Mauritius considered the Chagos islands to be rightfully theirs. However, and it's the key to all this, if the Chagossian people dispute this, then I want to hear what they think! These are the real victims here because the UK forcibly removed them from the Chago islands.
So, this is the real story that needs to be looked at - this is about decolonisation and the UK giving up its claim to the islands is a good thing. Although obviously, it is important that it's done right.
Why did the UK hold on to those Islands and expel the native people who lived there?
Diego Garcia. The joint UK/US base there is considered to be of significant strategic importance.
IIRC, there was a case in the late 90s in the UK High Court where Chagossian representatives brought a case against the UK government claiming the islands back. I may be misremembering but I think the Court ruled that the National Defence Needs trumped their rights in English law.
If indeed there are Chagossians who don't want the sovereignty going to Mauritius, I would be stunned if there isn't another court case.
As to the military reaction. The sources I read, said Washington had approved the deal. I cannot imagine any UK government giving up Diego Garcia without agreement across the Pond.
In terms of being a World Power, The US Navy has the Atlantic. They have ports on their East Coast and friendly ports in Europe. They have the Pacific as they again, have ports on the West Coast and another big base in Hawaii - you may have heard of that one... As well as friendly ports in Australia and Japan etc. The big gap in the World is the Indian Ocean which also happens to be close to several potential hot spots. Hence it is not surprising that Diego Garcia has always being considered to be of critical importance. Which is why the UK held on to it when making first Mauritius and then Seychelles independent.
Anyway, that's the story.
The Trash coming from Conservative politicians is just nonsense and as has been pointed out, they are attacking their own policy. The hutzpah is astounding here.
Where do you stand on the point about 'talk but don't sign anything' being the policy of all British governments on the issue, up to and including the most recent Tories? But no one can come out and say that, which is why it's simultaneously amusing to watch the Tories tying themselves in knots on one hand, and dismaying from the point of view of the dark arts of diplomacy on the other.
I can simultaneously believe that they set up these talks and that they didn't intend them to achieve anything - like all the talks before on the subject held by both Labour and the Tories.
You think it'll take them that long?
ETA: I reckon they'll have listening stations in place by Christmas.
I am somewhat skeptical about that view. It would be odd for the diplomatic process to work that way. In one sense, who cares which flag flies, as long as the Royal Navy / US Navy has their base? And if that was the case, I think the noises from the highest levels in Washington would be different.
Conversely, it would explain the statement/ Tweets coming from CCHQ, Cleverly etc. which does certainly make it possible.
For the purposes of this thread, doesn't make the Tories' statements any less ridiculous, of course!!
AFZ
Well, it would also be of a piece with their appeals to certain sections of their base (in this case the Telegraph reading crowd).
QuietRiot said they're gonna do a special on these findings. I will post a link but the Tories are in a hole and the entire Conference was a call to arms to all Tories to pick up a shovel!
AFZ
https://x.com/Peston/status/1842198611653730376?t=PxDgVMWajfU1CwNKcZZ0Ew&s=19