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.
The last government were obliged to talk to Mauritius about it but they were not obliged to say Yes. Nothing had been agreed.
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.
The last government were obliged to talk to Mauritius about it but they were not obliged to say Yes. Nothing had been agreed.
According to those that know, this is essentially nonsense. The agreement was progressing before the election, and those in the know say that it would have happened with either party in government.
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.
The last government were obliged to talk to Mauritius about it but they were not obliged to say Yes. Nothing had been agreed.
According to those that know, this is essentially nonsense. The agreement was progressing before the election, and those in the know say that it would have happened with either party in government.
and who are these people in the know. Are you exempt from providing sources?
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.
The last government were obliged to talk to Mauritius about it but they were not obliged to say Yes. Nothing had been agreed.
According to those that know, this is essentially nonsense. The agreement was progressing before the election, and those in the know say that it would have happened with either party in government.
and who are these people in the know. Are you exempt from providing sources?
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.
The last government were obliged to talk to Mauritius about it but they were not obliged to say Yes. Nothing had been agreed.
According to those that know, this is essentially nonsense. The agreement was progressing before the election, and those in the know say that it would have happened with either party in government.
and who are these people in the know. Are you exempt from providing sources?
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!
Available from the website and usual podcast outlets. It is a discussion with Alex Andreo and Luke Tyrl.
Some highlights:
Tyrl's team has done some detailed polling:
They asked people who previously voted Conservative but didn't in the last election; Would you consider voting Conservative again in the next 5 years?
Voted Reform in '24: 10%
Voted LD in '24: 20%
Voted Labour in '24: 25%
It's also worth noting that the profile of Reform voters is actually quite different from Tory voters: most Reform voters favour Trump, whilst Tory voters don't. A large chunk of Reform voters are far right and are very hostile to the Tories. This suggests that the split in the right is relatively fixed. There is a group of Reform voters who would vote Tory if they think it will keep Labour out. They voted Reform in '24 because they were convinced the Tories would lose anyway.
Regular Tory voters who stayed home in '24, What do you expect from a Tory government?
1. Sound economic management
2. Standing up for Britain
3. Law and Order
They need to acknowledge the Truss failings to begin to rebuild this reputation.
Therefore the way for the Tories to build enough support is to convince their stay-at-home voters to come out again and to convince the switchers to Labour and the LibDems to come back. Then the soft-Reformers will follow.
My main point here being that the orientation of the Conference is the opposite of what they need to do.
Depending on who they elect as leader, there is a real risk of them going full-throttle chasing Rrform voters who aren't coming back and alienating everyone else.
It is an existential threat to the party.
FWIW, I think they'll survive as I predict they'll do this for a few years before pulling out of the terminal dive around 2030...
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.
The last government were obliged to talk to Mauritius about it but they were not obliged to say Yes. Nothing had been agreed.
According to those that know, this is essentially nonsense. The agreement was progressing before the election, and those in the know say that it would have happened with either party in government.
and who are these people in the know. Are you exempt from providing sources?
Should not have been under threat as the UK paid for the islands in 1965
I think that by any standards, both Labour and Conservative governments have treated the Chagossians very shabbily indeed.
It's one of the biggest black-marks against us since WW2.
If any other government had done what ours did - successive governments that is - then we'd be pointing the finger and denouncing them for abuses of human rights.
I have to blame the Conservatives for letting Starmer and his incompetent grifters into power
Oh please. If it's grifters you're looking for I'd draw your attention to those dodgy PPE contracts with all the credibility of Catherine Tate's "I can do that!" character.
I have to blame the Conservatives for letting Starmer and his incompetent grifters into power
Oh please. If it's grifters you're looking for I'd draw your attention to those dodgy PPE contracts with all the credibility of Catherine Tate's "I can do that!" character.
Not to mention that whilst, the current government's media operation needs some work, the idea that Starmer and his cabinet are incompetent (in terms of policy) is just a fantasy.
I have to blame the Conservatives for letting Starmer and his incompetent grifters into power
Oh please. If it's grifters you're looking for I'd draw your attention to those dodgy PPE contracts with all the credibility of Catherine Tate's "I can do that!" character.
That was in a time of panic and in any case, we were supposed to expect better from a working class hero. like Sir Keir.
Making the majority of pensioners poorer and colder.
Giving away our territory to an ally of China. They did not have to say YES before having Parliamentary approval.
Allowing the 'irregular' migrant situation to get worse. A record 973 crossed the channel on Saturday.
That is not evidence of incompetence. I almost always disagreed with Michael Gove's policies but I would not accuse him of incompetence. He achieved what he set out to achieve.
So, let's take your three in turn.
Making the majority of pensioners poorer and colder.
Half is technically correct (sort of), the other half is pejorative and objectively wrong. The government announced that they would stop the Winter Fuel Payment (£200 for most and £300 for older pensioners) for most pensioners whilst continuing it for those on pension credit.
So yes, technically most pensioners will be getting less money. The number who will be genuinely colder as a consequence is nowhere near a majority. For the majority, the loss of the equivalent of £4 a week is something they can absorb easily.
There is indeed a number of pensioners who do not qualify for Pensioner Credit but for whom the loss of this money may have a measurable effect on their ability to pay for heating. I do not know what this number is but it is not a majority. Over on the Labour government thread there has been serious discussion of this policy: the arguments around the need for this money and the value of universal benefits.
Whatever position you come to on this, it is not an example of incompetence. One could argue about the effective communication and the wisdom or otherwise of announcing this policy in isolation but that is not a question of policy competence.
Giving away our territory to an ally of China. They did not have to say YES before having Parliamentary approval.
The first sentence is a desperately naïve way of framing it. The second part is just wrong. The territory of the Chaggossian Islands and the way the British government has behaved is a history of appalling treatment of a local population. The national security issues around the strategic importance of Diego Garcia are part of the reason why successive governments have never resolved this. Again, on the other thread, the details of this decision and its ramifications have been thrashed out sensibly but the key fact on timing is that the American Government really wanted it finalised before their election. Describing Mauritius as a Chinese ally and ignoring all the details of the deal with the base lease is so simplistic as to be misleading. Do you really think the American Administration would be supporting this decision if they were worried about the Chinese actions on neighbouring islands? That stretches credulity rather a lot.
Again, whether it is a good or bad policy, this is not an example of ministerial incompetence. Quite the opposite, in fact.
As to Parliamentary approval. I was reading the papers yesterday who seemed to think it was a gotcha that it would be taken to Parliament, as if the government did not know this. If you read any more than the headline, you discover the truth that it is nothing of the sort. Anyway, foreign policy decisions like this are always made by the executive and then subject to parliamentary approval. No government would take it to a vote in the Commons before a deal had been reached.
Allowing the 'irregular' migrant situation to get worse. A record 973 crossed the channel on Saturday.
This is the closest you have come to a point. It is a stated Labour policy aim to reduce the number of people crossing the channel by small boat from France to the UK. I haven't checked, by I am willing to accept that 973 is a record number for a daily total.
Some things to consider though:
1. The issue of small boat crossing arose in late 2018. So we'll take the 1st of January 2019 as our starting point. From 1st January '19 until Saturday is 2104 days. Labour has been the government for 92 of those 2104 days.
2. In August 2024 there were 76 boats that arrived on our shores and September 2023 it was also 76 boats. In both cases that is a less than a half of the highest number recorded for those months. (192 in August '22 and 180 in September '22)
3. The rate of boat crossings is always weather-dependent.
Oh, and when I looked up the data for point 2. it shows that 973 is not the record. The record for most arrivals in a day is 1295 on 22nd August 2022. I have used the data from Migration Watch - an organisation that is hostile to migrants - but they've taken their numbers from the Home Office.
This is a complex problem. However, whichever way you may think it should be tackled the factual situation is that things have not got worse since the change of government. That's just the numbers.
Either you are stating that the government has let things get worse or that they are incompetent for not fixing it yet. Well, things are 'better' rather than worse. If you think the government are incompetent for not fixing it in 92 days then what is your description of a government who failed for over 2000 days, despite several initiatives that were supposed to address this issue?
=======
I have no problem with discussions about the rightness or otherwise of these policies but is objectively the case that there is zero evidence of incompetence in terms of policy delivery here.
So, do you wish to defend your description of the Cabinet as 'incompetent grifters'?
please give examples of 'cabinet incompetence' that illustrate your point.
Making the majority of pensioners poorer and colder. [/quote]
When the Tories were removing money from groups other than pensioners you justified that as required by the state of government finances; and you were able to take other people getting poorer and colder philosophically.
May I suggest you treat pensioners getting poorer and colder equally philosophically?
please give examples of 'cabinet incompetence' that illustrate your point.
Making the majority of pensioners poorer and colder.
When the Tories were removing money from groups other than pensioners you justified that as required by the state of government finances; and you were able to take other people getting poorer and colder philosophically.
May I suggest you treat pensioners getting poorer and colder equally philosophically?[/quote]
Whilst you are correct making any pensioners colder and hungrier is incompetence. Making people who cannot afford it suffer is cruel. It is unpopular and shows a lack of understanding of public thought on the matter. The same with kids. They are two groups who are less able to fend for themselves. They are viewed as off limits to many people. Not understanding this is incompetence.
Whilst you are correct making any pensioners colder and hungrier is incompetence. Making people who cannot afford it suffer is cruel. It is unpopular and shows a lack of understanding of public thought on the matter. The same with kids. They are two groups who are less able to fend for themselves. They are viewed as off limits to many people. Not understanding this is incompetence.
I think I disagree with this in lots of ways. I will pick it up on the Labour Government thread.
As I said on the Labour thread. I meant to put a comma after correct. @Dafyd was right about @Telford perhaps needing to look at his philosophy, Making any pensioner colder is if not bad financially bad morally. The same with kids. They are vulnerable groups. What Labour are doing is hitting down. I cannot agree with hitting down in this case.
I watched Boris Johnson being interviewed on GBN yesterday. He kept flashing his new book. I will not be getting the book but I feel sure that it's only when he puts his thoughts into print that he becomes understandable.
When he was asked about his political ambitions he waffled on about being Cincinnatus. Camilla Tominey occasionally spoke to him like he was a naughty schoolboy and when she asked him another question when he was still trying to answer the current one it made him even more confused.
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!
Available from the website and usual podcast outlets. It is a discussion with Alex Andreo and Luke Tyrl.
Some highlights:
Tyrl's team has done some detailed polling:
They asked people who previously voted Conservative but didn't in the last election; Would you consider voting Conservative again in the next 5 years?
Voted Reform in '24: 10%
Voted LD in '24: 20%
Voted Labour in '24: 25%
It's also worth noting that the profile of Reform voters is actually quite different from Tory voters: most Reform voters favour Trump, whilst Tory voters don't. A large chunk of Reform voters are far right and are very hostile to the Tories. This suggests that the split in the right is relatively fixed. There is a group of Reform voters who would vote Tory if they think it will keep Labour out. They voted Reform in '24 because they were convinced the Tories would lose anyway.
Regular Tory voters who stayed home in '24, What do you expect from a Tory government?
1. Sound economic management
2. Standing up for Britain
3. Law and Order
They need to acknowledge the Truss failings to begin to rebuild this reputation.
Therefore the way for the Tories to build enough support is to convince their stay-at-home voters to come out again and to convince the switchers to Labour and the LibDems to come back. Then the soft-Reformers will follow.
My main point here being that the orientation of the Conference is the opposite of what they need to do.
Depending on who they elect as leader, there is a real risk of them going full-throttle chasing Rrform voters who aren't coming back and alienating everyone else.
It is an existential threat to the party.
FWIW, I think they'll survive as I predict they'll do this for a few years before pulling out of the terminal dive around 2030...
I watched Boris Johnson being interviewed on GBN yesterday. He kept flashing his new book. I will not be getting the book but I feel sure that it's only when he puts his thoughts into print that he becomes understandable.
He seems incapable of thinking on his feet. When he reads a prepared speech he comes across as being articulate, but when confronted by a difficult question he blusters and bumbles with incoherent nonsense. This is why he hid in a fridge when he saw a group of reporters wanting to ask him questions and why he refused to take part in the leaders hustings on TV during the election campaign
I watched Boris Johnson being interviewed on GBN yesterday. He kept flashing his new book. I will not be getting the book but I feel sure that it's only when he puts his thoughts into print that he becomes understandable.
He seems incapable of thinking on his feet. When he reads a prepared speech he comes across as being articulate, but when confronted by a difficult question he blusters and bumbles with incoherent nonsense. This is why he hid in a fridge when he saw a group of reporters wanting to ask him questions and why he refused to take part in the leaders hustings on TV during the election campaign
That sums it up quite well.
James Cleverly streaks into the lead in MPs polling. Personally, I think that good decisions are better than good speeches
For those uninitiated in the dark arts, he does that by lending* votes to Jenrick to ensure Jenrick knocks out Badenoch. Because with the membership he stands a chance v Jenrick but not against Badenoch.
*not openly or colluding, just suggesting to his supporters that the Cleverley cause is best served by some of them voting Jenrick this afternoon.
As ever, politics is all about being able to count…
*not openly or colluding, just suggesting to his supporters that the Cleverley cause is best served by some of them voting Jenrick this afternoon.
The problem lies in the co-ordination - MPs have decided to freelance in the past.
I think the party is going to be difficult enough to lead as it is, and it's going to be better to send the strongest signal of notional authority that you've got.
If Cleverly does get it he needs to stop the pandering to the right of the party and stop worrying about Reform. They may take some Con votes but they only managed 5 seats in the election. They are not a real threat. Lab and Lib Dem’s are much bigger. Much more of a threat. He needs to just stand up to the right. Call their bluff.
If Cleverly does get it he needs to stop the pandering to the right of the party and stop worrying about Reform. They may take some Con votes but they only managed 5 seats in the election. They are not a real threat. Lab and Lib Dem’s are much bigger. Much more of a threat. He needs to just stand up to the right. Call their bluff.
It's a moderately interesting point, but why would the Tories resist Farage? I suppose he might gobble them up, but they seem to be drifting now to the right inexorably.
I'm assuming Cleverley's supporters did a bit of switching thinking he was a shoo-in to get through. Now we have the two right-wingers trying to push the Tories ever more rightward. As I've said before Jenrick is my MP and I think the more people see of him the lee they are going to lick him.
It's a moderately interesting point, but why would the Tories resist Farage? I suppose he might gobble them up, but they seem to be drifting now to the right inexorably.
It's a death-spiral for the Tories if they don't. I will justify that argument both theoretically and empirically.
Theoretically. Reform / Farage is a platform of populism. To some extent the Tories managed to hold onto voters who may have gone to Reform by aping their rhetoric and policies. But ultimately its doomed to failure because what they are demanding is undeliverable.
If we look at migration, the Tories won a lot of votes by promising to reduce both regular and irregular migration. They were never going to reduce either. If you look at regular migration into the UK. Well, we need an influx of people to maintain our lifestyle because of our aging population. We have a skills shortage. Often in areas that are incorrectly labelled as 'unskilled labour.' Hence the economic draw on migration is huge and the economic cost of actually stopping it would be huge. The effect of reduced migration from the EU post-Brexit is increased migration from the rest of the world. If you want to talk about refugees, the push factors massively outweigh the pull factors which is why 'deterrents' have little to no effect.
Interestingly, this has been a winning strategy for the Tories for the last couple of decades. Here's how it works: Talk about immigration. That increases people's concerns about immigration. Then (some) people vote for the party that sounds tougher. Then do nothing about it and let people's worry increase. Labour never had a good answer to this. Even when they sound tough, it does not help. The people who really care about this issue think the Tories mean it more than Labour and hence they vote Tory. And by pandering to this group (Labour has never been morally strong enough at fighting this rhetoric) Labour lost support to the Greens and others from people who actually care about refugees.
However, Reform now occupies a space further to the right. So they can keep upping the ante of the rhetoric. They haven't quite made it official policy to shoot refugees in small boats but they've come pretty damn close. The Tories cannot out flank them. Moreover, Reform have the freedom of opposition. Their nonsense policies will never be tested and hence, unlike the Tories they never get found out.
The Conservative Party cannot win these people back by pandering to the Right. For those that think like this, Reform always look more convincing. There is a small caveat to this in that some would vote Tory to keep Labour out, if - and only if - they thought it would make a difference.
That's the theoretical reason.
Empirical
I provided a couple of links above to the research done by Better Together. The truth is that Reform voters will not be easily won back. Assuming the self-reporting is accurate, only 1 in 10 former-Tory-voting Reform Voters will even consider voting Conservative in the next 5 years.
So the Tories are trying to out-reform Reform which is impossible to win back an electorate that isn't coming back. In the process they make it very unlikely that any of the voters lost in other directions will return.
As I've noted above, the Tories are in a hole and the conference was basically a call to arms to all members to pick up a shovel. The leadership candidates, in my view, are all trying to outdo each other with their boasting of their digging abilities...
Well that was a surprise - between those two I don’t know, I still think Jenrick will probably edge it. I agree they can’t out-Reform Reform and I don't think (and sincerely hope) either will be the next PM or even the next Tory who becomes PM.
We may get a repeat of Truss, one gets in and then alternates so many people so fast there’s shortly thereafter another contest they ensure doesn’t go to the members.
They may end up splitting like Labour did with one set going off to join Reform, (whatever did happen to Change UK & Chukka’s lot ?)
Well that was a surprise - between those two I don’t know, I still think Jenrick will probably edge it. I agree they can’t out-Reform Reform and I don't think (and sincerely hope) either will be the next PM or even the next Tory who becomes PM.
We may get a repeat of Truss, one gets in and then alternates so many people so fast there’s shortly thereafter another contest they ensure doesn’t go to the members.
They may end up splitting like Labour did with one set going off to join Reform, (whatever did happen to Change UK & Chukka’s lot.)
Anything can happen but I think the chances of Labour winning the next election just increased.
Comments
According to those that know, this is essentially nonsense. The agreement was progressing before the election, and those in the know say that it would have happened with either party in government.
and who are these people in the know. Are you exempt from providing sources?
Fair point.
Try this: https://x.com/BestForBritain/status/1842155627755225376?t=KH9pBmZIbw7AlqD2Apas5A&s=19
Should not have been under threat as the UK paid for the islands in 1965
https://x.com/QuietRiotPod/status/1842456184684486823?t=Vxiu2LXT8Wz0Q2WkiQr6-w&s=19
Available from the website and usual podcast outlets. It is a discussion with Alex Andreo and Luke Tyrl.
Some highlights:
Tyrl's team has done some detailed polling:
They asked people who previously voted Conservative but didn't in the last election; Would you consider voting Conservative again in the next 5 years?
Voted Reform in '24: 10%
Voted LD in '24: 20%
Voted Labour in '24: 25%
It's also worth noting that the profile of Reform voters is actually quite different from Tory voters: most Reform voters favour Trump, whilst Tory voters don't. A large chunk of Reform voters are far right and are very hostile to the Tories. This suggests that the split in the right is relatively fixed. There is a group of Reform voters who would vote Tory if they think it will keep Labour out. They voted Reform in '24 because they were convinced the Tories would lose anyway.
Regular Tory voters who stayed home in '24, What do you expect from a Tory government?
1. Sound economic management
2. Standing up for Britain
3. Law and Order
They need to acknowledge the Truss failings to begin to rebuild this reputation.
Therefore the way for the Tories to build enough support is to convince their stay-at-home voters to come out again and to convince the switchers to Labour and the LibDems to come back. Then the soft-Reformers will follow.
My main point here being that the orientation of the Conference is the opposite of what they need to do.
Depending on who they elect as leader, there is a real risk of them going full-throttle chasing Rrform voters who aren't coming back and alienating everyone else.
It is an existential threat to the party.
FWIW, I think they'll survive as I predict they'll do this for a few years before pulling out of the terminal dive around 2030...
Of course, I may well be wrong.
AFZ
I think that by any standards, both Labour and Conservative governments have treated the Chagossians very shabbily indeed.
It's one of the biggest black-marks against us since WW2.
If any other government had done what ours did - successive governments that is - then we'd be pointing the finger and denouncing them for abuses of human rights.
A shameful episode in post-War British history.
Our sincerest apologies to Australia.
Oh please. If it's grifters you're looking for I'd draw your attention to those dodgy PPE contracts with all the credibility of Catherine Tate's "I can do that!" character.
Not to mention that whilst, the current government's media operation needs some work, the idea that Starmer and his cabinet are incompetent (in terms of policy) is just a fantasy.
True.
That was in a time of panic and in any case, we were supposed to expect better from a working class hero. like Sir Keir.
[ETA sense destroying typo, DT]
Past experience suggests not.
But let's try. @Telford please give examples of 'cabinet incompetence' that illustrate your point.
AFZ
[ETA sense destroying typo, DT]
Are comments which you don't like automatically trolling ?
Off the top of my head I will give you 3
Making the majority of pensioners poorer and colder.
Giving away our territory to an ally of China. They did not have to say YES before having Parliamentary approval.
Allowing the 'irregular' migrant situation to get worse. A record 973 crossed the channel on Saturday.
That is not evidence of incompetence. I almost always disagreed with Michael Gove's policies but I would not accuse him of incompetence. He achieved what he set out to achieve.
So, let's take your three in turn.
Making the majority of pensioners poorer and colder.
Half is technically correct (sort of), the other half is pejorative and objectively wrong. The government announced that they would stop the Winter Fuel Payment (£200 for most and £300 for older pensioners) for most pensioners whilst continuing it for those on pension credit.
So yes, technically most pensioners will be getting less money. The number who will be genuinely colder as a consequence is nowhere near a majority. For the majority, the loss of the equivalent of £4 a week is something they can absorb easily.
There is indeed a number of pensioners who do not qualify for Pensioner Credit but for whom the loss of this money may have a measurable effect on their ability to pay for heating. I do not know what this number is but it is not a majority. Over on the Labour government thread there has been serious discussion of this policy: the arguments around the need for this money and the value of universal benefits.
Whatever position you come to on this, it is not an example of incompetence. One could argue about the effective communication and the wisdom or otherwise of announcing this policy in isolation but that is not a question of policy competence.
Giving away our territory to an ally of China. They did not have to say YES before having Parliamentary approval.
The first sentence is a desperately naïve way of framing it. The second part is just wrong. The territory of the Chaggossian Islands and the way the British government has behaved is a history of appalling treatment of a local population. The national security issues around the strategic importance of Diego Garcia are part of the reason why successive governments have never resolved this. Again, on the other thread, the details of this decision and its ramifications have been thrashed out sensibly but the key fact on timing is that the American Government really wanted it finalised before their election. Describing Mauritius as a Chinese ally and ignoring all the details of the deal with the base lease is so simplistic as to be misleading. Do you really think the American Administration would be supporting this decision if they were worried about the Chinese actions on neighbouring islands? That stretches credulity rather a lot.
Again, whether it is a good or bad policy, this is not an example of ministerial incompetence. Quite the opposite, in fact.
As to Parliamentary approval. I was reading the papers yesterday who seemed to think it was a gotcha that it would be taken to Parliament, as if the government did not know this. If you read any more than the headline, you discover the truth that it is nothing of the sort. Anyway, foreign policy decisions like this are always made by the executive and then subject to parliamentary approval. No government would take it to a vote in the Commons before a deal had been reached.
Allowing the 'irregular' migrant situation to get worse. A record 973 crossed the channel on Saturday.
This is the closest you have come to a point. It is a stated Labour policy aim to reduce the number of people crossing the channel by small boat from France to the UK. I haven't checked, by I am willing to accept that 973 is a record number for a daily total.
Some things to consider though:
1. The issue of small boat crossing arose in late 2018. So we'll take the 1st of January 2019 as our starting point. From 1st January '19 until Saturday is 2104 days. Labour has been the government for 92 of those 2104 days.
2. In August 2024 there were 76 boats that arrived on our shores and September 2023 it was also 76 boats. In both cases that is a less than a half of the highest number recorded for those months. (192 in August '22 and 180 in September '22)
3. The rate of boat crossings is always weather-dependent.
Oh, and when I looked up the data for point 2. it shows that 973 is not the record. The record for most arrivals in a day is 1295 on 22nd August 2022. I have used the data from Migration Watch - an organisation that is hostile to migrants - but they've taken their numbers from the Home Office.
This is a complex problem. However, whichever way you may think it should be tackled the factual situation is that things have not got worse since the change of government. That's just the numbers.
Either you are stating that the government has let things get worse or that they are incompetent for not fixing it yet. Well, things are 'better' rather than worse. If you think the government are incompetent for not fixing it in 92 days then what is your description of a government who failed for over 2000 days, despite several initiatives that were supposed to address this issue?
=======
I have no problem with discussions about the rightness or otherwise of these policies but is objectively the case that there is zero evidence of incompetence in terms of policy delivery here.
So, do you wish to defend your description of the Cabinet as 'incompetent grifters'?
AFZ
Doublethink, Admin
Fair enough.
When the Tories were removing money from groups other than pensioners you justified that as required by the state of government finances; and you were able to take other people getting poorer and colder philosophically.
May I suggest you treat pensioners getting poorer and colder equally philosophically?
May I suggest you treat pensioners getting poorer and colder equally philosophically?[/quote]
Whilst you are correct making any pensioners colder and hungrier is incompetence. Making people who cannot afford it suffer is cruel. It is unpopular and shows a lack of understanding of public thought on the matter. The same with kids. They are two groups who are less able to fend for themselves. They are viewed as off limits to many people. Not understanding this is incompetence.
I think I disagree with this in lots of ways. I will pick it up on the Labour Government thread.
https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/comment/688244/#Comment_688244
When he was asked about his political ambitions he waffled on about being Cincinnatus. Camilla Tominey occasionally spoke to him like he was a naughty schoolboy and when she asked him another question when he was still trying to answer the current one it made him even more confused.
I eyeballed him. I recognise a snake-oil salesman when I see one.
He was witty and amusing but said nothing of any substance and deflected every single question with a quip.
For reference, if you prefer to read the data rather than listen to a Podcast: https://www.moreincommon.org.uk/media/ut1lem13/7_conservative-coalition-website.pdf
He seems incapable of thinking on his feet. When he reads a prepared speech he comes across as being articulate, but when confronted by a difficult question he blusters and bumbles with incoherent nonsense. This is why he hid in a fridge when he saw a group of reporters wanting to ask him questions and why he refused to take part in the leaders hustings on TV during the election campaign
That sums it up quite well.
James Cleverly streaks into the lead in MPs polling. Personally, I think that good decisions are better than good speeches
I hope so. Cleverly has probably got the numbers to engineer that if he wants…
*not openly or colluding, just suggesting to his supporters that the Cleverley cause is best served by some of them voting Jenrick this afternoon.
As ever, politics is all about being able to count…
The problem lies in the co-ordination - MPs have decided to freelance in the past.
I think the party is going to be difficult enough to lead as it is, and it's going to be better to send the strongest signal of notional authority that you've got.
But he won't.
It's a death-spiral for the Tories if they don't. I will justify that argument both theoretically and empirically.
Theoretically.
Reform / Farage is a platform of populism. To some extent the Tories managed to hold onto voters who may have gone to Reform by aping their rhetoric and policies. But ultimately its doomed to failure because what they are demanding is undeliverable.
If we look at migration, the Tories won a lot of votes by promising to reduce both regular and irregular migration. They were never going to reduce either. If you look at regular migration into the UK. Well, we need an influx of people to maintain our lifestyle because of our aging population. We have a skills shortage. Often in areas that are incorrectly labelled as 'unskilled labour.' Hence the economic draw on migration is huge and the economic cost of actually stopping it would be huge. The effect of reduced migration from the EU post-Brexit is increased migration from the rest of the world. If you want to talk about refugees, the push factors massively outweigh the pull factors which is why 'deterrents' have little to no effect.
Interestingly, this has been a winning strategy for the Tories for the last couple of decades. Here's how it works: Talk about immigration. That increases people's concerns about immigration. Then (some) people vote for the party that sounds tougher. Then do nothing about it and let people's worry increase. Labour never had a good answer to this. Even when they sound tough, it does not help. The people who really care about this issue think the Tories mean it more than Labour and hence they vote Tory. And by pandering to this group (Labour has never been morally strong enough at fighting this rhetoric) Labour lost support to the Greens and others from people who actually care about refugees.
However, Reform now occupies a space further to the right. So they can keep upping the ante of the rhetoric. They haven't quite made it official policy to shoot refugees in small boats but they've come pretty damn close. The Tories cannot out flank them. Moreover, Reform have the freedom of opposition. Their nonsense policies will never be tested and hence, unlike the Tories they never get found out.
The Conservative Party cannot win these people back by pandering to the Right. For those that think like this, Reform always look more convincing. There is a small caveat to this in that some would vote Tory to keep Labour out, if - and only if - they thought it would make a difference.
That's the theoretical reason.
Empirical
I provided a couple of links above to the research done by Better Together. The truth is that Reform voters will not be easily won back. Assuming the self-reporting is accurate, only 1 in 10 former-Tory-voting Reform Voters will even consider voting Conservative in the next 5 years.
So the Tories are trying to out-reform Reform which is impossible to win back an electorate that isn't coming back. In the process they make it very unlikely that any of the voters lost in other directions will return.
As I've noted above, the Tories are in a hole and the conference was basically a call to arms to all members to pick up a shovel. The leadership candidates, in my view, are all trying to outdo each other with their boasting of their digging abilities...
AFZ
I feel like we've fallen into an episode of 'Allo Allo' here....
Sorry, I'll get m' coat.
One Labour MP has apparently asked if they need to declare this as a gift.
All joking aside, they probably ought to or it won’t pass the smell test…
We may get a repeat of Truss, one gets in and then alternates so many people so fast there’s shortly thereafter another contest they ensure doesn’t go to the members.
They may end up splitting like Labour did with one set going off to join Reform, (whatever did happen to Change UK & Chukka’s lot ?)
Anything can happen but I think the chances of Labour winning the next election just increased.