Rishi Sunak - PM

[lpm]

I don't see the attraction of splitting away to individual MPs.

It's not much fun being an opposition Conservative MP for the next 10 years, but at least you can cash in. And if you stand as a loyal Tory and lose your seat, you can call in favours.

What does standing for a new right wing party get you? What's the next step in your career? There's only a couple of spare jobs at GBeebies.

The smart play has to be loyalty.

[temptar]

I just want some entertainment. UK politics is free reality tv.

[monkey]

I don't see the attraction of splitting away to individual MPs.

It's not much fun being an opposition Conservative MP for the next 10 years, but at least you can cash in. And if you stand as a loyal Tory and lose your seat, you can call in favours.

What does standing for a new right wing party get you? What's the next step in your career? There's only a couple of spare jobs at GBeebies.

The smart play has to be loyalty.

Constituency dependent innit.

If you're a relatively unknown MP who's about to lose their seat, going out with a bang gets you noticed and on the podcast circuit with all the grifting that comes with that, at the very least.

If you've got a safe seat (or reckon you'll still win - not sure any Tory seats count as safe right now), loyalty is best.

[tenchboy]

A Tweet that Andrea Jenkyns has written to the 1922 committee. Is she a Suella follower?

A former minister for edukashun, no less:
20231113_214922.jpg

OK, some find it difficult to write good, coherent English, but it's easy enough these days to run stuff through an AI or whatever.

It is indeed a terrible letter. Yes, some people do find it difficult to write good coherent English but people also expect betererer from a Minister being paid more money than most of us could ever dream of; at this level it's akin to a mechanic at Mclaren (or any other top level outfit) constantly having to ask which way do I turn the spanner to tighten this bolt.
Yes it could have been runned through AI or whatever, it could have been runned past some one in the next room, down the pub or she could even of asked the Evri formerly known as Hermes delivery guy. Any one of them could have put her rightward.
It is another example of how these people are most likely totally unemployable outside of politics/parliament.
In short it's a f.cking disgrace.
The first three collections of words ending with a full stop in the second paragraph are barely sentences and bear no relation to each other, make no sense, even read alone; and have no reason for being there.

Anyway, the people at The Spectator have had a field day: Dear the parents/guardians of Andrea Jenkyns (age 49 years and 5 months),

I g**gled Andrea Jenkyns Letter this morning and found this but it wouldn't let me read it without signing up: sod that, so I left it; I tried googling that first line and opening incognito: same (non) result; I came home this evening and tried again and got in straight away: your luck may vary.

Having now only just read it, ETA to add their last line: "... and I hope in future she remembers that politicians should be able to write as well as Year 7 pupils."

[IvanV]

A Tweet that Andrea Jenkyns has written to the 1922 committee. Is she a Suella follower?

A former minister for edukashun, no less:
20231113_214922.jpg

OK, some find it difficult to write good, coherent English, but it's easy enough these days to run stuff through an AI or whatever.

What particularly irks me here is the use - deliberate I am sure - of the term "centre right" to describe people like Suella Braverman. It isn't exactly clear who she means, so maybe she doesn't mean precisely Cruella. But she certainly isn't talking about David Gauke and Dominic Grieve, still less Edward Heath, Michael Heseltine, and the "Tory wets" of old that I would call centre right. I would say the core Conservative Party vacated the centre right quite some time ago. Even under Cameron the MEPs in the European Parliament refused to join the EU's grouping of centre right parties, and aligned themselves with a minority grouping of hard-right head-bangers instead.

This is the second time recently I have seen "centre right" used as a description of the present lot in the ascendency of the Tory Party. The first time I suspect it was merely a journalist copying someone else's self-describing misusage, though I was bit upset to see that in The Economist. There was another more prominent article in the same issue calling Sunak and his entourage out for being really very right wing, so it didn't seem to be editorial policy.

But there does seem to be a deliberate attempt by the hard right of conservative party to position themselves as modern, normal "centrist" conservatives, who the majority of normal people could vote for. That Edward Heath, he was practically a communist, barely distinguishable from Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine him, fronting Britain joining the EU, CINO they were in those times.

[IvanV]

A Tweet that Andrea Jenkyns has written to the 1922 committee. Is she a Suella follower?

A former minister for edukashun, no less:
20231113_214922.jpg

OK, some find it difficult to write good, coherent English, but it's easy enough these days to run stuff through an AI or whatever.

From her usage of "stand up and fight", there would seem to be a suggestion of Mordauntism. I realise that Mordaunt got attacked during her leadership campaign for not having as much heartless ruthlessness towards marginalised subgroups of society as other female contenders for the job, but she is certainly no bleeding-heart centrist.

The content is not coherent, as is expected of modern neo-conservatives, who routinely believe several impossible things before breakfast. Good, coherent English is also not employed, deprecated even. Indeed, the level of covfefe is quite low for such a tract.

[jimbob]

A Tweet that Andrea Jenkyns has written to the 1922 committee. Is she a Suella follower?

A former minister for edukashun, no less:
20231113_214922.jpg

OK, some find it difficult to write good, coherent English, but it's easy enough these days to run stuff through an AI or whatever.

What particularly irks me here is the use - deliberate I am sure - of the term "centre right" to describe people like Suella Braverman. It isn't exactly clear who she means, so maybe she doesn't mean precisely Cruella. But she certainly isn't talking about David Gauke and Dominic Grieve, still less Edward Heath, Michael Heseltine, and the "Tory wets" of old that I would call centre right. I would say the core Conservative Party vacated the centre right quite some time ago. Even under Cameron the MEPs in the European Parliament refused to join the EU's grouping of centre right parties, and aligned themselves with a minority grouping of hard-right head-bangers instead.

This is the second time recently I have seen "centre right" used as a description of the present lot in the ascendency of the Tory Party. The first time I suspect it was merely a journalist copying someone else's self-describing misusage, though I was bit upset to see that in The Economist. There was another more prominent article in the same issue calling Sunak and his entourage out for being really very right wing, so it didn't seem to be editorial policy.

But there does seem to be a deliberate attempt by the hard right of conservative party to position themselves as modern, normal "centrist" conservatives, who the majority of normal people could vote for. That Edward Heath, he was practically a communist, barely distinguishable from Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine him, fronting Britain joining the EU, CINO they were in those times.

The bolded - maybe, just maybe, Margaret Thatcher.

It's a deliberate moving of the Overton window

[discovolante]

A Tweet that Andrea Jenkyns has written to the 1922 committee. Is she a Suella follower?

A former minister for edukashun, no less:
20231113_214922.jpg

OK, some find it difficult to write good, coherent English, but it's easy enough these days to run stuff through an AI or whatever.

What particularly irks me here is the use - deliberate I am sure - of the term "centre right" to describe people like Suella Braverman. It isn't exactly clear who she means, so maybe she doesn't mean precisely Cruella. But she certainly isn't talking about David Gauke and Dominic Grieve, still less Edward Heath, Michael Heseltine, and the "Tory wets" of old that I would call centre right. I would say the core Conservative Party vacated the centre right quite some time ago. Even under Cameron the MEPs in the European Parliament refused to join the EU's grouping of centre right parties, and aligned themselves with a minority grouping of hard-right head-bangers instead.

This is the second time recently I have seen "centre right" used as a description of the present lot in the ascendency of the Tory Party. The first time I suspect it was merely a journalist copying someone else's self-describing misusage, though I was bit upset to see that in The Economist. There was another more prominent article in the same issue calling Sunak and his entourage out for being really very right wing, so it didn't seem to be editorial policy.

But there does seem to be a deliberate attempt by the hard right of conservative party to position themselves as modern, normal "centrist" conservatives, who the majority of normal people could vote for. That Edward Heath, he was practically a communist, barely distinguishable from Jeremy Corbyn. Imagine him, fronting Britain joining the EU, CINO they were in those times.

Heard similar on BBC Scotland recently. Actually I think it was describing David Cameron as centrist. Possibly because of his relatively liberal social politics e.g. same sex marriage?

[IvanV]

What particularly irks me here is the use - deliberate I am sure - of the term "centre right" to describe people like Suella Braverman....

Heard similar on BBC Scotland recently. Actually I think it was describing David Cameron as centrist. Possibly because of his relatively liberal social politics e.g. same sex marriage?

I agree, there was some surprising, if rather circumscribed, social liberalism on display during that time, surprising remembering how homophobic previous editions of the conservative party had been. But it was mainly about sexuality. When Theresa May identified the Tories as the nasty party, I think she thought that referred only to homophobia, even as she devised the hostile environment on immigration, our justice system was being wrecked, and the inequality in society resulting from the Thatcher/Major years meant we lagged behind the entire EU in that regard.

Cameron is clearly nearer the centre than the subsequent lot. Maybe he is centrist by relativity. But Cameron's Conservative party was not centrist, for reasons I set out.

Such is the shortage of money, and the broad hostility to continental levels of taxation that seems to exist, it will be very difficult to return to something like the standards of public service and the condition of the less well off that existed 20 years ago. If the Overton window has moved as Jimbob says, it distresses me that we have apparently become so heartless as a society.

[lpm]

The Tories are stuck on 20 something percent. Clearly society hasn't moved right with them. But the tabloids, BBC and clickbait pundits have moved right.

[discovolante]

What particularly irks me here is the use - deliberate I am sure - of the term "centre right" to describe people like Suella Braverman....

Heard similar on BBC Scotland recently. Actually I think it was describing David Cameron as centrist. Possibly because of his relatively liberal social politics e.g. same sex marriage?

I agree, there was some surprising, if rather circumscribed, social liberalism on display during that time, surprising remembering how homophobic previous editions of the conservative party had been. But it was mainly about sexuality. When Theresa May identified the Tories as the nasty party, I think she thought that referred only to homophobia, even as she devised the hostile environment on immigration, our justice system was being wrecked, and the inequality in society resulting from the Thatcher/Major years meant we lagged behind the entire EU in that regard.

Cameron is clearly nearer the centre than the subsequent lot. Maybe he is centrist by relativity. But Cameron's Conservative party was not centrist, for reasons I set out.

Such is the shortage of money, and the broad hostility to continental levels of taxation that seems to exist, it will be very difficult to return to something like the standards of public service and the condition of the less well off that existed 20 years ago. If the Overton window has moved as Jimbob says, it distresses me that we have apparently become so heartless as a society.

Oh I certainly don't think Cameron is actually a centrist. It's just about the only reason I could think he would be described as one, other than of course perhaps not (at least openly) being as right wing as the current lot. Anyway, same sex marriage is progressive in many important ways but it's still rooted in an idea that's about as conservative as it gets.

[Woodchopper]

What particularly irks me here is the use - deliberate I am sure - of the term "centre right" to describe people like Suella Braverman....

Heard similar on BBC Scotland recently. Actually I think it was describing David Cameron as centrist. Possibly because of his relatively liberal social politics e.g. same sex marriage?

I agree, there was some surprising, if rather circumscribed, social liberalism on display during that time, surprising remembering how homophobic previous editions of the conservative party had been. But it was mainly about sexuality. When Theresa May identified

the Tories as the nasty party, I think she thought that referred only to homophobia, even as she devised the hostile environment on immigration, our justice system was being wrecked, and the inequality in society resulting from the Thatcher/Major years meant we lagged behind the entire EU in that regard.

I don’t think that’s correct. Here’s the section from May’s 2002 speech:

There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us - the nasty party.

I know that's unfair. You know that's unfair but it's the people out there we need to convince - and we can only do that by avoiding behaviour and attitudes that play into the hands of our opponents. No more glib moralising, no more hypocritical finger-wagging.

We need to reach out to all areas of our society.
I want us to be the party that represents the whole of Britain and not merely some mythical place called "Middle England", but the truth is that as our country has become more diverse, our party has remained the same.

We should not underestimate the extent of this problem. Ask yourselves: how can we truly claim to be the party of Britain, when we don't truly represent Britain in our party?
Our country is not simply a geographic area. It is the people who live and work in it. It is the people in the inner cities as much as those in the leafy suburbs or rural villages. It's the people in the north and the south, the east and the west. It's the face on the street, whatever its colour, whatever its sex, whatever its background.

Are we really giving everyone in our society a fair chance to represent the Conservative party?

As a Tory woman I'm instinctively suspicious of positive discrimination. I'm a passionate believer in meritocracy. But are we in the Conservative party really choosing our candidates on merit? Isn't it time we were more open-minded about what makes the best candidate?

Our associations cherish their independence, but with independence comes responsibility. When selecting a candidate you aren't simply choosing someone to represent your association or your area. Your candidate becomes the face of the Conservative party.

So don't ask yourself whether you would be happy to have a drink with this person on a Sunday morning, ask instead what this person says about us.

At the last general election 38 new Tory MPs were elected. Of that total only one was a woman and none was from an ethnic minority. Is that fair? Is one half of the population entitled to only one place out of 38?

That's not meritocracy - that's a travesty and it will never be allowed to happen again.

I'm afraid that candidate selection is just one area in which our party seems to many outside our ranks to be hopelessly stuck in the past. The way we look, the way we talk and the way we think - this may be a party at ease with itself but is it a party at ease with 21st century Britain?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... ervatives1

She’s clearly referring to more general social inclusion and more specifically that the party’s MPs should better reflect the makeup of the country.

To be fair, they have become much more diverse in terms of the ethnic makeup of the senior leadership. The last Major cabinet lacked any people with a South Asian or Afro-Carribean background. The closest it got to diversity was Michael Howard and Michael Portillo.

[Grumble]

I spent some time in the early 2000’s lurking on a muslim forum, there were clerics advising that all good muslims should vote conservative. I think because they saw the conservatives as being closer to the monarchy and the monarchy as having divine right.

[Woodchopper]

I spent some time in the early 2000’s lurking on a muslim forum, there were clerics advising that all good muslims should vote conservative. I think because they saw the conservatives as being closer to the monarchy and the monarchy as having divine right.

I haven’t heard of that rationale, but overall there is a long history of some people with immigrant backgrounds voting for anti-immigrant parties. There are lots of reasons but they come down to immigrants being similar to everyone else. Some of them have socially or economically conservative views, others may be racists themselves.

[TimW]

Just catching up with the Jenkyns letter...

Yes Boris, the man who won the Conservative Party a massive majority, was unforgivable enough.

[IvanV]

When Theresa May identified the Tories as the nasty party, I think she thought that referred only to homophobia

I don’t think that’s correct. Here’s the section from May’s 2002 speech:

There's a lot we need to do in this party of ours. Our base is too narrow and so, occasionally, are our sympathies. You know what some people call us - the nasty party....

She’s clearly referring to more general social inclusion and more specifically that the party’s MPs should better reflect the makeup of the country. ...

Many thanks for correcting my long-standing misunderstanding. Given she identified resistance to diversity more broadly as why they were nasty, and mentioned hypocrisy, it was hypocritical that she was at the same time devising the hostile environment resulting in the Windrush scandal.

But she doesn't seem to have worked out the wider reasons why the Conservatives are seen as nasty.

[IvanV]

I spent some time in the early 2000’s lurking on a muslim forum, there were clerics advising that all good muslims should vote conservative. I think because they saw the conservatives as being closer to the monarchy and the monarchy as having divine right.

I haven’t heard of that rationale, but overall there is a long history of some people with immigrant backgrounds voting for anti-immigrant parties. There are lots of reasons but they come down to immigrants being similar to everyone else. Some of them have socially or economically conservative views, others may be racists themselves.

There does seem to be a general issue of if you can distract them by signing up to one or two signature big-button issues for a particular group, you seem to be able to get a lot of them to vote for you regardless of anything else. Many turkeys are persuaded to vote for Christmas, and all it took was a promise to clamp down on foxes.

[Woodchopper]

I spent some time in the early 2000’s lurking on a muslim forum, there were clerics advising that all good muslims should vote conservative. I think because they saw the conservatives as being closer to the monarchy and the monarchy as having divine right.

I haven’t heard of that rationale, but overall there is a long history of some people with immigrant backgrounds voting for anti-immigrant parties. There are lots of reasons but they come down to immigrants being similar to everyone else. Some of them have socially or economically conservative views, others may be racists themselves.

There does seem to be a general issue of if you can distract them by signing up to one or two signature big-button issues for a particular group, you seem to be able to get a lot of them to vote for you regardless of anything else. Many turkeys are persuaded to vote for Christmas, and all it took was a promise to clamp down on foxes.

Alternatively, it may be that they perceive that their interests are best served by the Tory policies. Its often assumed that being an immigrant is the defining aspect of someone's life. But often times it isn't. Someone who already has a UK passport might not care about the difficulties faced by other immigrants, especially if those immigrants aren't who they view as being the 'right' kind of people. That person may also prefer economic policies based upon low taxes and spending cuts.

[Grumble]

I haven’t heard of that rationale, but overall there is a long history of some people with immigrant backgrounds voting for anti-immigrant parties. There are lots of reasons but they come down to immigrants being similar to everyone else. Some of them have socially or economically conservative views, others may be racists themselves.

There does seem to be a general issue of if you can distract them by signing up to one or two signature big-button issues for a particular group, you seem to be able to get a lot of them to vote for you regardless of anything else. Many turkeys are persuaded to vote for Christmas, and all it took was a promise to clamp down on foxes.

Alternatively, it may be that they perceive that their interests are best served by the Tory policies. Its often assumed that being an immigrant is the defining aspect of someone's life. But often times it isn't. Someone who already has a UK passport might not care about the difficulties faced by other immigrants, especially if those immigrants aren't who they view as being the 'right' kind of people. That person may also prefer economic policies based upon low taxes and spending cuts.

My brother observed some years ago, based on experiences in India and with Indians in the U.K., that Indian immigrants or second generation were often more socially conservative than Indians in India. (Anecdote alert)

[noggins]

1. Every f.cker wants to be the last off the boat. Im haunted by the memory of seeing a Cuban-American, watching tv news of Haitians landing in Florida, tutting and muttering "send 'em back"

2. Immigrants can delude themselves that a disagreeable change just isn't happening back in the Old Country, when of course it is as well. Ive directly observed it with Greek-English.

[bjn]

It’s not as if immigrants or their children don’t set up businesses or move into professions, and so have “aspiration”. In which case they’ll be on board with the Tory ideas low tax and low regulation. Such practicalities often overweigh issues around c.ntery to other people with your background.

[Sciolus]

It’s not as if immigrants or their children don’t set up businesses or move into professions, and so have “aspiration”. In which case they’ll be on board with the Tory ideas low tax and low regulation. Such practicalities often overweigh issues around c.ntery to other people with your background.

Indeed, one of the arguments in favour of immigration is that the kind of person who has the courage, resources and gumption to travel round the world and make a home in a new country is the kind of person who can make a contribution when they get here. And such people are often Tory-aligned. Uncomfortable as it is for a lefty to admit it.

[Grumble]

https://x.com/Samfr/status/1724472099790573950?s=20

@Samfr
The best bit in Braverman's letter is where she says she was prepared to accept Sunak despite him having no public mandate as long as he agreed to her secret deal the public didn't even know about.

[FlammableFlower]

Just catching up with the Jenkyns letter...

Yes Boris, the man who won the Conservative Party a massive majority, was unforgivable enough.

I think that is one of the best parts. She didn't really want it to say what is actually written, did she.

Also, as Grumble notes, Suella's outgoing blast is, well quite a blast.

[Tessa K]

Anti-woke = anti LGBT, anti diversity, anti lockdown. Common sense = lack of care and respect. So, standard Tory policy then. Pandering to the far right and grumpy old white people.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... sense-tsar