Current Affairs The Conservative Party

[Walken]

Indeed it might. It's fairly obvious to see how.

But the public don't want it. And the short-termism of our political system, combined with our abysmal, sensationalism-obsessed media, means that no government will risk such an unpopular move.

Truss did something horrendously unpopular last week (by way of comparison); when she saw the massive negative reaction she changed course, and the media promptly attacked her for making a "U-turn".

If you want politicians to be open about the idea of changing unpopular policies, what is the point in attacking them for changing unpopular policies? All that happens is that they become afraid of changing course.

Perhaps if her political existence wasn't built on the unsteady blocks of populism then she would be able to act without being at the mercy of the same populism, she gives no practical reasoning for her u-turn so it seem for what it is. Though I would be interested to see of freedom of movement garners the same anger and distaste as tax breaks for the wealthiest as we enter recession.

 

[Walken]

Scary spice has entered the chat

 

[Jebus_lives]

He's not.

But equally, he's not mentioning all the non-trade obligations that are packaged up with access to the EU's single market.

If it was just about trade then the overwhelming majority of the country would be pro-EU membership. But it isn't just about trade. The EU demands freedom of movement as part and parcel of single market trade. It's not a functional necessity, it's just an aspect of the price member states have to agree to in order to access the single market.

But you know that. As does Sadiq Kahn.

I don't see free movement as a "price".

It's not. It's a huge benefit.

 

[JimmyJeffers]

I'm a Tory party member, as are dozens of my friends and family members. The chap in the video has just voiced my beliefs and values, and those of my friends / family. We're all appalled by Truss, and if you want to go diving through the vaults you'll find me being critical of Braverman back when Labour didn't even know who she was.

Genuinely find it sad that the strong left STILL just automatically label anyone centrist as a right wing zealot. It's so polarised, so black and white, so simplistic for the extreme left, because their entire identity is defined by hatred of anyone who dares think differently to them. Equally, extreme right-wingers are every bit as intolerant.

But there are dozens, if not hundreds, of sensible centrist MPs in both the Labour and Tory parties: I'd take a Labour government led by someone like Dan Jarvis tomorrow if the Burgons, Lammys, Rayners and Thornberrys were consigned to the backbenches where they belong. Equally a Tory party under Sunak or Badenoch is immediately more enlightened and centrist than Truss.

Cue all the jibes about "you can't be a centrist if you vote Tory".

I would say that if you’re still voting tory and enabling this government then you are supporting a right wing plutocracy. I understand you’re not going to agree with everything a party proposes and acts upon, but there must be a limit.
Let’s not forget, Sunak was filmed boasting about taking money from deprived areas for middle England. He’s been getting a lot more positive press recently but he is equally abhorrent. Just more competent at doing it.

 

[Tree13]

I don't see free movement as a "price".

It's not. It's a huge benefit.

I never said it WAS a price. I said that enough of the electorate view it that way that the fact they don't want it was enough to see them vote to leave the EU.

Apologies for the confusion I may have caused by phrasing my explanation poorly.

 

[Jebus_lives]

I never said it WAS a price. I said that enough of the electorate view it that way that the fact they don't want it was enough to see them vote to leave the EU.

Apologies for the confusion I may have caused by phrasing my explanation poorly.

I think people might start to reassess in the current climate.

 

[Tree13]

I would say that if you’re still voting tory and enabling this government then you are supporting a right wing plutocracy. I understand you’re not going to agree with everything a party proposes and acts upon, but there must be a limit.
Let’s not forget, Sunak was filmed boasting about taking money from deprived areas for middle England. He’s been getting a lot more positive press recently but he is equally abhorrent. Just more competent at doing it.

I've had one vote on anything since 2019, if memory serves. The recent leadership ballot. What vote do you suggest you or I can cast right now to change anything? You say "still voting Tory" as if there's a national election every Tuesday lunchtime.

When the next GE rolls around, I'll cast my vote as I see fit, just like you will. At the current rate it will be next May at the absolute soonest, more likely May 2024. Plenty of time for both Labour and the Tories to make changes.

 

[Tree13]

I think people might start to reassess in the current climate.

Yes, they may well do.

 

[catcherintherye]

Indeed it might. It's fairly obvious to see how.

But the public don't want it. And the short-termism of our political system, combined with our abysmal, sensationalism-obsessed media, means that no government will risk such an unpopular move.

Truss did something horrendously unpopular last week (by way of comparison); when she saw the massive negative reaction she changed course, and the media promptly attacked her for making a "U-turn".

If you want politicians to be open about the idea of changing unpopular policies, what is the point in attacking them for changing unpopular policies? All that happens is that they become afraid of changing course.

That perception has been cultivated by the behaviour of Tory MPs weird misrepresentation of Thatcher and "the lady doesnt turn" malarkey though (who of course did turn on the very thing she was referencing in that speech).

Whatever we think of Thatcher, she made multiple changes of policy, and this was centrally why she enjoyed the success she did. But you have a layer of Tories who now assume to be like her, you have to do the very opposite of what she did, and the very opposite of what is good sense.

Truss is one of the worst for this, making ludicrous policies, having to backtrack, then inventing some enemy to justify having to do it (the old enemies of growth stuff). Its a bind they are stuck in, and it holds them back and sort of destines them to play out the same pattern over and again with each leader post Thatcher, where they arent allowed the space to have flexibility.

Truss egged it on though, the day before U turn telling us no U-turn. Its terrible politics if nothing else. Theres lot of things I have to u turn on each week, but I get a sense of when I have to do one, a I dont go out on a limb the day before to defend something I sense I'll have to change.

The media buy into this too of course. But I do see them as somewhat secondary to this melodrama.

 

[Tree13]

Perhaps if her political existence wasn't built on the unsteady blocks of populism then she would be able to act without being at the mercy of the same populism, she gives no practical reasoning for her u-turn so it seem for what it is. Though I would be interested to see of freedom of movement garners the same anger and distaste as tax breaks for the wealthiest as we enter recession.

Would you prefer, in the absence of Truss giving any practical reasoning for her U-turn on the 45p tax bracket, that she simply went ahead and stuck to cancelling that tax bracket?

I wouldn't. I'm delighted that there was so much membership and MP opposition to it. I'm delighted that the moderate Tory MPs and moderate Labour MPs who got together to organise voting against it did so. I'm just glad it was reversed.

 

[catcherintherye]

He's not.

But equally, he's not mentioning all the non-trade obligations that are packaged up with access to the EU's single market.

If it was just about trade then the overwhelming majority of the country would be pro-EU membership. But it isn't just about trade. The EU demands freedom of movement as part and parcel of single market trade. It's not a functional necessity, it's just an aspect of the price member states have to agree to in order to access the single market.

But you know that. As does Sadiq Kahn.

I sort of see this as the conundrum theyve got themselves in though.

Where on the one hand, they want to take essentially protectionist decisions to protect an older section of their vote base who are essentially quite unproductive. Yet they are the making this big turn towards growth. Its incoherent.

I'm not sure any of them aside from George Osbourne have had any kind of medium term plan. Cummings is the exception, who thought in long term time horizons, but his ideas I dont think ever really made any sense outside of his own ramblings and brain, so not sure he counts.

 

[Blue 1]

I sort of see this as the conundrum theyve got themselves in though.

Where on the one hand, they want to take essentially protectionist decisions to protect an older section of their vote base who are essentially quite unproductive. Yet they are the making this big turn towards growth. Its incoherent.

I'm not sure any of them aside from George Osbourne have had any kind of medium term plan. Cummings is the exception, who thought in long term time horizons, but his ideas I dont think ever really made any sense outside of his own ramblings and brain, so not sure he counts.

I've never thought of Cummings really having any long term plans beyond "smash everything", but I'm quite possibly wrong there.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Conceptually, that's entirely possible. But in practical terms the voting population of the UK would overwhelmingly back a single market agreement based solely on trade, whereas there is far less support for a package deal where free trade is conditional on also accepting various other principles.

Understanding the above is not the same as agreeing that it's correct.

Call me old fashioned if you like, but I believe politicians should stand up for what's right, and what the evidence supports. It was well documented during the referendum that most places that voted leave had minimal exposure to immigration, yet most places that had a lot of exposure to it were supportive of it. It's also well documented that it's beneficial to the economy and to people.

I fully get that the media, and indeed many politicians, have been all too happy to whip up xenophobia and spread lies, but that doesn't make it right.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Call me old fashioned if you like, but I believe politicians should stand up for what's right, and what the evidence supports. It was well documented during the referendum that most places that voted leave had minimal exposure to immigration, yet most places that had a lot of exposure to it were supportive of it. It's also well documented that it's beneficial to the economy and to people.

I fully get that the media, and indeed many politicians, have been all too happy to whip up xenophobia and spread lies, but that doesn't make it right.

There's two basic problems these days. One is that political science proved that the mirroring philosophy ("do what your constituents want, not what you know is actually in their interest") is more electorally successful. The second is that very few people pay attention, which means that the game is about raising maximum funds with which to convince the ignorant that one is doing what they want done in the capital, or at least that they will do a better job than the opponent.

 

[NilSatisOptimum]

Convenient for Braverman, this coming out about Burns today, innit. I'm sure Truss only just found out.

Keeps yet more Home Office incompetence off the front page tomorrow.

Truss pro immigration and Braverman anti immigration.