Cable Forum
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Cable Forum (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/index.php)
-   Current Affairs (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/forumdisplay.php?f=20)
-   -   Conservative Party's chronicles (https://www.cableforum.uk/board/showthread.php?t=33713337)

Damien 22-10-2025 13:06
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36205110)
Let's not dance around the issue.

I don't think they'll be sending back EU citizens...........
That's what the policy says. It's why I linked the actual draft legislation she introduced to make it clear that is what they are proposing. There is no exemption for previously EU citizens, nor pensioners, nor people who've been here 'x' amount of years. It's only receiving a salary in excess of £38,000 and not getting any benefits that allows you to stay.

Now, I don't think they'll do it either because it's unpopular and unworkable.

But that is what the proposal is. They like to signal one thing to one group, i.e telling the more radical right they want to do what the bill as introduced says, whilst then pretending it's liberal scaremongering when challenged on it.

It's not a healthy place to be when politicians are proposing wildly radical ideas, and we simply think they won't actually do it.

OLD BOY 22-10-2025 14:09
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205105)
Reform will need to reverse that policy. There would be a whole raft of laws they would need to introduce to negate common law and that would be beyond them or, indeed, any party that tried to govern through democratic institutions.
Any new statute will over-ride common law previously in place, provided it is properly worded. Existing laws, rules, agreements and conventions can all be terminated or superseded. These things are not the major problems they are made out to be.

The House of Lords could be a problem, which is why Reform would have to be careful to set out what they wanted to do in their manifesto.

Sephiroth 22-10-2025 16:39
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205118)
Any new statute will over-ride common law previously in place, provided it is properly worded. Existing laws, rules, agreements and conventions can all be terminated or superseded. These things are not the major problems they are made out to be.

The House of Lords could be a problem, which is why Reform would have to be careful to set out what they wanted to do in their manifesto.
I hope that you, OB, mindful of the comparison with 1930s Germany, would be opposed to this immature Reform policy.

Damien 22-10-2025 16:56
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
The Government obviously can retrospectively change the Leave to Remain laws. If it's a good idea to do so, when you've essentially had an agreement with the people to whom you've offered it, is another question.

My main problem with it is the moral issue with kicking out people who've made their lives here, especially if they've been here for a long time, paid taxes and built families here. But it's also a stupid idea in terms of how confident people are that you'll uphold the agreements you'll make in future.

Sephiroth 22-10-2025 17:08
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36205140)
The Government obviously can retrospectively change the Leave to Remain laws. If it's a good idea to do so, when you've essentially had an agreement with the people to whom you've offered it, is another question.

My main problem with it is the moral issue with kicking out people who've made their lives here, especially if they've been here for a long time, paid taxes and built families here. But it's also a stupid idea in terms of how confident people are that you'll uphold the agreements you'll make in future.
Exactly. Where does OB stand on that point?

Pierre 22-10-2025 18:11
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36205114)
That's what the policy says. It's why I linked the actual draft legislation she introduced to make it clear that is what they are proposing. There is no exemption for previously EU citizens, nor pensioners, nor people who've been here 'x' amount of years. It's only receiving a salary in excess of £38,000 and not getting any benefits that allows you to stay.

Now, I don't think they'll do it either because it's unpopular and unworkable.

But that is what the proposal is. They like to signal one thing to one group, i.e telling the more radical right they want to do what the bill as introduced says, whilst then pretending it's liberal scaremongering when challenged on it.

It's not a healthy place to be when politicians are proposing wildly radical ideas, and we simply think they won't actually do it.
The country is fine with EU nationals.

It’s the North African, and Middle Eastern backward cohort of Islamic “doctors and engineers” we would like removed.

Chris 22-10-2025 18:16
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36205104)
As I said, I don't think it will happen. It would cause havoc domestically as you tried to actually implement it. When people actually see the stories of pensioners having their pension taken away and told to leave, families split up, e.t.c, then it's not so easy to defend, and people will object. Not to mention how practically difficult it would become.

Internationally it would cause problems too. There are Brits in Europe with their equivalent of Leave to Remain who might be worried they would get the same treatment back.

I think they're only doing it to appeal to the Online right, the ones who spent a great deal of time judging other people's Englishness. Other than the polling, I have looked for right-wing reactions otherwise of X but could only find an article in The Spectator condemning it.

Still, it's a published policy from the party of the opposition so something to take seriously.
The devil is always in the detail and for all the tough-sounding clauses about who stays and who goes, it is, at the end of the day, merely an enabling act thanks to clause 8 which grants the Sec of State the power to vary the rules.

I’m not sufficiently anorak to know for certain, however I suspect if the actual intention is to grant the SoS power to decide tougher rules on who can remain in the country, then the prior 7 clauses are entirely redundant in the main body of the act and would probably be deleted during the legislation’s passage through parliament. They belong in the accompanying Immigration Rules, which are variable by order of the SoS. Which rather calls into question why they’re even there in the draft Bill. My suspicion is that it’s grandstanding, an advert for Tory tough-talking designed to slash the tyres of Reform’s battle bus.

I do think we need to be tougher on who gets ILR. I also do think we need to be able to revoke ILR. I simply don’t accept that we have to live forever with the social consequences of poor - possibly pernicious - immigration policy aimed at engineering radical social and cultural change in this country. However as written those rules would indeed cause chaos and there ought to be exceptions - pensioners being an obvious example, extreme length of stay being another.

Re your earlier point about polling not supporting this - that is very much the point of a democracy. If there actually is no appetite for this in the country, then the Tories will fight 2028 (probably) on a core vote strategy and won’t win the election. So you have nothing to worry about. Also, if polling you’ve seen doesn’t show public support for this, in what sense can you think (as you indicated earlier) that you don’t like what the country’s becoming - because you don’t seem to think that’s what it actually is becoming?

1andrew1 22-10-2025 19:36
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205142)
Exactly. Where does OB stand on that point?
I just checked his manifesto! If they watch linear TV, they should be kicked out of the country. If they just watch on-demand streaming services, they're happy to stay. :D

Damien 22-10-2025 20:28
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36205155)
I’m not sufficiently anorak to know for certain, however I suspect if the actual intention is to grant the SoS power to decide tougher rules on who can remain in the country, then the prior 7 clauses are entirely redundant in the main body of the act and would probably be deleted during the legislation’s passage through parliament. They belong in the accompanying Immigration Rules, which are variable by order of the SoS. Which rather calls into question why they’re even there in the draft Bill.
The way I read the bill is that these are the initial criteria by which it can be revoked, and then they can change it. It doesn't seem better for Parliament to leave it up to the SoS on who'll get their ILR revoked. I would say that's even worse, but since the initial reasons are so broad - anything earning less than £38,000 for more than 6 months - then I am not sure how much worse it could be.

Quote:
My suspicion is that it’s grandstanding, an advert for Tory tough-talking designed to slash the tyres of Reform’s battle bus.
Well, it almost certainly is because this wouldn't work in practice.

Quote:
I do think we need to be tougher on who gets ILR. I also do think we need to be able to revoke ILR. I simply don’t accept that we have to live forever with the social consequences of poor - possibly pernicious - immigration policy aimed at engineering radical social and cultural change in this country.
Then those reasons should be specified at the time of ILR being granted. If it can be taken away, those who receive it should be told how that could happen. They might make different decisions if they were.

We're talking about people who have built their lives here based on an agreement they had with the British Government, which told them they could do so. Had careers, families, purchased homes and even then retired. In several cases, this might now be the only home and community they have.

That is why, even if we're all agreed this is unlikely to happen, it's still a cruel thing to play with for political stunts. We're talking of millions of people who, in theory, have been told they're one election away from getting the boot. People who were told this was their home and had the legal agreement to back that up.

Quote:
Also, if polling you’ve seen doesn’t show public support for this, in what sense can you think (as you indicated earlier) that you don’t like what the country’s becoming - because you don’t seem to think that’s what it actually is becoming?
I don't think we've become a country that supports mass deportation, but I don't like that it's the Conservative Party proposing it. I think that itself is a significant moment. The lives of millions of people in this country have become an abstraction to the point that the Tory Party can throw the idea of deporting them with the main pushback people that they probably won't actually do it because it's too difficult. The fact that today these people and their families might be concerned about their future is just seen as a complete irrelevance. The vast majority of them will have done nothing but what we asked of them.

Pierre 22-10-2025 20:47
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Damien (Post 36205162)
The way I read the bill is that these are the initial criteria by which it can be revoked, and then they can change it. It doesn't seem better for Parliament to leave it up to the SoS on who'll get their ILR revoked. I would say that's even worse, but since the initial reasons are so broad - anything earning less than £38,000 for more than 6 months - then I am not sure how much worse it could be.



Well, it almost certainly is because this wouldn't work in practice.



Then those reasons should be specified at the time of ILR being implemented. If it can be taken away, those who receive it should be told how that could happen. They might make different decisions if they were.

We're talking about people who have built their lives here based on an agreement they had with the British Government, which told them they could do so. Had careers, families, purchased homes and even then retired. In several cases, this might now be the only home and community they have.

That is why, even if we're all agreed this is unlikely to happen, it's still a cruel thing to play with for political stunts. We're talking of millions of people who, in theory, have been told they're one election away from getting the boot. People who were told this was their home and had the legal agreement to back that up.



I don't think we've become a country that supports mass deportation, but I don't like that it's the Conservative Party proposing it. I think that itself is a significant moment. The lives of millions of people in this country have become an abstraction to the point that the Tory Party can throw the idea of deporting them with the main pushback people that they probably won't actually do it because it's too difficult. The fact that today these people and their families might be concerned about their future is just seen as a complete irrelevance. The vast majority of them will have done nothing but what we asked of them.
I will reiterate….

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36205153)
The country is fine with EU nationals.

It’s the North African, and Middle Eastern backward cohort of Islamic “doctors and engineers” we would like removed.

Damien 22-10-2025 20:51
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
I read that, but EU nationals are not exempt from the rules as written. The suggestion they would be in the end isn't a defence against what was actually proposed.

Damien 23-10-2025 08:02
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
I was quite interested, so I looked up settlement grants by nationality. I might have interpreted these stats wrong but going by this: https://www.gov.uk/government/statis...les#settlement

We've given 1.8 million people from outside the EU settled status since 2010 and 5.7 million Europeans settled status since leaving the EU.

I couldn't break it out between leave to remain and indefinite leave to remain.

So this would impact a lot of EU citizens.

These statistics don't include pre-2010 applications, and I was unable to work out the situation with Windrush. In theory, Windrush people should have had ILR. Some might have done. I am unsure of the legal status of those who went through the recent Windrush scheme.

1andrew1 23-10-2025 08:22
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
I'd like to see an economic assessment of the Conservative Party's proposals with all that spending power taken out of the country.

Chris 23-10-2025 08:54
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36205166)
I'd like to see an economic assessment of the Conservative Party's proposals with all that spending power taken out of the country.
As the criteria are centred mostly around use of social security and lower incomes, I suspect less than you’re hoping.

The £38k figure appears to have been chosen because it is comfortably below the level at which an individual is likely costing the State more than they’re contributing (which seems to be around £41k).*

I think the very phrase ‘spending power’ tends to over-emphasise the effect of the thing it describes.


*Here’s what I just got out of Grok:

Quote:
According to recent discussions and searches referencing ONS data on the effects of taxes and benefits, the income level at which a UK taxpayer becomes a net contributor—paying more in taxes than receiving in benefits and services—is approximately £41,000 in gross annual income for a typical working individual. This threshold can vary based on household composition, location, and specific circumstances (e.g., children or retirement status), as net position accounts for direct taxes (income tax, National Insurance), indirect taxes (VAT, duties), cash benefits, and benefits in kind (NHS, education, transport subsidies). For non-retired households, around 46% are net contributors, with the crossover often near or slightly above the median household disposable income of £41,900 for financial year ending 2024.

OLD BOY 23-10-2025 12:47
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205138)
I hope that you, OB, mindful of the comparison with 1930s Germany, would be opposed to this immature Reform policy.
Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205142)
Exactly. Where does OB stand on that point?
I agree with Damien’s point, Seph.

Sephiroth 23-10-2025 12:53
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205174)
Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------



I agree with Damien’s point, Seph.
I'm pleased to read what you've said, OB.

Damien 23-10-2025 13:43
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205174)
Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.
OB to the left of Reform, Tories and even Labour on immigration. Who would have thought it. :D

But I agree with everything there. Including the extension of the right to remain. At the very least, I think it should have been from now so that those who thought they were a year away from ILR don't suddenly find themselves 6 years away and stuck with more charges (they pay a NHS surcharge btw ,which is £1,000 a year).

At least in that case it's for future applicants. Same with putting conditions on ILR being revoked. I don't like it, but I think it's less morally outrageous if you were to say from now on ILR is revoked if you fail to meet certain terms. Most people would support its removal if you committed a serious crime.

The US Green Card system works fine for this. You get to keep it unless you commit a serious crime or live outside the US for too long (we have this one).

Again, the idea that you can take this away from someone retrospectively because they're in receipt of a pension or no longer earn £38,000 is incredible stuff.

1andrew1 23-10-2025 14:07
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205174)
Nobody is proposing anything like this. Undocumented immigrants should not be permitted to live in this country. It is right that they should be rounded up and deported.

Those who have permission to live here and are not committing criminal offences should be allowed to stay.

What is completely wrong is Labour’s plan to extend the ‘Right to Remain’ requirement by another five years to people who were encouraged to come here in the first place, such as people from Hong Kong. By extending that period, these people are having to find more money to stump up to cover any future NHS treatment, etc for another five years, which will cause financial hardship for many.

---------- Post added at 13:47 ---------- Previous post was at 13:45 ----------



I agree with Damien’s point, Seph.
Good to have a Liberal Democrat on this forum. :tu:

Sephiroth 23-10-2025 16:58
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
No need to insult OB, Andrew.

Mr K 23-10-2025 20:04
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205191)
No need to insult OB, Andrew.
Wokeingham is LD central these days? I suspect OB has defected, he's seen sense :)

Hugh 23-10-2025 20:24
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36205203)
Wokeingham is LD central these days? I suspect OB has defected, he's seen sense :)
Wow!

17 LD Town Councillors out of 25, 28 out of 54 Borough Councillors, and a LD MP…

Strangely enough, not one Reform Councillor.

OLD BOY 24-10-2025 15:05
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36205207)
Wow!

17 LD Town Councillors out of 25, 28 out of 54 Borough Councillors, and a LD MP…

Strangely enough, not one Reform Councillor.
Well, no. But that will change with the next election, if Labour don’t cancel it.

Hugh 24-10-2025 15:37
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205241)
Well, no. But that will change with the next election, if Labour don’t cancel it.
Well, it didn’t change in the last two by-elections in June this year…

papa smurf 24-10-2025 15:39
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
cling on to that thought ;)

Paul 24-10-2025 16:31
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Its more of a fact than a thought. ;)

Pierre 24-10-2025 20:31
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Wow, talking like the LibDems are relevant in any way.

OLD BOY 25-10-2025 00:18
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36205259)
Well, it didn’t change in the last two by-elections in June this year…
I don’t believe they fielded any candidates, that’s why.

Mr K 25-10-2025 07:10
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pierre (Post 36205295)
Wow, talking like the LibDems are relevant in any way.
They are massive in Wokeingham (nice place with one or two oddballs ;) ), and very relevant nationally in 2010.

Hugh 25-10-2025 08:25
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205308)
I don’t believe they fielded any candidates, that’s why.
Your belief is not based on actuality…

https://www.wokingham.gov.uk/news/20...tion-results-0

Quote:
Andy Croy (Labour) – 793 votes
Sara Gillman (Trade Unionist & Socialist Party) – 17 votes
Guy Grandison (Conservative) – 788 votes
Andrew Harris (Reform UK) – 486 votes
Samuel Langlois (Green) – 180 votes
Mike Smith (Liberal Democrats) – 1,028 votes (Elected)
They didn’t put up a candidate in the other by-election - I wonder why?

Sephiroth 25-10-2025 09:59
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
It’s still “anyone but the Tories”. I’m not surprised. The 60% that didn’t vote are Conservatives (imo) who have noted that much of the Tory front bench are among the failures from their 14 years in power.

OLD BOY 29-10-2025 22:44
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
We’ll, we’ll see what happens next time, won’t we? Things have changed - perhaps some people haven’t noticed….

Sephiroth 30-10-2025 06:28
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 


What does that mean, OB? Where are you taking us with your last remarks?

Mr K 30-10-2025 06:47
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205559)


What does that mean, OB? Where are you taking us with your last remarks?
Into a world of fantasy and make believe, like OBs views on any subject ;)

Hugh 30-10-2025 07:39
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205559)


What does that mean, OB? Where are you taking us with your last remarks?
https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...5&d=1761813547

The Wokingham Popular Front is coming!

OLD BOY 30-10-2025 12:39
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36205259)
Well, it didn’t change in the last two by-elections in June this year…
So what? You know very well that different Wards and Constituencies support different political groups. The real test is the next full council elections.

---------- Post added at 13:36 ---------- Previous post was at 13:32 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36205559)


What does that mean, OB? Where are you taking us with your last remarks?
The Wokingham Constituency has been Conservative for donkey’s ages, but recently, the dissatisfaction with them has been demonstrated in the ballot boxes, with the Lib Dems now in charge with a majority of one. There is growing dissatisfaction with their administration, and my guess is that former Conservative supporters will vote Reform in their droves come the next council election.

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36205562)
Into a world of fantasy and make believe, like OBs views on any subject ;)
If you can’t acknowledge Reform UK’s growing popularity and why people are now turning to them in desperation, you are the one living in fantasy land.

I bet you didn’t see Brexit coming either, did you?

thenry 15-01-2026 10:35
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Shadow justice secretary Robert Jenrick has been sacked by Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch.

In a social media post, she said: "I have sacked Robert Jenrick from the shadow cabinet, removed the whip and suspended his party membership with immediate effect."

She added: "I was presented with clear, irrefutable evidence that he was plotting in secret to defect in a way designed to be as damaging as possible to his shadow cabinet colleagues and the wider Conservative Party.

"The British public are tired of political psychodrama and so am I. They saw too much of it in the last government, they're seeing too much of it in THIS government. I will not repeat those mistakes."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyrpdy42n1o
What was Rishi Sunak if this is psychodrama :erm:

Sephiroth 15-01-2026 10:42
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
I'm very disappointed. The Tories needed Jenrick to keep some of its policies straight.

Damien 15-01-2026 10:54
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Jenrick is such a weasel. Good on Badenoch to get ahead of this and take the wind out of his sails a bit.

Jenrick will say and do anything. Many politicians do, but he shifts from one extreme to another if he thinks it will advance his career.

1andrew1 15-01-2026 10:58
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Good to see the expulsion of this incompetent grifter. Badenoch has really grown into her role.

papa smurf 15-01-2026 11:12
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
never a dull moment in British politics :omg:

Carth 15-01-2026 11:30
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Given the current state of play in UK politics, if there was a general election tomorrow would the voter turnout reach double figures?

I think the Raving Loony Monster lot would have a greater shout at gaining power

Sephiroth 15-01-2026 16:01
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Jenrick is giving a first class speech to the Reform UK press conference.

Hugh 15-01-2026 16:11
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
1 Attachment(s)
h/t @alisonebennet

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...6&d=1768497052

1andrew1 15-01-2026 16:23
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36209030)
Jenrick is giving a first class speech to the Reform UK press conference.
Farage had better watch his back.

Sephiroth 15-01-2026 16:31
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36209034)
Farage had better watch his back.
A pointless remark (at this stage).

One thing that Jenrick said that mattered was (I paraphrase) that the Tory front bench contains the very people that broke Britain (he mentioned three names including Priti Patel).

Hugh 15-01-2026 17:44
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Pretty sure Jenrick was on the Conservative Government Front Bench when he was Secretary of State for 27 months, and when he was a Minister of State for 14 months…

Chris 15-01-2026 17:50
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Reform is becoming the Tory Party in exile.

1andrew1 15-01-2026 18:24
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36209052)
Reform is becoming the Tory Party in exile.
More like the nursing home for failed Conservatives!

---------- Post added at 19:16 ---------- Previous post was at 19:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36209035)
A pointless remark (at this stage).
'At this stage' is doing a lot of heavy lifting! I would rather trust Gove than Jenrick.

---------- Post added at 19:19 ---------- Previous post was at 19:16 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36209051)
Pretty sure Jenrick was on the Conservative Government Front Bench when he was Secretary of State for 27 months, and when he was a Minister of State for 14 months…
Facts have never been a burden to Jenrick. I don't see the benefit to Reform in having him. This is a win for Badenoch.

---------- Post added at 19:24 ---------- Previous post was at 19:19 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36209032)
h/t @alisonebennet
A sore loser like Nadhim Zahawi. Zahawi's actually very capable but couldn't get his easy job at the Lords and his ego couldn't handle rejection.

Carth 15-01-2026 19:14
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
It's quite an eye opener when the fresh new face of British politics actually turns out to be mostly the old failures from previous regimes . . .

Hugh 15-01-2026 21:36
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
"Every Tory defection to Reform raises the IQ of both parties"

Sephiroth 16-01-2026 09:19
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
LOL.

OLD BOY 17-01-2026 14:13
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36208981)
Good to see the expulsion of this incompetent grifter. Badenoch has really grown into her role.
She’s putting a brave face on it. Jenrick is a top hitter and has been pushing against the influence of the left wing of the Conservative Party for some time.

Farage has thanked Badenoch for the late Christmas present from her.

---------- Post added at 15:13 ---------- Previous post was at 15:10 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris (Post 36209052)
Reform is becoming the Tory Party in exile.
No, it’s only taking on Conservatives from the right of the party. Jenrick brings with him some valuable expertise on the workings of government.

Dingbat 17-01-2026 22:22
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36209166)
She’s putting a brave face on it. Jenrick is a top hitter and has been pushing against the influence of the left wing of the Conservative Party for some time.
.
Top hitter?

He has the political effectiveness of a wet lettuce. Reviled in his own constituency, and in his whole tenure in the HoC has done nothing at all of merit.

TheDaddy 17-01-2026 22:45
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36209205)
Top hitter?

He has the political effectiveness of a wet lettuce. Reviled in his own constituency, and in his whole tenure in the HoC has done nothing at all of merit.
Didn't we voted her PM....

1andrew1 18-01-2026 08:21
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36209166)
Farage has thanked Badenoch for the late Christmas present from her.
I seem to recall that Badenoch expressed her gratitude to Farage for doing her Spring cleaning! ;)

---------- Post added at 09:15 ---------- Previous post was at 09:11 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36209205)
Top hitter?

He has the political effectiveness of a wet lettuce. Reviled in his own constituency, and in his whole tenure in the HoC has done nothing at all of merit.
Top hitter in the Conservatives is a low bar which he may have stretched over! ;) Did he vote to reduce GDP by 4% by leaving the EU? No. Did he procure PPE that didn't work? No.

---------- Post added at 09:21 ---------- Previous post was at 09:15 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by TheDaddy (Post 36209208)
Didn't we voted her PM....
Boris was leader of the Conservatives when they were elected in 2019. Truss became PM for 50 days when Johnson was forced to step down through his regime's incompetence and double standards.

Anonymouse 18-01-2026 08:31
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36208984)
Given the current state of play in UK politics, if there was a general election tomorrow would the voter turnout reach double figures?

I think the Raving Loony Monster lot would have a greater shout at gaining power
More the Monster Raving Loony Party, but yes, they might be preferable. The turnout would reach double figures - possibly triple, i.e. everybody - if None Of The Above was an option. :p:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36209065)
"Every Tory defection to Reform raises the IQ of both parties"
Ooh, good one! :D

Carth 18-01-2026 09:26
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
I'd love "none of the above" to be a valid option when voting.
Quite obviously a great many people choose that by not bothering to vote, but if it was an official choice it would give the statisticians a good time :D

Sephiroth 18-01-2026 10:55
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 

Should voting become mandatory, you could be sure that a “None of the above party” would be formed. Great fun that would be.

Anonymouse 18-01-2026 16:12
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Hmm. Voting becoming mandatory. Presumably it would be a criminal offence not to vote.

Yeah. Aren't the prisons overflowing already? :p:

I've said this before: in a true democracy, the right to vote should and must include the right not to vote. Having said that (again), if we got NOTA as an option I suspect turnout would be greatly increased. Certainly I would vote NOTA.

We the electorate are not apathetic. We just no longer see the point of voting for ineffectuals (to be more accurate, I don't - I can't speak for others, obviously). I don't vote for a candidate/party; as per Lazarus Long (see Time Enough For Love), I vote against. Unfortunately, if you vote against all of them that reduces to voting for none of them...not something Heinlein envisaged, I suspect.

'Suppose They Gave An Election And Nobody Came?' Ooh, I'd love to see what politicians and statisticians would make of that. Eat your heart out, Montgomery Brewster! :p:

TheDaddy 18-01-2026 17:37
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anonymouse (Post 36209238)
Hmm. Voting becoming mandatory. Presumably it would be a criminal offence not to vote.

Yeah. Aren't the prisons overflowing already? :p:

I've said this before: in a true democracy, the right to vote should and must include the right not to vote. Having said that (again), if we got NOTA as an option I suspect turnout would be greatly increased. Certainly I would vote NOTA.

We the electorate are not apathetic. We just no longer see the point of voting for ineffectuals (to be more accurate, I don't - I can't speak for others, obviously). I don't vote for a candidate/party; as per Lazarus Long (see Time Enough For Love), I vote against. Unfortunately, if you vote against all of them that reduces to voting for none of them...not something Heinlein envisaged, I suspect.

'Suppose They Gave An Election And Nobody Came?' Ooh, I'd love to see what politicians and statisticians would make of that. Eat your heart out, Montgomery Brewster! :p:

You don't have to make it a criminal offence, when they send you your voting card there could be a serrated bit you rip of and get stamped, with it you get a bit of a rebate on your council tax, without it you pay a bit more, we could call it the democracy rebate, they could also introduce freedom cakes and democracy hot dogs like Australia. You don't have to make voting mandatory in a democracy but you can incentive it because for me without it you get extremists and populists with their simple answers to complicated questions and the antidote to that is mass turnout.

Carth 18-01-2026 18:39
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Wouldn't that in effect simply be buying votes?

I get that it's more 'complicated' than that, but bottom line is people would vote for anyone just to get there bin emptied on time :D

1andrew1 18-01-2026 19:07
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36209248)
Wouldn't that in effect simply be buying votes?

I get that it's more 'complicated' than that, but bottom line is people would vote for anyone just to get there bin emptied on time :D
It's not buying votes for a candidate though. It's just the opposite of penalising non-voters so comes across as nicer.

TheDaddy 18-01-2026 19:49
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carth (Post 36209248)
Wouldn't that in effect simply be buying votes?

I get that it's more 'complicated' than that, but bottom line is people would vote for anyone just to get there bin emptied on time :D
No, those votes have already been bought and paid for, none of us may remember it personally but I bet there's members here who remember their mums telling them of a time when it was illegal for women to vote and their parents parents would have been able to tell tales of when the poor people weren't allowed to vote, how you could fight for the empire for 20 years and return to no say in how the country was run, a time of rotten boroughs like Dunny on the Wold with a census record of 20000 and an electoral roll of 3*, so no, its not buying votes, they were purchased through the blood, sweat and tears of our forefathers, its not our fault the politicians have so little about them, are so corrupt, so useless that the public want nothing to do with them, they used to sell hope, then they sold fear, mainly of foreigners and now they don't even try to hide the fact that they've got nothing, its their fault the public need encouragement to vote for the least worst option, we all get a hotdog no matter who we vote for, same as our bins still get emptied, it might just cost a little more for some.




*thanks to E Blackadder

OLD BOY 20-01-2026 18:08
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36209205)
Top hitter?

He has the political effectiveness of a wet lettuce. Reviled in his own constituency, and in his whole tenure in the HoC has done nothing at all of merit.
Reviled in his own constituency? What by the left wing stalwarts?

---------- Post added at 18:24 ---------- Previous post was at 18:21 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36209212)

Boris was leader of the Conservatives when they were elected in 2019. Truss became PM for 50 days when Johnson was forced to step down through his regime's incompetence and double standards.
No. He was brought down by the presentation of a birthday cake by his wife. Get real.

---------- Post added at 19:08 ---------- Previous post was at 18:24 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36209225)

Should voting become mandatory, you could be sure that a “None of the above party” would be formed. Great fun that would be.
If you made voting mandatory, you would be requiring people with no interest in politics who don’t even know the name or party of the current prime minister to select a name that they have ever heard of.

How, in anyone’s world, is that acceptable?

Sephiroth 20-01-2026 18:53
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36209335)


If you made voting mandatory, you would be requiring people with no interest in politics who don’t even know the name or party of the current prime minister to select a name that they have ever heard of.

How, in anyone’s world, is that acceptable?
I understand your point, OB; but isn't it rather cynical to hope that the great unwashed avoid voting? As soon as they are made to vote, their interest is likely to rise, if only to vote NOTA or spoil their ballots.

Mr K 20-01-2026 19:48
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36209335)
If you made voting mandatory, you would be requiring people with no interest in politics who don’t even know the name or party of the current prime minister to select a name that they have ever heard of.

How, in anyone’s world, is that acceptable?
Not sure about mandatory voting, but we should certainly make it easier. Some of the latest policies like voter id (when there wasnt an issue) seem to be designed to stop people voting. Allow voting online, and voting over a weekend.

Make everyones vote count - under the current system your vote only really matters if youre in a 'swing' constituency. A safe seat and many dont see the point. Folks feel obliged to tactically vote for partys they dont really back.

The bigger turnout the better, regardless of who you support.The Govt would have more legitimacy with a higher turnout/fairer voting system

Chris 20-01-2026 20:27
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
The trade-off is a disconnect between voters and their representatives. It’s impossible to get rid of any of the utterly odious greens in the Scottish parliament, for example, because all of them are elected off a regional list where you vote for a party rather than an individual from that party. The top few names on the list will always get returned to Parliament as long as the party polls 7-10% overall, no matter how manifestly batsh** they’ve behaved over the course of a 5-year term.

When the Tories refused to do the decent thing and deselect Neil Hamilton ahead of the 1997 election, Martin Bell stood as an independent in Tatton and unseated him. Had there been a regional list for that part of England, Hamilton, as a safe-seat candidate, would also have been near the top of the regional list and almost certainly would still have been an MP from 1997-2001.

Anonymouse 21-01-2026 07:51
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36209340)
The Govt would have more legitimacy with a higher turnout/fairer voting system
You mean the current lot aren't legitimate? Well, that explains everything! :p:

Sephiroth 21-01-2026 09:19
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Mr K carefully said "more legitimacy". He didn't question the government's legitimacy per se. Within the law, they are the legitimate government. Within emotion, more legitimacy would arise with greater turnout. Different nuance on the word "legitimacy".

1andrew1 21-01-2026 09:50
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36205586)
The Wokingham Constituency has been Conservative for donkey’s ages, but recently, the dissatisfaction with them has been demonstrated in the ballot boxes, with the Lib Dems now in charge with a majority of one. There is growing dissatisfaction with their administration, and my guess is that former Conservative supporters will vote Reform in their droves come the next council election.
Presumably the right-wing vote got split two ways. Labour will never get in so could be a safe Liberal Democrat seat for a while if there is no electoral pact between Reform UK and the Conservatives.

Hugh 21-01-2026 11:27
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1andrew1 (Post 36209370)
Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY View Post
The Wokingham Constituency has been Conservative for donkey’s ages, but recently, the dissatisfaction with them has been demonstrated in the ballot boxes, with the Lib Dems now in charge with a majority of one. There is growing dissatisfaction with their administration, and my guess is that former Conservative supporters will vote Reform in their droves come the next council election.
Presumably the right-wing vote got split two ways. Labour will never get in so could be a safe Liberal Democrat seat for a while if there is no electoral pact between Reform UK and the Conservatives.

Not sure it’s a simple as that - the Conservatives have been steadily losing Council Seat in Wokingham Borough Council for the last seven years (they always used to have 40+ seats).

Year Conservative—LD—Labour
2018 42——————8——-3
2019 31—————-16——-4
2021 31—————-18——-3
2022 26—————-23——-3
2023 22—————-26——-5
New ward boundaries (54 seats)
2024 19————-—27——-8

Could be a number of factors, including changing demographics…

Sephiroth 21-01-2026 14:11
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
I obviously know Wokingham as well as OB. OB is right - "anyone but the Tories". Demographics haven't changed in the past couple of years.

Reform UK has a higher profile now and they could well split the conservative vote, leaving the wretched Lib Dems in power.

Hugh 21-01-2026 14:14
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
How do you explain the changes in Local Election voting over the last 8 years?

Sephiroth 21-01-2026 14:23
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36209389)
How do you explain the changes in Local Election voting over the last 8 years?
May, Boris, Truss, Sunak.

OLD BOY 21-01-2026 18:19
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36209339)
I understand your point, OB; but isn't it rather cynical to hope that the great unwashed avoid voting? As soon as they are made to vote, their interest is likely to rise, if only to vote NOTA or spoil their ballots.
I didn’t say anything about the great unwashed. There are people from many walks of life who have no interest or much knowledge about politics.

Anonymouse 22-01-2026 02:14
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sephiroth (Post 36209368)
Mr K carefully said "more legitimacy". He didn't question the government's legitimacy per se. Within the law, they are the legitimate government. Within emotion, more legitimacy would arise with greater turnout. Different nuance on the word "legitimacy".
Oops.Good point. I guess I'm too ready to think the worst of politicians.

---------- Post added at 03:14 ---------- Previous post was at 03:13 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by OLD BOY (Post 36209411)
I didn’t say anything about the great unwashed. There are people from many walks of life who have no interest or much knowledge about politics.
Me, for example. :p:

1andrew1 22-01-2026 05:53
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hugh (Post 36209389)
How do you explain the changes in Local Election voting over the last 8 years?
One factor is Brexit. There's a good proportion of senior management living there who know the red tape burden and economic costs that Brexit has placed on their businesses. And they've punished the Conservatives for this.

There could also be local factors at play too if the Liberal Democrat councillors are doing a better job on the ground.

Sephiroth 22-01-2026 09:05
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
In Wokingham, the Lib-Dems are not doing a “lousy job”. They have their woke moments, but, by and large, the Borough is not suffering.

The Tories have a mountain to climb to regain a majority and Reform UK an even greater mountain to even gain a seat.

To my knowledge, Brexit is not a particular factor in the Tories’ decline. The economy and migration is/was the “anyone but the Tories” driver.

I still voted Conservative.

thenry 22-01-2026 16:55
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
https://x.com/RupertLowe10/status/2014388457393545678

Short and sweet :erm:

Hugh 08-02-2026 18:29
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
2 Attachment(s)
I see Liz is off her meds again…

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...8&d=1770578276

https://www.cableforum.uk/board/atta...9&d=1770578939

Hugh 05-03-2026 08:09
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Badenoch at PMQs

Quote:
“The one ship which we are sending, HMS Dragon, is still in Portsmouth. The fact is, the type 45 cannot take out incoming missiles. This is not enough. He’s read out a long list…. the people who understand know it is not enough. He should be doing more.”
Royal Navy website

Quote:
The Daring class consists of six Type 45 destroyers (HMS Daring, Dauntless, Diamond, Dragon, Defender and Duncan) that were purpose built for anti-aircraft and anti-missile warfare…

… The Sea Viper missile system can target and destroy multiple targets simultaneously

Designed to protect both land and sea forces from aircraft attacks and defend the naval fleet against supersonic anti-ship missiles, Sea Viper is the principle weapon system of the Daring Class of destroyers.

Comprising of long-range and missile-directing radars, a combat control centre and vertical missile silos, Sea Viper can launch eight missiles in under ten seconds and guide up to 16 missiles simultaneously.

Chris 05-03-2026 08:23
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Taking out incoming missiles is the one thing the T45 was designed to do above everything else, that being the next generation priority identified after that little skirmish in the South Atlantic where incoming missiles turned out to be a significant inconvenience. A single one of these ships sat between the South American mainland and the Falkland Islands would have ensured a very different outcome. From time to time the RN sails one of them south and has it patrol up and down, to make that very point.

The problem with the T45 is that there aren’t nearly enough of them, and those that were built (6 of the originally planned 12) were fitted with woefully inadequate power systems. All of them have had to have their hulls blowtorched open to get new engines in. The reason Dragon is going and other deployable T45s are not is that it has completed this ‘power improvement programme’ and so stands half a chance of not blowing a fuse in the warm waters of the Med.

To be fair to the Conservative Party for a moment, the shortcomings of the T45 programme belong to the Blair-Brown years, not the Coalition or subsequent Tory administrations.

Dingbat 05-03-2026 16:21
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Why is Badenoch, and Farage for that matter, so determined that we should send our armed forces into a war that has nothing to do with us?

Itshim 05-03-2026 16:29
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36211780)
Why is Badenoch, and Farage for that matter, so determined that we should send our armed forces into a war that has nothing to do with us?
Because Starmer is in a jam and and these comments cause him to dig a even bigger hole , face it UK couldn't defend itself ,never mind anyone else. :(

Sephiroth 05-03-2026 16:45
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36211780)
Why is Badenoch, and Farage for that matter, so determined that we should send our armed forces into a war that has nothing to do with us?
Er - our sovereign territory was bombed by the enemy.

For what my opinion is worth:

1. We could not have participated in initial strikes (see Israel for details).

2. We should not have prevented the USA from using our sovereign bases.

3. We were bombed - so now we are ivolved.

My understanding is that the USA was bounced into the war by Israel who, legitimately, attacked Iran. The USA rightly feared (because Iran so threatened) that their bases and assets would be legitimate target for Iran. So the USA legitimately attacked Iran.

Simples, really.

1andrew1 05-03-2026 19:45
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat (Post 36211780)
Why is Badenoch, and Farage for that matter, so determined that we should send our armed forces into a war that has nothing to do with us?
They're happy to surrender the UK's sovereignty to Trump in return for a nice write-up in The Daily Telegraph and GB News.

So, insecurity I guess on Badenoch's part and keeping his job at GB News on Farage's. Fortunately, Britons oppose US strikes on Iran by 49% to 28%.
https://yougov.com/en-gb/articles/54...-iran-conflict

Mr K 06-03-2026 17:41
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
The Torygraph has been sold to the Germans...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...nger-for-575m/
Quote:
Telegraph to be sold to Axel Springer for £575m
German publisher gatecrashes The Daily Mail’s planned takeover in an all-cash deal

There are many exploded Brexiteer blood vessels in their readers comments :D

Chris 06-03-2026 17:58
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
https://www.cableforum.uk/images/local/2026/03/2.jpg

1andrew1 06-03-2026 18:20
Re: Conservative Party's chronicles
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr K (Post 36211881)
The Torygraph has been sold to the Germans...
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...nger-for-575m/

There are many exploded Brexiteer blood vessels in their readers comments :D
From the article
Quote:
The German publisher has an unusual corporate constitution which guarantees its support for European integration and the state of Israel. However, it has not applied this constitution to its non-German assets.
Yet.


All times are GMT. The time now is 13:53.
Page 2 of 2 1 2
Show 100 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2026, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
All Posts and Content are © Cable Forum