Boris Johnson’s recent last grasp intervention to the Tory party campaign included yet another huge porky pie: his proclamation of the Conservative family united is a fallacy.
The Conservatives have been increasingly disunited over the last four decades.
Unwittingly, Johnson has revealed a deeper truth. Namely, if the Eurosceptics in his party had been honest enough to split away from the main political body, the moderate members could presumably have presented a plausible and coherent plan to govern.
The Tories surely would have done so effectively if they didn’t have to appease the increasingly insatiable demands of the right wing. Moreover, we, the beleaguered electorate, would not have had to endure such severe austerity, which itself was largely the midwife to Brexit. Nor would we have been so disastrously “led” by the likes of Johnson or Liz Truss.
Another important political lesson: tyranny doesn’t “do” negotiation and compromise.
If the electorate chooses to heap contempt upon the Tories, then they will have no one to blame but themselves; either for not splitting the party, or allowing it to perpetuate the illusion of the “Conservative family united” for so long.
Nigel Plevin
Somerset
Hypocrisy at its best
The Tories are in overdrive trying to weaponise comments made by Keir Starmer, stating that he wants to take time out on a Friday evening to be with his family, by claiming he will be a “part-time prime minister”.
This is particularly rich coming from the Tories, the party that saw Johnson miss five Cobra meetings during the Covid pandemic, the Tories whose leader didn’t come back from his holiday to sort out the riots in London when he was mayor, the party whose deputy prime minister stayed on holiday when the US withdrew its forces from Afghanistan and the party of Rishi Sunak, who did a half day during D-Day commemorations because he wanted to do a self-aggrandising interview instead.
Tory hypocrisy at its very best.
Geoffrey Brooking
Havant
Remember the moment
As we go to the polls in our upcoming general election, I appeal to everyone to do two things.
Firstly, vote for the candidate that you think will do the most to help us care, as a society, for older, vulnerable and disabled people in the years ahead.
And secondly, after you have voted, remember the moment you gave your trust to a political party to change things in his country and to hold them to account for those changes.
Mike Padgham
York
Long enough
Is it time to rethink the hustings process and timescale? It is still based on 19th-century norms, with senior politicians rushing around the country like headless chickens, over an extended six weeks and at great expense. Meanwhile, most importantly, political and legislative business is suspended. By the time a new government takes office, they must be plain knackered.
Television and the other media make this all irrelevant nowadays – most voters make up their minds watching head-to-head debates or the 10 o’clock news, while those more politically interested have a wide range of information at their fingertips. I would think that the percentage of the electorate who see a politician in the flesh is tiny and therefore irrelevant.
I believe future elections ought to be reduced to two weeks. That’s plenty long enough.
Tim Sidaway
Hertfordshire
The postal vote needs to be brought into the 21st century
I am currently staying with friends who reside in Madeira and, as yet, one of them, who is a UK national and who had to register online for a postal vote, has still not received his ballot paper. He rightly feels angry and disenfranchised, despite registering as soon as the online facility to do so went live.
I am sure he is not alone in feeling that the administration of this election is in effect sticking two fingers up to overseas UK nationals wishing to take part in their democratic right and have their vote counted.
The system and procedures for the provision of postal vote papers need to be brought into the 21st century to allow secure online access to a ballot paper for home constituencies.
Philip Day
Rochdale
Nurses deserve better than this!
Would it be radical to suggest that Dawn Brodrick’s replacement as chief executive at the Nursing and Midwifery Council was a registered nurse or midwife?
It was always my belief that the mark of a profession was that it was self-regulating. As a retired nurse I am shocked that leadership could not be found from within the ranks of the profession but was sought from an ambitious bureaucrat who could not empathise with those they were managing, having never practised as a professional nurse or midwife.
As nurses are subsidising this farce through their regular registration fees (where they sign a declaration confirming fitness to practice) they deserve better than this! Perhaps, at the very least, views of the profession should be sought before any future appointment.
David Smith
Taunton
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments