Six Conservative Candidates to become Leader of His Majesty's Opposition

 

Six candidates to become Leader of His Majesty's Opposition. This week, it is expected that two of them will be voted out in ballots in which only Conservative MPs will vote.

Mel Stride, Priti Patel, Robert Jenrick, James Cleverly, Tom Tugendhat, and Kemi Badenock are the six hopeful candidates.

With the Labour Party moving towards the right for internal reasons, Reform will be the bone of contention for the Conservative Party.

Question 1 - What do they stand for?

Question 2 - What do party members want?

Ultimately, whoever the last two contenders will be, party members will have to chose. What is the mood in the Conservative Party? Will the party want to go left in order to place itself in the mythical centre? Will the party have to go right to counter Reform?

With the horrendous experience of a similar leadership contest, who will be the chosen one and how long will the chosen one last?

The first year of the Labour governement will be a test for the Labour government and for His Majesty's Opposition. If the Labour government falters, then there has to be somebody who is killed enough to capitalize on Labour's mistakes. But it has to be also somebody skilled enough to prevent any additional casualties. There were casualties before the General Election and there were casualties after the election with several Conservative candidates being pushed aside because of the rising support for Reform.

If Conservative MPs decide to go awol and join other parties, including Reform, this could sink the Conservative Party in favour of Reform or other political parties. There is hope that 2026 could produce better news for the Conservative Party. Is that hope justified?

The first test will be the coming budget to be presented by the Labour government. If because of tax changes the Labour government's plan goes South, then the chances of doing better in local and regional elections will rise. Having said that, party unity will be a critical factor.

 

Will a 40% tax on oil and gas companies reduce investment from about 13 billion down to 2.5 billion?

 Dear Rachel Reeves MP,

As Chancellor of the Exchequer, you will impose a windfall tax of almost 40% on oil and gas companies. 

Reports indicate that investment in the UK of the said oil and gas companies will fall from about 13 billion down to 2.5 billion and that therefore in coming years the tax revenues will be reduced accordingly.

When such tax revenues fall, how do you plan to replace oil and gas falling tax revenues?

I am also sending this message to my Member of Parliament, Helen Hayes MP, because I am very curious and very much interested in knowing about Plan B, if Plan A reduces tax revenues, what plans are in place to find tax revenues to replaced oil and gas tax revenues?

This is a very relevant question when you are about to implement a new state of austerity because we are talking both about tax revenues, investment and energy prices. If less oil and gas are produced, will this push prices up and therefore also push consumer prices up (inflation)?

Workers working in the oil and gas industries are highly especialized workers whose jobs are going to be in danger. We are talking about 35,000 highly trained individuals. If investment falls, it is also expected that unemployment will rise. Is this something that you have taken into consideration?

This could have a domino effect regarding industries that are closely linked to oil and gas industries. Is this something that you have taken into consideration?

Best regards,

Karl Hohenstauffen 

Immigration Changes: changing national legislation and adherence to international treaties?

 

Changing national legislation and adherence to international treaties?

Statements have been made: legislation is going to be changed to allow Britain to overcome legal obstacles to deal with migration.

After the judgement issued by the Supreme Court regarding government agreements with Rwanda about migration management, questions have been raised in terms of how the British government is going to manage to overcome legal obstacles.

We await the texts of new bills that will have to be produced by Parliament to achieve declared aims so that the idea of sending migrants to Rwanda does not become a kind of round trip with people sent to Rwanda being returned by Rwanda to the United Kingdom in order to comply with legislation.

Declaring that Rwanda is a safe country might not be nearly enough if for any reason Rwanda decides to deport migrants back to the United Kingdom. What would be the point of accepting migrants back in Britain? Is this yet another plan destined to fail?

Can anybody come up with a viable plan, instead of proposing yet another gimmick?

In past months, hotels and recreational facilities have been filled up with illegal migrants. Even a barge was acquired to accommodate illegal migrants. Monies were paid to Rwanda for a plan that the Supreme Court declared illegal.

Another political embarrassment? We await with impatience the text of legislation promised by the government that will have to deal with the issue of illegal migration effectively.  

Failure to deliver in this particular scenario when the Prime Minister and Cabinet members have committed themselves so publicly is political suicide.