The Tories need to find someone with a driving mission to make the country better in some clear and understandable ways.
If they want to beat Labour next time, it also needs to be demonstrably better than the Labour offering.
If, for example, it turns out that talking to the French reduces the number of small boats then promising to leave the ECHR is not a viable electoral strategy.
The Tories also need to decontaminate the brand (again)
May called them the nasty party.
BoZo made them the greedy party.
Truss the fiscally incontinent.
Richi the incompetent.
Also of note is the current cabinet has the highest proportion of publicly educated ministers in a long time.
In 5 years, will another white, male public schoolboy be acceptable again?
It also needs to steer clear of reactive micro-policy.
They need a macro vision that integrates the fundamentals (jobs, growth, housing, energy) into a coherent whole.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Not just Truss. The British right loved Beano Boris, and grumily tolerated May and Sunak, who at least tried to be responsible national leaders. Or see the Spectator; yes it sells by the truckload but that's in part because it's given up on being a serious journal of right wing thinking and is now almost entirely there to make people think "OMG what are they going to say now?" Which is an excellent sales strategy, but a terrible way to run a country.
Let us hope that Boring Old PM Starmer can Make Britain Boring Again.
May I join in the chorus.
Reform Uk is the Party of childish politics, of wishful thinking. Farage is an essentially unserious politician, in it for the laughs.
True to an extent but Farage did bring Brexit and should not be underestimated
A careful reading of their manifesto shows us that underestimating him his impossible. It was the worst policy platform of any party and would see the economy curl up and die. Surprised fewer people talked about it, but therein lies the truth. Farage is a wrecking ball, not a builder. You vote for him if you prefer a pile of rubble over what we have now.
I have no doubt you are correct, but the rise of Reform and the right in Europe is not something easily dismissed
I have no regrets voting for Labour and think Starmer will do a decent job. I am impressed with the emphasis on honesty and integrity, after the Boris era. But I think the assumption that everything is now 'back to normal' is quite severely mistaken.
I do think that the greatest threat to democracy is not the Reform party but the dismissal and ostracisation of the Reform party. They should be able to represent their voters on things like 'woke' , 'immigration', 'net zero' , 'low traffic zones' without being slandered or defamed because amongst all the misinformation on every point there is something of value which Labour should take in to account. The 'woke' stuff has gone way too far. Illegal immigration is a massive problem and the asylum system is a failure. Net Zero imposes costs on working people which are too casually shrugged off. If the governing party can take this in to account then it defuses the threat from the reform party. If it goes full on culture war against the 'far right' as many of its MP's/members/supporters would like then it just perpetuates the polarisation and appeal of the Reform party.
You can't converse with conspiracy theorists without making yourself look like one too. Perfectly sensible Tories like Mark Harper made that mistake, undermining his own government's policies. It also leads to people like IDS siding with criminals.
Woke has had next to zero impact on most people's lives. Legal immigration is a material issue, not illegal immigration. Net Zero is the only path to growth for the UK, not protecting 20th century technologies and special interests. Cheap, secure British Energy for the British Economy.
If the Tories engage in the kind of paranoid culture battles you suggest, they'll just lose even more votes to Reform (the real deal) or the Lib Dems (the sensible alternative).
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Not just Truss. The British right loved Beano Boris, and grumily tolerated May and Sunak, who at least tried to be responsible national leaders. Or see the Spectator; yes it sells by the truckload but that's in part because it's given up on being a serious journal of right wing thinking and is now almost entirely there to make people think "OMG what are they going to say now?" Which is an excellent sales strategy, but a terrible way to run a country.
Let us hope that Boring Old PM Starmer can Make Britain Boring Again.
May I join in the chorus.
Reform Uk is the Party of childish politics, of wishful thinking. Farage is an essentially unserious politician, in it for the laughs.
True to an extent but Farage did bring Brexit and should not be underestimated
And what was Brexit but a fantasy project?
EU membership was 'a project'. A sovereign Britain is the status quo ante.
How far we going back for this blessed primordial State, Lucky - 1688, 1066, 55AD, pre-Saxon times?
We had opt-outs, valuable ones. There was a different path to travel which preserved real Sovereignity without embarking on a fantasy adventure into splendid isolation.
Meh.
'Fantasy adventure', 'splendid isolation', 'cut off from our biggest trading partner', 'Little Britain', 'straight bananas' - do you never wonder as an arguer for remain why your own arguments depart from fact and go into the realm of idioms and metaphors and clichés almost immediately? It's because the simple facts just don't support your argument, and the case for the UK being in the EU doesn't stack up.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
The first that needs to be slapped around the head with an inflated puffer fish, as a reality check.
You stand fuck-all chance, Jenrick. Anybody synonymous with scandal condemns the Conservative Partyin 2029 to 2024 take 2. We need a clean skin.
Who are you curious about for leader?
Claire Courtinho fits the bill for whats needed, of those re-elected.
Although let's see who gets Rishi's seat when he does a runner over the summer. I'd still stick with Mordaunt - if she gets it.
Thanks. Interesting. Maybe a bit early for Courtnho I would have thought. Maybe a shadow chancellor???
Historically the winning strategy seems to be to find an obvious, PM in waiting rather than skipping a generation for the sake of it.
Is Mourdaunt your Blair, Cameron or Starmer figure? If she is, can she control the right and the Mail? That has been her Achilles heel.
We could have had Mordaunt. Almost certainly would, if the Mail hadn't been so determined to do the bidding of others in putting the boot in. The Mail has an enormous amount of responsibility for what went wrong at the top of Government in recent years. Not that they will ever take any of that responsibility.
Courtinho would have five years to show her mettle before going before the voters. I suspect she would play well with women, especially those we lost to the LibDems, whilst building the case for a Conservative Party aimed at growth, one that was no longer "fuck business".
Coutinho is just Sunak in drag. But go ahead, don’t let me stop you.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Not just Truss. The British right loved Beano Boris, and grumily tolerated May and Sunak, who at least tried to be responsible national leaders. Or see the Spectator; yes it sells by the truckload but that's in part because it's given up on being a serious journal of right wing thinking and is now almost entirely there to make people think "OMG what are they going to say now?" Which is an excellent sales strategy, but a terrible way to run a country.
Let us hope that Boring Old PM Starmer can Make Britain Boring Again.
May I join in the chorus.
Reform Uk is the Party of childish politics, of wishful thinking. Farage is an essentially unserious politician, in it for the laughs.
True to an extent but Farage did bring Brexit and should not be underestimated
A careful reading of their manifesto shows us that underestimating him his impossible. It was the worst policy platform of any party and would see the economy curl up and die. Surprised fewer people talked about it, but therein lies the truth. Farage is a wrecking ball, not a builder. You vote for him if you prefer a pile of rubble over what we have now.
"see the economy curl up and die" - I join you in being unconvinced by Reformonomics. But I am baffled that the Greens appear to get a free pass. Their economics appear to me to be more insane than anyone else's. My middle class school friends have engaged in a quick whatsapp discussion of the results, all earnestly pronouncing on how worrying it is that Reform have got 4 (now 5 of course) MPs, and have all had serious talks with their children about the dangers of snake oil salesmen. But they seem breezily unconcerned about Greens getting the same number and the Islamic sectarians getting another 4 (or 5, if you include Corbyn). Both of these strike me as far more extreme and worrying developments than Reform's handful. (Though granted Reform probably got more votes than the total of the rag tag and bobtails of the far left.)
that's because you don't have lots of v rich individuals from overseas subsidising constant media ramping of greens and islamic sectarians
Well I don't know how the Greens are funded, but I thought it was fairly accepted that the Qatari state funds western Islamic groups in an effort to prevent European Muslims becoming westernised?
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
Jenrickio needs to find out who the Immigration Minister was and then fucking hammer them on socials.
This is precisely the problem for the Tory hopefuls. Jenrick's central contention that "we lost because we didn't bloody do anything for anyone" is true. But the contenders will be all those do-ers of nothing. None of whom seemed to betray a suppressed inner drive. And the public can sniff that particular stink from a mile off.
The Tories have a massive problem going forward. Their position is similar to that which Labour was in following Corbyn's defeat, but much worse. They have fewer seats and a rift that is oceans wide.
I honestly don't know where they go from here. It hasn't helped that of the 121 remaining MPs there are as many rogues and dinosaurs as people of good-will and common sense.
Yes, the conventional wisdom before Thursday was that although the leading right wingers among the big beasts would retain their seats, on the backbenches we would see a more centrist party emerge. I do not think that is what has happened, with so many safe seats having fallen, leaving the CCHQ-picked newcomers with their dreams in tatters.
It may be that this is why people like David Cameron have urged a long, slow process to replace Rishi Sunak, in order to allow new talent to emerge (from where?). The question then is how urgently does Rishi want to leave the stage. Despite the widespread belief he has a Californian exit planned, Rishi has said more than once he will be here for the duration. Is his daughters' education a factor? Who knows?
Rishi can be taken at his word, DJ. He spoke passionately and patriotically in his speech outside Downing Street. If he says he is staying, he is. The reasons he gives can be believed. He'll help the Tory Party as much as he can.
it isn't in my nature to be pessimistic so to all the dejected Tories out there I would say 'Look at where Labour was when it last changed Leader. Things can change very quickly in Politics.'
I think you need a strong leader. That may go without saying but the recent history of Johnson, Sunak, and to some extent May, shows that it needs repeating.
Strong, respected, combative, brave, consistent, principled. Someone the public will notice from the start.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
A position somewhat undermined by his having been a minister with responsibility for (checks notes) immigration.
And also another step into irrelevance. The vast majority of the population don't give a monkeys about the ECHR. They care about their employment prospects, the cost of living, inflation and opportunities for betterment for themselves and their kids.
Any serious Tory recovery will be based upon a fundamental critique of the Labour economic policy as it is implemented, demonstrating how things could be better, taxes lower, money is being wasted, incentives for work improved, the deficit reduced etc etc.
This does not require irrelevant gestures but serious hard work, the kind of work and thinking that Howe and other monetarists undertook in the 1970s. I am not saying monetarism is the answer now but that they need to look for a coherent economic policy that can work with the challenges of today, whether that is AI, the power of multinationals and their threat to the tax base, the challenge of creating growth in an economy mired in debt, environmental pressures, the pressures of immigration, housing etc.
Reeves, of course, will be trying to do the same and she may succeed but the Tories need to focus on what they seemed to be largely ignoring in the last year, what is actually required to provide effective governance. Then, if Reeves fails, they might have their chance.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
It would have been better for your Party, Carlotta, if the Election had produced a more cleansing result. It would then have had less detritus like Jenrick to clear out before reconstruction begins.
I worry about the members, Peter.
They usually go for the most tub-thumping and dogmatic one. It really doesn't help.
I doubt they've learned many (any) lessons from this defeat.
ConHome still has a few sensible voices, but it's mostly a mix of Tories calling for the second coming of Braverman and Reform voters promising pestilence, death and destruction.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
The first that needs to be slapped around the head with an inflated puffer fish, as a reality check.
You stand fuck-all chance, Jenrick. Anybody synonymous with scandal condemns the Conservative Partyin 2029 to 2024 take 2. We need a clean skin.
Who are you curious about for leader?
Claire Courtinho fits the bill for whats needed, of those re-elected.
Although let's see who gets Rishi's seat when he does a runner over the summer. I'd still stick with Mordaunt - if she gets it.
Thanks. Interesting. Maybe a bit early for Courtnho I would have thought. Maybe a shadow chancellor???
Historically the winning strategy seems to be to find an obvious, PM in waiting rather than skipping a generation for the sake of it.
Is Mourdaunt your Blair, Cameron or Starmer figure? If she is, can she control the right and the Mail? That has been her Achilles heel.
We could have had Mordaunt. Almost certainly would, if the Mail hadn't been so determined to do the bidding of others in putting the boot in. The Mail has an enormous amount of responsibility for what went wrong at the top of Government in recent years. Not that they will ever take any of that responsibility.
Courtinho would have five years to show her mettle before going before the voters. I suspect she would play well with women, especially those we lost to the LibDems, whilst building the case for a Conservative Party aimed at growth, one that was no longer "fuck business".
Coutinho is just Sunak in drag. But go ahead, don’t let me stop you.
Tory centrists so out of ideas that they're ramping this person whose name they can't even be bothered learn. And even anti-Tory supporters are saying 'You sure mate?'
Is there anyone particularly upset by the election? A lot of upsides across the political spectrum: Labour won a landslide Tories still breathing Best LibDem result in a century RefUK on the board Greens won 4 seats SNP routed
Any downsides?
Yes. There are a lot of homeless Indy supporters. If we're being fair, that's a large chunk of upset people who feel they can't vote SNP anymore.
Labour can retain some of them if Starmer is as serious as devolution as he suggests. On the left, the Scottish Greens will hoover some up. On the right, the SNP will take the rural vote again and Alba will fade to nothing.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
Jenrickio needs to find out who the Immigration Minister was and then fucking hammer them on socials.
This is precisely the problem for the Tory hopefuls. Jenrick's central contention that "we lost because we didn't bloody do anything for anyone" is true. But the contenders will be all those do-ers of nothing. None of whom seemed to betray a suppressed inner drive. And the public can sniff that particular stink from a mile off.
The Tories have a massive problem going forward. Their position is similar to that which Labour was in following Corbyn's defeat, but much worse. They have fewer seats and a rift that is oceans wide.
I honestly don't know where they go from here. It hasn't helped that of the 121 remaining MPs there are as many rogues and dinosaurs as people of good-will and common sense.
Yes, the conventional wisdom before Thursday was that although the leading right wingers among the big beasts would retain their seats, on the backbenches we would see a more centrist party emerge. I do not think that is what has happened, with so many safe seats having fallen, leaving the CCHQ-picked newcomers with their dreams in tatters.
It may be that this is why people like David Cameron have urged a long, slow process to replace Rishi Sunak, in order to allow new talent to emerge (from where?). The question then is how urgently does Rishi want to leave the stage. Despite the widespread belief he has a Californian exit planned, Rishi has said more than once he will be here for the duration. Is his daughters' education a factor? Who knows?
Yes, we had a council by-election at few months ago as a councillor had resigned after being selected for a safe tory seat. They lost to Labour by a few hundred votes. How sad we chortled.
Another thing the Tories need to watch as they chase RefUK further and further away from power is how RefUK themselves fare over the next 5 years.
What are the odds on all 5 of their current MPs still being RefUK MPs in that time?
How many ways can a party of 5 split?
A reform implosion has been predicted frequently by many here on the basis that they will either have skeletons in their closets or just be unable to maintain discipline. I don’t see it. 4 of their MPs are ‘famous’ enough to be unlikely to have anything fatal hidden away that hadn’t come out yet. And unlike UKIP 2015, this is a real breakthrough for Reform, with a good shot at taking further seats next time. Farage won’t get bored etc.
I don’t see any chance of a merger or alliance either. After decades there is still no ‘left’ alliance, why would the ‘right’ do any better once a split has happened?
The graph looks interesting. But how should it be interpreted? The vertical axis appears to measure the deviation of constituency labour shares from the national average (though can't be sure in the absence of explanatory notes). However it does not represent the swing away from the Conservatives because there is no comparator from an earlier election. With the y-axis understood to be Lab shares in 2024, the constituency-level correlation between that and the percentage of mortgage payers suggests that mortage payers tended to vote Labour in 2024. But we do not know how that compares with the previous election. The tendency might be less than or greater than before. In any event the lowess smoother is a distraction, the point is made just as easily with a straight line drawn through the point cloud, or even without one.
The y axis can't be "Labour shares in 2024" because it goes from -40 to plus 40, and even the Tories didn't manage to find a way to score a negative vote total. My guess from the axis label "Lab1924sh" is that it is "labour vote share in 2024 - labour vote share in 2019" or something of that sort. At any rate it must be some figure calculated from a change between the two elections.
Glad I'm not the only one to not fully get the y axis. Thought I was being dim. But now @geoffw has outed himself as uncertain, I know it can't be that
Looking forward to the next few years I can certainly see a scenario where there is a break away group coming out of the Labour MP's, probably linked to Gaza, going in to opposition, and thus eroding the labour party majority.
Gaza will be a lot less salient once the war ends and Netanyahu is booted out.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Before wittering about immigration or whatever, the Tories need to think hard about the 4 things they have lacked or deliberately abandoned in recent years.
1. An understanding of Burkean principles - the idea that conservatism is about preserving the best of what we have built but also about building on that for the next generations - to leave the country in a better state than they found it. So it is not enough to focus only on one elderly generation but to remember those that are and those to come and to make life and opportunities better for them. (Why in God's name did a Conservative government kill off Sure Start? - to give just one example.)
2. Chesterton's Fence: you don't just randomly and angrily attack and destroy institutions and conventions just because they stand in your way. You are meant to be grown ups not tantruming toddlers. The attacks on the rule of law, on any standards of integrity and political decency, on independent institutions etc was pathetic, dangerous and, well, unconservative. See point 1.
3. Competence: obvious but forgotten. Just try to do your tasks well. Good administration, thinking about the consequences, thinking ahead, getting advice, planning, sorting out mistakes, learning from them, small practical improvements instead of snake oil promises backed by nothing more than bullshit etc. You forgot that. You will have to relearn this and try to demonstrate it where you can - in how you run your party and whatever councils you control. It will take time and you won't be listened to for a long time. But unless you do start doing this now, forget the rest.
4. Character: the single most important factor. The moral character, the integrity, the honesty of those who lead your party and those in it and how they behave says more about you than any manifesto. You chose some dreadful leaders in a Faustian pact which has well and truly bitten you on the arse. You abandoned all standards of political decency. You allowed corruption and shadiness and spivs in public office to fester. You gave the impression that duty and public service were jokes. The one abiding image for your years in power was parties in Downing Street while a widowed queen sat alone at her husband's funeral. That image stood for many who did their job while you treated their old-fashioned virtues with contempt. Really, how dare you call yourself conservative and behave like that.
Get these right. Then you can start worrying about policies. The current government will eventually make mistakes in all these areas. (I mean, Jacqui Smith, really?) But they won't listen to you until you've admitted you fucked things up and have changed.
Available for consultation at £1,3750 per hour + VAT or its euro equivalent. An absolute bargain.
I see the Tories are adding Reform votes to them again. No, no, no, no.
As just commented on BBC Politics South, West Dorset is an interesting case, which the Tories have held unbroken since the 1880s. The seat didn't even have a Reform candidate, yet the Tories still got slaughtered.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
It would have been better for your Party, Carlotta, if the Election had produced a more cleansing result. It would then have had less detritus like Jenrick to clear out before reconstruction begins.
I worry about the members, Peter.
They usually go for the most tub-thumping and dogmatic one. It really doesn't help.
I doubt they've learned many (any) lessons from this defeat.
ConHome still has a few sensible voices, but it's mostly a mix of Tories calling for the second coming of Braverman and Reform voters promising pestilence, death and destruction.
The best thing the new 1922 committee could do is preclude the membership from electing the leader
Starmer is unusual in that he has done nearly all of this on his own without significant allies. It is more common for there to be a team, like Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne, that can give each other support and bring different sets of allies and different skills to the cause. I don't get the impression that Reeves, for example, has much support in the party. Rayner has allied herself to him quite closely but will she stick by him when the going gets tough?
The Tories need a team with an entourage and think tanks to provide the ideas and some of the analysis. I am not seeing that in any part of the party at the moment. It may take a few years in opposition for some sort of alternative program for government to emerge but that is ok, all they have right now is time.
This is not at all my reading.
Starmer has a tight inner cadre of McSweeney and McFadden, and obviously has a close partnership with Reeves. Phillipson and others seem to be part of this extended inner group.
Rather it is Rayner who is a bit out on a limb. She has been entrusted with some key policy objectives and one can perhaps see the grounds for future disagreement between Reeves and Rayner.
Interestingly, Nandy seems to have taken a further demotion - to Culture - and Dodds too has only barely scraped into Cabinet. Thomas-Symonds is currently missing in action. These were the “big beasts” of the immediate post-Corbyn era…
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Look at Liz Truss's PMQs performances, and look at Sunak's. And tell me who comes across as childish, wanting to provoke, and lacking the seriousness you'd expect.
They were both rubbish. As was ‘promise everything’ deliver nothing Boris. There was nothing behind the rhetoric.
That doesn't answer my point. Liz Truss gave proper answers that spoke to her beliefs. Rishi Sunk did yah boo etc. That's why I wonder whether your allegation of Truss's lack of seriousness is based on what you hear from her, or just what you expect to hear.
She has an awkward way of speaking, facial expressions etc. But what she's saying is often quite serious, and in terms of her message about the fundamental ungovernability of institutions, very useful.
Liz Truss generally sounded to me like a French person speaking English, speaking in short phrases with the emphasis on the last syllable, then a pause, rinse and repeat.
Listen very carefully. I will say zis only an interminable number of times, despite all evidence and ridicule.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
It would have been better for your Party, Carlotta, if the Election had produced a more cleansing result. It would then have had less detritus like Jenrick to clear out before reconstruction begins.
I worry about the members, Peter.
They usually go for the most tub-thumping and dogmatic one. It really doesn't help.
I doubt they've learned many (any) lessons from this defeat.
ConHome still has a few sensible voices, but it's mostly a mix of Tories calling for the second coming of Braverman and Reform voters promising pestilence, death and destruction.
The best thing the new 1922 committee could do is preclude the membership from electing the leader
Yep.
We will see what happens in next couple of weeks. Plenty of Tory grandees demanding change to how leader is elected and length of the race.
Is there a reason you believe absolutely anything you see on Twitter and repost it on other websites without trying to verify it, even though you should know that changes to the algorithm and the resulting exodus of non-idiots has made it basically useless as a source of news?
Starmer is unusual in that he has done nearly all of this on his own without significant allies. It is more common for there to be a team, like Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne, that can give each other support and bring different sets of allies and different skills to the cause. I don't get the impression that Reeves, for example, has much support in the party. Rayner has allied herself to him quite closely but will she stick by him when the going gets tough?
The Tories need a team with an entourage and think tanks to provide the ideas and some of the analysis. I am not seeing that in any part of the party at the moment. It may take a few years in opposition for some sort of alternative program for government to emerge but that is ok, all they have right now is time.
This is not at all my reading.
Starmer has a tight inner cadre of McSweeney and McFadden, and obviously has a close partnership with Reeves. Phillipson and others seem to be part of this extended inner group.
Rather it is Rayner who is a bit out on a limb. She has been entrusted with some key policy objectives and one can perhaps see the grounds for future disagreement between Reeves and Rayner.
Interestingly, Nandy seems to have taken a further demotion - to Culture - and Dodds too has only barely scraped into Cabinet. Thomas-Symonds is currently missing in action. These were the “big beasts” of the immediate post-Corbyn era…
Nandy was a decent leadership campaigner but has been pretty weak ever since. Same as Jess Phillips who was supposed to be this amazing female Blair but was all a bit empty.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Look at Liz Truss's PMQs performances, and look at Sunak's. And tell me who comes across as childish, wanting to provoke, and lacking the seriousness you'd expect.
Liz Truss.
You're just saying that as you're one of those lefty Tory haters who keep piling on poor Liz for no or partisan reasons.
Wait...
That's how @Luckyguy1983 will see it, despite me being on the Right of the party.
Can't compute that actually she was shit and a complete disaster for the brand.
You can go small state over time, but you can't be a fucking psycho about it.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
So Suellas winning campaign message is to leave the ECHR . Some Tories seem to think that they can just become more Reform .
Ignoring that a section of Tory voters will jump ship if they keep going further right .
From TwiX. The only reason Cruella has not been expelled for that article is the '22 committee doesn't exist right now
She would make everyone’s lives so much happier, including her own, if she fucked off to Reform. She’s not going to be made leader of the Conservatives because she is disloyal and poisonous. Any future leader will want her as far away from anything as possible because all she does is whine and bitch. She’s an absolute horror.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
It would have been better for your Party, Carlotta, if the Election had produced a more cleansing result. It would then have had less detritus like Jenrick to clear out before reconstruction begins.
I worry about the members, Peter.
They usually go for the most tub-thumping and dogmatic one. It really doesn't help.
I doubt they've learned many (any) lessons from this defeat.
I think there's an argument that this is the right way to go. They need to rebuild the base first and stop all the members defecting, and lose elections with a purist in charge until they get it out of their system.
One place Labour went wrong was putting a (relative) moderate up first, which pushed everything back by an entire parliament. If they'd picked Corbyn right away they could have got it out of their system in 2015 then got back into office in 2020.
Or, we could get it out of our system now - given we've just massively lost an election, near catastrophically - and go professional straight away.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
A position somewhat undermined by his having been a minister with responsibility for (checks notes) immigration.
And also another step into irrelevance. The vast majority of the population don't give a monkeys about the ECHR. They care about their employment prospects, the cost of living, inflation and opportunities for betterment for themselves and their kids.
Any serious Tory recovery will be based upon a fundamental critique of the Labour economic policy as it is implemented, demonstrating how things could be better, taxes lower, money is being wasted, incentives for work improved, the deficit reduced etc etc.
This does not require irrelevant gestures but serious hard work, the kind of work and thinking that Howe and other monetarists undertook in the 1970s. I am not saying monetarism is the answer now but that they need to look for a coherent economic policy that can work with the challenges of today, whether that is AI, the power of multinationals and their threat to the tax base, the challenge of creating growth in an economy mired in debt, environmental pressures, the pressures of immigration, housing etc.
Reeves, of course, will be trying to do the same and she may succeed but the Tories need to focus on what they seemed to be largely ignoring in the last year, what is actually required to provide effective governance. Then, if Reeves fails, they might have their chance.
This makes sense to me. To @Casino_Royale point, I don't think the Conservatives will do worse than 2024, but only because it hasn't sunk in just how catastrophic this election has been for them. They could easily do more of the same, win back the 60 most marginal seats from Labour, not do much against the Lib Dems and in this way set up Labour for a solid further five years in government.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
The first that needs to be slapped around the head with an inflated puffer fish, as a reality check.
You stand fuck-all chance, Jenrick. Anybody synonymous with scandal condemns the Conservative Partyin 2029 to 2024 take 2. We need a clean skin.
Who are you curious about for leader?
Claire Courtinho fits the bill for whats needed, of those re-elected.
Although let's see who gets Rishi's seat when he does a runner over the summer. I'd still stick with Mordaunt - if she gets it.
Courtinho and Badenoch are potentials but it is inevitable that such a leap for either would be uncertain. As an orange book liberal you need to appeal to the likes of me and so far I like both. Mordaunt possibly but I'm not convinced.
A reform implosion has been predicted frequently by many here on the basis that they will either have skeletons in their closets or just be unable to maintain discipline. I don’t see it. 4 of their MPs are ‘famous’ enough to be unlikely to have anything fatal hidden away that hadn’t come out yet.
The interesting thing is NFF himself has a whole bunch of skeletons that never really got an airing when he was the darling of the BBC
Another thing the Tories need to watch as they chase RefUK further and further away from power is how RefUK themselves fare over the next 5 years.
What are the odds on all 5 of their current MPs still being RefUK MPs in that time?
How many ways can a party of 5 split?
A reform implosion has been predicted frequently by many here on the basis that they will either have skeletons in their closets or just be unable to maintain discipline. I don’t see it. 4 of their MPs are ‘famous’ enough to be unlikely to have anything fatal hidden away that hadn’t come out yet. And unlike UKIP 2015, this is a real breakthrough for Reform, with a good shot at taking further seats next time. Farage won’t get bored etc.
I don’t see any chance of a merger or alliance either. After decades there is still no ‘left’ alliance, why would the ‘right’ do any better once a split has happened?
It's the many many second places and unemployed Reform-adjacent ex-Tory-MPs that represent a significant opportunity. No crossing the floor required, just a "better" platform for their return to parliament.
So Suellas winning campaign message is to leave the ECHR . Some Tories seem to think that they can just become more Reform .
Ignoring that a section of Tory voters will jump ship if they keep going further right .
From TwiX. The only reason Cruella has not been expelled for that article is the '22 committee doesn't exist right now
She would make everyone’s lives so much happier, including her own, if she fucked off to Reform. She’s not going to be made leader of the Conservatives because she is disloyal and poisonous. Any future leader will want her as far away from anything as possible because all she does is whine and bitch. She’s an absolute horror.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Not just Truss. The British right loved Beano Boris, and grumily tolerated May and Sunak, who at least tried to be responsible national leaders. Or see the Spectator; yes it sells by the truckload but that's in part because it's given up on being a serious journal of right wing thinking and is now almost entirely there to make people think "OMG what are they going to say now?" Which is an excellent sales strategy, but a terrible way to run a country.
Let us hope that Boring Old PM Starmer can Make Britain Boring Again.
May I join in the chorus.
Reform Uk is the Party of childish politics, of wishful thinking. Farage is an essentially unserious politician, in it for the laughs.
True to an extent but Farage did bring Brexit and should not be underestimated
A careful reading of their manifesto shows us that underestimating him his impossible. It was the worst policy platform of any party and would see the economy curl up and die. Surprised fewer people talked about it, but therein lies the truth. Farage is a wrecking ball, not a builder. You vote for him if you prefer a pile of rubble over what we have now.
I have no doubt you are correct, but the rise of Reform and the right in Europe is not something easily dismissed
I have no regrets voting for Labour and think Starmer will do a decent job. I am impressed with the emphasis on honesty and integrity, after the Boris era. But I think the assumption that everything is now 'back to normal' is quite severely mistaken.
I do think that the greatest threat to democracy is not the Reform party but the dismissal and ostracisation of the Reform party. They should be able to represent their voters on things like 'woke' , 'immigration', 'net zero' , 'low traffic zones' without being slandered or defamed because amongst all the misinformation on every point there is something of value which Labour should take in to account. The 'woke' stuff has gone way too far. Illegal immigration is a massive problem and the asylum system is a failure. Net Zero imposes costs on working people which are too casually shrugged off. If the governing party can take this in to account then it defuses the threat from the reform party. If it goes full on culture war against the 'far right' as many of its MP's/members/supporters would like then it just perpetuates the polarisation and appeal of the Reform party.
"I am impressed with the emphasis on honesty and integrity, after the Boris era."
Labour will have its scandals. They will be around money.
Remember, Blair was going to be the new broom, "whiter than white". He was extrememly fortunate over Ecclestone. He assumed he was going to have to resign. It was only the media giving him an extended honeymoon that allowed him to survive. Would Starmer get such a honeymoon? I think not. His Government really WILL have to be "whiter than white".
The trick that the Tories need to pull is to be tough on immigration without coming up with batshit schemes (Rwanda), trying to scrap human rights (ie the ECHR) or generally coming across as utter c***s (Braverman, but also Jenrick, Patel etc etc).
Starmer is unusual in that he has done nearly all of this on his own without significant allies. It is more common for there to be a team, like Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne, that can give each other support and bring different sets of allies and different skills to the cause. I don't get the impression that Reeves, for example, has much support in the party. Rayner has allied herself to him quite closely but will she stick by him when the going gets tough?
The Tories need a team with an entourage and think tanks to provide the ideas and some of the analysis. I am not seeing that in any part of the party at the moment. It may take a few years in opposition for some sort of alternative program for government to emerge but that is ok, all they have right now is time.
This is not at all my reading.
Starmer has a tight inner cadre of McSweeney and McFadden, and obviously has a close partnership with Reeves. Phillipson and others seem to be part of this extended inner group.
Rather it is Rayner who is a bit out on a limb. She has been entrusted with some key policy objectives and one can perhaps see the grounds for future disagreement between Reeves and Rayner.
Interestingly, Nandy seems to have taken a further demotion - to Culture - and Dodds too has only barely scraped into Cabinet. Thomas-Symonds is currently missing in action. These were the “big beasts” of the immediate post-Corbyn era…
Starmer is one ruthless bastard. He leaves no room for sentiment.
I think all the debate around the future direction of the Tories betrays the dilemma they face. It’s not an easy way forwards for them, whatever route they choose. There is no magic bullet.
More likely they should have someone who can oppose and exploit any Labour failings for a couple of years and not really focus too heavily on positioning/policy. But it depends also on how Reform perform over that time.
Essentially I suspect the Tory Party in the medium term is probably better functioning reactively. Which is a bit of a cop out answer, but I think trying to set out ideological stalls at this stage doesn’t really help that much. The time to flesh out the offering is nearer the GE. Starmer got into power essentially on mood music.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
The first that needs to be slapped around the head with an inflated puffer fish, as a reality check.
You stand fuck-all chance, Jenrick. Anybody synonymous with scandal condemns the Conservative Partyin 2029 to 2024 take 2. We need a clean skin.
Who are you curious about for leader?
Claire Courtinho fits the bill for whats needed, of those re-elected.
Although let's see who gets Rishi's seat when he does a runner over the summer. I'd still stick with Mordaunt - if she gets it.
Thanks. Interesting. Maybe a bit early for Courtnho I would have thought. Maybe a shadow chancellor???
Historically the winning strategy seems to be to find an obvious, PM in waiting rather than skipping a generation for the sake of it.
Is Mourdaunt your Blair, Cameron or Starmer figure? If she is, can she control the right and the Mail? That has been her Achilles heel.
The Tories will be looking for a Blair when realistically they need a Kinnock.
Like Napoleon, they have two fight two big battles in succession, against the LibDems in the Home Counties and against Labour everywhere else, and win them both while preventing their troops deserting off the right of the field.
This is the list of the 22 Roman Catholic Cathedrals in England.
Arundel Cathedral - CONSERVATIVE St Chad's Cathedral, Birmingham - LABOUR? Brentwood Cathedral - CONSERVATIVE ? Cathedral of St Michael and St George, Aldershot - LABOUR Clifton Cathedral Lancaster Cathedral - LABOUR Leeds Cathedral - LABOUR Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral - LABOUR Middlesbrough Cathedral - LABOUR St Mary's Cathedral, Newcastle upon Tyne - LABOUR Northampton Cathedral St John the Baptist Cathedral, Norwich - LABOUR Nottingham Cathedral - LABOUR Old Sarum Cathedral Plymouth Cathedral - LABOUR Cathedral of St John the Evangelist, Portsmouth Pro-Cathedral of the Holy Apostles Salford Cathedral - LABOUR Cathedral Church of St Marie, Sheffield - LABOUR Shrewsbury Cathedral - LABOUR St George's Cathedral, Southwark - LABOUR Westminster Cathedral - LABOUR
I'm a bit less reliable on these, as I am not sure exactly where they all are to within a stone's throw.
Old Sarum Cathedral? All thats left is the foundation.
The Bristol (Clifton) pro cathedral is now student housing.
By the way most of the C of E ones are Catholic too (just under temporary occupation).
@Paul13_Walnut5 Political nerds (please share with any you know) I'm trying to find out if Neale Hanvey of ALBA has set a record low for the vote share of a sitting MP? 2.8% of the vote.. who would know?
Starmer is unusual in that he has done nearly all of this on his own without significant allies. It is more common for there to be a team, like Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne, that can give each other support and bring different sets of allies and different skills to the cause. I don't get the impression that Reeves, for example, has much support in the party. Rayner has allied herself to him quite closely but will she stick by him when the going gets tough?
The Tories need a team with an entourage and think tanks to provide the ideas and some of the analysis. I am not seeing that in any part of the party at the moment. It may take a few years in opposition for some sort of alternative program for government to emerge but that is ok, all they have right now is time.
This is not at all my reading.
Starmer has a tight inner cadre of McSweeney and McFadden, and obviously has a close partnership with Reeves. Phillipson and others seem to be part of this extended inner group.
Rather it is Rayner who is a bit out on a limb. She has been entrusted with some key policy objectives and one can perhaps see the grounds for future disagreement between Reeves and Rayner.
Interestingly, Nandy seems to have taken a further demotion - to Culture - and Dodds too has only barely scraped into Cabinet. Thomas-Symonds is currently missing in action. These were the “big beasts” of the immediate post-Corbyn era…
Nandy was a decent leadership campaigner but has been pretty weak ever since. Same as Jess Phillips who was supposed to be this amazing female Blair but was all a bit empty.
Jess Phillips suffered the most enormous and unacceptable abuse this election
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
The first that needs to be slapped around the head with an inflated puffer fish, as a reality check.
You stand fuck-all chance, Jenrick. Anybody synonymous with scandal condemns the Conservative Partyin 2029 to 2024 take 2. We need a clean skin.
Who are you curious about for leader?
Claire Courtinho fits the bill for whats needed, of those re-elected.
Although let's see who gets Rishi's seat when he does a runner over the summer. I'd still stick with Mordaunt - if she gets it.
Thanks. Interesting. Maybe a bit early for Courtnho I would have thought. Maybe a shadow chancellor???
Historically the winning strategy seems to be to find an obvious, PM in waiting rather than skipping a generation for the sake of it.
Is Mourdaunt your Blair, Cameron or Starmer figure? If she is, can she control the right and the Mail? That has been her Achilles heel.
We could have had Mordaunt. Almost certainly would, if the Mail hadn't been so determined to do the bidding of others in putting the boot in. The Mail has an enormous amount of responsibility for what went wrong at the top of Government in recent years. Not that they will ever take any of that responsibility.
Courtinho would have five years to show her mettle before going before the voters. I suspect she would play well with women, especially those we lost to the LibDems, whilst building the case for a Conservative Party aimed at growth, one that was no longer "fuck business".
Coutinho is just Sunak in drag. But go ahead, don’t let me stop you.
Tory centrists so out of ideas that they're ramping this person whose name they can't even be bothered learn. And even anti-Tory supporters are saying 'You sure mate?'
Never heard of. Sounds like a gender flipped Sunak from her Wikipedia bio (immigrant medical parents posh day school Oxford merchant bank).
My great fear really is that Rayner isn’t capable of policy delivery, perhaps similar to the way Prescott essentially blocked up the plumbing of his critical portfolios in the New Labour years.
I respect Rayner immensely as a politician, but there’s just no background of delivery I’m aware of.
Looking forward to the next few years I can certainly see a scenario where there is a break away group coming out of the Labour MP's, probably linked to Gaza, going in to opposition, and thus eroding the labour party majority.
"Gaza".
Firstly, WTF? Who actually cares about Gaza as opposed to pretending they do? Yemen, Syria, Ukraine are all far far worse, not to mention the forgotten conflicts, yet it sucks out 95%+ of the oxygen. And it clearly will now for some time.
And, what would they do if there was a majority for "Gaza" in the House of Commons? Declare war on Israel? Deploy the Royal Navy and RAF to enforce a blockade, and force an IDF retreat before organising a victory rally in the streets of Khan Yunis policed by the Royal Welch? No, it would simply be gesture politics of 'officially' recognising Palestine and maybe a bit more acceptance of the strong stuff across that anti-Zionist/Semitic boundary. That's it. I'm not sure they'd even remember the West Bank.
This it the Leftie Brexit, and fuck me are they secretly delighted it's happened, just as the SWP activists who've been carrying the 'Free Palestine' banners for decades can't believe their luck: it's a perfectly formed intersection of class, colour and colonialism that is a work of beauty for them, and touches all their erogenous zones.
It's the ultimate social proof. And it's gesture politics aux intersectionality par excellence.
There is no limit to the distance to which Starmer should tell them to fuck off.
The trick that the Tories need to pull is to be tough on immigration without coming up with batshit schemes (Rwanda), trying to scrap human rights (ie the ECHR) or generally coming across as utter c***s (Braverman, but also Jenrick, Patel etc etc).
Not sure who is able to square the circle.
We are about to get all the backroom details of everything they did wrong...
Exclusive: The Rwanda scheme has been described as a “waste of time, money, and mental health” by Home Office insiders
2 years, 4 home secretaries, more than £300m of public money, no flights - and thousands of asylum seekers remain in limbo
One civil servant said the policy had been created by “narrow minded politicians who had no clue of the mess they were creating” and “wrecked” Britain’s asylum system as a result
More than 50,000 asylum applications are in indefinite limbo
Another Home Office source said the “unseen costs” of Rwanda scheme may never be known, adding: “It’s an extraordinary amount of money for nothing"
Officials point out the perm sec asked for a ministerial direction because of value for money questions but it was forced through
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Look at Liz Truss's PMQs performances, and look at Sunak's. And tell me who comes across as childish, wanting to provoke, and lacking the seriousness you'd expect.
Liz Truss.
You're just saying that as you're one of those lefty Tory haters who keep piling on poor Liz for no or partisan reasons.
Wait...
That's how @Luckyguy1983 will see it, despite me being on the Right of the party.
Can't compute that actually she was shit and a complete disaster for the brand.
You can go small state over time, but you can't be a fucking psycho about it.
Truss winning over Sunak was a disaster for the conservative party
Sunak is a decent person and widely complimented on his resignation speech, but poor at politics but then he had idiotic advisors
Had Sunak taken office we would not have had the Truss disaster and the biggest gift to any opposition by any politicians in living memory
Sunak would still have lost because it was a change election but not the wipe out that happened
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
One thing that should stick firmly in the minds of all Conservatives: they can still fall further from here.
There could easily form some sort of assumption that recovery must now be automatic, so low have they fallen, and now they're out of office, but that is not the case.
It could be that Starmer continues to be a lucky general, the economy improves whilst he's in office, and he delivers some things. Meanwhile the Tories shout and scream at each other (their default) - particularly on immigration - whilst Reform sweep up all the disillusionment and votes on that anyway and continue to grow and grow.
If all that happens the Tories could completely disappear at the next GE. That's why a serious leader is needed: focused on good organisation, unification, excellent candidate selection and competent professional opposition, and not a pissing contest artist.
I agree 100%.
But I hope there is a thinker/doer/communicator somewhere in the Party that can come up with an alternative vision for the future. That isn't mired in the internal Tory divisions of the past. As I say, growth, jobs, housing, energy (and NHS though tactically the Tories should shut up about that until they see what SKS does) - the rest will take care of itself.
I should say, that does - and must- include a solution to immigration. But, I don't believe Braverman or Patel - both of whom were found slightly wanting in office - would do anything about save pissing harder.
You need a long-term multi-year strategy to unpick all the lawfare and build international alliances to stop it.
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
The first that needs to be slapped around the head with an inflated puffer fish, as a reality check.
You stand fuck-all chance, Jenrick. Anybody synonymous with scandal condemns the Conservative Partyin 2029 to 2024 take 2. We need a clean skin.
Who are you curious about for leader?
Claire Courtinho fits the bill for whats needed, of those re-elected.
Although let's see who gets Rishi's seat when he does a runner over the summer. I'd still stick with Mordaunt - if she gets it.
Thanks. Interesting. Maybe a bit early for Courtnho I would have thought. Maybe a shadow chancellor???
Historically the winning strategy seems to be to find an obvious, PM in waiting rather than skipping a generation for the sake of it.
Is Mourdaunt your Blair, Cameron or Starmer figure? If she is, can she control the right and the Mail? That has been her Achilles heel.
We could have had Mordaunt. Almost certainly would, if the Mail hadn't been so determined to do the bidding of others in putting the boot in. The Mail has an enormous amount of responsibility for what went wrong at the top of Government in recent years. Not that they will ever take any of that responsibility.
Courtinho would have five years to show her mettle before going before the voters. I suspect she would play well with women, especially those we lost to the LibDems, whilst building the case for a Conservative Party aimed at growth, one that was no longer "fuck business".
No, no, please pick Suella! Or Kemi if you must. Jenrick's a possibility, if you're looking for an upstanding man of integrity.
I see the Tories are adding Reform votes to them again. No, no, no, no.
As just commented on BBC Politics South, West Dorset is an interesting case, which the Tories have held unbroken since the 1880s. The seat didn't even have a Reform candidate, yet the Tories still got slaughtered.
As the other way is Rotherham. The only seat, other than Chorley, without a Tory candidate. The residual Tory 2019 vote of 32.6% split multiple ways. Reform added only 13.3 points and ended up 14% behind.
The answer with immigration is to reclassify temporary visitors as VISITORS rather than immigrants. These temporary immigrants include students and their families - and young people on 2 year work visas currently from Australia but why not from the EU.
This it the Leftie Brexit, and fuck me are they secretly delighted it's happened, just as the SWP activists who've been carrying the 'Free Palestine' banners for decades can't believe their luck: it's a perfectly formed intersection of class, colour and colonialism that is a work of beauty for them, and touches all their erogenous zones.
It's the ultimate social proof. And it's gesture politics aux intersectionality par excellence.
There is no limit to the distance to which Starmer should tell them to fuck off.
I see the Tories are adding Reform votes to them again. No, no, no, no.
As just commented on BBC Politics South, West Dorset is an interesting case, which the Tories have held unbroken since the 1880s. The seat didn't even have a Reform candidate, yet the Tories still got slaughtered.
Anyone know the back story to this, the now ex-Tory MP is local and seems to have done a reasonable job of his first term?
SKS is absolutely right on prisons. We have far too many people there who don’t or should not need to be there.
Look at what the prisons in say Finland do differently compared to the UK.
Also many who should be in there as well and are not. Tag them such that if they go outside the rules they get a massive electric shock similar to a cattle prod/tazer. That would stop the barstewards stealing.
Second - actually possibly like the Liberal Democrats in 2029
Why would they not be aiming for first? The key for the non Labour parties is to spend the next five years being seen as the rightful home for those this new government will naturally let down. The Tories are unlikely to be functioning well enough to do it, so the Lib Dem’s and reform will see an opportunity.
There's a question over whether you can present yourself as an alternative government with fewer than a hundred MPs? - but the third party's position is certainly a lot more credible than was advancing Jo Swinson for PM.
If the next government isn't a Labour one, someone needs to win a lot of currently held Labour seats. The LibDems are remarkably badly placed to win any of them.
Next time, either the Tories recover and win Labour seats, or Reform breaks through in the batch where they are currently second to Labour, or Labour holds most of them and stays in power. There are probably just a very few where the Greens might come through, as observed on the previous thread (remember some PB'ers argued that a Green vote share of 6-7% was never going to happen; it just did).
Almost as a separate election, there will be a battle between the Tories and LibDems in the south - will the Tories reverse the LibDem surge, or will the LibDems supplant the Tories as part of the Home Counties? That will be a fascinating question, almost entirely a sideshow as far as the government that follows is concerned.
I've seen a remark in LD circles that 'we now have many MPs where we have councillor concentrations than previously."
So we need a look at remaining LD Councillor's with no MP.
Kingston upon Hull? Watford? Three Rivers? (South West Herftordshire)
Haven't checked pre-2024 results.
Hull is interesting as a Labour-facing LibDem council, largely because Labour is so very moribund.
But an under-commented hangover from the coalition is that, while the LibDems have bounced back in Tory-facing areas, the long tradition of urban liberalism has never recovered. In the past Liberals and LibDems have held seats in central London, central Manchester, in Leeds, Liverpool, Cardiff, Birmingham, Sheffield with strong local government presences in almost all of these cities, in Oldham and Pendle and Bolton and Burnley; in London in Islington, Southwark, Haringey, Lambeth, Camden, Brent. Only fragments of this remain, and hence few Labour MPs face any realistic challenge from the centre.
I think there's something there about what used to be called the Great Northern Cities recovering their confidence.
That was one thing I was looking for from "Levelling Up", but I think it has been perhaps better delivered in part by Metro Mayors, which is about autonomy and long-term funding.
I think that is a fake video, or not a video showing a deportation flight. Other published sources indicate that Germany is not currently deporting failed asylum seekers to Afghanistan following the Taliban coming to power.
Is there anyone particularly upset by the election? A lot of upsides across the political spectrum: Labour won a landslide Tories still breathing Best LibDem result in a century RefUK on the board Greens won 4 seats SNP routed
Any downsides?
I'm particularly upset by the election.
I don't disagree that the Tories deserved to lose, and lose badly. And I don't disagree that SKS has made Labour a lot less scary. I've no doubt Labour will be awful, but if by some miracle the Tories had formed a government, they'd have been awful too (National Service? Really?).
But I don't see any good 2028 result or 2033 result from here. Five party politics is awful, particularly in FPTP. We have Reform on the right and the Greens and sectarians on the left who are going to be making increasingly impossible-to-reason-with demands.
I think the only election which has left me feeling as pessimistic for the future is 2017.
So Suellas winning campaign message is to leave the ECHR . Some Tories seem to think that they can just become more Reform .
Ignoring that a section of Tory voters will jump ship if they keep going further right .
From TwiX. The only reason Cruella has not been expelled for that article is the '22 committee doesn't exist right now
She would make everyone’s lives so much happier, including her own, if she fucked off to Reform. She’s not going to be made leader of the Conservatives because she is disloyal and poisonous. Any future leader will want her as far away from anything as possible because all she does is whine and bitch. She’s an absolute horror.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
You can be well educated, good at debating, good at public speaking, and still fundamentally be a stupid and unserious person who has poor reasoning skills. Truss it that to me.
Interest rates would have gone up somewhat Liz Truss or not. The rise in inflation was at least initiated by the Ukraine war, and the BoE would have had to raise rates once that seeped into domestic prices, as had happened elsewhere.
The other point of note is that even if the base rate falls later this year, most are on fixed rate deals and as they get renewed the rates paid will be higher than the existing rates. There are still a lot of mortgage rises to come.
The interest rate rises in the last 18 months really have virtually nothing to do with Truss. She carried the blame as a useful scapegoat. Her policies would have been fiscally disastrous but they never actually got implemented.
The damage Truss and Kwarteng did was to investor confidence in the UK and our reputation for economic stability. That’s one thing Hunt has managed to stabilise since.
Tory members would be wise to note that Hunt held his seat against stiff odds, while Truss lost hers.
I am not expecting them to be wise.
I see universal spokesperson Mel Stride hung on by a handful of votes, too.
Anyone done a moderate / right analysis of the new parliamentary party yet ?
The trick that the Tories need to pull is to be tough on immigration without coming up with batshit schemes (Rwanda), trying to scrap human rights (ie the ECHR) or generally coming across as utter c***s (Braverman, but also Jenrick, Patel etc etc).
Not sure who is able to square the circle.
We are about to get all the backroom details of everything they did wrong...
Exclusive: The Rwanda scheme has been described as a “waste of time, money, and mental health” by Home Office insiders
2 years, 4 home secretaries, more than £300m of public money, no flights - and thousands of asylum seekers remain in limbo
One civil servant said the policy had been created by “narrow minded politicians who had no clue of the mess they were creating” and “wrecked” Britain’s asylum system as a result
More than 50,000 asylum applications are in indefinite limbo
Another Home Office source said the “unseen costs” of Rwanda scheme may never be known, adding: “It’s an extraordinary amount of money for nothing"
Officials point out the perm sec asked for a ministerial direction because of value for money questions but it was forced through
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Before wittering about immigration or whatever, the Tories need to think hard about the 4 things they have lacked or deliberately abandoned in recent years.
1. An understanding of Burkean principles - the idea that conservatism is about preserving the best of what we have built but also about building on that for the next generations - to leave the country in a better state than they found it. So it is not enough to focus only on one elderly generation but to remember those that are and those to come and to make life and opportunities better for them. (Why in God's name did a Conservative government kill off Sure Start? - to give just one example.)
2. Chesterton's Fence: you don't just randomly and angrily attack and destroy institutions and conventions just because they stand in your way. You are meant to be grown ups not tantruming toddlers. The attacks on the rule of law, on any standards of integrity and political decency, on independent institutions etc was pathetic, dangerous and, well, unconservative. See point 1.
3. Competence: obvious but forgotten. Just try to do your tasks well. Good administration, thinking about the consequences, thinking ahead, getting advice, planning, sorting out mistakes, learning from them, small practical improvements instead of snake oil promises backed by nothing more than bullshit etc. You forgot that. You will have to relearn this and try to demonstrate it where you can - in how you run your party and whatever councils you control. It will take time and you won't be listened to for a long time. But unless you do start doing this now, forget the rest.
4. Character: the single most important factor. The moral character, the integrity, the honesty of those who lead your party and those in it and how they behave says more about you than any manifesto. You chose some dreadful leaders in a Faustian pact which has well and truly bitten you on the arse. You abandoned all standards of political decency. You allowed corruption and shadiness and spivs in public office to fester. You gave the impression that duty and public service were jokes. The one abiding image for your years in power was parties in Downing Street while a widowed queen sat alone at her husband's funeral. That image stood for many who did their job while you treated their old-fashioned virtues with contempt. Really, how dare you call yourself conservative and behave like that.
Get these right. Then you can start worrying about policies. The current government will eventually make mistakes in all these areas. (I mean, Jacqui Smith, really?) But they won't listen to you until you've admitted you fucked things up and have changed.
Available for consultation at £1,3750 per hour + VAT or its euro equivalent. An absolute bargain.
Andy Burnham is back telling Labour what it should do. The man is utterly useless, why does he get any airtime at all?
Under his advice, SKS would have resigned and Labour would be in opposition right now.
He is a popular and excellent Mayor, but that should be the limit of his ambitions. He has little to offer the Government.
It is similar with Corbyn. He is unquestionably an excellent constituency MP. If only he had settled for that.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if his campaigns to be GM Mayor weren't the template for this Labour victory. He managed to win every Ward, including some highly improbable places, without generating much enthusiasm anywhere.
Centrists here of both Tory and Libdem persuasion are still having more vapours about Farage winning five seats compared with Labours 400 odd I see.
I guess when you have had a monopoly of the right wing in parliament since the 1661 general election, a rival party of the right breaking through the first past the post wall and winning five seats as well as knocking you into third place in a lot of seats you held until this week is going to seem a bit existensial.
The answer with immigration is to reclassify temporary visitors as VISITORS rather than immigrants. These temporary immigrants include students and their families - and young people on 2 year work visas currently from Australia but why not from the EU.
How many of those temporary "students" actually go home, rather than use their time here to either slip into the black economy or extend their courses until they get a work visa and can claim residence?
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Not just Truss. The British right loved Beano Boris, and grumily tolerated May and Sunak, who at least tried to be responsible national leaders. Or see the Spectator; yes it sells by the truckload but that's in part because it's given up on being a serious journal of right wing thinking and is now almost entirely there to make people think "OMG what are they going to say now?" Which is an excellent sales strategy, but a terrible way to run a country.
Let us hope that Boring Old PM Starmer can Make Britain Boring Again.
May I join in the chorus.
Reform Uk is the Party of childish politics, of wishful thinking. Farage is an essentially unserious politician, in it for the laughs.
True to an extent but Farage did bring Brexit and should not be underestimated
And what was Brexit but a fantasy project?
EU membership was 'a project'. A sovereign Britain is the status quo ante.
How far we going back for this blessed primordial State, Lucky - 1688, 1066, 55AD, pre-Saxon times?
We had opt-outs, valuable ones. There was a different path to travel which preserved real Sovereignity without embarking on a fantasy adventure into splendid isolation.
Meh.
'Fantasy adventure', 'splendid isolation', 'cut off from our biggest trading partner', 'Little Britain', 'straight bananas' - do you never wonder as an arguer for remain why your own arguments depart from fact and go into the realm of idioms and metaphors and clichés almost immediately? It's because the simple facts just don't support your argument, and the case for the UK being in the EU doesn't stack up.
Brexit sure as shit has not been an improvement, we are going backwards quickly. No visible benefits whatsoever and plenty of visible disadvantages. Not England's finest hour
My great fear really is that Rayner isn’t capable of policy delivery, perhaps similar to the way Prescott essentially blocked up the plumbing of his critical portfolios in the New Labour years.
I respect Rayner immensely as a politician, but there’s just no background of delivery I’m aware of.
She's birthed three kids. That's three more deliveries than most.
This it the Leftie Brexit, and fuck me are they secretly delighted it's happened, just as the SWP activists who've been carrying the 'Free Palestine' banners for decades can't believe their luck: it's a perfectly formed intersection of class, colour and colonialism that is a work of beauty for them, and touches all their erogenous zones.
It's the ultimate social proof. And it's gesture politics aux intersectionality par excellence.
There is no limit to the distance to which Starmer should tell them to fuck off.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Look at Liz Truss's PMQs performances, and look at Sunak's. And tell me who comes across as childish, wanting to provoke, and lacking the seriousness you'd expect.
Liz Truss.
You're just saying that as you're one of those lefty Tory haters who keep piling on poor Liz for no or partisan reasons.
Wait...
That's how @Luckyguy1983 will see it, despite me being on the Right of the party.
Can't compute that actually she was shit and a complete disaster for the brand.
You can go small state over time, but you can't be a fucking psycho about it.
Truss winning over Sunak was a disaster for the conservative party
Sunak is a decent person and widely complimented on his resignation speech, but poor at politics but then he had idiotic advisors
Had Sunak taken office we would not have had the Truss disaster and the biggest gift to any opposition by any politicians in living memory
Sunak would still have lost because it was a change election but not the wipe out that happened
I have thought for a while, that history will be kinder to Sunak, than it feels at the moment, but I doubt history will be so kind to Truss and Johnson, and neither should it be, the two worst prime ministers in my lifetime, by a country mile
Interest rates would have gone up somewhat Liz Truss or not. The rise in inflation was at least initiated by the Ukraine war, and the BoE would have had to raise rates once that seeped into domestic prices, as had happened elsewhere.
The other point of note is that even if the base rate falls later this year, most are on fixed rate deals and as they get renewed the rates paid will be higher than the existing rates. There are still a lot of mortgage rises to come.
The interest rate rises in the last 18 months really have virtually nothing to do with Truss. She carried the blame as a useful scapegoat. Her policies would have been fiscally disastrous but they never actually got implemented.
The damage Truss and Kwarteng did was to investor confidence in the UK and our reputation for economic stability. That’s one thing Hunt has managed to stabilise since.
Tory members would be wise to note that Hunt held his seat against stiff odds, while Truss lost hers.
I am not expecting them to be wise.
I see universal spokesperson Mel Stride hung on by a handful of votes, too.
Anyone done a moderate / right analysis of the new parliamentary party yet ?
It’s a good point. I suspect that more than a few of the survivors are moderates: Hunt, Hinds etc while many of the notable headbangers have gone. So who exactly is going to provide the support among MPs for Patel, Braverman and Jenrick?
Five party politics is awful, particularly in FPTP.
No
We rehearsed all the FPTP arguments during the AV referendum, but here we go again.
FPTP works perfectly well regardless of the number of parties.
I now have a Lib Dem MP because more of my neighbours voted for them than any other candidate, in what was previously one of the safest Tory seats in the Country.
It matters not a jot how many people in Clacton, or Skegness, voted for ReFUK
Labour celebrated election success — now they’re targeting Reform
The campaign chief Morgan McSweeney played an important role in securing the party’s triumph at the polls. Keir Starmer will look to him again for the way ahead
Morgan McSweeney is possibly the most influential figure in recent years.
Turned out there wasn't really any difference between genders and how they voted. Also Labour didn't do as well with 18-24 as previously, which I thought was quite surprising. Seems like good chunk of young people keen to vote Green instead of Labour. Also, 22% voted Tory or Reform, which perhaps backs up what Leon was banging on about at least a tiny bit.
Tories did really really badly with 25-44. I bet rents / mortgages / student loans. That could be a huge problem for them going forward if they want to try and recover.
Not much sign of the Hot Young Fascist phenomenon there.
Sorry for those who enjoy that prospect.
Do we have data on how efficiently the Farage Tik Tok phenomenon actually converted into youth votes?
One of my stranger post GE election chats was with one of our admin staff, a forty-something British born Sikh. She didn't vote, not feeling as if she understood enough about politics to do so. She did tell me that her 12 year old daughter was telling her to vote Reform, having seen them on TikTok. Her face fell when I told her that was Farage's bunch.
Never underestimate the power of Social Media on low information voters.
I am on TikTok, and was impressed by both the Labour and LD efforts, but also saw quite a few Reform ones. I am not sure if that was the alogarithm spying on me, or paid advertising.
I was in the pub on Friday talking to a bloke who was a gnat’s bollock away from voting Reform but in the end went Labour. But if Starmer’s shit it’ll definitely vote for Big Nige next time, he said.
So I explained to him what Farage wants to do to the NHS. I was gratified that he looked suitably chastened.
He was probably just hoping if he looked chastened you'd feel satisfied and piss off.
Oncologist Karol Sikora supported Reform's NHS policy against some fairly aggressive questioning from Kate Andrews on Spectator TV:
This is the list of the 22 Roman Catholic Cathedrals in England.
Arundel Cathedral - CONSERVATIVE St Chad's Cathedral, Birmingham - LABOUR? Brentwood Cathedral - CONSERVATIVE ? Cathedral of St Michael and St George, Aldershot - LABOUR Clifton Cathedral Lancaster Cathedral - LABOUR Leeds Cathedral - LABOUR Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral - LABOUR Middlesbrough Cathedral - LABOUR St Mary's Cathedral, Newcastle upon Tyne - LABOUR Northampton Cathedral St John the Baptist Cathedral, Norwich - LABOUR Nottingham Cathedral - LABOUR Old Sarum Cathedral Plymouth Cathedral - LABOUR Cathedral of St John the Evangelist, Portsmouth Pro-Cathedral of the Holy Apostles Salford Cathedral - LABOUR Cathedral Church of St Marie, Sheffield - LABOUR Shrewsbury Cathedral - LABOUR St George's Cathedral, Southwark - LABOUR Westminster Cathedral - LABOUR
I'm a bit less reliable on these, as I am not sure exactly where they all are to within a stone's throw.
Old Sarum Cathedral? All thats left is the foundation.
The Bristol (Clifton) pro cathedral is now student housing.
By the way most of the C of E ones are Catholic too (just under temporary occupation).
Good observations - my list is from the Wikipedia summary page.
But Old Sarum used to have 2 MPs
Clifton I do not know apart from formerly a former vicar of St Mary Redcliffe, and visits to the Bridge when visiting Bristol.
I'll leave your third point an unexplored rabbit hole, except to assert that all of the CofE cathedrals are Catholic, because the CofE is Catholic and Reformed .
I did once have a lovely conversation with a delightfully assertive old lady at St Etheldreda's Church in Ely Place, about why their "Bishops of London" stopped so abruptly hundreds of years ago.
My great fear really is that Rayner isn’t capable of policy delivery, perhaps similar to the way Prescott essentially blocked up the plumbing of his critical portfolios in the New Labour years.
I respect Rayner immensely as a politician, but there’s just no background of delivery I’m aware of.
I think that is Starmers fear across the shadow team he went into the election.with hence why we are getting the Blairy bunch back plus the likes of Vallance.
I think you need a strong leader. That may go without saying but the recent history of Johnson, Sunak, and to some extent May, shows that it needs repeating.
Strong, respected, combative, brave, consistent, principled. Someone the public will notice from the start.
Where will they find any, never mind all, of those in the Tory party
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
It would have been better for your Party, Carlotta, if the Election had produced a more cleansing result. It would then have had less detritus like Jenrick to clear out before reconstruction begins.
I worry about the members, Peter.
They usually go for the most tub-thumping and dogmatic one. It really doesn't help.
I doubt they've learned many (any) lessons from this defeat.
I think there's an argument that this is the right way to go. They need to rebuild the base first and stop all the members defecting, and lose elections with a purist in charge until they get it out of their system.
One place Labour went wrong was putting a (relative) moderate up first, which pushed everything back by an entire parliament. If they'd picked Corbyn right away they could have got it out of their system in 2015 then got back into office in 2020.
Or, we could get it out of our system now - given we've just massively lost an election, near catastrophically - and go professional straight away.
The Conservatives aren't going to recover unless they can inspire and recruit some young people. Money is also going to be a problem, their costs are based on a pre-2024 Conservative party in government - why would anyone now contribute to the Conservatives? Their councillor numbers are likely to decline further. I cannot see a way back for them - though admit I am not inclined to look very hard for one.
Brexit sure as shit has not been an improvement, we are going backwards quickly. No visible benefits whatsoever and plenty of visible disadvantages. Not England's finest hour
And still you support Scexit, Brexit on steroids...
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
The first that needs to be slapped around the head with an inflated puffer fish, as a reality check.
You stand fuck-all chance, Jenrick. Anybody synonymous with scandal condemns the Conservative Partyin 2029 to 2024 take 2. We need a clean skin.
Who are you curious about for leader?
Claire Courtinho fits the bill for whats needed, of those re-elected.
Although let's see who gets Rishi's seat when he does a runner over the summer. I'd still stick with Mordaunt - if she gets it.
Thanks. Interesting. Maybe a bit early for Courtnho I would have thought. Maybe a shadow chancellor???
Historically the winning strategy seems to be to find an obvious, PM in waiting rather than skipping a generation for the sake of it.
Is Mourdaunt your Blair, Cameron or Starmer figure? If she is, can she control the right and the Mail? That has been her Achilles heel.
We could have had Mordaunt. Almost certainly would, if the Mail hadn't been so determined to do the bidding of others in putting the boot in. The Mail has an enormous amount of responsibility for what went wrong at the top of Government in recent years. Not that they will ever take any of that responsibility.
Courtinho would have five years to show her mettle before going before the voters. I suspect she would play well with women, especially those we lost to the LibDems, whilst building the case for a Conservative Party aimed at growth, one that was no longer "fuck business".
No, no, please pick Suella! Or Kemi if you must. Jenrick's a possibility, if you're looking for an upstanding man of integrity.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
One thing that should stick firmly in the minds of all Conservatives: they can still fall further from here.
There could easily form some sort of assumption that recovery must now be automatic, so low have they fallen, and now they're out of office, but that is not the case.
It could be that Starmer continues to be a lucky general, the economy improves whilst he's in office, and he delivers some things. Meanwhile the Tories shout and scream at each other (their default) - particularly on immigration - whilst Reform sweep up all the disillusionment and votes on that anyway and continue to grow and grow.
If all that happens the Tories could completely disappear at the next GE. That's why a serious leader is needed: focused on good organisation, unification, excellent candidate selection and competent professional opposition, and not a pissing contest artist.
I agree 100%.
But I hope there is a thinker/doer/communicator somewhere in the Party that can come up with an alternative vision for the future. That isn't mired in the internal Tory divisions of the past. As I say, growth, jobs, housing, energy (and NHS though tactically the Tories should shut up about that until they see what SKS does) - the rest will take care of itself.
I should say, that does - and must- include a solution to immigration. But, I don't believe Braverman or Patel - both of whom were found slightly wanting in office - would do anything about save pissing harder.
You need a long-term multi-year strategy to unpick all the lawfare and build international alliances to stop it.
Serious issue. Serious politics.
Yes - I agree. The first part of the solution is unpicking "people trafficking" from "regular immigration" and "students/overstayers" - a clear statement of the problems and benefits, and what is necessary to address each. As you say, international alliances and cost-effective practical measures over years.
Centrists here of both Tory and Libdem persuasion are still having more vapours about Farage winning five seats compared with Labours 400 odd I see.
I guess when you have had a monopoly of the right wing in parliament since the 1661 general election, a rival party of the right breaking through the first past the post wall and winning five seats as well as knocking you into third place in a lot of seats you held until this week is going to seem a bit existensial.
They do not like it.
That’s because Farage is a Putin-shilling divisive populist, and Starmer isn’t.
I am very happy that Reform has helped to guarantee a Tory thrashing across large swathes of the country though.
Is there anyone particularly upset by the election? A lot of upsides across the political spectrum: Labour won a landslide Tories still breathing Best LibDem result in a century RefUK on the board Greens won 4 seats SNP routed
Any downsides?
I'm particularly upset by the election.
I don't disagree that the Tories deserved to lose, and lose badly. And I don't disagree that SKS has made Labour a lot less scary. I've no doubt Labour will be awful, but if by some miracle the Tories had formed a government, they'd have been awful too (National Service? Really?).
But I don't see any good 2028 result or 2033 result from here. Five party politics is awful, particularly in FPTP. We have Reform on the right and the Greens and sectarians on the left who are going to be making increasingly impossible-to-reason-with demands.
I think the only election which has left me feeling as pessimistic for the future is 2017.
Tories lost it , Labour won nothing , less votes than last time is not something to be boasting about. They got lucky that the Tories were seen as evil crap and that Farage decided to roger them completely just to be sure they got hammered. It will be a short honeymoon, once they start doling out cash to the unions and improving zero , we will see how popular they are. Starmer is a dud.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Not just Truss. The British right loved Beano Boris, and grumily tolerated May and Sunak, who at least tried to be responsible national leaders. Or see the Spectator; yes it sells by the truckload but that's in part because it's given up on being a serious journal of right wing thinking and is now almost entirely there to make people think "OMG what are they going to say now?" Which is an excellent sales strategy, but a terrible way to run a country.
Let us hope that Boring Old PM Starmer can Make Britain Boring Again.
May I join in the chorus.
Reform Uk is the Party of childish politics, of wishful thinking. Farage is an essentially unserious politician, in it for the laughs.
True to an extent but Farage did bring Brexit and should not be underestimated
And what was Brexit but a fantasy project?
EU membership was 'a project'. A sovereign Britain is the status quo ante.
How far we going back for this blessed primordial State, Lucky - 1688, 1066, 55AD, pre-Saxon times?
We had opt-outs, valuable ones. There was a different path to travel which preserved real Sovereignity without embarking on a fantasy adventure into splendid isolation.
He doesn’t seem to have noticed that the rest of the EU is becoming more eurosceptic too. Had was stayed in, we might have helped shape the institution away from ever deeper union.
The problem with the Brexiteers is that they tend to think everything can be solved with some dramatic gesture. Government is almost never like that.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Before wittering about immigration or whatever, the Tories need to think hard about the 4 things they have lacked or deliberately abandoned in recent years.
1. An understanding of Burkean principles - the idea that conservatism is about preserving the best of what we have built but also about building on that for the next generations - to leave the country in a better state than they found it. So it is not enough to focus only on one elderly generation but to remember those that are and those to come and to make life and opportunities better for them. (Why in God's name did a Conservative government kill off Sure Start? - to give just one example.)
2. Chesterton's Fence: you don't just randomly and angrily attack and destroy institutions and conventions just because they stand in your way. You are meant to be grown ups not tantruming toddlers. The attacks on the rule of law, on any standards of integrity and political decency, on independent institutions etc was pathetic, dangerous and, well, unconservative. See point 1.
3. Competence: obvious but forgotten. Just try to do your tasks well. Good administration, thinking about the consequences, thinking ahead, getting advice, planning, sorting out mistakes, learning from them, small practical improvements instead of snake oil promises backed by nothing more than bullshit etc. You forgot that. You will have to relearn this and try to demonstrate it where you can - in how you run your party and whatever councils you control. It will take time and you won't be listened to for a long time. But unless you do start doing this now, forget the rest.
4. Character: the single most important factor. The moral character, the integrity, the honesty of those who lead your party and those in it and how they behave says more about you than any manifesto. You chose some dreadful leaders in a Faustian pact which has well and truly bitten you on the arse. You abandoned all standards of political decency. You allowed corruption and shadiness and spivs in public office to fester. You gave the impression that duty and public service were jokes. The one abiding image for your years in power was parties in Downing Street while a widowed queen sat alone at her husband's funeral. That image stood for many who did their job while you treated their old-fashioned virtues with contempt. Really, how dare you call yourself conservative and behave like that.
Get these right. Then you can start worrying about policies. The current government will eventually make mistakes in all these areas. (I mean, Jacqui Smith, really?) But they won't listen to you until you've admitted you fucked things up and have changed.
Available for consultation at £1,3750 per hour + VAT or its euro equivalent. An absolute bargain.
Excellent post.
Yes, agree with much of this. I'd like to see a bit more of a philosophical background to conservatism, but the outcome of that should not be 'tack right' or 'tack left' but 'tack competent'. Burkean principles strike me as a good place to start. Pragmatism is all very well and good, but at its extreme, and without being rooted in some sort of 'why are we doing this' philosophy - and we saw this at the end of the Brown years as much as at the end of the Sunak years - it can result in doing whatever random half-thought through thing a focus group threw up.
Unlike Casino (I think?), my view is that Penny wouldn't have been the right solution. She tried to articulate a vision for Conservatism in her book, but none of it struck me as terribly convincing.
Part of the Conservatives problem is that there are fewer and fewer Conservatives in public life. This isn't an original thought, though I forget who it is on here has articulated it previously. Why is this? Partly it's because the left has been quite successful in making public life difficult for Conservatives, and partly it's because Conservatives have walked away from public life. There's a bit of chicken and egg about which of these came first.
So Suellas winning campaign message is to leave the ECHR . Some Tories seem to think that they can just become more Reform .
Ignoring that a section of Tory voters will jump ship if they keep going further right .
From TwiX. The only reason Cruella has not been expelled for that article is the '22 committee doesn't exist right now
She would make everyone’s lives so much happier, including her own, if she fucked off to Reform. She’s not going to be made leader of the Conservatives because she is disloyal and poisonous. Any future leader will want her as far away from anything as possible because all she does is whine and bitch. She’s an absolute horror.
You really think Farage wants all her bile, disloyalty and poison in Reform, distracting from his own message?
Robert Jenrick is the first leadership contender to break cover. He says the last government “insulted the public” by failing to deal with immigration. He sets out his stall here:
It would have been better for your Party, Carlotta, if the Election had produced a more cleansing result. It would then have had less detritus like Jenrick to clear out before reconstruction begins.
I worry about the members, Peter.
They usually go for the most tub-thumping and dogmatic one. It really doesn't help.
I doubt they've learned many (any) lessons from this defeat.
ConHome still has a few sensible voices, but it's mostly a mix of Tories calling for the second coming of Braverman and Reform voters promising pestilence, death and destruction.
The best thing the new 1922 committee could do is preclude the membership from electing the leader
Yep.
We will see what happens in next couple of weeks. Plenty of Tory grandees demanding change to how leader is elected and length of the race.
The interesting question is that none of the parties would ever think of allowing local party memberships to select their council group leaders (although the Greens come close).
The answer with immigration is to reclassify temporary visitors as VISITORS rather than immigrants. These temporary immigrants include students and their families - and young people on 2 year work visas currently from Australia but why not from the EU.
How many of those temporary "students" actually go home, rather than use their time here to either slip into the black economy or extend their courses until they get a work visa and can claim residence?
Maybe a lot, but I think it’s really important to be clear about the different types of immigrant, legal and illegal.
Is there anyone particularly upset by the election? A lot of upsides across the political spectrum: Labour won a landslide Tories still breathing Best LibDem result in a century RefUK on the board Greens won 4 seats SNP routed
Any downsides?
I'm particularly upset by the election.
I don't disagree that the Tories deserved to lose, and lose badly. And I don't disagree that SKS has made Labour a lot less scary. I've no doubt Labour will be awful, but if by some miracle the Tories had formed a government, they'd have been awful too (National Service? Really?).
But I don't see any good 2028 result or 2033 result from here. Five party politics is awful, particularly in FPTP. We have Reform on the right and the Greens and sectarians on the left who are going to be making increasingly impossible-to-reason-with demands.
I think the only election which has left me feeling as pessimistic for the future is 2017.
Tories lost it , Labour won nothing , less votes than last time is not something to be boasting about. They got lucky that the Tories were seen as evil crap and that Farage decided to roger them completely just to be sure they got hammered. It will be a short honeymoon, once they start doling out cash to the unions and improving zero , we will see how popular they are. Starmer is a dud.
In your own distinctive and enjoyable idiom as always Malc - but can't disagree with any of that.
Starmer is unusual in that he has done nearly all of this on his own without significant allies. It is more common for there to be a team, like Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne, that can give each other support and bring different sets of allies and different skills to the cause. I don't get the impression that Reeves, for example, has much support in the party. Rayner has allied herself to him quite closely but will she stick by him when the going gets tough?
The Tories need a team with an entourage and think tanks to provide the ideas and some of the analysis. I am not seeing that in any part of the party at the moment. It may take a few years in opposition for some sort of alternative program for government to emerge but that is ok, all they have right now is time.
This is not at all my reading.
Starmer has a tight inner cadre of McSweeney and McFadden, and obviously has a close partnership with Reeves. Phillipson and others seem to be part of this extended inner group.
Rather it is Rayner who is a bit out on a limb. She has been entrusted with some key policy objectives and one can perhaps see the grounds for future disagreement between Reeves and Rayner.
Interestingly, Nandy seems to have taken a further demotion - to Culture - and Dodds too has only barely scraped into Cabinet. Thomas-Symonds is currently missing in action. These were the “big beasts” of the immediate post-Corbyn era…
Nandy was a decent leadership campaigner but has been pretty weak ever since. Same as Jess Phillips who was supposed to be this amazing female Blair but was all a bit empty.
Watch Phillips's declaration on the C4 election night coverage (available on their App). She faces some really nasty stuff in her patch.
Second - actually possibly like the Liberal Democrats in 2029
Why would they not be aiming for first? The key for the non Labour parties is to spend the next five years being seen as the rightful home for those this new government will naturally let down. The Tories are unlikely to be functioning well enough to do it, so the Lib Dem’s and reform will see an opportunity.
There's a question over whether you can present yourself as an alternative government with fewer than a hundred MPs? - but the third party's position is certainly a lot more credible than was advancing Jo Swinson for PM.
If the next government isn't a Labour one, someone needs to win a lot of currently held Labour seats. The LibDems are remarkably badly placed to win any of them.
Next time, either the Tories recover and win Labour seats, or Reform breaks through in the batch where they are currently second to Labour, or Labour holds most of them and stays in power. There are probably just a very few where the Greens might come through, as observed on the previous thread (remember some PB'ers argued that a Green vote share of 6-7% was never going to happen; it just did).
Almost as a separate election, there will be a battle between the Tories and LibDems in the south - will the Tories reverse the LibDem surge, or will the LibDems supplant the Tories as part of the Home Counties? That will be a fascinating question, almost entirely a sideshow as far as the government that follows is concerned.
I've seen a remark in LD circles that 'we now have many MPs where we have councillor concentrations than previously."
So we need a look at remaining LD Councillor's with no MP.
Kingston upon Hull? Watford? Three Rivers? (South West Herftordshire)
Haven't checked pre-2024 results.
Hull is interesting as a Labour-facing LibDem council, largely because Labour is so very moribund.
But an under-commented hangover from the coalition is that, while the LibDems have bounced back in Tory-facing areas, the long tradition of urban liberalism has never recovered. In the past Liberals and LibDems have held seats in central London, central Manchester, in Leeds, Liverpool, Cardiff, Birmingham, Sheffield with strong local government presences in almost all of these cities, in Oldham and Pendle and Bolton and Burnley; in London in Islington, Southwark, Haringey, Lambeth, Camden, Brent. Only fragments of this remain, and hence few Labour MPs face any realistic challenge from the centre.
This is the list of the 22 Roman Catholic Cathedrals in England.
Arundel Cathedral - CONSERVATIVE St Chad's Cathedral, Birmingham - LABOUR? Brentwood Cathedral - CONSERVATIVE ? Cathedral of St Michael and St George, Aldershot - LABOUR Clifton Cathedral Lancaster Cathedral - LABOUR Leeds Cathedral - LABOUR Liverpool Metropolitan Cathedral - LABOUR Middlesbrough Cathedral - LABOUR St Mary's Cathedral, Newcastle upon Tyne - LABOUR Northampton Cathedral St John the Baptist Cathedral, Norwich - LABOUR Nottingham Cathedral - LABOUR Old Sarum Cathedral Plymouth Cathedral - LABOUR Cathedral of St John the Evangelist, Portsmouth Pro-Cathedral of the Holy Apostles Salford Cathedral - LABOUR Cathedral Church of St Marie, Sheffield - LABOUR Shrewsbury Cathedral - LABOUR St George's Cathedral, Southwark - LABOUR Westminster Cathedral - LABOUR
I'm a bit less reliable on these, as I am not sure exactly where they all are to within a stone's throw.
Old Sarum Cathedral? All thats left is the foundation.
The Bristol (Clifton) pro cathedral is now student housing.
By the way most of the C of E ones are Catholic too (just under temporary occupation).
Good observations - my list is from the Wikipedia summary page.
But Old Sarum used to have 2 MPs
Clifton I do not know apart from formerly a former vicar of St Mary Redcliffe, and visits to the Bridge when visiting Bristol.
I'll leave your third point an unexplored rabbit hole, except to assert that all of the CofE cathedrals are Catholic, because the CofE is Catholic and Reformed .
I did once have a lovely conversation with a delightfully assertive old lady at St Etheldreda's Church in Ely Place, about why their "Bishops of London" stopped so abruptly hundreds of years ago.
An old priest once talked to an old lady who was remonstrating within about the iniquities of a Catholic Mass being celebrated in a (900 year old) C of E Church (by kind permission of the Vicar) that actually it is a Catholic Church as it has never been deconsecrated and many Catholics are buried in the Church and grounds.
Simildrly, my former local vicar said "It's yours really anyway" on bumping into me visiting it and discovering it is RC.
Fortunately, for financial reasons, they are all nationalised and the states problem!
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Look at Liz Truss's PMQs performances, and look at Sunak's. And tell me who comes across as childish, wanting to provoke, and lacking the seriousness you'd expect.
Liz Truss.
You're just saying that as you're one of those lefty Tory haters who keep piling on poor Liz for no or partisan reasons.
Wait...
That's how @Luckyguy1983 will see it, despite me being on the Right of the party.
Can't compute that actually she was shit and a complete disaster for the brand.
You can go small state over time, but you can't be a fucking psycho about it.
Truss winning over Sunak was a disaster for the conservative party
Sunak is a decent person and widely complimented on his resignation speech, but poor at politics but then he had idiotic advisors
Had Sunak taken office we would not have had the Truss disaster and the biggest gift to any opposition by any politicians in living memory
Sunak would still have lost because it was a change election but not the wipe out that happened
Self inflicted by the duds in the Tory party. Poetic justice for being the bunch of crooks that they were and supported by their members.
Centrists here of both Tory and Libdem persuasion are still having more vapours about Farage winning five seats compared with Labours 400 odd I see.
I guess when you have had a monopoly of the right wing in parliament since the 1661 general election, a rival party of the right breaking through the first past the post wall and winning five seats as well as knocking you into third place in a lot of seats you held until this week is going to seem a bit existensial.
They do not like it.
Labour + Green + SDLP + WPB + Plaid + SNP (33.7% + 6.7% + 0.7% + 0.7% + 0.3% + 2.5) = 44.6%
I know the LDs/Alliance really really really want to count all their 12.6% of voters to the Left-wing block, but they're not. If I was being really generous I'd give them 60% of them and 40% to the Right-wing block. That'd still get you to only 51.1% v 44.2%, and that's on a reduced turnout where many Tories stayed at home.
Point is the country is still split into two-voter blocks. And there's not an awful lot between them, save the mathematics of FPTP, which computed into the landslide.
So Suellas winning campaign message is to leave the ECHR . Some Tories seem to think that they can just become more Reform .
Ignoring that a section of Tory voters will jump ship if they keep going further right .
I imagine the 4,000,000 are the most uneducated and politically illiterate in the country. It's unlikely they'll move in any direction because of ideology. It'll be interesting when the psephologists have done their work on the election but I'd be surprised if that's not the case
The trick that the Tories need to pull is to be tough on immigration without coming up with batshit schemes (Rwanda), trying to scrap human rights (ie the ECHR) or generally coming across as utter c***s (Braverman, but also Jenrick, Patel etc etc).
Not sure who is able to square the circle.
This is an issue for all parties. It really isn't possible to deal with immigration under current international treaties, and it's effectively impossible to leave them without blowing up a whole load of other agreements.
I don't expect any headway to be made on the issue.
I don’t quite know how to make this point, but it’s a serious one. Liz Truss generally comes across to me as a bit childish, lacking the kind of seriousness or gravitas you would normally expect. It seems to be a disease that has infected some on the right. They seem to want to shock and provoke rather than effect change. It’s a subtle thing, but they’re a long way from the kind of intellectual heft that sat behind the Thatcherite revolution.
Spot on.
Before wittering about immigration or whatever, the Tories need to think hard about the 4 things they have lacked or deliberately abandoned in recent years.
1. An understanding of Burkean principles - the idea that conservatism is about preserving the best of what we have built but also about building on that for the next generations - to leave the country in a better state than they found it. So it is not enough to focus only on one elderly generation but to remember those that are and those to come and to make life and opportunities better for them. (Why in God's name did a Conservative government kill off Sure Start? - to give just one example.)
2. Chesterton's Fence: you don't just randomly and angrily attack and destroy institutions and conventions just because they stand in your way. You are meant to be grown ups not tantruming toddlers. The attacks on the rule of law, on any standards of integrity and political decency, on independent institutions etc was pathetic, dangerous and, well, unconservative. See point 1.
3. Competence: obvious but forgotten. Just try to do your tasks well. Good administration, thinking about the consequences, thinking ahead, getting advice, planning, sorting out mistakes, learning from them, small practical improvements instead of snake oil promises backed by nothing more than bullshit etc. You forgot that. You will have to relearn this and try to demonstrate it where you can - in how you run your party and whatever councils you control. It will take time and you won't be listened to for a long time. But unless you do start doing this now, forget the rest.
4. Character: the single most important factor. The moral character, the integrity, the honesty of those who lead your party and those in it and how they behave says more about you than any manifesto. You chose some dreadful leaders in a Faustian pact which has well and truly bitten you on the arse. You abandoned all standards of political decency. You allowed corruption and shadiness and spivs in public office to fester. You gave the impression that duty and public service were jokes. The one abiding image for your years in power was parties in Downing Street while a widowed queen sat alone at her husband's funeral. That image stood for many who did their job while you treated their old-fashioned virtues with contempt. Really, how dare you call yourself conservative and behave like that.
Get these right. Then you can start worrying about policies. The current government will eventually make mistakes in all these areas. (I mean, Jacqui Smith, really?) But they won't listen to you until you've admitted you fucked things up and have changed.
Available for consultation at £1,3750 per hour + VAT or its euro equivalent. An absolute bargain.
Excellent post.
Yes, agree with much of this. I'd like to see a bit more of a philosophical background to conservatism, but the outcome of that should not be 'tack right' or 'tack left' but 'tack competent'. Burkean principles strike me as a good place to start. Pragmatism is all very well and good, but at its extreme, and without being rooted in some sort of 'why are we doing this' philosophy - and we saw this at the end of the Brown years as much as at the end of the Sunak years - it can result in doing whatever random half-thought through thing a focus group threw up.
Unlike Casino (I think?), my view is that Penny wouldn't have been the right solution. She tried to articulate a vision for Conservatism in her book, but none of it struck me as terribly convincing.
Part of the Conservatives problem is that there are fewer and fewer Conservatives in public life. This isn't an original thought, though I forget who it is on here has articulated it previously. Why is this? Partly it's because the left has been quite successful in making public life difficult for Conservatives, and partly it's because Conservatives have walked away from public life. There's a bit of chicken and egg about which of these came first.
Comments
They need a macro vision that integrates the fundamentals (jobs, growth, housing, energy) into a coherent whole.
Woke has had next to zero impact on most people's lives. Legal immigration is a material issue, not illegal immigration. Net Zero is the only path to growth for the UK, not protecting 20th century technologies and special interests. Cheap, secure British Energy for the British Economy.
If the Tories engage in the kind of paranoid culture battles you suggest, they'll just lose even more votes to Reform (the real deal) or the Lib Dems (the sensible alternative).
'Fantasy adventure', 'splendid isolation', 'cut off from our biggest trading partner', 'Little Britain', 'straight bananas' - do you never wonder as an arguer for remain why your own arguments depart from fact and go into the realm of idioms and metaphors and clichés almost immediately? It's because the simple facts just don't support your argument, and the case for the UK being in the EU doesn't stack up.
But go ahead, don’t let me stop you.
it isn't in my nature to be pessimistic so to all the dejected Tories out there I would say 'Look at where Labour was when it last changed Leader. Things can change very quickly in Politics.'
I think you need a strong leader. That may go without saying but the recent history of Johnson, Sunak, and to some extent May, shows that it needs repeating.
Strong, respected, combative, brave, consistent, principled. Someone the public will notice from the start.
Any serious Tory recovery will be based upon a fundamental critique of the Labour economic policy as it is implemented, demonstrating how things could be better, taxes lower, money is being wasted, incentives for work improved, the deficit reduced etc etc.
This does not require irrelevant gestures but serious hard work, the kind of work and thinking that Howe and other monetarists undertook in the 1970s. I am not saying monetarism is the answer now but that they need to look for a coherent economic policy that can work with the challenges of today, whether that is AI, the power of multinationals and their threat to the tax base, the challenge of creating growth in an economy mired in debt, environmental pressures, the pressures of immigration, housing etc.
Reeves, of course, will be trying to do the same and she may succeed but the Tories need to focus on what they seemed to be largely ignoring in the last year, what is actually required to provide effective governance. Then, if Reeves fails, they might have their chance.
Labour can retain some of them if Starmer is as serious as devolution as he suggests. On the left, the Scottish Greens will hoover some up. On the right, the SNP will take the rural vote again and Alba will fade to nothing.
I don’t see any chance of a merger or alliance either. After decades there is still no ‘left’ alliance, why would the ‘right’ do any better once a split has happened?
1. An understanding of Burkean principles - the idea that conservatism is about preserving the best of what we have built but also about building on that for the next generations - to leave the country in a better state than they found it. So it is not enough to focus only on one elderly generation but to remember those that are and those to come and to make life and opportunities better for them. (Why in God's name did a Conservative government kill off Sure Start? - to give just one example.)
2. Chesterton's Fence: you don't just randomly and angrily attack and destroy institutions and conventions just because they stand in your way. You are meant to be grown ups not tantruming toddlers. The attacks on the rule of law, on any standards of integrity and political decency, on independent institutions etc was pathetic, dangerous and, well, unconservative. See point 1.
3. Competence: obvious but forgotten. Just try to do your tasks well. Good administration, thinking about the consequences, thinking ahead, getting advice, planning, sorting out mistakes, learning from them, small practical improvements instead of snake oil promises backed by nothing more than bullshit etc. You forgot that. You will have to relearn this and try to demonstrate it where you can - in how you run your party and whatever councils you control. It will take time and you won't be listened to for a long time. But unless you do start doing this now, forget the rest.
4. Character: the single most important factor. The moral character, the integrity, the honesty of those who lead your party and those in it and how they behave says more about you than any manifesto. You chose some dreadful leaders in a Faustian pact which has well and truly bitten you on the arse. You abandoned all standards of political decency. You allowed corruption and shadiness and spivs in public office to fester. You gave the impression that duty and public service were jokes. The one abiding image for your years in power was parties in Downing Street while a widowed queen sat alone at her husband's funeral. That image stood for many who did their job while you treated their old-fashioned virtues with contempt. Really, how dare you call yourself conservative and behave like that.
Get these right. Then you can start worrying about policies. The current government will eventually make mistakes in all these areas. (I mean, Jacqui Smith, really?) But they won't listen to you until you've admitted you fucked things up and have changed.
Available for consultation at £1,3750 per hour + VAT or its euro equivalent. An absolute bargain.
Starmer has a tight inner cadre of McSweeney and McFadden, and obviously has a close partnership with Reeves. Phillipson and others seem to be part of this extended inner group.
Rather it is Rayner who is a bit out on a limb.
She has been entrusted with some key policy objectives and one can perhaps see the grounds for future disagreement between Reeves and Rayner.
Interestingly, Nandy seems to have taken a further demotion - to Culture - and Dodds too has only barely scraped into Cabinet. Thomas-Symonds is currently missing in action. These were the “big beasts” of the immediate post-Corbyn era…
Under his advice, SKS would have resigned and Labour would be in opposition right now.
We will see what happens in next couple of weeks. Plenty of Tory grandees demanding change to how leader is elected and length of the race.
Can't compute that actually she was shit and a complete disaster for the brand.
You can go small state over time, but you can't be a fucking psycho about it.
I wonder if they will now
It is similar with Corbyn. He is unquestionably an excellent constituency MP. If only he had settled for that.
Labour will have its scandals. They will be around money.
Remember, Blair was going to be the new broom, "whiter than white". He was extrememly fortunate over Ecclestone. He assumed he was going to have to resign. It was only the media giving him an extended honeymoon that allowed him to survive. Would Starmer get such a honeymoon? I think not. His Government really WILL have to be "whiter than white".
Not sure who is able to square the circle.
More likely they should have someone who can oppose and exploit any Labour failings for a couple of years and not really focus too heavily on positioning/policy. But it depends also on how Reform perform over that time.
Essentially I suspect the Tory Party in the medium term is probably better functioning reactively. Which is a bit of a cop out answer, but I think trying to set out ideological stalls at this stage doesn’t really help that much. The time to flesh out the offering is nearer the GE. Starmer got into power essentially on mood music.
Like Napoleon, they have two fight two big battles in succession, against the LibDems in the Home Counties and against Labour everywhere else, and win them both while preventing their troops deserting off the right of the field.
The Bristol (Clifton) pro cathedral is now student housing.
By the way most of the C of E ones are Catholic too (just under temporary occupation).
@Paul13_Walnut5
Political nerds (please share with any you know) I'm trying to find out if Neale Hanvey of ALBA has set a record low for the vote share of a sitting MP? 2.8% of the vote.. who would know?
https://x.com/Paul13_Walnut5/status/1809703955544297939
I respect Rayner immensely as a politician, but there’s just no background of delivery I’m aware of.
Firstly, WTF? Who actually cares about Gaza as opposed to pretending they do? Yemen, Syria, Ukraine are all far far worse, not to mention the forgotten conflicts, yet it sucks out 95%+ of the oxygen. And it clearly will now for some time.
And, what would they do if there was a majority for "Gaza" in the House of Commons? Declare war on Israel? Deploy the Royal Navy and RAF to enforce a blockade, and force an IDF retreat before organising a victory rally in the streets of Khan Yunis policed by the Royal Welch? No, it would simply be gesture politics of 'officially' recognising Palestine and maybe a bit more acceptance of the strong stuff across that anti-Zionist/Semitic boundary. That's it. I'm not sure they'd even remember the West Bank.
This it the Leftie Brexit, and fuck me are they secretly delighted it's happened, just as the SWP activists who've been carrying the 'Free Palestine' banners for decades can't believe their luck: it's a perfectly formed intersection of class, colour and colonialism that is a work of beauty for them, and touches all their erogenous zones.
It's the ultimate social proof. And it's gesture politics aux intersectionality par excellence.
There is no limit to the distance to which Starmer should tell them to fuck off.
@lizziedearden
Exclusive: The Rwanda scheme has been described as a “waste of time, money, and mental health” by Home Office insiders
2 years, 4 home secretaries, more than £300m of public money, no flights - and thousands of asylum seekers remain in limbo
One civil servant said the policy had been created by “narrow minded politicians who had no clue of the mess they were creating” and “wrecked” Britain’s asylum system as a result
More than 50,000 asylum applications are in indefinite limbo
Another Home Office source said the “unseen costs” of Rwanda scheme may never be known, adding: “It’s an extraordinary amount of money for nothing"
Officials point out the perm sec asked for a ministerial direction because of value for money questions but it was forced through
https://x.com/lizziedearden/status/1809874718519881914
Sunak is a decent person and widely complimented on his resignation speech, but poor at politics but then he had idiotic advisors
Had Sunak taken office we would not have had the Truss disaster and the biggest gift to any opposition by any politicians in living memory
Sunak would still have lost because it was a change election but not the wipe out that happened
You need a long-term multi-year strategy to unpick all the lawfare and build international alliances to stop it.
Serious issue. Serious politics.
The residual Tory 2019 vote of 32.6% split multiple ways. Reform added only 13.3 points and ended up 14% behind.
https://x.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1809607443996987671
That was one thing I was looking for from "Levelling Up", but I think it has been perhaps better delivered in part by Metro Mayors, which is about autonomy and long-term funding.
I don't disagree that the Tories deserved to lose, and lose badly. And I don't disagree that SKS has made Labour a lot less scary. I've no doubt Labour will be awful, but if by some miracle the Tories had formed a government, they'd have been awful too (National Service? Really?).
But I don't see any good 2028 result or 2033 result from here. Five party politics is awful, particularly in FPTP. We have Reform on the right and the Greens and sectarians on the left who are going to be making increasingly impossible-to-reason-with demands.
I think the only election which has left me feeling as pessimistic for the future is 2017.
Anyone done a moderate / right analysis of the new parliamentary party yet ?
He managed to win every Ward, including some highly improbable places, without generating much enthusiasm anywhere.
I guess when you have had a monopoly of the right wing in parliament since the 1661 general election, a rival party of the right breaking through the first past the post wall and winning five seats as well as knocking you into third place in a lot of seats you held until this week is going to seem a bit existensial.
They do not like it.
We rehearsed all the FPTP arguments during the AV referendum, but here we go again.
FPTP works perfectly well regardless of the number of parties.
I now have a Lib Dem MP because more of my neighbours voted for them than any other candidate, in what was previously one of the safest Tory seats in the Country.
It matters not a jot how many people in Clacton, or Skegness, voted for ReFUK
My local MP is the one local people voted for.
But Old Sarum used to have 2 MPs
Clifton I do not know apart from formerly a former vicar of St Mary Redcliffe, and visits to the Bridge when visiting Bristol.
I'll leave your third point an unexplored rabbit hole, except to assert that all of the CofE cathedrals are Catholic, because the CofE is Catholic and Reformed
I did once have a lovely conversation with a delightfully assertive old lady at St Etheldreda's Church in Ely Place, about why their "Bishops of London" stopped so abruptly hundreds of years ago.
I am very happy that Reform has helped to guarantee a Tory thrashing across large swathes of the country though.
It will be a short honeymoon, once they start doling out cash to the unions and improving zero , we will see how popular they are. Starmer is a dud.
The problem with the Brexiteers is that they tend to think everything can be solved with some dramatic gesture. Government is almost never like that.
Unlike Casino (I think?), my view is that Penny wouldn't have been the right solution. She tried to articulate a vision for Conservatism in her book, but none of it struck me as terribly convincing.
Part of the Conservatives problem is that there are fewer and fewer Conservatives in public life. This isn't an original thought, though I forget who it is on here has articulated it previously. Why is this? Partly it's because the left has been quite successful in making public life difficult for Conservatives, and partly it's because Conservatives have walked away from public life. There's a bit of chicken and egg about which of these came first.
We need a revised vocabulary of immigration.
Simildrly, my former local vicar said "It's yours really anyway" on bumping into me visiting it and discovering it is RC.
Fortunately, for financial reasons, they are all nationalised and the states problem!
Tory + Reform + DUP + TUV + UUP + SDP [maybe] (23.7% + 14.3% + 0.6% + 0.2% + 0.3% + 0.1%) = 39.2%
I know the LDs/Alliance really really really want to count all their 12.6% of voters to the Left-wing block, but they're not. If I was being really generous I'd give them 60% of them and 40% to the Right-wing block. That'd still get you to only 51.1% v 44.2%, and that's on a reduced turnout where many Tories stayed at home.
Point is the country is still split into two-voter blocks. And there's not an awful lot between them, save the mathematics of FPTP, which computed into the landslide.
A lot can change quickly.
I don't expect any headway to be made on the issue.