The latest from the people who brought you Liz Truss:
Tory members [party members, not MPs] were poised to choose their next leader, as they did only weeks ago when they elected Ms Truss instead of Mr Sunak. But this time, [party] members were denied a vote, as Mr Sunak was elected unopposed as the only nominee with enough support among Tory MPs…
…For some [party] members, especially those who backed Ms Truss in the last Tory leadership contest, Mr Sunak’s appeal for unity rang hollow. Despite his conciliatory tone, those members feel ignored, or worse snubbed, by Tory MPs who they feel have overturned their will and sparked a fire of discontent at the party’s grassroots.
There is the old saying of “never interrupt your enemy’s errors”. Staking out a specific position gives the Tories either a good idea to steal or a bad idea to attack. Let them drown in their own internal squabbles.
The Democrats are more like the Tories: good in opposition, ineffective in power. (Maybe Labour is the same.)
The real problem that the Democrats (and maybe Labour) have is that they want to govern responsibly. And that doesn’t lend itself to distilling complex solutions into simple slogans.
Pivot towards a softer Brexit, so as to minimise the economic harm inflicted by hard Brexit, and so enhance the UK’s economic capacity to meet the challenges it faces.
Abandon notions of cutting taxes for the wealthy as a budgetary priority and refocus budgetary priorities on enhancing the productive capacity of the economy, for the same reason.
Stop wasting time, effort, energy, attention and public money on performative culture war issues and ensure that policy is driven by evidence rather than ideology and fantasy.
And, of course, simply govern with degree of rationality, consistency and stability that will enable business to make plans and will encourage investment.
Yeah, this one has been massively understated in recent times, talk to any exporter and they’ve had to pay huge money to get their systems working for the next stage of import/export from the EU, just to find it delayed again a week before the deadline. Then the rules change all over again. Then the tories change the laws again as some sort of Dogma to claim they’ve done something. There’s been huge amount of needless red tape in the last couple of years for british businesses.
So… As usual they all start off thinking something will change when a new PM comes in, he’s going to be more sane, maybe he’s going to relax the war on the EU.
And then the first ludicrous act happens: Braverman back in the cabinet, someone sacked a week earlier for doing something stupid a SECOND time, not counting the mad statements about “tofu eating wokerati” and “I have a dream (of exporting brown people to Rwanda)”.
A lot of outlets have described it as a “unity” cabinet, pulling in people with different loyalties to various factions within the party. But when the party is already tearing itself apart, how much unity can there really be?
This is an astonishing move, given that not only was Braverman sacked, but in the “resignation” letter, she explicitly said that what she did was wrong, serious and a sacking offence; it was right for her to go.
It’s pretty obvious that this is a quid pro quo for her throwing nominations his way, but it was also always going to upset a lot of people and give Labour an immediate attack line and he had a rock solid excuse for not doing it
Like gerrymandering and the electoral college, these ‘coronations’ of prime ministers are a mockery of democracy. Nothing says ‘no confidence’ more than a resignation. A general election should be mandatory every time it happens.
Aside from the fact that any government making such a law is significantly more unlikely than the government of the day abolishing the first-past-the-post voting system, it has practical problems. For example, what if someone wins a general election, then resigns (say) 3 months later due to ill-health, leaving their deputy to take over? Hardly a good idea to mandate another election in such circumstances, it wouldn’t be worth the effort and expense.
Is he perhaps simply telling us that he has no heart, no soul and a hollow head?
And there are no other parties in the UK? OK, the LibDems have imploded (rightly so!), the UKIP fools went home to inebriate (wish them a painful hangover), the Tories are committing harakiri (first time ever I wish them success in their endeavour), Labour does not want to be voted into office (no comment), so what’s left? The Greens? Could the Scottish National Party or Sinn Féin take over the whole of the UK? (At least that would solve the independence question) Just wondering, I read somewhere that nature abhorrs voids, despite what has been living in No. 10 recently. Whenever the next election takes place, somebody will have to win it, much as would like a hung parliament.
Just as an aside: this description reminds me of the last elections here in Berlin. I discarded all parties, one after the other, until only a satirical party was left. Which, of course, isn’t a solution. But a statement.
Labour will win it, and they want to win it, not sure where you get the idea they don’t. Their efforts are currently focused on bashing the Tories, they aren’t going to write a manifesto for the Tories to cherry pick the good bits.
The other parties are too small to make a significant impact. Sinn Féin don’t take their seats as they won’t swear allegiance to the Crown. The Greens have one MP. Lib Dems have had power within a coalition in recent history, but it was with the Tories, so damaged their reputation to catastrophic proportions. Scottish National Party can only ever have a maximum of 57 seats, but I guess they could go into coalition with Labour, if necessary. Not sure how keen Labour would be on on that though.
Thank you. Those steps seem pretty reasonable, and not particularly left wing just not predatorily pro-rich people. Is there any way a Tory PM could push any of these as policy? I mean, if they are going to lose the next election anyway, why not try to do good in the meantime? Do they have to stay locked into their current self-destructive path?
I know the above sounds hopelessly naive; as I mentioned, I am pretty ignorant of current UK political realpolitik.
Not forgetting, but not particularly familiar with the breed. Are Tories obliged to pursue self-destructive policies until the country goes under, no matter what? How is that in their own interest?