What Do You Think Today?

[Iolanthe]

That Dymoke thing sounds excellent! If I knew that was going to happen, I might actually watch it! Can't imagine why they wouldn't still ride in on a horse.

Interesting tradition Fist. The first Dymoke Kings Champion was awarded the manor of Scrivelsby by Will the Conq and they are still living there. In medieval times he would have ridden the horse into Westminster Hall during the post coronation festivities. Presumably this coronation will be held in the Abbey - can't ride a horse into the abbey

So Boris is back in the running. While the Tories indulge in their internal squabbles other people are having to choose between malnutrition or hypothermia.

[Avatar]

I cannot see Boris, a man who was pushed out for being unsuitable to be PM, sudden;y being suitable again. The clowns really would be running the circus if that happened.

(Caveat: My track record on these kind of predictions is not great. )

--A

[peter]

Defence Secretary Ben Wallace has scotched any belief that he might stand, but interestingly has implied that he could lean toward a Boris Johnson bid to regain the leadership (bit surprising to be honest, but there it is). His endorsement will give Tory MPs food for thought in the days ahead.

On the media response, generally they are incredulous that Johnson could be even considering it, but there is also a certain amount of (I think) gaslighting going on.

James O'Brien spoke about it this morning and said that any Tory with half a brain would know that it was Rishi Sunak who presented the greatest threat to Kier Stamer in any forthcoming general election, and this position seems to be the thinking of much of the commentary of the various pundits spoken to. But when you see actually members of the public spoken to, you suddenly find that the people themselves actually like the idea of a Johnson return. I think the Labour leaning commentariat are spooked by the idea of a Johnson led election campaign; they know his track record of winning elections and are scared by it. Stamer has enjoyed all the running in the polls and the media recently and I think they see Johnson as a real threat to this. I think they are trying to raise up Sunak's cachet to try to influence Tory MPs that it would be Sunak that Labour would have to fear in a general election. This is in direct opposition to what I experience talking to people over the shop counter. The people like Johnson, they were pissed that his MPs brought him down and they want him back.

There might be an additional thing at play.

I wonder how much the London/South East bubble affects their thinking. I'm not sure that this cosmopolitan part of the country is actually in tune with the rest of it at all. I see it in the failure to get how much it was immigration that effected the referendum result, in how much racism played a part in the election of Truss over Sunak. I'm not sure that the South Eastern centric media and indeed wider population of the area actually understand that the people who voted Tory nationwide in the last election actually want their Brexit hero back. I think that they maybe genuinely believe that the people will now transfer their support to Rishi Sunak. They won't. He's not Boris Johnson, he's not the man who delivered Brexit and he isn't white.

I know that these two things are somewhat in opposition - that the left wing commentariat are afraid of Johnson and that simultaneously the South Eastern bubble is not in step and doesn't understand the rest of the country - but I never said it was simple. It's just what seems to come out at me from listening to all of the commentary this morning.

But at the moment it seems to be Johnson and Sunak that will form the final two. If that goes to the membership it's Johnson by a long mile. If on the other hand it's Sunak and someone else, the second runner will withdraw (most likely, but not guaranteed) leaving Sunak in place for a coronation.

Or maybe Sunak (or indeed Johnson) will win it clear being the only one to scrape the 100 nominations.

Who knows.

[TheFallen]

It's a seemingly never-ending pantomime, isn't it?

It is crucial that the decision is not given back to the utterly out of touch and befuddled tweedy Tory gerontocracy out in the Shires... they're the morons who put Liz in number ten in the first place. Give that bunch of privileged and clueless old coffin-dodgers a say and you'll have Bozo Johnson back at the helm before you can say "Huzzah! Pass the Krug and let's have a party!" And that'd be a slapstick comedy moment way WAY too far.

The way round this would be to have as many candidates as possible putting their names forward, splitting support for Bozo. Rishi will easily get his 100 nominations (he was the MP's preferred choice first time round by a mile) - so the key is ensuring that nobody else gets to that number.

I have to say that, given the complete lack of democracy evident over the last two months, letting the Tory MPs solely decide upon who should lead their party and thus become PM would in fact be more democratic than putting that question out to the 172,000 "Waiting For God" brigade. Because at least those MPs were democratically voted in - so it'd be democracy at one step removed if you like.

[peter]

Agreed TF, although I did hear a guy speaking who said it's getting a bit strange to have a PM voted in by the general public, followed by a PM voted in by the Tory Party membership, followed by a PM voted in by MPs alone. What next he asked; a PM put in by decree of the 'men in grey suits'? I suppose there are different ways of looking at it, but at bottom line it's an unholy mess.

Would you agree though, that if you were taking Johnson on his political/governmental duties alone (ie stripping out the things that relate to his personal behaviour) he didn't actually do too bad a job. The argument that he did indeed break the Brexit log-jam (maybe with a bit too much force, but he did it), he dealt with the pandemic (poorly perhaps, at first, but ultimately pretty well), rose well to the Ukrainian challenge..... and finally that he does have that eighty seat majority mandate - a mandate that was never removed from him by the people who gave it to him, but rather by parliamentarians who lost faith (?), patience (?), whatever, with him - and a mandate that perhaps, now, in the light of what has subsequently happened, he should be allowed to see through to its conclusion before it is placed once again for judgement by the British people in the court of a general election......

I'm playing devil's advocate here, but these arguments do have a basis for consideration at least surely. Those who voted for him in the general election (and let's face it - on this occasion at least they did vote for the PM rather than the party, no matter what the constitutional purists would say) really do not care about his deplorable lack of probity - they factored that into their original vote - and they have no interest in partygate. They still support their man and would see him back at the helm where they put him before the parliamentary party internal shenanigans brought him down. They don't believe that the party MPs had the right to dethrone him without referring the matter back to them, and the nuances of whether he can 'command the support of his MPs to form a government' and present himself to the King as such, mean nothing to them.

Is their thinking constitutionally correct - maybe not. But does it have at least a modicum of democratic 'rightness' about it, does the argument feel in at least some part valid? Possibly it does.

(In the spirit of full disclosure here, I should say that much as I personally disliked Johnson as a PM, I had a little bit of disquiet at the way he was removed. I thought that the parliamentary procedure of the ministerial standards committee investigation should have been allowed to run its course and if Johnson had indeed deliberately misled the House then it should be demonstrated and he should have been out. Then much of the psychodrama of the past few months (not to mention the cost to the people of the same, in pounds, shillings and pence) would never have happened.)

[peter]

Much as the idea of Boris Johnson being back in Downing Street might give us the collywobbles, there is one issue we ought to consider pertaining to the alternative - the winning by coronation of Sunak into the top role.

If this happens, what then of the position of Hunt as chancellor?

The markets have indicated that they like his approach, but certainty he is not going to feel comfortable with Sunak looking over his shoulder from No 10. I simply can't see him staying in the job with Sunak as PM.

And what of Sunak? Is he PM or is he chancellor? Is whoever takes on the job of chancellor just going to be a figurehead - a wooden instrument to do Sunak's bidding and having no input into the role that is not subject to continual veto by the PM? I'm not sure that is going to work either. And can Sunak really run both rolls simultaneously. He is a natural chancellor, and it is in memory of what he did in this role that his supporters now back him. But the role of PM is different - a role of its own. What makes people believe that the same qualities that made Sunak a good chancellor would make him a good PM?

And was he ever really a good chancellor? Certainly he gave away money like there was no tomorrow during the pandemic. That was bound to make people like him. How much would they have liked him when he started to claw it back. We are in a worse economic situation than any other country in the G20 with the exception of Russia. How much of this is down to Sunak? Has he ever been actually tested as a chancellor under 'normal' conditions, when not giving away money or having the banks print it like there is no tomorrow. Certainly he got the call on Truss's economic plans correct - but with respect it wasn't rocket science to guess that borrowing a shit load of money to give away to your mates when your credit cards were already maxed out was not the most sound of economic policies. No. Sunak is essentially untested as a chancellor, for all the idea that he got everything right both in actions and in predictions. It is the getting of the UK economy back onto solid ground from the mess that it is in that would actually test his mettle - and that is a job he could not be doing anyway if he were to be paying proper attention to his broader role as PM. He can be chancellor or he can be PM. Not both.

And oddly, it might be that the party grandee's of the 1922 committee actually get this. Because in this morning's press it is reported that they may actually be trying to persuade Johnson and Sunak to bury the hatchet between them and come out together in a combined team for the leadership. And given the problems I've set out above, both in terms of Sunak and Hunt and Sunak and anyone else, perhaps this would actually be the ideal solution. Yes they hate each other. So what. Sunak needs to be chancellor with a free hand to run the economy. Johnson would give him that: he has no desire to micromanage the treasury from a distance - he couldn't care less what someone else is doing there as long as it reflects well on him and he doesn't have to do any work. This isn't why the 1922 committee are doing this negotiation; they're doing it to prevent an unholy mess that would drive forward the argument for a general election to the place where it could not be ignored. They're doing it to try to save the Tory Party. But oddly, it might actually work in the national interest as well - purely by coincidence you understand - but it might.

Johnson, if he wasn't so inherently flawed as a person, might have been a great PM. Sunak might be the chancellor we need to dig us out of this hole (I say might - I'm not entirely convinced of it, but let that go - others are). If Johnson can just rein it in a bit, behave himself and get some competent people around him - it could just work. Tall ask absolutely. But it might be the best chance the Tories have got for stepping back from oblivion.

[Avatar]

...that he does have that eighty seat majority mandate - a mandate that was never removed from him by the people who gave it to him, but rather by parliamentarians who lost faith (?), patience (?), whatever, with him - and a mandate that perhaps, now, in the light of what has subsequently happened, he should be allowed to see through to its conclusion before it is placed once again for judgement by the British people in the court of a general election...

I hate to say that you may technically have a point there...

--A

[peter]

I don't think it's going to happen Av.....

Seems that Sunak support is surging while Johnson's is stalling.

Probably for the best, but I don't think it's the end of the Tory troubles by any means. The stories in this mornings press surround talks between the two camps to come to some sort of comprise - perhaps with Johnson accepting some kind of role in a Sunak cabinet. I don't see it happening myself (Johnson's ego is simply too big for that), so my guess is that he will withdraw from the contest and most likely front line politics altogether.

Which leaves Sunak as PM.

But.......

The problems with this are manifold. Sunak faces much enmity in a parliamentary party that has never forgiven him for unseating Johnson. They will not forgive him now for not allowing Johnson to re-take up his mandate and lead them into the next election. There is a very real possibility now that if Sunak wins the party could split (not that the same isn't true for Johnson - the factionalism of the party is possibly now deeper and more acrimonious than any individual could even breach, let alone heal).

And the divisions of the parliamentary party are reflective of the Tory voting part of the electorate as a whole. The feeling of support for Johnson is probably bigger than that for Sunak among Tory voters - and the feelings of anger that he was unseated sit squarely on Sunak's shoulders. While Sunak could possibly reverse some of the huge polling disadvantage that the Tories currently experience, he could not turn it around altogether. He will have a huge mountain to climb if he leads the party into the next election, and alas, one that his being an Indian will not help.

But this is a long way off and Sunak will (if the party doesn't simply implode upon his coronation) have a devils own job to do before it. There has been talk of a Sunak-Hunt partnership. I don't see it working. Hunt has felt the thrill of power, if only briefly. He is not going to expect to be rewarded for his saving the ship in the disastrous final days of the Truss premiership by being relegated to Sunak's ventriloquist dummy. To take the crap if it all goes wrong (which is highly likely) or see the glory go to Sunak if it succeeds. No, if he's going to be chancellor under Sunak then he is going to want to be chancellor. Sunak will have to let him do the job of watch him walk pretty damn quick.

Which leaves Sunak not as chancellor (which is the lens through which many seem to be viewing his forthcoming premiership) but as actual PM. And is there any real indication that he has the heft to fill that job? Will he be able to rule that unruly beast that the Tory Party has become (both parliamentary and more generally) and hold it together? I see nothing about him that would suggest that he could. Exposed in the top position, not enjoying the kudos of spreading money around like water - in fact quite the opposite, being in charge of an austerity government - I think the parliamentary party will round on him like a pack of hunting dogs and tear him to pieces. There will be no Tory love-in with Sunak at the helm. But of course I could be wrong and he will pull it off. Perhaps the Tories brush with near death will sober them up and some sense will come to the fore.

But I guarantee that he will not win a general election. The colour issue aside, he simply has too much anger attached to him from thwarted Johnson supporters in the Tory voting public for him to overcome. They will dessert the Tories in droves because of it, to Labour or the Lib-Dem benefit. While Johnson might just have been able to trade upon his personality and successes (such as they are) to get him over the line, Sunak will simply not be able to cut it.

And he will be leading the country as the full and terrible cost of his largesse as chancellor during the pandemic, as the full and terrible cost of the Brexit that he supported, and the effects of cost of living and energy crisis and war in Ukraine come truly home to bite. And he'll be leading the Tories into an election against this backdrop as an austerity Prime Minister cutting public services. And he'll be an Indian.

I don't need to spell this out for you. Use your imagination.

[peter]

Having provided a brief but entertaining interlude in the contest to replace Liz Truss, Boris Johnson has now left the building, leaving Rishi Sunak looking like a clear favourite to take the crown (or pick up the poisoned chalice, depending on how you see it).

Well you would think so anyway - but suddenly you have to remember, there is a third horse in the race, and it remains just possible that she could scoop up the Johnson votes, add them to the "I'm pissed off with Sunak for stabbing Johnson in the back" votes, scrape over the hundred and then whip Sunak at the membership vote.

Pretty outside stuff, but not an impossibility. Anyway, we'll know by 2pm today and then it'll all be over (or the first stage at least).

But let's assume that Sunak is going to get it and work from there (and sheesh, where to begin).

I'm assuming that the market will stabilise pretty well at what it see's as one of it's own taking up the reins (Sunak was a financial trader of some kind before entering politics). Alongside Hunt, assuming the chancellor remains in position and the two could work together, you would have a pretty reasonable team (in the eyes of the City) in position, and the crazy days of the Truss premiership should rapidly recede into the distance like a squally storm at sea, leaving calm behind.

But will this confidence be short lived?

In truth, Sunak had no real chance to demonstrate his competence as a chancellor, despite all of the plaudits in his name for handing out wheelbarrow fulls of cash in the furlough and business support schemes of the pandemic. This was certainly the correct thing to do if you were going to stop the economy in it's tracks as they indeed did - but even the ex governor of the Bank of England said yesterday that the unfettered printing of money that had to be done to pay for it was a mistake (and one for which we are today paying big time, in the form of raging inflation) and probably unnecessary. Perhaps Sunak as chancellor cannot be blamed for that, but he certainly made use of it in what was probably the second biggest chunk of socialism that the country has ever seen next to the development of the welfare state by the postwar Attlee government. When it comes to actually doing proper chancellor stuff, Sunak is an unknown - which is itself an irrelevance anyway, since he will be PM not chancellor.

When it comes to Hunt, he certainly got the message during the Truss debacle that the markets wanted stability in the government finances above all else (not rocket science) and prepared to reinvent himself as a Labour chancellor (in terms of taxation at least) in order to give them this. And he recognised that in order to get the huge black hole in public finances plugged, and runaway borrowing back into the paddock, it was going to take the combination of the austerity of George Osbourne with the taxation of Jeremy Corbyn to do it. Again, with the economic situation scrawled large as a 2+ 2 sum on a kids blackboard in front of him, it wasn't rocket science, but yes, he at least got it and began to talk the talk. It wasn't difficult. The walking of the walk will be something else altogether.

And looking at Hunt's record as Secretary of State for Health, one suddenly feels less optimistic. He was the man who stripped the service down to the skeletal level where the pandemic effectively blew it out of the water. All of the ppe and equipment shortage. That was Hunt. The lowest number of per capita emergency beds of just about any developed country in the world. Hunt again. People who work in the NHS look back on Hunt's period of stewardship with horror. That this clown should now be in charge of the economy - and an economy lying prostrate on the deck like a heart-attack victim in need of CPR - well, as I've said above (to many times), it ain't rocket science!

So untested Sunak and incompetent Hunt, fighting like cats in a sack, pulling from completely different ends of the conservative spectrum, put in charge of the sinking ship and given the imperative of cutting public services and simultaneously taxing the squeaking pips out of the country....... not pretty, if you get where I'm coming from. (Incidentally on Sunak - look at the list of PMs going back to when this chaos all started..... Truss, Johnson, Cameron - Sunak is the first one who comes to the field as an actual genuine unequivocal brexiteer. How's that for judgement!)

But those are my thoughts as we enter the next phase of the long running shit-show that is the Tory decline. These convulsions we are witnessing are the death throes of the Conservative Party. It's just a shame that they are tearing the country to pieces as they go down.

[Avatar]

Well, looks like it's official, Sunak it is.

Best available option in my opinion, but gods know how he's going to manage it.

--A

[peter]

Badly would be one guess Av.

But there will be three million people who won't be popping the champagne corks tonight. They are the ones who didn't get any of the business support payments during the pandemic because of being self-employed or other technicalities and of whom at least thirty have killed themselves due to the stress induced thereby.

And I can't believe that the Tory membership, denied their chance to vote in the final stage of the leadership processes due to Sunak's coronation will be best pleased either.

But as an interesting aside, I happened to be listening to James O'Brien at around 11.30 this morning when he gave the current tally of the only remaining rival to Sunak, the Leader of the House Penny Mordaunt as being 90 declared (or claimed at least) supporters. Though he didn't give the Sunak figure at this point, the last figure we have for him is around 193, given on the BBC news website at around the same time.

Now there are around 356 Tory MPs, so if these figures are anything like correct then we have around 313 declared and around 43 remaining to do so, of which Mordaunt required around 10 to get onto the final ballot presented to the membership. Not an impossible task one would have thought, but for whatever reason, she chose instead to withdraw from the contest minutes before the final cut off point (2pm) for declaring a bid. This left Sunak as the only declared candidate and therefore winner by default.

Now it is an absolute certainty that had Mordaunt been offered to the membership alongside Sunak she would have fared considerably better than her support within the parliamentary party would suggest, and I can't help but think that the 1922 committee - the parliamentary party governing body - would have much preferred the leadership contest to be concluded within Westminster without there being the need for a potentially messy membership vote. To this end, I can't help but wonder what kind of pressure was applied to Mordaunt to encourage her to withdraw rather than force an actual count (as would have been necessitated had she declared).

But of course, this being the Tory Party we will never know what the background to the final stages of today's proceedings actually were and so it is pointless speculation on my part to even write about it.

Sufficient to say that Sunak having won the day gave a brief statement (that actually lasted for a shorter period of time than Liz Truss's resignation speech - and that was just about over before it began) and in which his performance was.....shall we say wooden, to say the least. Perhaps we have grown too used to the flamboyance of Johnson, but if this is the style which Rishi Sunak intends to cultivate, then those who are asking for politics to be boring for a while are about to have their wishes granted.

But never being one to be backward in coming forward with predictions, I predict that Sunak is in for a rough ride, and it will start sooner rather than later. He will have multitudes out on strike before he is very deep into his premiership - if he is really unfortunate the trade unions will consolidate their voices into a combined call for a general strike (the opposition in Westminster simply not being up to the job) and force a general election thereby. (Incidentally, in almost all cases on both BBC and Sky News coverage of the Sunak win, the belief that there should have been, or should be, a general election WS universally expressed by members of the public interviewed.)

Tomorrow will see the new PM go to the palace and be requested by the King to form a government, after which the business of building his cabinet will commence. It seems to be a given that Hunt will remain as chancellor (good luck with that, the pair of you), but beside that (and unlike the Truss administration before, when virtually all leading ministerial positions were already known) we know virtually nothing of his intentions. It is assumed from comments he has made that he will attempt to be inclusive in his team, but aside from this it is a mystery. If Mordaunt is given a leading role then this might be a clue as to what transpired in the hours between midday and 2pm.

But anyway. Tomorrow will bring whatever it does and whatever that is, you can be sure that for millions at the bottom of the pile in our society it will not be good news. Still, there's always the food banks. That's one area of business that has really taken off under the Tory stewardship.

[peter]

I'm not really interested in what's going to happen today.

That new PM Rishi Sunak is going to meet the King, to be instructed to form a government and all that. It leaves me cold.

What interests me is that we are having our third Prime Minister in six weeks thrust upon us - and without so much as a single vote being cast by the public to endorse or otherwise, his elevation to the primary role in the governance of our country.

Now this, it will be argued, is perfectly within the bounds of our constitution. We are, we will be told, a parliamentary democracy. We do not vote for a Prime Minister, but rather for a party (or rather an individual who stands for that party) who can elect to it's leadership, whomsoever they choose, and change that individual at will, whenever they so choose.

All perfectly true no doubt, but it is gaslighting on an epic scale. A smokescreen of respectability being fanned out in order to cover up the true scale of the legerdemain that is being is being effected upon us. A pulling of the wool over our eyes, in order to conceal the deception, the truly undemocratic nature of what has been done.

Because what is of significance is not who is pulling the levers, but rather what levers it is that they are pulling. And the truth that is not being spoken of, is that Sunak has been brought in to effect a raft of government policies that is so far removed from that which the Conservative Party put forward in their last manifesto, the manifesto upon which their mandate to govern rests, that it is unrecognisable as a policy platform of the same Party.

And this, as I say, without so much as a single vote being cast; with no suggestion that it will be to return to the country in order to receive a new or updated mandate, to endorse that which they intend to effect.

And what a new raft of policies it is that we are to except.

In the coming months we will see public services upon which the most vulnerable in our society are dependent slashed to the bone, and by a man reputed to possess twice the wealth of our monarch, who has not a single vote of endorsement to his name from the very people who will be effected by the policies he will pursue.

A man who in the leadership campaign in which he did take part (and was defeated therein) was seen boasting to the part membership of a wealthy constituency (and a safe Tory one at that) that he had secured for them, money which had been earmarked for some of the poorest constituencies in the country. A man who, if his record is anything to go by, has no particular investment in this country over any other, despite his words of 'love' and 'gratitude' yesterday, which frankly, ring pretty hollow.

But still, I suppose that there is a certain justice in that the man who could arguably be held as in good part responsible for the mess we find ourselves in, should be brought back to attempt to clear it up. That he will fail is a given. The debacle he and his party have overseen is simply too great, the more into which they have navigated us too deep, for anything that this empty vessel of redundant ideas could ever rectify.

I'm going to give you an analogy.

I work in a grocery shop in a small village adjoining a market town in the West country. We rely on local trade for our business. People come in from the surrounding streets and houses to buy their shopping, and from a lesser extent from the nearby town. Trade from individuals from towns further away is occasional, but in no way sufficient to maintain our business. This is the 'gravitational effect' of distance as it applies to trade - and it is no different for nations than it is for shops. But my bosses will have none of it. They don't want to trade with the people from our surrounding streets - in fact they are going to do everything in their power to make it difficult! They, rather, want the people from the distant towns to make the journey to buy their toilet-rolls and newspapers from the shop. They don't want those beastly locals coming in.

Any shopkeeper who pursued such a policy you would say was mad, and you'd be right. Yet this is exactly the policy that clever Rishi Sunak believed was the correct one for this country - and still most likely believes it. If he has actually changed his mind in the light of the actual consequences of this policy, then like so many others, he certainly isn't going to admit to it, and most, most, certainty is going to do nothing to try to mitigate any of the damage - indeed the subject will be taboo in his government, along with the rest of Westminster and the media and the Bank of England - and for this reason he will never be able to take the steps that are so desperately needed to turn our situation around.

So he will pursue instead a policy of austerity and attrition, of gradual decline of the poorest in our society to the level of the untouchables, to be walked past in the street and compartmentalised into oblivion, ignored rather than faced because they represent a failure too great to acknowledge.

And so he is doomed to failure, for lacking the courage to say, "This was wrong - we made a mistake and we need to begin the process of putting it right." Hell - even Liz Truss had the courage to do this, but not Sunak. Of that list - Cameron, May, Johnson, Truss and Sunak - Sunak is the only one who was (for whatever reason God only knows) a true Brexit ideologue, and it is upon this alter that any chance of our recovery will be sacrificed.

It will be a generation before the great stupidity of Brexit will begin to be rectified; when the much cleverer youth of our country who would never have countenanced it in the first place, finally come of age and enter the political arena.

[TheFallen]

What interests me is that we are having our third Prime Minister in six weeks thrust upon us - and without so much as a single vote being cast by the public to endorse or otherwise, his elevation to the primary role in the governance of our country.

Now this, it will be argued, is perfectly within the bounds of our constitution. We are, we will be told, a parliamentary democracy. We do not vote for a Prime Minister, but rather for a party (or rather an individual who stands for that party) who can elect to it's leadership, whomsoever they choose, and change that individual at will, whenever they so choose.

All perfectly true no doubt...

All absolutely true, Peter. We haven't (quite) yet descended into the "personality of the figurehead alone" politics that certainly hasn't done the US any favours over recent years.

As I stated above, given that we (allegedly) live in a representative democracy, so the "coronation" of of Rishi by elected representatives was in any light MORE democratic than letting 172,000 befuddled and innately racist wider Conservative party members decide the outcome (and let's not forget that 172,000 is only around 0.35% of the overall UK electorate - so could that be considered democratic???). Let's also not forget that those clueless coffin dodgers gave us Truss, for fuck's sakes - and look how that turned out. Anyhow...

...but it is gaslighting on an epic scale. A smokescreen of respectability being fanned out in order to cover up the true scale of the legerdemain that is being is being effected upon us. A pulling of the wool over our eyes, in order to conceal the deception, the truly undemocratic nature of what has been done.

Because what is of significance is not who is pulling the levers, but rather what levers it is that they are pulling. And the truth that is not being spoken of, is that Sunak has been brought in to effect a raft of government policies that is so far removed from that which the Conservative Party put forward in their last manifesto, the manifesto upon which their mandate to govern rests, that it is unrecognisable as a policy platform of the same Party.

Now hang on a second... surely that's very blinkered and neatly avoids acknowledging reality? You seem to be merely channelling Sir Keir "bereft of ideas" Starmer and Nicola "wee Jimmy Krankie" Sturgeon here.

Twin elephants in the room moment. Don't you think that the world is a vastly different place than it was in the run-up to November 2019, when that Tory manifesto was published? I mean, Covid? Putin in Ukraine? Those were and are huge unforeseeable factors to which any government, responsible or otherwise, was going to have to react - and in so doing was going to be bound to be obliged to alter its initial plans?

Or to use your analogy, a whole lot of unexpected levers needed (and still need) to be pulled. The original plans cannot possibly apply any more - it's pretty much this:-

Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth.

...and Covid, followed by Putin sure as Hell doubly punched the world in the mouth. Adapt or die, right?

[peter]

No - I don't buy it TF.

Nobody has the slightest idea of what Sunak has planned for this country; he hasn't given a single interview, written a single word, during the course of this 'contest'.

But assuming that, for example, he is going to stick to something like the agenda that Hunt outlined in his post-Truss salvage plan.

Well, perhaps the people don't want another period of austerity? Perhaps they don't want to see public service cuts that will hit the hardest up members of our society, and levied in order to fix the mess that the Conservative government has made of our economy, bringing it to the level of near total collapse in the past few weeks?

Perhaps they'd rather see a windfall tax levied on the energy giants unearned profits of the last twelve months. Perhaps they'd rather see the tax loopholes which companies like Amazon and Vodaphone utilise closed, or the offshore tax-havens in which billions of taxable assets are stashed away looked into. Who knows? Nobody has asked them.

So sure - things have changed.... and that would include the Prime Minister of this country twice and every single policy that the government was mandated to carry out on the last occasion that the people were consulted. Yes, there's been a pandemic. Yes there's a war in Ukraine. Neither of which has the remotest bearing upon the reasons why the people of this country deserve the opportunity to endorse the policy platform upon which the Sunak administration will govern.

The Truss debacle is not just some minor aberration that can be swept under the carpet and pretended that it didn't happen. It was a game changing event that can only be redressed by the holding of a general election in which a new mandate can be put forward for endorsement by the people of this country. There will be political choices to be made in consequence of the necessity that the Tory mismanagement of the economy has placed upon us and the people have their right to be part of this decision making process.

[Avatar]

As I stated above, given that we (allegedly) live in a representative democracy, so the "coronation" of of Rishi by elected representatives was in any light MORE democratic than letting 172,000 befuddled and innately racist wider Conservative party members decide the outcome (and let's not forget that 172,000 is only around 0.35% of the overall UK electorate - so could that be considered democratic???). Let's also not forget that those clueless coffin dodgers gave us Truss, for fuck's sakes - and look how that turned out. Anyhow...

Yes, agreed. I suspect a different result would have been had should it have gone to the members.

Anyway, sorta getting boring again really. I see Braverman is back, another child of immigrant parents keen to bar all immigrants, but whatever... ::sigh::

--A

[TheFallen]

No - I don't buy it TF.

...and that's your right, but I suspect you've been blinded by indignation.

Nobody has the slightest idea of what Sunak has planned for this country; he hasn't given a single interview, written a single word, during the course of this 'contest'.

Maybe not during the course of this non-contest (and again, this non-contest was far FAR more democratic than the process decided upon by the utterly non-representative 0.35% of the electorate that elevated Truss. Rishi got elevated to the PM-ship specifically by by representative democracy... you know, that system by which our country has been run for several centuries). Side note: I agree with Av's suspicion, namely that if a two-person choice had again been given to the 172,000 utterly unrepresentative befuddled tweedy coffin dodgers, they would have again picked ABR (anyone but Rishi).

However, just seven weeks ago, we had debate after debate between Truss and Sunak, where the latter did outline his vision and policies, at least in general terms.

But assuming that, for example, he is going to stick to something like the agenda that Hunt outlined in his post-Truss salvage plan.

Well, perhaps the people don't want another period of austerity? Perhaps they don't want to see public service cuts that will hit the hardest up members of our society, and levied in order to fix the mess that the Conservative government has made of our economy, bringing it to the level of near total collapse in the past few weeks?

Yes, Truss's ideological arrogance and incompetence made matters worse without doubt - and here I'll remind you once again of the pithily astute words of an erstwhile very well-known entrepreneurial boss of mine "Don't just blame the c***. Blame the c***s that put them there".

But having said that, it would be utter naivity to to dismiss more important factors affecting the global economy.

Here's some other things I doubt anyone wanted. They won't have wanted Covid to emerge and they won't have wanted Putin to invade Poland. They probably want to live in Magic Fairytale Land, where nothing bad ever happens and money trees grow in every garden - let's face it, who wouldn't? But hey, if wishes were horses, beggars would ride. Bad shit happens and needs dealing with by those elected under the auspices of our representative democratic system to make those choices on our behalf as to how best to deal with such.

Perhaps they'd rather see a windfall tax levied on the energy giants unearned profits of the last twelve months. Perhaps they'd rather see the tax loopholes which companies like Amazon and Vodaphone utilise closed, or the offshore tax-havens in which billions of taxable assets are stashed away looked into.

Perhaps they would. I would certainly support both those moves. As per Mervyn King, it would only generate a fraction of what's needed to balance the UK books - see below - but it'd help.

Who knows? Nobody has asked them.

True - but all you're doing here is bemoaning the current constitutional law governing matters. There is no obligation nor requirement to ask the electorate for a new mandate at this time. You may not like that - but them's the rules long, long, LONG enshrined.

So sure - things have changed.... and that would include the Prime Minister of this country twice and every single policy that the government was mandated to carry out on the last occasion that the people were consulted. Yes, there's been a pandemic. Yes there's a war in Ukraine.

Both of which are world-affecting events more than sizeable enough to inevitably mean that previously planned policies HAD to change.

Without Covid, there'd have been no need for the UK Exchequer to spend the £400 billion... yes, that's four hundred billion pounds sterling... that the pandemic cost it.

And without Putin's invasion of Ukraine, let alone the £3.8 billion of military and humanitarian aid given by the UK government in 2022 alone, there'd have been nowhere near such a massively inflationary rise in gas, oil and basic foodstuff pricing.

Neither of which has the remotest bearing upon the reasons why the people of this country deserve the opportunity to endorse the policy platform upon which the Sunak administration will govern.

Both of which are absolute core reasons as to why governments the world over all had to very rapidly throw away existing plans in order to come up with new and completely different policies to deal with such massive unforeseens.

Look, Truss was a damaging fuck-up. For sure. But (not that this excuses her in the least) a far less consequential fuck-up compared to Covid and Putin.

The fact remains that for a collection of reasons, the UK has a hole in the books of around £35 billion that needs filling (it was £45 billion, but this has decreased since markets view Sunak much more positively). And following the events of the last couple of years, the UK doesn't have the cash reserves to fill that hole...

So the choices are stark, but simple. Either borrow and leave our kids and grandkids to pay back the debt. Or cut public spending and/or increase both personal and corporation taxes. Pick one. Or more.

And that's the choice facing whichever party might be currently sitting in number ten. There is no magic wand. Yes it's a shit situation in spades - but it's the brutal yet simple reality of things.

[peter]

It's simple TF, and summed up in one word. Legitimacy.

And any legitimacy this government had disappeared along with Truss's mini-budget. Add to that the withering effect of each successive change in PM and each successive change in policy, and the case for a general election becomes overwhelming.

In respect of Truss being of smaller consequence than covid or Putin, I suspect those who will loose their homes, their businesses in the coming months would have something to say about that - but irrespective of this, the argument doesn't stack up. Because A is worse than B, doesn't mean that B can be ignored. What Truss did was unforgivable. The parliamentary party put her on the ballot paper and the membership voted for her. You can't just keep putting duff leaders into power until you hit one marginally less duff by accident.

But it's all so much wasted breath because it isn't going to happen (not yet anyway).

The Labour Party under Stamer are in no position to bring one about anytime soon and the only remaining possibility lies in the hands of the trade unions. Collectively, they could bring out enough workers to force one, but they seem far more interested in pursuing their own individual claims than organising together for political change.

But sufficient to say that the real fairyland stuff here is the idea that Sunak is going to unite the Tory Party and lead us out into the sunlit uplands of which he was such a keen advocate. He starts under the cloud of being an opportunistic traitor and it will only get worse from here on in. His weakness as a leader will soon be exposed and his questionable record as chancellor will be revisited.

The Tory Party can be likened to a cul-de-sac of different houses constantly at war, with now this one, now that in the ascendancy. The idea that this new manifestation of the old failed model is going to change anything is nothing short of deluded. The soap opera will continue.

----------------0----------------

But it's been a rather odd start to a Prime Ministerial term to be sure.

First there was that strange speech to - well - no one following his winning the role on Monday. Then, as was noted on the front page of this morning's Times, there was his arrival at Downing Street following his audience with the King. Normally there is a hullabaloo of catcalls and questions from the waiting press arrayed before the Prime Ministerial residence, but yesterday there was nothing. As Times columnist Quentin Letts observed, all there was, was a sort of surreal and slightly daunting silence as he approached the podium.

Perhaps this is down to his relative inexperience as a politician - he has 'only' been in the game seven years and is thus a relative newcomer in respect of the time it normally takes to reach the top position. Perhaps, as the first Prime Minister who is from an ethnic minority, the press simply do not know quite how to approach him. Have no fear - they will learn.

But after a brief and serious speech it was on with the job, and the cabinet appointments started coming out. I was amused by the Sun's description of it as 'a re-tread cabinet', for surely this was pretty much the case.

The biggest role of chancellor stayed as expected with Hunt (expect a fallout there before long) and an olive branch was extended to the Johnson wing of the Party with the retention of James Cleverly as Foreign Secretary. A surprise appointment of Suela Braverman back to her recently vacated role as Home Secretary raised some eyebrows, but in a time likely to be soon dominated by industrial action and public unrest I suppose it's a good idea to have an extreme authoritarian in situ in case the truncheons and boots are needed. (Side note; Sunak in his last leadership campaign - the one that he actually took part in - suggested that anyone who was overtly critical of the British State should go onto the extremists register, so I except that's my place in the Gulag booked.)

Interestingly, arch Boris Johnson supporter Jacob Rees-Mogg is out, but not actually by Sunak's hand but rather by silver stiletto (as one paper put it) to his own throat. Certainly he would have been sacked and so probably decided to get in there first by despatching himself before Sunak got to weild the sword - but I cannot help wondering if there is not another reason, and one that can never be spoken of.

The unimpressive Dominic Raab goes back into his role as Deputy PM (better get out the beach beds in Marbella then) and Slytherin captain Michael Gove comes back in as Levelling up secretary. He might actually do some good in this role; he has the reputation of being quite a good minster when he actually stops politicking and gets down to a job.

Penny Mordaunt stays in a pretty inconsequential role as Leader of the House - she'll be pissed; she could have expected a promotion to a more significant position - and Therese Coffey gets a demotion from Health back to Environment Secretary. Another happy customer eh? Steve Barclay goes back into his old role at Health so that's all good then.

Basically it's a cabinet of Sunak supporters with the odd sop thrown out here and there to the other sides. There is a mix of old 'talent' and the those of the Truss cabinet that have been left in place. Is it a unity cabinet - beggared if I know, but this I predict what absolute certainty. Any unity that it has today will be out of the window like a starling with the shits by this time in a month, and ain't that a fact!

(Edit; A couple of additional points I suppose I should note; Bewigged fool Michael Fabricient has said that he thinks Boris Johnson is ideally placed to lead the party into the next general election so he at least believes there could be yet another leadership change before this sorry excuse for a government is finally thrown onto the scrapheap of history. And I note that Mrs Sunak has been conspicuous by her absence in the proceedings thus far. I make no observation on this score except to say that it will not be long before the media become interested by this unusual invisibility and start questioning why this should be. My guess is that their conjectured reasons will not be flattering to Sunak's currently untarnished (on a personal level) image.)

[TheFallen]

Peter, the whole point is that the process gone through categorically *does* have legitimacy. No single constitutional law has been broken in the least and things have been done exactly by the book of centuries-long enshrined laws, rules and regs. (Whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant... they've been adhered to).

What I suspect you're trying to get across is moral legitimacy - and that's a very different thing altogether. Anyhow...

What Truss did was indeed unforgivable. She was driven by a mix of clueless ideological arrogance and utter incompetence. I fully agree. However, the parliamentary Conservative party hardly wanted to put her up as a choice, as can be seen here. She only got on the two horse ballot paper by effective accident - and then got utterly undemocratically elected by just 81,000 members of the wider Conservative party who voted for her, compared to the 60,000 voting for Sunak back in early September. The bottom line is... had it been down to the parliamentary party to decide (which would have been a standard representative democracy process), Sunak would have been the PM from the get-go and Truss would never have got her blundering hands anywhere near the steering wheel.

But although her cack-handedness should of course not be swept under the carpet, it is today true that the strength of sterling and the cost of UK government borrowing are now back to where they were prior to Truss's disastrous mini-budget. So thankfully, her appalling effect seems to have been quickly reversed.

However, we are indeed in a strange new world. For decades now, the pattern of UK politics has been thus:-

The Conservatives get in for a few terms, during which for whatever their other oversights and failings may be, they manage the economy well and build up a warchest.

Eventually, the electorate gets bored of fiscal responsibility, turfs out the Tories and installs Labour.

Labour then gets a max of two terms (but usually just one) during which they increase public spending to unsustainable levels, blowing the entire warchest that's been built up and borrowing much more on top. Inflation grows to rampant levels and the economy plummets.

So they then get hoofed out by the electorate to bring back the Tories to fix things, economically speaking. To give perfect credence to this, here's the infamous note left by the outgoing Labour Chief Treasury Secretary Liam Byrne for his incoming Tory successor to find on the desk last time Labour got turfed out back in 2010.


Rinse and repeat ad infinitum.

What's very different this time around is that primarily courtesy of unforeseeable global events, Sunak's starting from an astronomically massive hole in the figures position, geometrically far FAR worse than anything Labour ever managed to cause - and he's only got 24 months in which to try and put things as right as is feasible (or at least, as minimally fucked up as is feasible).

And say what you like - but you cannot possibly dismiss the dual effect of Covid and Putin. For fuck's sakes, Covid alone meant that this country spent 400 billion quid that when current government got elected in Dec 2019, it had literally no clue that it was going to have to spend, starting in just a few months' time from then. That's going to put a crimp in anyone's economic management.

The epically proportioned problem is that, were a general election to be called now, as clueless Keir, anarchic Angela and nasty Nicola are all utterly unsurprisingly baying for, Labour would without doubt win by a landslide... but then what? Starmer has not got an earthly what to do about the current situation. Not one single clue. His endlessly repeated (and frankly valueless) monologue never deviates from a trite rewording of is "Hey Tories... you're shit!" The man is as bereft of ideas as he is of imagination.Who was it who said "Don't restate problems... offer up solutions"? Keir could seriously do with heeding that advice (if only he was capable).

And it's not as if there are really any choices anyway- it's either a) borrow and/or b) cut and/or c) raise taxes (and the one thing this country cannot afford to do is any part of option a) as moronic Liz very clearly proved. But that'd be the traditional Labour way...).

Unfortunately, there is no way out of this that avoids some pretty horrible decisions being taken which are going to affect every single one of us. Now sure, those with a greater ability to pay - whether individuals or companies - are simply going to have to pay a whole lot more. But as Lord Mervyn King pointed out just last weekend, the pain cannot be just borne by the more wealthy in our society - because there aren't enough of them and they simply don't have enough cash between them. Even if you raised the top rate of tax from its current 45% to say 85%, that wouldn't generate anywhere near what is needed. So everyone's going to have to feel some pain, one way or another.

Don't ask me what the least shit mix of measures to try to fix this crisis is. However, it without a doubt needs addressing. The problem for Sunak is that he's only got two years and that's nowhere near enough time. So unless something miraculous happens (like Putin keeling over with a fatal heart attack), the Tories are guaranteed to lose the next election at the end of 2024, come what may.

[peter]

I think I see a concession of sorts in your comments regarding "moral legitimacy" and am happy enough with this (and yes - I do get the stuff about it being constitutionally legitimate..... I always have..... but we get into the sticky area of discussion about whether one should follow unjust laws just because they are laws [which incidentally Lord Sumption doesn't think you should], and this is clearly outside the parameters of what we are discussing here).

On the rest of your 'brief history of the (English) universe', I can't fault it, but just might add that the see-saw has not actually served us badly. The Tories make the money. The Labour Party dishes it out in public services from which the people benefit. Not a bad balance in the long-term one might argue.

I'd argue that the postwar consensus of development of the welfare state is arguably the most significantly beneficial thing that any government has done for it's people in the history of humanity, let alone British history. We have all benefitted from it to a man, rich and poor alike. It has created the very country we have lived in - the one we both love, you and I, and are each in our own different ways fighting for. That this country did not come about randomly, over these thousand years of history, but was the direct creation of the post war Attlee government (with major contribution from Aneurin Bevan) is a matter of history.

But again, let that rest. The point is where do we go from here - and like you I struggle to see any easy answer.

I don't actually think our problems are insoluble, and I think that they begin by addressing the fact that for all Johnson's success in getting us out of the EU, the terms of our leaving were terribly mishandled - but again, that's probably an argument for another day.

I respect Mervyn King's point that there isn't enough money in the hands of the wealthy to simply tax our way out of this - it's going to take much more than this, but the development of a fair and equitable tax system would be a damn fine start. I've often wondered if a truly flat rate tax system - but one where there really are no loopholes for avoidance - might be more productive in the long term. Certainty the accountants would hate it, but I think we can get by without worrying about their views to much .

Beyond that, I think it would take some really blue-sky thinking - stuff way beyond the capacity of our hidebound politicians to come up with (think establishment of a government bond system for the funding of social housing building, local council funded mortgages for first time buyers, payment of people proper wages to take on the caring responsibilities of their elderly family members, but paid for from such estates as they have in the current manner and to the same levels, etc etc). Stuff beyond the capacity of our two party (with never the twain shall meet) system to come up with.

I think our adversarial system of politics, while it might have served us well, is simply not structured to get us out of a mess of the complexity that we find ourselves in. The Nordic model where there is not this confrontational approach, but where both sides sit down together and actually thrash out solutions to problems together without all of the theatre of our House is beginning to look very appealing to me. (I saw an old guy arguing that Westminster was an anachronism that should go, and be replaced by a new purpose built seat of government with a circular debating chamber, just as a symbolic start of this - maybe he's right.)

But anyway, never think my arguments are based upon a desire to see any of our leadership fail - Tory or Labour. I care nothing about the colour of the coat the politician is wearing; if they are working for the interests of all the people as their chief aim then I am behind them and will cut them whatever slack they need to make things better. (I consider for example Charles Walker about the best advocate of maintenance of our freedom and rights in the House for example - yet he's a million miles away from my political thinking in respect of other matters.)

As for Sunak. I've made it pretty clear that I don't think he's up to the challenge, but I sincerely hope I'm wrong and that he proves me so. If he does the right things over the next 24 months (or whatever it is) I'll vote Connservative in the next election. If he doesn't, I won't.

[peter]

I mentioned above that the appointment of recently disgraced Suela Braverman to her post as Home secretary had caused some consternation in the Tory ranks and it looks as though it may well come back to bite Sunak sooner rather than later.

Speculation is that the PM did a deal with Braverman to give her her old job back in return for her support in the contest for the Conservative Party leadership. This would make sense because it was widely assumed that she would support Johnson prior to her announcement - a turn about that caught everyone by surprise.

Kier Stamer was quick to point out in yesterday's PM's questions that this was an indication of Sunak's weakness in terms of the support of his MPs - an accusation he avoided by saying that the Home Secretary had "made a mistake for which she had apologised" and it was, "time to move on."

Well yes. That would be six days after she was fired. Not terribly convincing or indeed conducive toward encouraging ministers to adhere to the ministerial code.

And today ex party chairman Jake Berry has thrown a cat amongst the pigeons by saying that he understands that Braverman had committed multiple breaches of security of the same type for which her dismissal became an absolute necessity. Given the severity of what she had done and her attempts to lie in order to cover it up, Liz Truss had no option but to sack her.

Now I did hear one commentator say that Sunak would not be entirely unhappy to loose his Home Secretary; she was not a choice he would have naturally made and this way at least he gets to say that he adhered to the terms of his bargain. He would now be prepared to sustain the damage caused by loosing her - now that he had achieved the bigger prize as it were.

Could be, but I think that this might be only part of it.

He's going to want Suela Braverman on board to keep the right of the party sweet, but also because of the (sort of) soft threat of her presence. Braverman is a pretty extreme and hardcore authoritarian who will not as Home Secretary be afraid to confront any union inspired trouble head on. She is a major supporter of the increased powers of the police to stop or limit public demonstration (via the Public Order Act currently on its way through the House of Lords) and has made a name for herself as not being an individual who will balk at using force in order to quell indiscipline. Her presence in the role is a subtle message to the unions and the public alike.

Behave or pay the consequences.

Both Braverman and Sunak are strong supporters of the Rwanda policy and a tough approach to immigration. One wonders why individuals whose parents have benefitted so greatly from such freedoms to enter and claim citizenship in this country should now be so unbending in their belief that the same beneficence should not be shown to others.

I think there are two things worth considering here. Firstly, remember that old adage that a woman has to work twice as well as a man to be thought half as good. Well I think that there is a tendency of Tory politicians of colour to believe that the same applies to them, and they deal with this by overcompensating. They have to be seen (they think) to be twice as hard on immigration in order to be believed.

Secondly - and perhaps more controversially - I think that there could be - possibly - an element of religious intolerance involved as well. Both Braverman and Sunak are descendants of the Hindu diaspora that occurred after the partition of India and is now essentially over. Those immigrants that now find their way across to these shores are essentially of Muslim faith, from Pakistan and Afghanistan and the like. That there is no love list between the Hindu and Muslim religions is no secret, and I have heard an Indian restaurant owner bitterly complaining the fact of the entry of Pakistani people into the country in a manner that I found quite shocking. I wonder if this is not playing its own part in where the two politicians are coming from.

Anyway. Just a few thoughts.

(Can I just add to the post I made prior to this one, and perhaps playing devils advocate to my own position, that Liz Truss was no more a Conservative than her hero Margret Thatcher was before her. They were free-market radicals disguising themselves as Conservatives. Conservatives do not do what Liz Truss did to the economy - the clue's in the name. Thatcher was the first one to begin the process of breaking down the postwar consensus and the process has been ongoing ever since.

Were it not for this, I'd probably still be a Conservative voter today; I was very much brought up in the tradition of old school one-nation Toryism. The question is, where does Sunak sit? Is he a traditionalist - or a member of the city's hedge-fund elite who have userped power in the Tory Party of late. These chancers have destroyed the middle ground of small businesses supportive Toryism on the back of selling their souls to globalism and the interests of the markets. No wonder the membership of the shire's have little time for them. In truth it is Kier Stamer that is now closer to what most old folks would recognise as being a Conservative - but let's not prejudge Sunak. Maybe his Indian understanding of the value of tradition might surprise us all.)