UK Politics General Discussion

[BarryZola]

With Jenrick previously tied up in that planning permission scandal a few years back I find it laughable that the Tories are even allowing him to run for leader. Or, that the mainstream media are not calling him out on it in any meaningful way. That's how low politics has got in this country. That guy really is someone not to be trusted, and the thought of him being the leader of the country one day is, well, unthinkable.

 

[Matt N]

Apparently James Cleverly is now the front runner among MPs, but as we’ve seen previously with Truss vs Sunak, that’s no guarantee of him winning among Tory members.

I was always under the impression that Jenrick was a relatively moderate Tory, but he really seems to be playing to the right wing of the party now, with a huge focus on immigration and vowing to leave the ECHR to get immigration controls through, and also supposedly saying that he wants anyone who shouts “Allahu Akbar” in public to be immediately arrested (https://www.theguardian.com/politic...ople-shouting-allahu-akbar-should-be-arrested), amongst other things.

 

[BarryZola]

He's an obvious total slimeball who will robotically say whatever needs to be said to get himself into positions of influence to do favours for people. He's the epitome of everything that's wrong with our politicians. An absolute talking head of nonsense. You only need to look and listen to him to know he's a total creep. Not that I'm judgemental or anything

 

[Matt.GC]

Fair enough; you make good points. Perhaps I was minimising just how bad some of what happened under the 2019-2024 Tory government actually was; when you reel it off like that, it is quite a list of some rather dodgy stuff.

My question is; why have the media latched onto the happenings of the Labour government and made it into a huge controversy with Starmer if it happened under previous governments? I guess I just hoped that with Starmer entering, we could see a more positive discourse around politics again and all this infighting and drama go away, and that doesn’t seem to have happened. I get that many of the media interests in this country are right-wing, but I’ve always felt like blaming “the right-wing media” for anything that goes wrong in left-wing government sounds like a bit of a conspiracy theory to some extent, similar to Liz Truss blaming “the deep state” for everything that went wrong in her government.

I don’t disagree that there are tough choices to be made, and I do think the winter fuel payment means testing was a good idea that we eventually needed to tackle (albeit I’m not sure I agree with the exact small print of how it’s being implemented). Pensions have been a ticking time bomb for years, with an increasing amount of elderly people requiring them and a decreasing amount of working age people to pay for them. However, there seems to be increasing evidence that some policies, such as the VAT on private schools (which I initially agree with in principle), may potentially overload the state sector further and make things worse, and it doesn’t feel like there’s been much positivity or positive happenings since Starmer came in. Everything they’ve done so far has felt very negatively driven rather than a change to make people’s lives better or make things more positive.

Perhaps it’s just me irrationally hoping that Starmer coming in would inject some positive spirit and eventually reinstate a “golden age” similar to the Blair years, where everything apparently worked and the political discourse was largely positive. That doesn’t seem to have happened thus far, and the political discourse seems every bit as scandalous, negative and dramatic as it was before the election. Since Starmer came in, it’s simply felt like doom and gloom, with the scandals, the cuts, and the right wing riots as well (admittedly not Starmer’s fault).

I sometimes feel like I was born around 20 years too late when it comes to politics. Back in the 90s, it sounds like the country was some sort of utopia (for lack of a better term), with the Blair years in particular being brilliant and so positive for the country, whereas it seems like the current UK political discourse is just constant doom and gloom with nothing working well or being positive. One of the first major political events in my time being aware of politics was Brexit (which I thought was a terrible idea even at 13, and while I accepted the referendum result and have tried to give it a fair chance since, I’m yet to be convinced otherwise thus far), and since then, it just seems like everything’s been so unstable and negative. I guess I’m sad to have missed out on what many consider the “golden age”; everything just feels so negative these days, whereas the 90s/early 2000s sounded like such a positive period where everything (or a lot of things, at least) was supposedly better.

I’m hoping that Starmer might reinstate some of that positive spirit from the 90s/2000s, but it doesn’t seem to be happening so far. Perhaps, like our good friends Bianca Samut and Scott O’Neil at Alton Towers and Merlin, it will be a slow burn process that will take many years. Although in the case of Alton/Merlin, there does seem to have been some positivity, more so than with Starmer’s new government.

I hate to break it to you Matt, but yes it is an irrational expectation. It's this horrible era of populism in which we now live, that's being fueled by almost completely unregulated publishers, namely the despicable social media companies. This isn't unique to the UK, in fact in countries like the USA it's even worse! Every time I think we're over the worst of it, something else crops up.

The savagery of the traditional newspapers hasn't changed in my whole lifetime. It's always been this way. They've just found a new way of reporting lies these days now that they've been caught so many times breaking the law in the past. Note the use of quotation marks such as 'Labour Winter Fuel Scandal will lead to "Thousands of Pensioners Freezing to Death" This Winter'. Read that and you'd think there was some sort of research that had been conducted. But no, to print a headline like that, all they have to do is ask some bloke on the street for his opinion, or worse, just rip it off of social media. It doesn't have to be fact, all they're doing is reporting that someone has said that. But if you don't read the article, the impression is already implanted in you brain.

Millions of people then take to social media, punch drunk on this nonsense, and start making up their own stuff. So many people talk about it, others with busy lives think there can't possibly be so much smoke if there isn't a fire, and it becomes an "alternative fact". Because there's so much noise, heavily regulated news agencies like BBC, ITN, and Sky then have to report on it as they're editorially scrutinised and have to report on things that are seen to be of great interest to the public.

The heavily regulated news agencies then can't win. If BBC News go too heavy on the fact checking of the story and relegate it to the third headline, the same right wing publications that started the nonsense that morning will start bleating on about "left wing bias" and call for BBC defunding. If Channel 4 News report it as their main headline, and invite a government minister on for a good grilling, leftie publications and arrogant influencers like Owen Jones will start crying about "right wing bias" and whack OFCOM complaints in.

Until the publisher's of hatred and lies, the social media companies, accept responsibility for what they publish on their domains in persuit of profit, the situation won't change. At least until the western world grows up and opens it's eyes to these toxic websites, and who owns some of them, traditional news outlets will continue throw matches in and watch western political discourse burn.

For balance, this isn't just a Labour thing either. There was plenty of legitimate stuff that the outgoing Tory government should have been hauled through the ringer for, yet there was a disproportionate amount of discussion around Sunak standing in the rain and in front of an exit sign. I found both of those things funny and quite apt, but did we really need news headlines, hour long radio phone ins, interviews, and weeks of discussion about whether Sunak has an umbrella or not?

Populism seems like it's on the march again. Corbyn is organising a group of other equally crazy MP's. Boris Johnson is slowly emerging from his political grave, lying away as usual, trying to flog his new book without an ounce of remorse for his corruption. A Yougov poll is now saying that the Farage is more popular than Starmer at the moment.

Labour have their work cut out trying to be a serious government for serious times amidst all the misinformation that's doing the rounds. A very difficult task to try and remain relevant, at a time where populism is the last thing we need as a country. And as for the battle to become Head of Deckchairs on the Titanic, the Tories are already totally irrelevant for the time being

 

[rob666]

I honestly think that we should force print news/newspapers to be impartial at this point, similar to broadcast news.

You are beginning to sound like a communist Matt...forcing the press to tell the truth!!!
What next?
Proportionate taxation?!?

And don't think things were better under Blair...he had the chance to put things on the right path...he deliberately followed Thatcher on the road to "Isn't Britain Great!"...it wasn't, it was just more divided.
Simple as that.

 

[Benzin]

Cleverley or Badenoch for opposition leader?

Truly are in the dregs of politics.

Guy Fawkes seemed to be right on the ball.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

@Matt N If you have the opportunity, boot up Global Player, go to LBC and start James O'Brien's call in show from 10am today. The first hour's discussion has been around media coverage of Labour's first few months in power. Specifically the introduction starts off with "How worried are you about the state of Keir Starmer's Labour Party?". It's like he read your post last night!

LBC UK - Listen Live | Global Player

Leading Britain's Conversation. Access your favourite LBC shows now!

www.globalplayer.com

You can rewind on the web player too.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

And just like that Cleverly is out.

The final decision between Jenrick and Badenoch will now be made by the Conservative Party membership.

Jenrick has consistently been the favourite for the members, according to polling.

 

[BarryZola]

The members will vote for Jenrick now, I would expect. Would be pretty easy for Labour to destroy him due to sleaze if he was still leader come the next election. Unless Labour really mess things up in the next few years.

 

[Matt.GC]

Oh this is brilliant news in the battle to become Head of Deckchairs. It indicates that the lack of humility and oodles of entitlement on display at their recent conference wasn't just a blip, but the majority view of the rump that remains of this has-been outfit.

By eliminating the 2 candidates that were the most moderate and palatable to voters, it looks like they're not focused on restoring public trust, but squarely focused on the threat from Reform.

Expect dodgy Bob "£75k" Jenrick, the most diplomatic and skilled media handler of the pair, to start reeling off right wing fantasies, and Thatcher worship sermons to woo those members that are mad enough to remain on the ship.

Expect crazy Kemi "maternity pay is too high" Badenock, the live wire out of the pair, to perform her trademark USP of engaging her mouth before her brain, to blurt out crazy stuff to see what sticks among the old colonels, and young bow tie wearing Gideon's.

The contest of this politically irrelevant party just got slightly less uninteresting.

 

[Matt N]

The Tories have evidently now decided that the threat from Reform on the right is bigger than the threat from Labour and the Lib Dems on the left.

Cleverly was probably the remaining candidate who had the most overlap with Starmer and was the most moderate. Jenrick and Badenoch both seem as though they’re playing hard towards the right of the party, from what I’ve seen.

As much as I personally would find the Tories more palatable to vote for if they went more moderate and centrist, and vehemently disagree with the far-right end of the party and Reform, I think the Tories may possibly be right in thinking that Reform are a bigger threat to them than Labour. Labour’s election victory was largely caused by Reform splitting the right wing vote rather than any particular enthusiasm for Labour, and Reform certainly stimulated a lot more enthusiasm than Labour did. More people defected from the Tories to Reform than from the Tories to Labour and the Lib Dems combined.

 

[BarryZola]

There's 'talk' on the radio that some of the people who were going to vote for Cleverly decided to vote tactically for Jenrick because they thought he would be easier to beat in the 'final' than Badenoch, believing that even without their votes for Cleverly he would still go through. But then too many people did it and Cleverly didn't even get enough votes to get through. That backfired hilariously, if that's the case.

 

[Matt.GC]

The Tories have evidently now decided that the threat from Reform on the right is bigger than the threat from Labour and the Lib Dems on the left.

Cleverly was probably the remaining candidate who had the most overlap with Starmer and was the most moderate. Jenrick and Badenoch both seem as though they’re playing hard towards the right of the party, from what I’ve seen.

As much as I personally would find the Tories more palatable to vote for if they went more moderate and centrist, and vehemently disagree with the far-right end of the party and Reform, I think the Tories may possibly be right in thinking that Reform are a bigger threat to them than Labour. Labour’s election victory was largely caused by Reform splitting the right wing vote rather than any particular enthusiasm for Labour, and Reform certainly stimulated a lot more enthusiasm than Labour did. More people defected from the Tories to Reform than from the Tories to Labour and the Lib Dems combined.

I see the logic, but I think it's a strategy destined to fail (which I'm rather happy about). Starmer had a good PMQ's today after weeks of being battered and bruised, and what's left of the Tories are adopting defense mode, not that there's a lot left to defend, rather than attack mode, will make Kier sleep much easier tonight. The PCP may have just handed Labour a decade of power.

It seems logical on the surface. It's an extremely tall order to come back from such a defeat. Hardly anyone is listening to this party anymore, and very few cares what happens to them. So why not elect some sort of caretaker to lay foundations as you prepare for a near generation of opposition? Why not elect a William Hague, Ian Duncan Smith, or Micheal Howard?

The reason why not, is that this is no longer a Tory Vs Labour battle like it used to be. It's a battle for the centre ground with pressure from populist parties on both the right and left. Reform are hard right for sure, but they're not anywhere near conservativism. The left right spectrum is dead. It's realism Vs populism. It's been that way for years now. Why would you go for Diet Reform if you could have the Full Fat version? Reform isn't just about small state, flatter taxes, and dog whistling. It's an unrealistic protest group with a cult following. Why would the conservatives want to follow them down that path? Reform have cornered the market, anything left of the "one nation" leaning voters can just vote Lib Dem or Labour instead and get a party that more represents their views.

I have no evidence for this, but unlike the attempted entryism hijack of Labour under Corbyn, I'm surmising that the Tory membership base that remains probably consists of die hard Thatcherite traditionalists who believe in free market economics, a small state, low taxes, sound public finances, controlled borders, family values, the conservation of traditional customs, and a free society. In order to achieve those aims, they make concessions because they're hooked on winning elections, as they're used to being part of the most successful democratic political entity on earth. But a small batch of MP's, who feel their seats are threatened by the power of Reform, having seen so many colleagues defeated by their ideology, have decided for the membership that this is the fight they feel they need to have.

The Tories will never out Reform Reform. They don't stand a chance. Fighting Labour and the Lib Dems for the dwindling centre ground should have been their strategy. But they seem to have decided that they didn't loose the election through incompetence and ditching their core values, but that they weren't crazy enough! It's madness to try and battle a party with 6 MP's rather than 2 parties who collectively hold 483 seats. It becomes even more rediclous when you consider that the Reform electoral successes were mostly built on foundations of steel, but the many Labour and Lib Dem seats are built from paper on foundations of sand.

 

[Matt N]

It’s an interesting one.

My view, perhaps controversially, is that the single biggest architect of Labour’s landslide victory and the Tories’ catastrophic defeat in this election was Nigel Farage. Reform splitting the right wing vote meant that many Tory seats fell to Labour; without Reform being such a big influence, I don’t think Labour’s victory would have been half as big as it was. I don’t know exact numbers off the top of my head, but there were a very high number of knife-edge marginal seats in this election compared with previous ones, and there were a number of Labour gains from the Tories where they would not have won had it not been for Reform.

In my own seat, for example, Labour won by only around 200 votes. The Forest of Dean constituency was safe Tory territory for 20 years, and our MP was a cabinet minister. And when you look at the vote breakdown… the Reform vote share here was nearly 20%. Had Reform not split the right wing vote so drastically, Mark Harper and the Tories would have won again with a fair majority. I know that there are numerous other Tory seats where this was also the case; for example, Liz Truss lost her safe Tory seat in South West Norfolk to Labour by less than 1,000 votes… that wouldn’t have happened had Reform not split the right wing vote.

The way I see it is that Reform ate into the Tories’ vote a lot more than Labour or the Lib Dems did; had Nigel Farage not been a thorn in the Tories’ side, I think Labour’s majority would have been a lot smaller (or possibly even nonexistent based on their low vote share), and the Tories’ loss would not have been nearly as catastrophic.

With that being said, I can definitely see the flaws in the Tories trying to out-Reform Reform. As much as Farage is popular among a certain cross section of the population, he arguably repels as many people as he attracts and is highly polarising. Translated to a major party leader, one does have to wonder how well they’d do with a “diet Reform” type leader, particularly with Corbyn performing poorly for Labour when they took a similar tack in opposition. Although I guess Johnson was similarly polarising, and he did wonders for the Tories electorally…

 

[Quantum]

The biggest issue for the Tories is they spent the final years on power mired on sleeze and making various promises, none of which were followed through. The assumption that voters will just return because they are a bit more right wing is nieve at best.

Reform seems to be on the up. I'm not convinced by either of the new supposed leaders, I actually think Penny Mordant would have been the best choice for them but loosing her seat put an end to that.

 

[Matt.GC]

It’s an interesting one.

My view, perhaps controversially, is that the single biggest architect of Labour’s landslide victory and the Tories’ catastrophic defeat in this election was Nigel Farage. Reform splitting the right wing vote meant that many Tory seats fell to Labour; without Reform being such a big influence, I don’t think Labour’s victory would have been half as big as it was. I don’t know exact numbers off the top of my head, but there were a very high number of knife-edge marginal seats in this election compared with previous ones, and there were a number of Labour gains from the Tories where they would not have won had it not been for Reform.

In my own seat, for example, Labour won by only around 200 votes. The Forest of Dean constituency was safe Tory territory for 20 years, and our MP was a cabinet minister. And when you look at the vote breakdown… the Reform vote share here was nearly 20%. Had Reform not split the right wing vote so drastically, Mark Harper and the Tories would have won again with a fair majority. I know that there are numerous other Tory seats where this was also the case; for example, Liz Truss lost her safe Tory seat in South West Norfolk to Labour by less than 1,000 votes… that wouldn’t have happened had Reform not split the right wing vote.

The way I see it is that Reform ate into the Tories’ vote a lot more than Labour or the Lib Dems did; had Nigel Farage not been a thorn in the Tories’ side, I think Labour’s majority would have been a lot smaller (or possibly even nonexistent based on their low vote share), and the Tories’ loss would not have been nearly as catastrophic.

With that being said, I can definitely see the flaws in the Tories trying to out-Reform Reform. As much as Farage is popular among a certain cross section of the population, he arguably repels as many people as he attracts and is highly polarising. Translated to a major party leader, one does have to wonder how well they’d do with a “diet Reform” type leader, particularly with Corbyn performing poorly for Labour when they took a similar tack in opposition. Although I guess Johnson was similarly polarising, and he did wonders for the Tories electorally…

Johnson did wonders for the Conservative party electorally, until he crumbled under the weight of his own Populist lies. He was booted out of office by his own party because, despite his electoral success, he was a dishonerable liability. He's the pinnacle of the lessons that should be learned of populist politics. But even Johnson, who's book launch was attended by Bob Jenerick on Tuesday night, wasn't as polarising as Farage is.

It's true that Reform played a huge role in delivering Labour their landslide majority. Other notable architects were the Lib Dems and the Tories themselves. But it's notable that Reform don't solely appeal to right wing voters. They've attracted a great deal of left wingers over the years. Lee Anderson used to be a Labour councillor. Wes Streeting and Bridget Philipson were in touching distance of loosing their seats to Reform in constituencies where the Tories were long dead and buried. Mental populist right wingers like Robert Kilroy-Silk used to be labour MP's. Insane socialist George Galloway was a Labour MP for decades before he became a populist who stood on a platform with Jacob Reece-Mogg and Nigel Farage.

All chasing Reform will do is slow the bleeding in specific areas of the country. With how polarising Reform are, chasing them down the populist rabbit hole risks alienating sensible voters. If also risks alienating the people who, for some reason, have decided to stick with this cowboy outfit through the worst electoral defeat in their history.

I'm no Tory supporter, and never will be. But it used to be a party that had some sort of dignity. The party of "natural government". If Jenerick or Badenock adopt a strategy of trying to pretend to be Reform, they loose that dignity, and it could be argued that they could well have already done so by degrading themselves with Johnson and Truss. It seems like it's no longer the party of May, Hestletine, Clarke, Greene, Major, or even Thatcher itself. If it becomes a Reform tribute act, then they really have given up, and this plays right into Farage's ambitious hands.

 

[Benzin]

Does this Tory leadership decision have to be declared as a "gift" by Labour?

Tories are concerned by Reform because they lost more voters to them. And given that they tend to lose a number of voters each election cycle due to old age they think they can't afford to lose more. There was a big chance that they may not have even been the opposition remember.

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Does this Tory leadership decision have to be declared as a "gift" by Labour?

Tricky question. Does the Tory leadership decision have any actual value over £300?

 

[Matt N]

Interestingly, The Guardian is suggesting that the government is to pledge tens of billions of pounds of investment into public services and infrastructure in the upcoming budget: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...and-hospitals-in-budget?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5

It is believed that this will be funded through borrowing, made possible by Rachel Reeves altering the calculation of her fiscal rules. The Guardian believes that it will be presented by the government as a “down payment on fixing the foundations”, and Starmer has acknowledged the public desire for “sunny uplands” in recent interviews. The hope is that the borrowing for public investment should attract high levels of private investment into the UK.

I’ll confess to knowing very little about how borrowing in the context of government debt works. Part of me hears “borrowing” and thinks of a Liz Truss-style market crash… but another large part of me can see the logic behind it and thinks that this is actually a very good idea, which should hopefully inject some positivity and long term vision back into the country! I’m a little undecided…

What does anyone else think?

 

[GooseOnTheLoose]

Interestingly, The Guardian is suggesting that the government is to pledge tens of billions of pounds of investment into public services and infrastructure in the upcoming budget: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...and-hospitals-in-budget?CMP=oth_b-aplnews_d-5

It is believed that this will be funded through borrowing, made possible by Rachel Reeves altering the calculation of her fiscal rules. The Guardian believes that it will be presented by the government as a “down payment on fixing the foundations”, and Starmer has acknowledged the public desire for “sunny uplands” in recent interviews. The hope is that the borrowing for public investment should attract high levels of private investment into the UK.

I’ll confess to knowing very little about how borrowing in the context of government debt works. Part of me hears “borrowing” and thinks of a Liz Truss-style market crash… but another large part of me can see the logic behind it and thinks that this is actually a very good idea, which should hopefully inject some positivity and long term vision back into the country! I’m a little undecided…

What does anyone else think?

Urgh. Matt. I have a lot of time, respect and love for you, but please listen to an episode of Freakonomics or Planet Money at some point.

The government's spending / budget does not work like your household. The only entity in this country which can create money is The Royal Mint. Everything else is by the by. Profit, revenue, etc. The government decides how much money it has. It can either create money from nothing, which could potentially devalue the currency, or it can borrow it at very low rates. Eitherway, governments are sovereign, hardly go bankrupt, never really default on loans and everyone else is playing a short game.

If you're "borrowing" tens of billions of pounds to invest in programmes and strategies, which are likely to result in economic activity, the markets are fine with that. If you're borrowing tens of billions of pounds to fund tax breaks, a la Truss, the markets are not so ok with that. In such an instance they will sell their reserves in your currency, they will sell your government bonds, they do not believe that they will see a return on their investment. If you're spending tens of billions of pounds on green energy incentives, investment, or even funding the Olympics, the markets are ok with that because there will be some form of return through additional future tax revenue.

In short, if a government creates money to invest, or borrows money to invest, the markets will respond positively or neutrally. If a government creates, or borrows, money to fund tax breaks, the markets will respond negatively because no further wealth is being generated.

Love you lots. Not bitter at you trying to pedant me out.

🪿

Edit: Gosh I was drunk when I tapped this out. Typos fixed.