Tag: United Kingdom

When Rishi Sunak was gushed into Downing Street in October 2022, surrounded by the rumble of Liz Truss’ collapsed premiership, he faced a profound dilemma. As he acknowledged on the steps of No 10, the terms of his accession meant he was forced to assume the role of “fix it” prime minister: he was tasked with “fixing” his faction-riven party; “fixing” its reputation for fiscal probity; and, ultimately, “fixing” its electoral prospects. 

When the door of No 10 Downing Street opened on 25 October, Sunak thus entered a political silo as a post-Truss, post-Johnson prime minister. Cast as a corrective premier, he recognised the clear risk: when the history of this latest iteration of Conservative government is written, he would be reduced to a mere footnote — relative, at least, to the political excesses of his predecessors. 

So, in a doughty bid to weave the warp of fortune’s designs in January 2023, Sunak locked eyes with posterity as he penned five ruthlessly pragmatic pledges. He would not be defined by Truss’ fiscal furore or Johnson’s lax standards legacy — but by his own dogged professionalism. 

For all the strategic switch-ups and media soundbites that have since flowed, Sunak’s ambition in this regard has never once wavered. His tilt against “30 years” of failed consensus, debuted with much machismo at Conservative Party conference last year, was another attempt to contour his own political narrative in terms favourable to him; so, too, is his latest pitch at voters, who are now urged to reject “square one” and Keir Starmer. 

But each relaunch, dividing line and Labour-facing “trap” has barely masked the brutal underlying reality: Rishi Sunak is struggling to hone his pitch and break the forces — Johnsonian, Trussite or some other associated creed — that seek to undermine him. In short, he still does not possess an answer to the question that animated his initial five pledges: how does one govern in the shadow of psychodrama?

This question has taken on renewed prominence in recent days in the wake of Sir Simon Clarke’s stinging Telegraph op-ed. Clarke, a loyal cabinet minister under both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, declared last week that Sunak is “leading the Conservatives into an election where we will be massacred”. “He does not get what Britain needs. And he is not listening to what the British people want”, Clarke added. 

The headlines and column inches Clarke’s intervention inspired will have caused deep consternation in Downing Street. Of course, it came alongside a mysterious poll, commissioned by the clandestine Conservative Britain Alliance (CBA), that purported to show how a real conservative leader could quite easily best Starmer. This came but days after another poll, again borne of the CBA and splashed by the Telegraph, pointing to a 1997-style landslide for the Labour Party. 

Plainly, a plot was afoot — and loyal Conservative parliamentarians rallied behind their exposed premier. For days, a burgeoning pro-Sunak battalion of Tory MPs competed with the lone Clarke for media attention and airtime. In the end, Prime Minister’s Questions last week came and went without a “in the name of God, go” moment. Clarke, isolated and ridiculed, had lost the battle. 

But questions still abound as to the direction of war: who, besides a little-known former No 10 pollster, makes up the rebel ranks of the Conservative Britain Alliance? When did it form? Who funds it? When will they strike again?

In the end, the Conservative Britain Alliance and its backers will remain secret as long as it is politically propitious. Its intention — to operate as an anti-Sunak critical mass, rather than as a mass movement — is nonetheless plain. 

On reflection, while the CBA represents a new force in the war for the soul of the Conservative Party — last week equally reminded us of that which has not changed: specifically, the role of Sir Simon Clarke. 

For Clarke’s op-ed was far from the opening salvo in the campaign to deprive Sunak of high office.

The Telegraph’s spin, designed to legitimise Clarke’s coup attempt, suggested the onetime chief secretary to the Treasury is a “former cabinet ally” of the PM. But while Clarke will have rubbed shoulders with Sunak in the Treasury as his deputy, he has since emerged as the most consistently outspoken member of the prime minister’s rebel alliance. 

There is no shortage claimants to the throne of Sunak’s awkward squad; but Clarke — who has featured in and/or led in rebellions against the PM on housebuilding, wind farms, tax cuts, legal migration, the Rwanda plan — probably possesses the best. He is an associate of a full five out of five of the so-called “five families” of Conservative groupings — the quintet of caucuses that formed amid the Rwanda Bill’s commons stages. And, before his political capital-exhausting regicidal spasm last week, he was slated to feature at the founding of Liz Truss’ latest entrant into the Conservative factional landscape: the “Popular Conservatism” movement. 

Beyond the Rwanda Bill: The Conservative Party faces a bitter, protracted reckoning

How to govern in the shadow of psychodrama?

If the prime minister has concocted any consistent strategy over the past year, it has been to stay busy. Witness him as he tours marginal seats and undertakes regular policy blitzes from the hyper-political (the Rwanda scheme) to the relatively banal (vaping ban). The message has never been subtle: he intends to remind recalcitrant MPs what policy delivery looks like in the hope that they lower their pitchforks and begin, once more, to rally as one. 

In this way, Sunak’s response to Clarke’s Telegraph op-ed was telling. With the vast majority of Conservative MPs united in opposition to Clarke, Sunak ploughed ahead with announcements on smoking and vaping bans. Elsewhere, progress on the restoration of power-sharing in Northern Ireland has also happily coincided with the aftermath of Clarke’s failed coup. 

But, in the wake of Sunak’s new vaping announcement, how quickly rebels amassed. Liz Truss immediately took to the fore, blasting the PM’s proposed smoking ban as “unconservative”. And, amid confusion over whether the commons vote on the vaping ban will be whipped, The Sun newspaper reported that as many as 20 ministers could reject their own government’s position. 

It points to a broader truth: the ever-busy Rishi Sunak is struggling to outrun the shadow of psychodrama that stalks his premiership. In fact, the more policy blitzes he spins into the news agenda, the more opportunities he grants his awkward squad to rebel accordingly. Every commons vote is a crunch point; every press conference a lightning rod for criticism. 

It is plain to see how and why the Conservative Party today — scarred by two regicides since 2022 — is not behaving according to “typical” political laws. MPs are not falling behind their prime minister en masse as an election approaches; the conservative press is becoming an antagonist, rather than an ally; ambition, not loyalty, is viewed as a virtue; cabinet colleagues support in public but plot in private; and “runners and riders” lists of potential Sunak are furiously scribbled by the press and digested by political insiders and outsiders alike. 

This reality, no less than a new Conservative Party settlement, is a clear consequence of the party’s recent psychodramatic arc.

Step back, and much of the Tories’ post-Truss, post-Boris settlement can be measured materially: see the explosion of WhatsApp group chats (often comprised of supporters from a past leadership contest) and parliamentary caucuses. And, crucially, these developments show little sign of slowing. Only in recent days have we learnt of Truss’ new “Popular Conservatism” movement and business secretary Kemi Badenoch’s membership of an “evil plotters” group chat. 

But there are other ways of measuring the lingering legacy of Conservative psychodrama. Note how Clarke instructed his colleagues in his Telegraph op-ed: “We can change leader, and give our country and party a fighting chance”. This level of flippancy regarding the prospect of enstooling the fourth prime minister in this parliament is remarkable — and telling. The prime minister’s post has become, for some, another post into which MPs can be shuffled in and out. The Conservative Party not only talks to itself now — but extreme solutions to intractable political/electoral problems are increasingly the topic of conversation.

In the wake of three regicides (Theresa May, Boris Johnson or Liz Truss), most Conservative MPs can identify with a “coup”, either as a winner or a loser. Indeed, one reading of recent Conservative history paints Rishi Sunak as an arch-schemer, masterminding the downfall of Johnson and Truss consecutively. Twice the prime minister has deprived Simon Clarke of a cabinet post, the former chief secretary to the treasury and levelling up secretary might conclude. Why should he now get a free pass?

While Clarke is right now an isolated voice, dismissed by Sunak’s allies as a Trussite crank — the picture is in constant evolution. For with February arrives another double by-election day in two seats the Conservative Party won handsomely at the 2019 election. Electors in Wellingborough and Kingswood can be expected to give Rishi Sunak’s party a kicking, as they slide into a variety of anti-Conservative receptacles such as Starmer’s Labour, or perhaps more portentously, Reform UK. 

Once the results are in, after an initial period of feigned shock, followed by a round of WhatsApp introspection, more MPs could join Clarke in calling for Sunak’s ouster.

It seems overwhelmingly probable that soon, in a post-election scenario, Rishi Sunak will cease to be leader of the Conservatives. But there is also no reason to believe the fall of another party premier will radically alter the dynamics of intra-Conservative conflict. Indeed, if Sunak’s successor fails to make strides against a Starmer government, how long before the call goes out to be deprive them of their office — presumably from some dispossessed faction? 

WhatsApp groups can be deleted and caucuses dissolved, but with regicide comes cultural and institutional consequences — and, with Clarke’s op-ed in particular, this is increasingly plain. 

It bodes ill for Rishi Sunak and whoever dares to follow him. 

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

The Society of Editors, an industry body representing around 400 UK national and regional media editors, has vowed to “name and shame” candidates and political parties who use fake local newspapers as campaign material.

Leaflets with the appearance of local papers have been on the rise in recent years, prompting the Society of Editors to intervene on the “insulting” practice. 

The Conservative Party faced criticism after using the name of “Lincoln Chronicle” on material distributed in the area. Other fictional titles used in campaign literature include the “Stroud, Valleys and Vale Chronicle” and the “Uxbridge and South Ruislip People”. 

This later title, which mirrored the local council-run and apolitical Hillingdon People, was used successfully in the Uxbridge and South Ruislip by-election in urging readers to “Stop ULEZ”.

Meanwhile, a fake title “Wokingham Focus” in Berkshire was distributed by the Liberal Democrats this month, criticising Conservative MP Sir John Redwood over his record on dealing with sewage.

Responding to the rise of fake newspapers, Society of Editors chief executive Dawn Alford, said: “We have written to representatives of all political parties urging them to put an end to this mimicry as well as vowing to name and shame those who continue to attempt to pull the wool over voters’ eyes.”

She added: “The Society of Editors has long campaigned against political parties using fake newspapers to promote their candidates in election periods.

“Not only does this absurd practice damage democracy and undermine public trust in both politics and the news media, but it is also insulting to the electorate who are not stupid and expect officials and candidates to communicate with them in an open and transparent manner.”

“The news media plays a vital role in a democracy, and, during election periods, journalists are essential in helping to communicate party policies to the public.

“Instead of employing vast time and effort into brazen deception, parties should instead look to highlight and promote the work of the actual local press as a trusted source of news and information to the public.”

While the Electoral Commission does not have any powers to regulate style or design of campaign literature, material must bear an imprint with information as to who made and funded it by law. 

A Conservative Party spokesman responded to a Telegraph report on fake newspapers: “All election literature comes with a legally required imprint. This imprint makes it clear the literature is from the Conservative Party. Communication with voters is standard practice.”

A Liberal Democrats’ spokesman said: “Tabloid newspapers are an effective way of communicating with people and have been used by all political parties for years

“All our campaigning literature including tabloids makes it clear that it has come from the Liberal Democrats. Having strong local media plays a critical role in holding those in power to account and we will continue working closely with great local newspapers across the country.”

Source

Prime minister’s questions began today with a sober appeal from Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle, who urged MPs to stop their shouting, put away the props and banish their bad language. Week after week, Sir Lindsay warns rowdy MPs he’ll send them out the chamber “for an early cup of tea” — so this was a signal, it seemed, that the Speaker had finally had enough.

From these comments, we can infer that Sir Lindsay probably had his eyes on a quiet clash today focussed, perhaps, on the prospect of a return to power-sharing in Northern Ireland. Keir Starmer could cite background as a human rights lawyer during the Troubles, and Rishi Sunak could hail the progress made in recent days as a product of his doughty professionalism. It would be a mild-mannered, jeer-free affair. 

But the Labour leader had other ideas. 

In the wake of news that the MP for Norfolk, George Freeman, quit as science minister in November in order to take other jobs to cover his mortgage payments, Starmer went in hard on the economy. 

The cost of living is an issue that Labour thinks our multi-millionaire prime minister is especially exposed on. Indeed, no matter the driving focus of Starmer’s PMQs questioning in recent weeks — be that the Rwanda deportation plan or some awkward squad onslaught — his comments have been framed by the view that Sunak does “not understand” Britain. 

The cost of living provides manifest opportunities to sneak in such attack lines. But, in truth, today, the PM rather made Keir Starmer’s argument for him. 

First, Starmer referred to Freeman with a worthy gag: “A Tory MP counting the cost of Tory chaos — after 14 years, have we finally discovered what they meant when they said ‘we’re all in this together’?”.

The line “We’re all in this together”, of course, is classic Cameron-speak — and was repeated incessantly by the former prime minister and present foreign secretary both before and after the 2010 election as austerity rolled in. 

Rishi Sunak returned the favour by referencing former Labour leader and present shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband, whom he suggested was Starmer’s “mentor”. (During the 2010-2015 parliament, Miliband was reported to have encouraged Sir Keir to apply for his current Holborn and St Pancras seat). The PM declared:

“It’s incumbent upon [the Labour leader] to explain to the British people how his policy of decarbonising the grid by 2030 is going to be funded. … All these years later it’s the same old story, the right honourable member for Doncaster North [Ed Miliband] has carved a promise in stone and everyone else just looks away in embarrassment” 

The prime minister also cited the recent national insurance cut and the mortgage charter that chancellor Jeremy Hunt introduced last year as examples of his government’s commitment to tackle the cost of living. It was paint-by-numbers politics on the cost of living; in fact, Sunak seemed by gaining the upper hand — going by the rowdiness of his backbenchers at least. 

But the Labour leader had a further, pretty tried and tested, trick up his sleeve. He told the House about an individual named “Phil”, an employee at Iceland in Warrington who spoke to the Labour leader this week about how his mortgage is going up by £1000 a month. “If the member for mid-Norfolk [George Freeman] on £120,000 can’t afford this Tory government, how on earth can people like Phil?”, Starmer said. It was canny questioning — tying together an SW1 bubble story with the broader national picture.

Of course, the Labour leader had visited Iceland this week following chief executive Richard Walker’s endorsement. Conservative MPs appeared to find the reference funny, with a fresh round of jeers breaking out in the chamber. 

As his backbenchers rallied behind him, Rishi Sunak prepared what he thought was the perfect response to Starmer’s taunts. He countered that the Labour leader should have informed Phil that Conservative stewardship of the economy has meant inflation is “less than half of what it was a year ago”.

“Thanks to this government”, Sunak added, “Phil and millions of others – not just at Iceland, but across the country – are benefiting this month, in their pay packets for a tax cut worth hundreds of pounds for someone on an average salary!”. 

He also asked if Starmer told Phil how much he might lose in “higher taxes” under Labour, amid laughter and jeering from Conservative MPs. Finally, the PM pondered whether Starmer had told Phil how he was going to pay for his “£28 billion spending spree”. 

Sunak is “so out of touch it’s unbelievable”, Starmer returned, adding that most people do not have lots of money “knocking around”. “Shame”, he said of Conservative MPs who had spent much of the previous questioning jeering. 

The PM doesn’t get how “hard it is” for people like the Iceland supermarket worker, Starmer continued, arguing that it is Sunak’s response to never take responsibility, show contrition or “any level of basic understanding”. In closing, he returned to former minister George Freeman who he claimed is “exhausted” — why doesn’t the PM call an election so “him and the whole country can move on?”.

Rishi Sunak rammed in some pre-prepared riff, ending with a plea to voters not to return to “square one” with Starmer. But the damage had arguably been done; someone track down Phil from Iceland and see what he makes of Sunak’s strained PMQs canvassing. 

PMQs verdict: Keir Starmer 4, Rishi Sunak 2

Josh Self is Editor of Politics.co.uk, follow him on Twitter here.

Politics.co.uk is the UK’s leading digital-only political website, providing comprehensive coverage of UK politics. Subscribe to our daily newsletter here.

Source

Trusting opinion polls can burn — Ed Miliband learnt this the hard way in 2015 — but so can disregarding them. Hence the recent animated response to Reform UK’s upward polling trajectory. 

Progressives are taking the substantial vote share forecast for the latest incarnation of the Brexit Party, a joint project of Nigel Farage and Richard Tice, as cause for celebration. I’m unconvinced.

Earlier this year, Reform UK’s leader, Tice, said unequivocally that there’ll be no electoral deals with the Conservatives. Of course, this makes for grim news if you’re a Tory. At the 2019 General Election, Nigel Farage handed Boris Johnson a lifeline when he stood down Brexit Party prospective parliamentary candidates in constituencies across the UK. This dramatically minimised the risk of vote-splitting on the right — something yet to be mastered on the left and left-of-centre — resulting in Tory victories in numerous seats where, had the Brexit Party not compromised, progressive challengers could very plausibly have won.

That the Brexit Party’s successor party, Reform UK, has ruled out right-wing cooperation, of the kind facilitated by Farage in 2019, increases the likelihood of a fractured right-wing vote. This could make progressive victories more easily realisable in constituencies up and down the country. 

When did we start to put stock in the pronouncements of right-wing demagogues, though? 

Don’t get me wrong, if Tice makes good on his ruling out of cooperation with the Conservatives, progressives stand to benefit. The risk, however, is that the duck will quack — that an opportunist will follow the opportunity, irrespective of what he might have said previously.

Perhaps fourteen years of Conservative government have made me cynical. Or perhaps not. Scratch beneath the surface of Tice’s comments on electoral cooperation, and alarm bells should ring. Reform UK will stand in every seat across the country, Tice has declared on several occasions. In other words, there will be no electoral deals with the Conservatives where that means standing down Reform UK candidates. 

We know, however, that cooperation doesn’t start and end with “stand-aside” agreements. 

One of the things that Compass activists organising at the grassroots know well is that progressive cooperation takes various forms, and it’s exceptionally rare for a party’s candidates to be stood down en masse, as was the case with the Brexit Party in 2019. It’s much more common for parties to cooperate through non-aggression pacts and by standing “paper candidates” but agreeing not to campaign for them with any enthusiasm.

This feature of progressive cooperation holds true in the case of regressive cooperation. Reform UK and the Tories might still come to some cooperation agreement, and Reform UK’s sizeable vote share potentially increases the likelihood of cooperation with the Conservatives — just not in the form of stand-aside agreements. 

Tice’s comments about the post-election period only serve to strengthen the case against the progressive celebration of Reform UK’s predicted vote share. He has repeatedly refused to rule out such forms of cooperation as power-sharing in a post-election coalition with the Conservatives. If Tice is willing to compromise after the election in order to achieve influence over the direction of government, why rest assured that Reform UK won’t agree to some kind of non-stand-aside cooperation before the election if it secures the party some comparable influence?

Speculating about events yet to unfold in British politics is risky, but we know several things confidently. Current Tory MPs are in conversation with Reform UK, and just last week, chair of the Conservative Party, Richard Holden, said that should Nigel Farage, honorary president of Reform UK, apply for membership of the Conservative Party, his request would be considered. 

I recoil at the thought of Tory-Reform cooperation in the form of Reform UK candidates running for parliament as Conservative Party nominees — but stranger things have happened. If Conservative Party and Reform UK selections for parliamentary candidates were to become intermingled, Tice could still plausibly say that Reform UK candidates are standing all across Britain, albeit with blue rosettes.

The upshot of the potentiality of a regressive alliance is this: celebration amongst progressives about Reform UK’s predicted vote share is premature. 

The case for progressive cooperation is just as urgent now as it was before Reform UK began to look poised to split the Tory vote. As is the case for democratic reform, starting with the introduction of a proportional voting system for the House of Commons. 

Only when we free ourselves from the shackles of First Past the Post will we be able to look beyond the disingenuous electoral gymnastics our current voting system forces us to contort to. Only then will we be able to cooperate with other parties for the right reasons, and not need to worry about the sorts of backroom deal-brokering that Reform UK and the Tories may yet engage in.

Source

A government minister and ardent Brexiteer has urged businesses to “adapt” to higher post-Brexit costs, with food and fresh flower imports from the European Union subjected to new customs controls from today.

Dame Andrea Leadsom, a health minister, insisted this morning that the additional checks due to not being in the EU single market have been “absolutely known about since 2016”.

The new post-Brexit customs controls are set to add more than £300 million a year to the price of trading with the continent.

Under the new red tape rules, imports of chilled and frozen meat and fish, cheese and dairy products and five common varieties of cut flowers will require an export health certificate, signed off by a European vet or plant inspector, before they can enter the UK.

From 30 April, the same categories of goods will face physical inspections at the border, raising the prospect of delays and shortages.

But, speaking to Sky News this morning, Leadsom said that since leaving the EU, the UK has been able to sign up to 70 trade deals and join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP). 

She said: “So whilst we are still trading enormous amounts with the EU, we have opened up other opportunities for UK businesses, exports and imports too”.

When challenged on the government’s admission that these new post-Brexit checks are set to cost an extra £330m per year, she replied: “There are big opportunities from free trade deals.”

She added: “Businesses knew at the time of Brexit that in leaving the European single market, there would be additional checks at the border because by definition we were no longer in that single market. There was no surprise about that.”

“I understand that today it’s a big news story because it’s something that finally has come home to roost.

“But the fact of the matter remains that businesses have huge opportunities with other parts of the world, which are the direct benefit of us leaving the European Union.”

Asked what she would say to businesses set to face soaring costs, she replied: “Businesses need to adapt to meet the changing environment.”

The new rules being introduced today come four years after similar checks were imposed on UK exporters to Europe. They have already been delayed five times because of concerns about disruption and increasing costs to consumers.

The government’s own estimates say the cost of trading with Europe will increase by £330 million a yea and increase food inflation, a key driver of the cost of living crisis, by 0.2 per cent over the next three years.

The Leave-supporting Leadsom also later told Times Radio that it has been long suggested that such issues would occur as a result of post-Brexit arrangements: “It was very clear in the Brexit discussions a long time ago now, today is the fourth anniversary of leaving the EU, it was very clear that we would be leaving the single market.

“What that does mean is that there is some friction in trade. However, we also have huge trading arrangements with other countries around the world. I think (there are) 70 free trade deals that we have signed up to including being the first European signatory to the Trans-Pacific Partnership from where, potentially, up to half the world’s growth is going to come in the next few decades.”

She added: “So there is a huge new opportunity for the UK at the same time as continuing to trade, albeit with some friction, which is the price you pay for leaving the single market and for being a sovereign state again.

“For me as a Brexiteer, I am still absolutely convinced that this is the right thing to do.”

Source

Sinn Féin has claimed that Irish reunification is “within touching distance” as the party’s deputy leader, Michelle O’Neill, prepares to accept the post of Northern Ireland first minister.

Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald said on Tuesday that the expected restoration of power sharing was a signal of a “historical turning of the wheel” that would unite the island.

She said: “In historic terms, it is within touching distance and I think that is a very exciting thing and I hope people will find that a very welcoming conversation”.

McDonald has previously predicted a referendum on Irish unity by 2030. 

The 1998 Good Friday Agreement states the secretary of state for Northern Ireland, presently Chris Heaton-Harris, must call a border poll if it “appears likely” a majority would back reunification.

Amid the possibility that O’Neill could become first minister of the Stormont executive by the weekend, McDonald said: “That will be a moment of very great significance, not simply because we haven’t had government for so long but because it will be the first time that we will have a Sinn Féin first minister, a nationalist first minister”.

O’Neill is now expected to become the first nationalist first minister in Northern Ireland’s history after she led Sinn Fein to a historic victory in the May 2022 elections.

It comes after DUP leader Sir Jeffrey Donaldson signalled an end to two years of deadlock early on Tuesday when a meeting of the party’s executive endorsed a deal to revive power sharing.

Speaking this morning, UK government minister Dame Andrea Leadsom rejected that Irish reunification is “within touching distance”, describing Northern Ireland as “an integral and critical part of the United Kingdom”.

She told Sky News: “I’m an equal Brexiteer and Unionist, so I absolutely will do everything possible to ensure that Northern Ireland remains part of the UK internal market, that we respect totally the challenges of Northern Ireland.”

Meanwhile, shadow minister Tulip Siddiq told Sky News that Labour is “happy” the DUP and UK government have reached an agreement to restore power-sharing in Stormont.

Challenged again on if Labour would support a united Ireland if that is what the people of Northern Ireland wanted, she replied: “I think we have to see how the negotiations go and see the details of what comes forward.”

Pushed repeatedly, Siddiq added that Sinn Fein would “probably not” have Labour’s support for a united Ireland.

Source