When Will It All Go Wrong For The Tories/ Johnson?

[nw1]

Johnson's eventual failure needs the context of a stronger / up and coming successor. Maybe I'm missing something, but right now I don't see one from either side of the chamber.

Or just needs to be 'found out' for the charlatan, the British Trump, that he is. I suspect few saw Major as a 'stronger' or 'up and coming' successor to Thatcher in say 1988, but a couple of years later he had indeed replaced her - and that was the only thing that won the Tories the 1992 election. A perhaps-dull, but safe and inoffensive leader with reasonable views on more issues than any other Tory leader of the past 40 years (though for the record I still voted the other way in 1992..), his main fault, besides rail privatisation, was that he allowed too many right-wing hawks into his cabinet (Peter 'Brexiter with a house in France' Lilley, Michael Howard, John Redwood, and the like). There is no way they would have won had Thatcher clung on.

I am struggling to find another Tory who might convincingly win against Labour - but I think there's a good chance that by this time in 2024 we'll have a new PM (from either party) with a rather different outlook on life.

 

[brad465]

PMs always do, I can't think of the last one who got their timing right*. Attlee and Churchill weren't the worst but just about every other has gone on too long (or shouldn't have been there in the first place, effectively the same thing). Johnson would want his place on the world stage (COPT-26) so is unlikely to be able to avoid the fallout of the impending price rises.

* - possibly Baldwin (before my time).

Reports suggested he came up with the botched visa relaxation because he'd had enough of the negative headlines (which sounds very him). I don't see headlines getting anymore positive for him (other than the party conference maybe), with the following negative headlines likely:

- Inflation hasn't peaked, as price rises are clearly forecast and even the Bank of England don't think it's peaked yet.
- The universal credit deadline will either lead to more stories about fuel/food poverty surging, and/or the consequences of a u-turn on the cut (Tory rebels to the cut are publicly voicing concerns).
- These things are helping increase beliefs that a "Winter of Discontent 2" is on the way, where if this term gets applied in the press the Government won't be in a good place.
- The Budget is unlikely to have anything appealing, with tax rises and cuts likely to feature as Sunak is setting about lines of sustainable finances (he won't meet them if our economy keeps being driven by asset inflation, but that's another story).
- Shortages of products are not going away anytime soon, as the HGV driver shortage isn't going to be fixed imminently, especially if the worsening trend of late continues, which is possible given concerns being raised about Christmas.
- The NI tax hike is due to take effect in April. On its own this will cause problems, but if a "Winter of Discontent 2" has seen wages fall far behind inflation, this risks creating the same effect the poll tax introduction did (the riots didn't happen the moment the tax was announced, but once its effects were being noticed).

Of course one could argue the Government has shaken off a lot of bad headlines, especially with covid, and can do the same again. Maybe, but if much of the above materialises, they'll struggle to do/show anything popular.

 

[nw1]

I'm no fan of Bojo, but he did get Brexit done, and we should just "move on". It was yesterday's issue (except in the 6 counties). Do you really think that the French would agree to Perfidious Albion getting closer to or re-joining the EU anytime soon? The current problems of high gas prices, climate change, Covid etc. are not linked to Brexit, and how the current government deals with these issues will determine its future prospects.

I suspect that most continental politicians would want there to be less bureaucracy between the EU and the UK as it just causes difficulties - both ways. For one thing, hard Brexit stops their citizens freely travelling to the UK, for another thing, it adds bureaucracy to trade with the UK. If Macron (and I doubt it's France as a whole, it's just Macron, who strikes me as an anglophobe) wants to channel Napoleon, let him - but if he ends up being isolated by other leaders that take more of an objective view, there won't be a lot he can do about it.

For what it's worth I think Europe as a whole would be a much better place with Johnson and Macron removed from power. Maybe Trump can be persuaded to put both of them up permanently at Mar-a-Lago, as he seems to get on quite well with the pair of them.

 

[ainsworth74]

If Macron (and I doubt it's France as a whole, it's just Macron, who strikes me as an anglophobe) wants to channel Napoleon, let him - but if he ends up being isolated by other leaders that take more of an objective view, there won't be a lot he can do about it.

All politics is local and Macron is in a tough re-election fight so playing to the gallery makes sense. One suspects that that is part of the reason the French totally lost it at the AUKUS deal rather than just being, justifiably, miffed.

 

[brad465]

All politics is local and Macron is in a tough re-election fight so playing to the gallery makes sense. One suspects that that is part of the reason the French totally lost it at the AUKUS deal rather than just being, justifiably, miffed.

The only reason countries have enemies is because if we/they didn't the population would notice all the Government's domestic failings.

 

[nw1]

The only reason countries have enemies is because if we/they didn't the population would notice all the Government's domestic failings.

While there might be genuine cause for hostility towards a genuine dictator in the name of self-defence, it's certainly the case with the completely unnecessary mock-hostility between the UK and the EU.

 

[Cowley]

All politics is local and Macron is in a tough re-election fight so playing to the gallery makes sense. One suspects that that is part of the reason the French totally lost it at the AUKUS deal rather than just being, justifiably, miffed.

That’s how it looks to me too. It plays out as an interesting headline (if you do it right) to all of the people that you in particular are trying to appeal to, but I think there’s a certain degree of faked outrage going on here too.

 

[Busaholic]

PMs always do, I can't think of the last one who got their timing right*. Attlee and Churchill weren't the worst but just about every other has gone on too long (or shouldn't have been there in the first place, effectively the same thing). Johnson would want his place on the world stage (COPT-26) so is unlikely to be able to avoid the fallout of the impending price rises.

* - possibly Baldwin (before my time).

Much though I dislike the guy (not just for Iraq and the Middle East) I think there's a case for saying Blair timed it about right, from his point of view at least. Despite my distaste for him, if I woke up tomorrow and found he'd suddenly become P.M. again, I'd give two cheers and a muttered 'thank God.'

 

[Typhoon]

Much though I dislike the guy (not just for Iraq and the Middle East) I think there's a case for saying Blair timed it about right, from his point of view at least. Despite my distaste for him, if I woke up tomorrow and found he'd suddenly become P.M. again, I'd give two cheers and a muttered 'thank God.'

I agree that the time was right, it is the manner that wasn't, in my opinion.
It is the way he was hounded out that I feel always looks damaging - and would look damaging for Johnson (who has 'sacked' a fair number of fairly able ministers in his time, either those he himself appointed or those he inherited - some of whom appear to have no difficulty in being critical). In Blair's case there was the drip-drip-drip of criticism that did for him; with Johnson it is like water off a duck's back, it will need less a steady drip, more a steady downpour, with some assistance from the aggrieved on his own benches.

I note that Tom Watson wrote a leaked letter (by whom, I wonder) signed by a number of very junior ministers urging Blair to go. Corbyn and Watson, that really was a low ebb for Labour!

 

[Busaholic]

I agree that the time was right, it is the manner that wasn't, in my opinion.
It is the way he was hounded out that I feel always looks damaging - and would look damaging for Johnson (who has 'sacked' a fair number of fairly able ministers in his time, either those he himself appointed or those he inherited - some of whom appear to have no difficulty in being critical). In Blair's case there was the drip-drip-drip of criticism that did for him; with Johnson it is like water off a duck's back, it will need less a steady drip, more a steady downpour, with some assistance from the aggrieved on his own benches.

I note that Tom Watson wrote a leaked letter (by whom, I wonder) signed by a number of very junior ministers urging Blair to go. Corbyn and Watson, that really was a low ebb for Labour!

Watson was well-known as a Brownite.

 

[317 forever]

The Tories are in ways well positioned to win the next General Election. They have implemented this relatively hard Brexit, but then a small majority had voted Leave anyway. They have been comparatively left-wing over furlough during Covid and rail, in terms of bringing back some franchises to public control and preparing a less commercially-driven structure for rail generally. Like in the 80s, the people they are willing to neglect - students and people on Universal Credit - would not have voted Tory anyway.

So they do at least have policies that suit established Tory voters and floating voters - a healthy recipe for victory in a General Election.

 

[edwin_m]

The Tories are in ways well positioned to win the next General Election. They have implemented this relatively hard Brexit, but then a small majority had voted Leave anyway. They have been comparatively left-wing over furlough during Covid and rail, in terms of bringing back some franchises to public control and preparing a less commercially-driven structure for rail generally. Like in the 80s, the people they are willing to neglect - students and people on Universal Credit - would not have voted Tory anyway.

So they do at least have policies that suit established Tory voters and floating voters - a healthy recipe for victory in a General Election.

A perfect illustration of how FPTP election systems encourage parties to play to their bases rather than trying to govern for the whole population. This may work in the short term but it leads to a divided country, which the right is actively stoking.

The risk for the Tories is that a fairly small number deserting the base can lead to a tipping point, as everyone else it too alienated to even consider voting for them. Most people consider they should have done more and sooner over Covid. Rail is a minority interest for the wider public, and I think the current chaos on some parts of the network will play louder than the fact a few franchises have gone into temporary state control and there is some nebulous new system (still with private operation) in the future.

Some of the people who voted Leave would have wanted to remain in the single market and/or customs union, and more may be coming to that view now that "Project Fear" is looking more like "Project Fact". That Leave majority was obtained by deception and is almost certainly not a majority now.

 

[Kez]

Johnson is (ironically) a classic populist.

Populists appeal to people who feel left behind by 'a distant political elite' who don't listen to them. In his case, he pointed his finger at Brussels and the EU. Now he has got rid of his 'distant political elite' by leaving the EU, he is very much in danger of becoming 'the distant political elite' (which many people would see him and his party as being naturaly both political and social elites).

He won't level up Britain so his appeal will be gone, unless that bizarre British trait of voting in the joke candidate 'for a laugh' continues to trump (see what I did there) all else. There should be no one in this land who is proud of the government we have. I see the appeal of Johnson as pretty much akin to the appeal of Mussolini ... and the trains don't even run on time.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

A perfect illustration of how FPTP election systems encourage parties to play to their bases rather than trying to govern for the whole population. This may work in the short term but it leads to a divided country, which the right is actively stoking.

Without wanting to derail the topic, I think it's more nuanced than that. Even if we had PR, a party (or allied group of parties) could still probably stay in power by playing to 55% of voters while ignoring the other 45%, so the problem of playing to the base isn't purely a consequence of FPTP. The difference FPTP with the UK multi-party vote distribution makes is to reduce the % of people you need to keep on-side from 51% to about 40%.

 

[Dai Corner]

Without wanting to derail the topic, I think it's more nuanced than that. Even if we had PR, a party (or allied group of parties) could still probably stay in power by playing to 55% of voters while ignoring the other 45%, so the problem of playing to the base isn't purely a consequence of FPTP. The difference FPTP with the UK multi-party vote distribution makes is to reduce the % of people voters you need to keep on-side from 51% to about 40%.

Fixed that for you.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Fixed that for you.

Haha! Yes that's true. On this occasion, I'll accept your fix

 

[SuspectUsual]

Johnson is (ironically) a classic populist.

Indeed. And I suspect the reason is that he has a desperate desire to be liked. I’m no shrink, but I’d imagine a lot of that has its roots in his childhood. You saw it during lockdown, when they were doing the daily press conferences and if there was a bad news story he’d almost always let Hancock / Sharma / Patel / almost anyone else front up to the press

 

[edwin_m]

Without wanting to derail the topic, I think it's more nuanced than that. Even if we had PR, a party (or allied group of parties) could still probably stay in power by playing to 55% of voters while ignoring the other 45%, so the problem of playing to the base isn't purely a consequence of FPTP. The difference FPTP with the UK multi-party vote distribution makes is to reduce the % of people you need to keep on-side from 51% to about 40%.

That may be true. However it's probably very difficult for a single party to get support of 51% of either the public or the voters, unless it's somewhere like the USA where the two party system is basically insititutionalised so third parties can't exist in any meaningful way. In countries with PR, governments are almost always coalitions, where a majority of voters probably supported one of the participating parties so should see at least some of their preferred policies put into effect. In England at least, 10% to 20% typically don't support one of the two main parties and that's probably enough that neither will ever get to 51%, despite both having to accommodate diverging opinions that would be in different parties under a PR system. The other nations of the UK are rather different but England dominates the population and the representation.

As with all previous ones, the breakaway or expulsion of the "one nation" wing of the Tory party in 2019 didn't change the balance of power. It has probably left the party more united than before, but united around a relatively extreme viewpoint which probably won't always command popular support. Not having the moderates in house will make it more difficult for the party to shape-shift back towards a more centrist view, as Johnson will be beholden to factions that are wedded to policies neither realistic nor, in the long term, popular.

 

[brad465]

As with all previous ones, the breakaway or expulsion of the "one nation" wing of the Tory party in 2019 didn't change the balance of power. It has probably left the party more united than before, but united around a relatively extreme viewpoint which probably won't always command popular support. Not having the moderates in house will make it more difficult for the party to shape-shift back towards a more centrist view, as Johnson will be beholden to factions that are wedded to policies neither realistic nor, in the long term, popular.

They might be quite united around a Brexit viewpoint, but there are still divisions. The new Northern MPs want more spending for their areas in line with the "levelling up" agenda, but Southern MPs typically don't, and Southern MPs also are concerned about planning legislation that the Northern MPs want more. There seem to be reservations about cutting Universal Credit within the party as well. There are/were of course notable divisions around Covid policy too, although while we no longer have restrictions this has of course eased.

 

[Typhoon]

We as citizens have to take some responsibility for our health too.
We shouldn’t always go first to the state.
What kind of society would that be?
Health - and social care - begins at home.
Family first, then community, then the state.

Quote from Sajid Javid's Conservative Party speech. Now there is very little wrong with the actual words (except 'community' is very vague, I certainly wouldn't want my neighbours knowing what is on my medical record and if it means volunteers, they would need to have the necessary skills. Most of the carers I see driving around my area are employed to undertake particular tasks. Mr Javid describes a situation where he was a visitor to a care home in his speech, such people do little to relieve the pressure on the health and care systems, although they will probably bring enjoyment to those they visit). Family are still very much a part of the care system, I was a carer for five years and I know of many residents locally who are very much integral in the care of their relatives. It is not always possible though, when (usually) a child has moved away for employment purposes. However, there are limits, like in a local case when a elderly man developed full-blown dementia.

My concern is that it may be the first step to distance government from the care of those not in care homes, It is, I think, widely recognised that the hike in NI will do nothing about the 'crisis' in social care so emotional pressure will be applied. However, if in a year or two's time voters see that the situation in care is worsening (as well as hospital waiting lists not shortening) the Tories may be in trouble.

Oh, Mr Javid, I paid NI - National Insurance - all my working life, that is why I look to the state! And try supporting those who care for relatives rather more, at the moment what is offered is usually pitiful (I was offered a course some distance away, might have been useful but I didn't have the time).

 

[brad465]

Cassetteboy returned to remix Johnson once more:

 

[Typhoon]

This won't help:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertain...g-james-bond/ar-AAPe0fP?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

Veteran Tory Sir Peter Bottomley has spoken of the “grim” struggle of living on an MP’s £81,932 salary.

Whether we agree or disagree with how much an MP is paid, his timing is way off. The same day as 'Iron Man Boris's* party conference speech and just after the increase in energy prices and the cut in Universal Credit.

* from the front page of the Daily Express. They may be right, his slogans are already getting rusty.


Quote from Tory MP reveals ‘desperation’ of living on £82k as he asks for pay rise (msn.com) (quotes Evening Standard). No mention that Bottomley is also eligible for his State Pension.

 

[TheEdge]

One quote that's really got under my skin is Boris's attitude towards the issues facing pig farming as being an animal welfare or vegan issue as opposed to a disgusting waste of food and yet another money pit for farmers.

 

[daodao]

One quote that's really got under my skin is Boris's attitude towards the issues facing pig farming as being an animal welfare or vegan issue as opposed to a disgusting waste of food and yet another money pit for farmers.

Many consider that pigs are vile creatures and that it is a disgusting waste of food to feed it to them. By contrast, cattle and sheep by and large graze on grasslands that are little suited to other forms of agriculture. A large number of people won't eat pig meat, including Muslims worldwide and many others in south Asia. Boris is right to focus on the animal welfare and vegan issues related to pig farming.

 

[ainsworth74]

Many consider that pigs are vile creatures and that it is a disgusting waste of food to feed it to them. By contrast, cattle and sheep by and large graze on grasslands that are little suited to other forms of agriculture. A large number of people won't eat pig meat, including Muslims worldwide and many others in south Asia. Boris is right to focus on the animal welfare and vegan issues related to pig farming.

It is surely even more wasteful therefore to slaughter them and not even use the carcasses for meat? We can argue about the wider issues of mechanised industrial animal rearing for slaughter (from both ethical and environmental angles) but that seems like the sort of change which needs to be managed over the course of years. It can hardly be considered a good thing to have thousands of pigs slaughtered for no reason other than a lack of trained people to butcher them properly to enable their use? That's even more wasteful than the existing process might already be!

 

[daodao]

It is surely even more wasteful therefore to slaughter them and not even use the carcasses for meat? We can argue about the wider issues of mechanised industrial animal rearing for slaughter (from both ethical and environmental angles) but that seems like the sort of change which needs to be managed over the course of years. It can hardly be considered a good thing to have thousands of pigs slaughtered for no reason other than a lack of trained people to butcher them properly to enable their use? That's even more wasteful than the existing process might already be!

I don't disagree, but I thought the previous post by @TheEdge was referring to something else, namely the inefficient conversion of vegetable food produce into meat.

 

[TheEdge]

I don't disagree, but I thought the previous post by @TheEdge was referring to something else, namely the inefficient conversion of vegetable food produce into meat.

No it wasn't. It was a reference to Boris acting like the culling of pigs ready for the food chain was an issue of animal welfare complaint, not effectively (human) food waste.

 

[317 forever]

This won't help:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/entertain...g-james-bond/ar-AAPe0fP?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531

Whether we agree or disagree with how much an MP is paid, his timing is way off. The same day as 'Iron Man Boris's* party conference speech and just after the increase in energy prices and the cut in Universal Credit.

* from the front page of the Daily Express. They may be right, his slogans are already getting rusty.


Quote from Tory MP reveals ‘desperation’ of living on £82k as he asks for pay rise (msn.com) (quotes Evening Standard). No mention that Bottomley is also eligible for his State Pension.

Indeed, in 1997 he was so worried about losing his salary as an MP that he was one of the "chicken run" MPs who migrated from Eltham to Worthing to increase his chances of getting re-elected.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

A perfect illustration of how FPTP election systems encourage parties to play to their bases rather than trying to govern for the whole population. This may work in the short term but it leads to a divided country, which the right is actively stoking.

Takes me back to the union-ruled 1970s and the Labour Party under Jim "Crisis, what crisis" Callaghan when only a specific part of the electorate on the left was pandered to.

Wheels have a habit of turning full-circle.

 

[Typhoon]

Indeed, in 1997 he was so worried about losing his salary as an MP that he was one of the "chicken run" MPs who migrated from Eltham to Worthing to increase his chances of getting re-elected.

He wasn't stupid though, Eltham: Labour majority of over 10,000 in 1997; Worthing West: Tory majority of over 7.000! He's got the job (and the status as Father of the House) for as long as he wants it!