Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[DynamicSpirit]

I'm going to stick my head above the parapet here and say I agree. Parts of the mini budget made sense given that the alternative was/is (as Kwarteng put it) managed decline (that's not to say it wasn't also risky). The fatal error was announcing it with no prior warning which understandably spooked the markets. After that it was trial by media, as per usual.

I also agree. I think Liz Truss was partly correct in her belief that structural problems - and in particular things like over-regulation and the Government trying to do too much - have been stifling growth and harming people's standards of living in the UK for a long time. But the way she went about trying to fix it was just idiotic. Aside from - as you say - the sudden way she did it too quickly and with too little warning, you can't just abandon fiscal discipline and not expect very bad things to happen.

And now, thanks to the disastrously stupid way she went about things, it's likely to be even harder for the Government to push through some of the reforms that are needed

 

[DustyBin]

I can't agree really - Truss acts like she's the first and only PM that wanted economic growth, when of course they all do. Their jobs pretty much depend on it.

Just wishing economic growth doesn't make it happen. Just look at what's happened now with her Australia trade deal and the collapse in trade with Japan since her deal (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/nov/26/brexit-britain-japan-trade-deal-exports-slump)

And to be honest is, I find it very hard to believe anyone that claims to be pro business but anti single market.

Certainly she went too far too fast, and I guess we'll never know. I think she would have had a very difficult time getting her 'supply side reforms' through though, if you look at the huge Tory NIMBY hesitance to the current housing bill. The Anti Growth coalition is her own party unfortunately

Fix the housing crisis in this country and that will unlock plenty of economic growth

You may recall that the IMF initially thought the mini budget would increase economic growth, and that the UK would be the fastest growing G7 economy. The concern was that 12 months down the line inflation would be out of control, but we'll never know. The point is that it didn't have to be an instant catastrophe.

I'm no fan of Truss incidentally (as I made clear on this forum when she became PM!), and her and Kwarteng undoubtedly messed up, but some of the underlying economics were sound(ish) under the circumstances in my opinion. Risky yes, but the alternative was certain decline as we're now seeing.

I can't agree either. The problems with the economy are down to energy prices and the aftermath of the pandemic (affecting all countries) and labour shortage and trade friction (consequences of Brexit affecting the UK only). Those last two make it difficult for industry to increase production to take advantage of increased domestic demand from tax cuts or increased competitiveness of exports due to a falling currency. So if tax cuts cause people to spend more as was intended, the extra money will mostly go overseas or stoke inflation rather than stimulating the domestic economy. And if the budget tanks the currency, we get the downsides of that without the competitiveness benefit that we enjoyed in 1992.

These were/are the challenges, but I disagree that growth was impossible. Again, how they would have dealt with the subsequent inflation is open to debate, however.

 

[nw1]

You do know that you don’t catch a cold from it being cold outside, don’t you?

Yes, I do, thank you very much. I'm not an idiot (unlike our Head of Games was on this occasion...)

However if you're feeling a little off, doing strenuous exercise in temps hovering around zero (read up on February 1986 if you don't know what the weather did that month) is going to make you feel considerably worse. It's well known that rest is recommended if you feel a little unwell, and running around in 0C temps is most definitely not. Certainly if I have a cold and try to over-do things, I end up feeling considerably worse.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2022 ==

From Rees-Mogg's point of view, it probably was. I have no idea how much he stood to gain from it, but it was a damn sight more than I did (even with his off-shore trusts). I am reminded of 'Common People', (the JRM version https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3TT1VE8Jq0
"Wanna watch it all slide out of view,
and leave the whole economy screwed,
'Cos I got nothing else to do."
(Although I doubt whether he has ever used "Wanna" or "'Cos" in his life, Nanny would not approve.)

Brilliant, never seen that.

 

[Yew]

I also agree. I think Liz Truss was partly correct in her belief that structural problems - and in particular things like over-regulation and the Government trying to do too much - have been stifling growth and harming people's standards of living in the UK for a long time.

Aha, pesky things like minimum wages and health and safety standards, how much better it would be if we were all dying for a crust, to line the pockets of our aristocratic masters.



I could maybe see a point with environmental and planning legislation getting in the way of things like HS2 or much needed housing projects, but it didn't seem like they were what Truss had in her sights.

 

[dosxuk]

Risky yes, but the alternative was certain decline as we're now seeing.

Of course, there was also the third option - do nothing - at least until the energy crisis, war in Ukraine and fall out from covid has been dealt with. This need to rip up the status quo and do something dramatic all in the name of growth came solely from the Liz Truss campaign camp - it wasn't a party aim and it certainly wasn't something the public have voted for. And even then, if she had decided it was a core part of her leadership, there was zero need to implement it all within days of becoming PM, and even less need to do it without any of the normal analysis being done on the plans.

 

[edwin_m]

Of course, there was also the third option - do nothing - at least until the energy crisis, war in Ukraine and fall out from covid has been dealt with. This need to rip up the status quo and do something dramatic all in the name of growth came solely from the Liz Truss campaign camp - it wasn't a party aim and it certainly wasn't something the public have voted for. And even then, if she had decided it was a core part of her leadership, there was zero need to implement it all within days of becoming PM, and even less need to do it without any of the normal analysis being done on the plans.

Yes, the other thing that spooked the market was the way it wasn't "officially" a Budget and therefore they didn't publish any assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility. It doesn't take a political genius to work out that people in the markets and indeed the general public will smell a rat.

 

[najaB]

Yes, the other thing that spooked the market was the way it wasn't "officially" a Budget and therefore they didn't publish any assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility.

Even more so the fact that the OBR offered to publish an assessment and were rebuffed.

 

[DustyBin]

Of course, there was also the third option - do nothing - at least until the energy crisis, war in Ukraine and fall out from covid has been dealt with. This need to rip up the status quo and do something dramatic all in the name of growth came solely from the Liz Truss campaign camp - it wasn't a party aim and it certainly wasn't something the public have voted for. And even then, if she had decided it was a core part of her leadership, there was zero need to implement it all within days of becoming PM, and even less need to do it without any of the normal analysis being done on the plans.

I suppose that was the third option, but nobody knows how long these crises will go on for. I'm not sure there was a status quo to maintain per say; the decline had already started so I can understand the reluctance to sit back and do nothing. You're right though in regard to implementing it all within a matter of days, and without analysis/scrutiny. Again, that was her undoing in my opinion.

Yes, the other thing that spooked the market was the way it wasn't "officially" a Budget and therefore they didn't publish any assessment from the Office for Budget Responsibility. It doesn't take a political genius to work out that people in the markets and indeed the general public will smell a rat.

As above I can't disagree with you here!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The By-election in City of Chester takes place tomorrow. So in a couple of days (not sure how quickly they'll do the count for this one) we'll have a 'real' election result to pore over

 

[brad465]

The By-election in City of Chester takes place tomorrow. So in a couple of days (not sure how quickly they'll do the count for this one) we'll have a 'real' election result to pore over

The constituency does have an interesting history: Labour won it the landslide 1997 victory, where before well known Conservative Gyles Brandreth held it. In 2010 the Tories won it back with their return to power in the coalition, but in 2015 it was one the few Labour gains, and only by a majority of 93 votes, but Labour have held it since, and the majority in 2019 was more comfortable despite wider party failures. Odds currently have Labour on 1/100 to retain it.

 

[Typhoon]

The constituency does have an interesting history: Labour won it the landslide 1997 victory, where before well known Conservative Gyles Brandreth held it. In 2010 the Tories won it back with their return to power in the coalition, but in 2015 it was one the few Labour gains, and only by a majority of 93 votes, but Labour have held it since, and the majority in 2019 was more comfortable despite wider party failures. Odds currently have Labour on 1/100 to retain it.

I'm not sure it is the Labour vote that people will be looking at (just to tilt it back towards the title of this thread).
The Conservatives polled over 20,000 votes last time. In 2015, although Labour won, the Conservative had a higher share of the vote and increased their number of votes by over 3000 by squeezing the Lib Dems. It will be interesting to see how their vote holds up. Unfortunately for him, Sanak will get the flack for any failure when Johnson and Truss would be major contributors.
All the three major parties are putting forward local candidates, so that is one lesson the Conservatives have learnt from Shropshire North.

 

[edwin_m]

On checking back I find this was caused

I'm not sure it is the Labour vote that people will be looking at (just to tilt it back towards the title of this thread).
The Conservatives polled over 20,000 votes last time. In 2015, although Labour won, the Conservative had a higher share of the vote and increased their number of votes by over 3000 by squeezing the Lib Dems. It will be interesting to see how their vote holds up. Unfortunately for him, Sanak will get the flack for any failure when Johnson and Truss would be major contributors.
All the three major parties are putting forward local candidates, so that is one lesson the Conservatives have learnt from Shropshire North.

It may be rather untypical in that the cause was the resignation of the previous Labour MP after an allegation of sexual misconduct - something that typically depresses the incumbent party's share of the vote. It seems to have received zero attention in any of the media I see, supporting the expectation of a foregone conclusion.

 

[Typhoon]

It may be rather untypical in that the cause was the resignation of the previous Labour MP after an allegation of sexual misconduct - something that typically depresses the incumbent party's share of the vote. It seems to have received zero attention in any of the media I see, supporting the expectation of a foregone conclusion.

Couple of reasons I would have thought. He didn't spend weeks proclaiming his innocence, a few 'mutterances' about it being 'minor' but that is it (the Labour candidate was in place within days); on the contrary, Pincher is still around, and Paterson is now going to go to the European Court (or something similar with 'European' in it) - you can't drag them off the stage. Also, the resignation happened the day after Truss resigned. The story has been about Conservative infighting (still is), and no-one had ever heard of him.

 

[Lost property]

Couple of reasons I would have thought. He didn't spend weeks proclaiming his innocence, a few 'mutterances' about it being 'minor' but that is it (the Labour candidate was in place within days); on the contrary, Pincher is still around, and Paterson is now going to go to the European Court (or something similar with 'European' in it) - you can't drag them off the stage. Also, the resignation happened the day after Truss resigned. The story has been about Conservative infighting (still is), and no-one had ever heard of him.

Paterson is taking his case to the ECHR....even his own lawyers admit there is an irony here....given he fell firmly into the "Leave ! " camp and was never shy about his opinions of the EU...

There may be a slight aroma of hypocrisy around....

 

[Gloster]

As mentioned in #731, with a link in #732, Paterson has previously argued for leaving the ECHR. Beyond satire.

 

[nw1]

Of course if Labour do less well due to the sexual misconduct allegations against the outgoing MP, I'm sure the right wing press will allege that this was not the cause of such underperformance, and will cook up headlines such as "Glorious Saviour Rishi sees off Communist Red Peril as Chester Labour Majority SLASHED" - or some such.

 

[Typhoon]

Of course if Labour do less well due to the sexual misconduct allegations against the outgoing MP, I'm sure the right wing press will allege that this was not the cause of such underperformance, and will cook up headlines such as "Glorious Saviour Rishi sees off Communist Red Peril as Chester Labour Majority SLASHED" - or some such.

Labour's majority may well be slashed; a by-election, nothing riding on it, it's a grim day. If it was a Conservative seat, people might turn out to give them a bloody nose. Safe prediction - poor turn out (possibly less than 50%). I reckon that it won't make the front page and will be anti-Starmer, anti-Sunak. They might come up with some Farage quotes saying they have let down Brexit, that is it.

 

[nw1]

Labour's majority may well be slashed; a by-election, nothing riding on it, it's a grim day. If it was a Conservative seat, people might turn out to give them a bloody nose. Safe prediction - poor turn out (possibly less than 50%). I reckon that it won't make the front page and will be anti-Starmer, anti-Sunak. They might come up with some Farage quotes saying they have let down Brexit, that is it.

Oh yes, Nigel Farage. The "man of the people" fraud that the right-wing press seem to love, though I can't figure out why. The man is obnoxious on every level and makes Boris Johnson seem like he is a man of principle and integrity.

 

[edwin_m]

Oh yes, Nigel Farage. The "man of the people" fraud that the right-wing press seem to love, though I can't figure out why. The man is obnoxious on every level and makes Boris Johnson seem like he is a man of principle and integrity.

There is increasing support for "Reform UK" (a term I feel I have to put in quotes, as it's reactionary rather than reformist). Sunak risks being caught in whatever the opposite of a pincer movement is, as RUK pulls off right-wing voters and the centre-right voters go to LibDems or Labour instead. I suspect the incompetence and extremism of recent months and years means the party has no hope of much support from the more moderate voters whatever they do meanwhile, so Sunak may have to target the harder right vote to have any chance of winning anything.

 

[The Ham]

Some have questioned if the state system could cope with the "influx" if private schools were to charge VAT.

Chances are they would, as of the 9 million children in (all) schools just shy of 0.6 million (583,000) are privately educated.

Even if they all moved from private to state it would increase the average class size by 2.

Chances are it would be significantly less than all of them, so if we assume 25% then for every 2 classes a school has it would have to find a place for 1 extra child.

1 form entry primary (~210 places) would gain 4 children
6 form entry secondary (~900 places assuming no sixth form) would gain 15 children
6 form entry secondary (~1,050 places assuming sixth form) would gain 18 children

Obviously private schools aren't evenly spread, however even if at double the national average a secondary school with 30 classes across all year groups may have to increase to 31 classes.

Whilst that would be an issue if there was no extra funding, however if you assume that the remaining 75% pay £20,000 a year (which is very low) that's an extra £2bn in VAT receipts

If we assume an extra £7,000 per pupil (England and Wales is less whilst Scotland is more) that's an extra £1bn in costs.

As such there'd be an extra £1bn for spending on other services a year (which may need to include a bit of a building program in the early few years to increase classroom provision). However, given that someone in the final few years of school at a private school are unlikely to drop out due to VAT being added to fees there's likely to be a bit of a lag before the full extent is known.

 

[Typhoon]

There is increasing support for "Reform UK" (a term I feel I have to put in quotes, as it's reactionary rather than reformist). Sunak risks being caught in whatever the opposite of a pincer movement is, as RUK pulls off right-wing voters and the centre-right voters go to LibDems or Labour instead. I suspect the incompetence and extremism of recent months and years means the party has no hope of much support from the more moderate voters whatever they do meanwhile, so Sunak may have to target the harder right vote to have any chance of winning anything.

It would be interesting to see if they put up candidates in the Stretford and Urmston and West Lancashire by-elections. The Brexit Party stood in both last time with a negligible impact in both. The ideal environment to test the potential impact of Reform would be a Conservative seat in a 'Leave' area but there are none on the horizon. The fear for the Conservatives must be that one of their younger MPs who has said that they will be standing down, secures an employment offer in the next few months, while things are still tough out there.

Edit:

More news not helping Sunak

Boris Johnson has told his local Conservative Party he will stand again as an MP at the next general election, the Telegraph can reveal.

The former prime minister indicated his decision ahead of Monday’s deadline for Tory candidates to inform the party whether they wish to contest the poll, which is expected to be held in 2024.

It signals Mr Johnson is committed to a long-term political future representing Uxbridge and South Ruislip despite remaining on the backbenches.

Another run would also leave the door open to a future leadership campaign if a vacancy were to emerge.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politic...ocal-tories-will-stand-next-general-election/

 

[jfollows]

I look forward to a rerun of the "Portillo moment" when the electorate comprehensively rejects Boris Johnson in 2024.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I look forward to a rerun of the "Portillo moment" when the electorate comprehensively rejects Boris Johnson in 2024.

I assume that's a reference to that Boris has now confirmed we will stand as an MP at the next election - and apparently will remain with his not-massively-safe Uxbridge constituency - which I guess means there is a reasonable chance that he could lose (although I'm not sure if boundary changes will impact that).

In other news I see it's now confirmed that Labour MP Rosie Cooper has resigned so there will definitely be a by-election in West Lancashire - something that was expected anyway. It's a pretty safe Labour seat so there won't be any surprises there.

 

[jfollows]

I assume that's a reference to that Boris has now confirmed we will stand as an MP at the next election - and apparently will remain with his not-massively-safe Uxbridge constituency - which I guess means there is a reasonable chance that he could lose (although I'm not sure if boundary changes will impact that).

New seat details at https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Uxbridge and South Ruislip
Implied majority in 2019 on the new boundaries of 8,193 becomes a Labour ~500 vote majority over all other votes - however a much bigger margin of ~8,000 over second place (Boris) so a complete turn-around. On today's predictions, who knows what 2024 will be?

 

[nw1]

I look forward to a rerun of the "Portillo moment" when the electorate comprehensively rejects Boris Johnson in 2024.

I would be amazed if Johnson stands again in Uxbridge as I really don't expect that to be held by the Tories.

I rather expect him to be parachuted into Dorries' seat, or possibly Reigate (which is also being vacated), though he may face a battle with his Brexit-buddy Raab for that one.

 

[jfollows]

I would be amazed if Johnson stands again in Uxbridge as I really don't expect that to be held by the Tories.

I rather expect him to be parachuted into Dorries' seat, or possibly Reigate (which is also being vacated), though he may face a battle with his Brexit-buddy Raab for that one.

I agree, and the fact that he says that he will stand again for Uxbridge and South Ruislip really doesn't count for much given that he frequently doesn't do what he says he will do - in other words he lies.

 

[najaB]

I agree, and the fact that he says that he will stand again for Uxbridge and South Ruislip really doesn't count for much given that he frequently doesn't do what he says he will do - in other words he lies.

Thought we were still awaiting a Standards Privileges Committee determination as to if he lies or not?

 

[jfollows]

Thought we were still awaiting a Standards Committee determination as to if he lies or not?

I think you know as well as I do that he's a liar .... whether he lied to Parliament is perhaps not up for question in my eyes either but formally maybe has to be proven ......

 

[nw1]

I agree, and the fact that he says that he will stand again for Uxbridge and South Ruislip really doesn't count for much given that he frequently doesn't do what he says he will do - in other words he lies.

It's not really a Boris thing to do, stand in something he's unlikely to win. Odds-on he'll lose it - and he desperately wants to win whatever he competes in.

 

[Gloster]

I would be amazed if Johnson stands again in Uxbridge as I really don't expect that to be held by the Tories.

I rather expect him to be parachuted into Dorries' seat, or possibly Reigate (which is also being vacated), though he may face a battle with his Brexit-buddy Raab for that one.

Would any constituency really want Raab, particularly if the inquiry about his bullying goes badly? There might be a few who will support him, but I would expect the majority of the local party to be wary. Even Johnson would have a mixed reception, although he might get enough supporters to get himself selected. Johnson doesn’t lie, but he only means what he says for the length of time it takes to say it.