Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[nw1]

Yes, he appealed against his Commons suspension for 8 weeks and lost, so the recall process would be invoked and probably have forced a by-election anyway, so he decided to short-circuit the process and leave now. At least it saves a lot of pointless paperwork, time and processes.
The Guardian hypothesises the by-election might get scheduled for 19 October alongside mid-Bedfordshire which is already scheduled for that date.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...asmus-conservatives-labour-uk-politics-latest

So what do we think about Tamworth?

A difficult one as it's perhaps the epicentre of small-town Midlands Tory drift, which might favour them. On the other hand if North Shropshire can be gained, who knows?

Perhaps anti-Pincher sentiment will play a part, along with the fact that (as discussed above) Mr Walsall North is coming in as the candidate next year, so any Tory will be temporary and people might choose someone with potential staying power, i.e. the Labour candidate.

Incidentally what's happening to Walsall North to cause the incumbent to jump ship? Is the seat disappearing, with no equivalent replacement?

 

[jfollows]

So what do we think about Tamworth?

A difficult one as it's perhaps the epicentre of small-town Midlands Tory drift, which might favour them. On the other hand if North Shropshire can be gained, who knows?

Perhaps anti-Pincher sentiment will play a part, along with the fact that (as discussed above) Mr Walsall North is coming in as the candidate next year, so any Tory will be temporary and people might choose someone with potential staying power, i.e. the Labour candidate.

Incidentally what's happening to Walsall North to cause the incumbent to jump ship? Is the seat disappearing, with no equivalent replacement?

Yes, it's the boundary changes which eliminate Walsall North.
For example, from https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Walsall+and+Bloxwich

I think Tamworth will be lost by the Conservatives, but it'll revert at the general election. I just sense that the anti-Conservative sentiment currently will prevail, with a nudge-nudge wink-wink non-agreement between Labour and the LibDems. But it's not a done (non-)deal for sure. Having a second-string “temporary” Conservative candidate won’t help their cause one bit. “I really love Tamworth but my future is in another seat”.

 

[nw1]

Yes, it's the boundary changes which eliminate Walsall North.

Ah ok thanks. So is he chicken-running (looking at the predicted outcome for the new seat) or did another Tory claim Walsall and Bloxwich first?

For example, from https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Walsall+and+Bloxwich
View attachment 142242
I think Tamworth will be lost by the Conservatives, but it'll revert at the general election. I just sense that the anti-Conservative sentiment currently will prevail, with a nudge-nudge wink-wink non-agreement between Labour and the LibDems. But it's not a done (non-)deal for sure. Having a second-string “temporary” Conservative candidate won’t help their cause one bit. “I really love Tamworth but my future is in another seat”.

I'd tend to agree with this assessment, I think. While the Tories will I'm sure lose many seats, I suspect seats like Tamworth will be amongst the relatively few they'll hold (or regain in this case) at the election.

On another matter, I note that Electoral Calculus (which formerly seemed to have an apparent anti-Tory bias if anything) is predicting a lot of unexpected Tory holds in the south. Guildford, and Esher and Walton for example. Also the new Hamble Valley seat, which includes the Hedge End area, which trends Lib Dem. That said it gives Labour a 91% chance of winning High Wycombe, so some inconsistency - seems almost as if the Surrey/Hampshire area is expected to be more Tory than other areas.

 

[jfollows]

Ah ok thanks. So is he chicken-running (looking at the predicted outcome for the new seat) or did another Tory claim Walsall and Bloxwich first?

The former, I would guess, he’d never win the new seat and tried to get a different result for the new boundaries, but when he saw Tamworth was available, well, wouldn’t you?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2023 ==

Pincher’s resignation now effective (steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead).

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2023 ==

The BBC has just reported that Pincher has ‘made arrangements to resign and leave the commons’. No details as yet or any idea when he will actually go, but presumably he won’t do a Dorries.

Today, as it happens.

 

[Lost property]

So what do we think about Tamworth?

A difficult one as it's perhaps the epicentre of small-town Midlands Tory drift, which might favour them. On the other hand if North Shropshire can be gained, who knows?

Perhaps anti-Pincher sentiment will play a part, along with the fact that (as discussed above) Mr Walsall North is coming in as the candidate next year, so any Tory will be temporary and people might choose someone with potential staying power, i.e. the Labour candidate.

Incidentally what's happening to Walsall North to cause the incumbent to jump ship? Is the seat disappearing, with no equivalent replacement?

Well the station is a dump, if that helps, but even for us almost normals interesting to watch the signal sequence change colour heading South

Politically, I suggest it will remain Tory, but, with a significantly reduced majority. You could almost say the Tory constituencies follow the WCML into leafy Cheshire and will probably remain Tory at the next GE, albeit Tatton / Altrincham & Sale could fall

 

[jfollows]

Politically, I suggest it will remain Tory, but, with a significantly reduced majority. You could almost say the Tory constituencies follow the WCML into leafy Cheshire and will probably remain Tory at the next GE, albeit Tatton / Altrincham & Sale could fall

You could well be right, I'd not disagree with you on Tamworth or on Altrincham & Sale West, however I fear that Tatton will remain Conservative much though I'd like to see the back of Esther McVey. However I hope you're right. More likely that Macclesfield will go Labour I think.

 

[Falcon1200]

the Tory government are responsible for the budget cuts?

Where is the evidence please that Tory budget cuts are the sole, or just one, of the reasons for Birmingham Council's situation? Because other Councils do not, mostly, appear to have the same problems.

 

[jfollows]

Where is the evidence please that Tory budget cuts are the sole, or just one, of the reasons for Birmingham Council's situation? Because other Councils do not, mostly, appear to have the same problems.

Indeed, they're all suffering but I wonder if some of them operate on the basis of "they'd never really let us go 'bust'" and have been found out. I don't think mine - Cheshire East - is doing well but I don't think it's going the way of Birmingham and others.

 

[nw1]

Where is the evidence please that Tory budget cuts are the sole, or just one, of the reasons for Birmingham Council's situation? Because other Councils do not, mostly, appear to have the same problems.

Was just applying the logic that if there is less money coming in, a council is more likely to have financial problems.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2023 ==

You could well be right, I'd not disagree with you on Tamworth or on Altrincham & Sale West, however I fear that Tatton will remain Conservative much though I'd like to see the back of Esther McVey. However I hope you're right. More likely that Macclesfield will go Labour I think.

If we're talking about the "Macclesfield branch" of the WCML, then I very much hope Stoke-on-Trent North in particular goes Labour.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 7 Sep 2023 ==

The former, I would guess, he’d never win the new seat and tried to get a different result for the new boundaries, but when he saw Tamworth was available, well, wouldn’t you?

True, but if he really cares for Walsall and its people, he ought to stay and fight...

Pincher’s resignation now effective (steward and bailiff of the Manor of Northstead).

Wikipedia still to catch up by the looks of it, who say he is the incumbent MP of Tamworth and that Warburton still holds the esteemed Northstead post.

 

[SteveP29]

Has everyone remembered to thank Gillian Keegan today?

 

[The Ham]

So how can Hands use Birmingham council to say Labour can't govern when the Tory government are responsible for the budget cuts?

The Minister of (mis)Information, indeed.

They get away with it because a lot of people don't know the details of how local government is funded. Our local MP was very clear that a matter (where they were looking to make cost savings) was the responsibility of the county council, even though they themselves had voted for the cuts in central government grants to local councils.

I suspect that quite a few would have been taken in by it if several people hadn't pointed this out to them.

Where is the evidence please that Tory budget cuts are the sole, or just one, of the reasons for Birmingham Council's situation? Because other Councils do not, mostly, appear to have the same problems.

Like all things is rarely just one thing, however it's certainly a factor.

 

[Ediswan]

Grant Shapps said on LBC that the country’s aircraft carriers are ‘the largest carriers that the RAF has ever had’. Ummm…aircraft carriers are ships and the Royal Navy operates at sea.

It is a fair claim. RAF squadrons operate from the aircraft carriers.

 

[ainsworth74]

It is a fair claim. RAF squadrons operate from the aircraft carriers.

Nah. The aircraft carriers are Royal Navy ships, crewed by Royal Navy servicemen and women and flying Royal Navy aircraft alongside RAF aircraft. Of the two RAF squadrons that have operated from the carriers one of them is mixed squadron anyway with Royal Navy and RAF personnel. It's an incorrect statement pure and simple. All he needed to say was "the largest aircraft carriers the UK has ever had" if he wanted to play it safe. Otherwise the statement is inaccurate.

 

[takno]

Where is the evidence please that Tory budget cuts are the sole, or just one, of the reasons for Birmingham Council's situation? Because other Councils do not, mostly, appear to have the same problems.

There's been half a dozen other councils already fallen into this state, and every indication of around a hundred others going the same way this year or next. Different councils have been affected to different extents by the budget cuts, and some have more statutory obligations in terms of things like social care than others. Obviously there are more factors than just budget cuts, but they are the primary thing that's changed, and the changes have made it impossible for various councils of various shades to keep the show on the road.

 

[AM9]

It is a fair claim. RAF squadrons operate from the aircraft carriers.

The Fleet Air Arm operates all navy aircraft, - the RAF has a limited use of carriers, - they prefer long strips ot tarmac.

 

[edwin_m]

After "crumblygate", the Tory jibe about Labour failing to fix the roof while the sun shines can be applied the other way round.

 

[Merle Haggard]

Yes, it's the boundary changes which eliminate Walsall North.
For example, from https://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/fcgi-bin/calcwork23.py?seat=Walsall+and+Bloxwich
View attachment 142242
I think Tamworth will be lost by the Conservatives, but it'll revert at the general election. I just sense that the anti-Conservative sentiment currently will prevail, with a nudge-nudge wink-wink non-agreement between Labour and the LibDems. But it's not a done (non-)deal for sure. Having a second-string “temporary” Conservative candidate won’t help their cause one bit. “I really love Tamworth but my future is in another seat”.

I am in the 'a pox on all their houses' camp, but is the 'Lib' vote really that dismal? It's half reform and only beats the bottom party 'National' because there isn't one in England.! Even if every Lib voter 'lent' their vote to Labour it wouldn't make much difference. So much for the next Government being a Lab/Lib coalition...

 

[The Ham]

From a Conservative email:

Labour have done it again. They've left us with no money.

This time, it’s Labour-run Birmingham City Council.

Starmer praised his hand-picked Labour Council Leader for getting ‘on top of the situation’.

But just a few months later they’ve bankrupted it. Costing Birmingham taxpayers millions.

It’s yet another reminder that when the same old Labour politicians run things, they run them badly.

And we can't let them bankrupt Britain like they have just bankrupted Birmingham.

Funny enough there wasn't a similar email when Woking or Thurrock was bankrupt (FYI they are both Tory Councils and none of them are actually bankrupt).

It's likely to be an email which is repeated when some other councils require to issue section 114 notice:

Birmingham’s budget woes should be a warning to government – or other councils could follow suit | Institute for Government

The government should take action on systematic failures in local government finance.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

The most high profile of these warnings came following a poll carried out by SIGOMA – a representative body of municipal authorities – which showed that five of its 47 members are at risk of issuing a Section 114 notice this financial year, with a further nine reporting that they may issue one next financial year. Coventry is represented by SIGOMA, and in August, wrote to the government warning that it may have to issue a s114, citing “increased demand for adult and children’s social care, demand for housing, and wider inflationary pressures” as the primary reasons. Other local authorities that have warned of a s114 include: Guildford, Hastings, Kent, and Hampshire, among others.

For example whilst an email is likely to be sent after (say) Hastings, there won't be if Hampshire does.

Hampshire doesn't have the poor investments of Woking nor the historic back pay issues of Birmingham, it could be any reasonably run council (of course that doesn't stop it making fundamental errors - for example not issuing a bus pass to a school child when they had recognised that child should have one) which is why if Hampshire issues a Section 114 notice it could be rather worrying for a lot of councils.

There's a number of reasons for councils to find themselves in trouble, however some of those are of central governments making (from the same link above):

The government will always be able to allocate blame to local authorities when they issue a s114, but without some sort of intervention it is likely that other authorities will follow Birmingham. It has had many opportunities to reform local government finance in recent years but has taken few of them, delaying the implementation of its Fair Funding Review – a move which would more equitably allocate grant funding based on need and which was first promised in 2016 – until April 2025 at the earliest. It has declined to reduce the statutory duties of local authorities, as the Conservative leaders of Kent and Hampshire suggested in their letter to the government last year. It has also kept tight control of the limit to which authorities can raise council tax each year. There are relative merits and drawbacks to each of these suggestions, but the government has been unwilling to countenance any.

To its credit, the government did make more money available for adult social care at the autumn statement last year, but that money will mostly be eaten up by inflationary pressures. Without a large increase in funding or a reduction in local authorities’ responsibilities, councils will not be able to deal with the dual pressures of rising demand and large cost increases.

In addition to those systemic issues, there is an enormous backlog in local authorities’ financial audit. In November 2022, over 630 local government annual accounts had not been signed off, some dating as far back as 2015/16. Timely audit is crucial for understanding financial risk in local authorities. The government’s recently-launched Office for Local Government will make some financial information more easily accessible, but will do little to shed light on previously unknown financial risks. More importantly, the government has delayed the establishment of the Audit, Reporting and Governance Authority (ARGA), a body intended to lead the local government audit system, until at least 2024. In its report on the subject, the Public Accounts Committee (PAC) concluded that the delay in establishing ARGA “risk performance deteriorating further”.

The government would do well to take action on these systemic problems now. If not, there is a very real risk that many other local authorities following will follow Birmingham down the route of a s114 notice.

 

[Gloster]

From a Conservative email:



Funny enough there wasn't a similar email when Woking or Thurrock was bankrupt (FYI they are both Tory Councils and none of them are actually bankrupt).

It's likely to be an email which is repeated when some other councils require to issue section 114 notice:

Birmingham’s budget woes should be a warning to government – or other councils could follow suit | Institute for Government

The government should take action on systematic failures in local government finance.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

For example whilst an email is likely to be sent after (say) Hastings, there won't be if Hampshire does.

Hampshire doesn't have the poor investments of Woking nor the historic back pay issues of Birmingham, it could be any reasonably run council (of course that doesn't stop it making fundamental errors - for example not issuing a bus pass to a school child when they had recognised that child should have one) which is why if Hampshire issues a Section 114 notice it could be rather worrying for a lot of councils.

There's a number of reasons for councils to find themselves in trouble, however some of those are of central governments making (from the same link above):

Woking is Lib-Dem, but only since last year. Previously it had a Conservative led council for three years and before that it was mostly Conservative, with a few periods of no overall control since the 1990s. But the problems have been boiling up for quite a few years and the Lib-Dems have inherited the mess.

 

[yorksrob]

From a Conservative email:



Funny enough there wasn't a similar email when Woking or Thurrock was bankrupt (FYI they are both Tory Councils and none of them are actually bankrupt).

It's likely to be an email which is repeated when some other councils require to issue section 114 notice:

Birmingham’s budget woes should be a warning to government – or other councils could follow suit | Institute for Government

The government should take action on systematic failures in local government finance.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

For example whilst an email is likely to be sent after (say) Hastings, there won't be if Hampshire does.

Hampshire doesn't have the poor investments of Woking nor the historic back pay issues of Birmingham, it could be any reasonably run council (of course that doesn't stop it making fundamental errors - for example not issuing a bus pass to a school child when they had recognised that child should have one) which is why if Hampshire issues a Section 114 notice it could be rather worrying for a lot of councils.

There's a number of reasons for councils to find themselves in trouble, however some of those are of central governments making (from the same link above):

Labour need to be more aggressive at painting this as a Tory fiasco (which it is)

Labour need to call out that the Tory cuts have made it impossible for Councils to Govern

Labour are too soft at the moment. They should be driving the stake into the Tories at every opportunity.

"This is a Tory fiasco of not allowing Councils to fund their services" etc

 

[Typhoon]

From a Conservative email:



Funny enough there wasn't a similar email when Woking or Thurrock was bankrupt (FYI they are both Tory Councils and none of them are actually bankrupt).

It's likely to be an email which is repeated when some other councils require to issue section 114 notice:

Birmingham’s budget woes should be a warning to government – or other councils could follow suit | Institute for Government

The government should take action on systematic failures in local government finance.

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk

For example whilst an email is likely to be sent after (say) Hastings, there won't be if Hampshire does.

Hampshire doesn't have the poor investments of Woking nor the historic back pay issues of Birmingham, it could be any reasonably run council (of course that doesn't stop it making fundamental errors - for example not issuing a bus pass to a school child when they had recognised that child should have one) which is why if Hampshire issues a Section 114 notice it could be rather worrying for a lot of councils.

There's a number of reasons for councils to find themselves in trouble, however some of those are of central governments making (from the same link above):

Interesting programme on Thurrock's 'difficulties' on Panorama https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/m001p965/panorama-the-millionaire-who-cheated-a-council

 

[317 forever]

Ah ok - thanks for clarifying that.




I doubt many Birmingham seats will flip Tory (as large cities tend not to), though perhaps there will be more Tory holds than expected in the more conservative parts of the West Midlands outside Birmingham city itself. What concerns me more is if Birmingham City Council sees Tory gains next year (possibly contra to the general trends) the Tories will jump on that and get a psychological boost, which may mean a better performance than expected in the next election, assuming it does not take place at the same time as the council elections.

I would still be amazed if they are the largest party - though I can see the West Midlands trending more Tory than other parts of the country as, for whatever reason, it seems to be the part of the country which has shifted most disproportionately to the right in the past 10 years or so.

Furthermore, the West Midlands as a region has the largest Leave vote, so might be more sympathetic than expected to the Tories at the next General Election.

 

[Purple Train]

Labour need to be more aggressive at painting this as a Tory fiasco (which it is)

Labour need to call out that the Tory cuts have made it impossible for Councils to Govern

Labour are too soft at the moment. They should be driving the stake into the Tories at every opportunity.

"This is a Tory fiasco of not allowing Councils to fund their services" etc

Sadly I think Starmer is too busy trying to appeal to Middle England. And, given the way the Tories are with regard to intelligent and informed debate, I suspect they'd simply go shouting and raving on about Slough (where the previous Labour administration actually had been decidedly reckless in terms of spending) and ignore Thurrock and Woking. And in shouting matches between the Tories and Labour, the results are usually fairly predictable.

 

[yorksrob]

Sadly I think Starmer is too busy trying to appeal to Middle England. And, given the way the Tories are with regard to intelligent and informed debate, I suspect they'd simply go shouting and raving on about Slough (where the previous Labour administration actually had been decidedly reckless in terms of spending) and ignore Thurrock and Woking. And in shouting matches between the Tories and Labour, the results are usually fairly predictable.

It still seems a bit of an open goal to me. Starmer needs a bit of the killer instinct.

 

[nw1]

It still seems a bit of an open goal to me. Starmer needs a bit of the killer instinct.

His strategy is very much play it safe and don't offend, knowing that the liberal left will vote for him anyway. It's, sadly, the conservatives (small-c) that he has to win the votes from.

Ordinarily it wouldn't work but with Sunak's government so unpopular, perhaps it's a good strategy.

I suspect he will be considerably better as a PM than a Leader of the Opposition as he won't have to play it safe so much once there.

 

[Falcon1200]

Labour need to call out that the Tory cuts have made it impossible for Councils to Govern

Whereas the Tories might counter that by saying Councils, just as in every other walk of life, be that government, business or personal, need to match their spending to their income, and not splash money around as if there was no tomorrow.

 

[yorksrob]

Whereas the Tories might counter that by saying Councils, just as in every other walk of life, be that government, business or personal, need to match their spending to their income, and not splash money around as if there was no tomorrow.

Councils haven't been splashing their money around since the austerity drive ten years ago and counting.

Councils have been finding that the demand for, and cost of their statutory functions (particularly social care) has been increasing substantially. Fundamentally, this is what these problems generally boil down to.

 

[Falcon1200]

Councils haven't been splashing their money around since the austerity drive ten years ago and counting.

Well, here's one example of a Council splashing money around; A few years ago Oxford City Council widened the pavement in the High Street to give more room at the bus stops there. Unfortunately this narrowed the road so much that when buses stopped there the road was effectively blocked and the city centre was gridlocked. So they had to reduce the width of the pavement again, the differing road surface where this was done is still visible.

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the real issue that places like Birmingham, Thurrock, and another perennial Croydon really reveal isn't that one part or another party is "good/bad" with money and therefore will lead to disaster should they be elected (though Greg Hands, in particular, does start to grate after a while) but that Local Government in this country is in an absolute state following decades of diminution by the Centre in Westminster and Whitehall. It even cropped up once or twice in Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister! And that was back in the 1980s and it wasn't exactly a new joke then I suspect! For instance:

The reality is that Local Government has now declined to the point that, despite it delivering vital services and in many respects being the wing of government that people have ar more contact with far more regularly (bin collections, street lights, road maintenance, to name but a few quite apart from social care, planning permission, and so on), it is both financially destitute following years of reduced income and rising costs (there's only so much you can cut) but more importantly being seen as "unimportant". We had massive local elections in May this year and yet what was the majority of coverage about? What it meant for Westminster, the Tories, Labour, and the next General Election.

We can continue sniping about "LABOUR CAN'T BE TRUSTED TO ORGANISE A KNEES UP A BREWERY AND WILL WASTE ALL YOUR MONEY", "THE TORIES ARE JUST AS BAD AND WILL SEND YOUR CHILDREN UP CHIMNEYS", etc etc when it comes to Local Government. Which is fine, I guess? But nothing will actually improve unless someone is willing to grasp the issue and look how we can reform Local Government to ensure that it actually is capable of doing the jobs required (whatever they may be). Which probably means divesting power, and perhaps most difficulty money (and the raising thereof), from Westminster and Whitehall.

 

[edwin_m]

Well, here's one example of a Council splashing money around; A few years ago Oxford City Council widened the pavement in the High Street to give more room at the bus stops there. Unfortunately this narrowed the road so much that when buses stopped there the road was effectively blocked and the city centre was gridlocked. So they had to reduce the width of the pavement again, the differing road surface where this was done is still visible.

Can't comment on specific cases, but this may be one where the government has given a council some money that's ringfenced for a specific purpose.