X Close

How Rishi could trap Labour The Tories have already lost the next election

What choice does he have? (Jack Hill - WPA Pool/Getty Images)

What choice does he have? (Jack Hill - WPA Pool/Getty Images)


November 21, 2022   5 mins

Only the most optimistic Conservative could believe the party will win the next election. It has been a year since the Tories slipped underwater in the polls and showed any signs of resurfacing. Truss drove the party to electoral wipe-out, and Sunak’s honeymoon period has taken them to the heady heights of a 22-point deficit, worse than their defeat in 1997.

Of course, there is only one poll that really matters — that on election day. Conservative MPs may look back on 2017, when they held a similar lead over Labour, and think that a few weeks can turn an assured victory into something far closer. They also know that boundary changes, voter ID laws and the balance between rural and urban votes (Labour win populous seats by big margins, Tories sparser ones by smaller numbers) all give them an edge. And yet, most must be polishing their CVs for after polling day.

The Tories’ problems are not transitory. They have been in power for over 12 years and seem out of ideas. Since they took power, wages have stagnated and the economy stalled. The party itself has become beleaguered by scandal and the chaos of this year’s carousel of Prime Ministers and Chancellors. The future looks little better: Hunt’s bread-and-water budget may have steadied the markets and offered some protection to the poorest and pensioners, but there was only pain for average households. Between now and the next election, the country is likely to get poorer. A recession is highly probable, and even popular governments rarely recover from recessions.

With the headwinds against the Tories, there is no sign that Sunak is an expert election-winner. He could not even convince his own party the first time around. The main hope seems to be a Keir Starmer implosion. It’s not impossible, but not something to bet the farm on.

There comes a certain liberation from giving up hope. Letting go of something you are chasing alters your perspective, opening your eyes to wider opportunities. This could happen to the Tories — taking them from trying to eke out electoral advantages to deploying political capital to create difficulties for future Labour governments and opportunities for the country.

For all their problems in the polls, the Conservative Party remains in a strong position in Parliament. It has a sizeable majority and with sufficient internal discipline can get a lot done in the remaining parliamentary time. Rather than thinking about winning the next election, they could run down the clock with measures that will stymie the government that follows them, spreading the ground with political bear traps.

No Tory government has really been in this position before. Where the Conservatives have led the country into an election, they have either had a hope of winning, or like in 1997, had decayed enough to lose their majority. They should pay attention instead to what Labour did: in the dying days of the Brown ministry, the Prime Minister introduced legislative and fiscal measures that he knew would trip up any Tory government. It worked.

The most famous is the 50p tax rate. This was a symbolic move for Labour of limited fiscal impact, whacking a tax on high earners after the financial crisis. The Tories have never been able to fully repeal it, and their attempt in the mini-Budget was akin to jumping on a grenade. It was not the only sting Labour left behind — the Browne Review was set up so a new government would have to deal with student finance, while measures like winter heating allowance and free buses for over-60s are easy to pass but hard to remove.

There is a range of moves you can pull to hamstring the government that replaces you. In general, they should not be obviously detrimental to the country, but should be things which cause your opponent’s pain, either internally or with the wider country. Some will be things that you ideologically favour but will be hard for your opponents to repeal, even if they want to. Others may be necessary for the public good but are front-loaded with unpopular changes – that only take effect when you are gone. The goal is to do things which cannot be whipped away in the stroke of a pen, but will continue to grate with the next government for all their time in office, eventually becoming bedded in.

The Equality Act offers some opportunity in this. As James McSweeney has argued, the Tories could tweak the Act — by removing certain sections on diversity — to reduce its least conservative effects. This serves up a challenge for Labour, who would struggle to amend it again without opening internal battles they’d rather avoid. A flashpoint for them on the act would be around gender identity, but also on balancing racial and class discrimination concerns. Either the change would stay in place, or it would force Labour into conversation it would rather not have.

Another option would be to push through strike-curbing legislation, such as the Minimum Service Levels Bill. This already has the political effect of pitching Labour an awkward gap between its union backers and the ordinary voters it wants to win back. It would have a harder choice in government — liberalising union laws would be a proactive step not just an opposing one, and subsequent strikes would be Labour’s problem. Getting these measures on the statute books now would prime the trap well.

Planning reform could be an even more ambitious lure. Moving on this now would give the Tories a chance to shape it in a way they might not have for a decade. Most obviously, the party could skew the plan to hit the inner cities and urban fringe worst, pushing the effects into the seats they will lose anyway. Furthermore, as liberalisation takes time, and constructing even more, the houses would not arrive for a few years — meaning Labour parliamentarians would bear the unpopularity of buildings going up. This may feel unfair, but people forget who originated policies when the effects kick in on your watch; and as the old adage goes, if you are explaining, you are losing. For the Tories, making the Nimbys someone else’s problem could pay dividends.

Another easy win would be to push ahead with devolution deals and enterprise zones, especially in Tory areas. Moving powers away from Westminster to places where your support is stronger is a good way of minimising the effects of a change of power. Done smoothly, the Tories could end up with a figure who can do the things they like while blaming central government for any shortcomings. The Conservatives have obviously suffered from this in Wales, Scotland, London, and Manchester, but could benefit from it in other areas — such as in the Midlands and Teesside — where they do hold sway.

At the same time, while the Tories have already indulged in some long-grass kicking, bumping the reports of social care review until 2025, they could do more with other issues — perhaps a royal commission on criminal justice (promised in the 2019 manifesto) or NHS reform. Each would open a complex issue and force Labour to take decisions that would be controversial with its members, MPs and the public.

Apart from doing this, what choice do the Tories have? This government is struggling and is unlikely to survive the next election. And when you can’t win, it’s time to think about how you make the ground hard to hold. Doing so would require a lot of the party to drop their egos, accept the loss and pull in the same direction — but done right, it could be the way to begin the way back to power.


John Oxley is a corporate strategist and political commentator. His Substack is Joxley Writes.

Mr_John_Oxley

Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

60 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago

I think at this point the Tory / Labour ‘choice’ is nothing but a mirage. Events seem to have convieniently transpired to apparently leave no other option but a high tax, utterly government dependent society, with large swathes of the country as reliant on state largesse as heroin addicts on their next feverishly awaited hit.

And if I was perhaps more conspiratorially minded I might just suggest that this was all carefully planned – or at the very least forseen as a possible outcome, with conscious efforts expended to ruthlessly exploit (or possibly even to generate) crisies in order to guide the plane down into this socialist landing area. Afterall – what form of governance do almost all the most powerful individuals on the planet want? Have we not seen them openly declare in their various conferences their plans for the future; plans wholly reliant on a level of state control that could hitherto not be imagined in free western societies? Have we not seen our leaders rubbing shoulders with these people or otherwise explicitly signing up to their organisations?

The most galling thing of all is that if it wasn’t for the lies and reality-warping of the media it would be abundently clear that government action – especially of the sort that was somehow mercaciously coordinated and continually in line with the wishes of the suited globalist cabal (I’m thinking here of the covid response and genocidal energy policy) – is what put us in this catastrophic situation in the first place. The citizenry have now been convinced (perhaps justifiably – that was the whole point) that its only more of the same – state omnipresence and interference at every level – that can prevent their nations from completely collapsing.

So, with all this in mind I’m in a dilemma: my first thought is to not to even bother voting in the next election as I would feel an utter fool participating in the spectacle of illusory democracy, but on the other hand, completely disengaging with the political process is exactly what my opponents want.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Jam
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

It’s always baffled me that conservatives seem unable to grasp that, so long as education is centrally controlled, we are always going to be fighting a rearguard battle against the expansion of the state.

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

I think most of the them are only Conservative in name. The people that have occupied the top levels of government under this guise in recent times are also complete medicroties. The few that don’t wear a Conservative skinsuit merely as a way to attain power have neither the insight or capability to resist the left’s almost total capture of our institutions.

And talking of ‘education’ I read just the other day that almost half of 18-24 year olds now believe this country to be ‘built on racism’. We can only expect this figure to approach 100% as the years go by.

It breaks my heart that the country I love is transforming beyond recognition for the overt worst whilst those who vowed to protect it have stood by and let it happen – and all this whilst having the otherwise undoubted support of the majority of people living here.

We have been utterly failed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Jam
Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

They believe that Britain was ‘founded on racism’. Britain was not ‘founded’. It developed over centuries, as an iterative process. The last time it was invaded and taken over by people from another country in any meaningful way (the Vikings were just raiders) was 1066. The ancestors of the white people who live in Britain now did not displace its indigenous population by force.
What is more fundamental than the ‘racism’ nonsense is the obvious complete lack of coherent history teaching in schools, and the apparent belief that we are somehow part of America and share the same history. We are not and we don’t.

Caroline Watson
Caroline Watson
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

They believe that Britain was ‘founded on racism’. Britain was not ‘founded’. It developed over centuries, as an iterative process. The last time it was invaded and taken over by people from another country in any meaningful way (the Vikings were just raiders) was 1066. The ancestors of the white people who live in Britain now did not displace its indigenous population by force.
What is more fundamental than the ‘racism’ nonsense is the obvious complete lack of coherent history teaching in schools, and the apparent belief that we are somehow part of America and share the same history. We are not and we don’t.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It is not just Education that is governed by the Progressive Left. The entire NMI architecture – the vast unelected Technocracy – established first by Blair Brown RULES us all – Bank OBR PHE NHS Quangos the lot. The scheming useless civil service is a political operator in its own right targetting the key Brexiteers one by one for making them cry in the office – Priti Raab Suella and key decapitation – Johnson. Why do we pretend they serve the elected goverment?? They are the STATE. In league with their metro pals the Supreme Human Rights lawyers and the Pravda State Broadcaster, power is wielded and HELD by these anti enterprise pro Socialist forces outside national Parliaments. That was the EU plan and way. How long are we going to wail..but this Executive are not acting like Tories!!!!! They are meek useless puppets – Labour too. Nothing and no one dare take on the ruling permanent STATE – not even a party with 80 seat majority. The Orthodoxy rules. The State controls. Learn your place!!!!

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

You say (rightly) “no one dare take on … not even a party with 80 seat majority” .

That begs a question: Why not??

My understanding of our constitutional arrangements is that anything Parliament votes for is law.

So if Parliament passes a one-line Act sacking a named individual then that’s it: he/she/they are sacked.

If Parliament decrees the abolition of the (Blair created) Judicial Appointments Commission then this foul organisation is history.

Boris, Truss and Sunak have all held that ability. Why on earth haven’t they used it??

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Walter Marvell

You say (rightly) “no one dare take on … not even a party with 80 seat majority” .

That begs a question: Why not??

My understanding of our constitutional arrangements is that anything Parliament votes for is law.

So if Parliament passes a one-line Act sacking a named individual then that’s it: he/she/they are sacked.

If Parliament decrees the abolition of the (Blair created) Judicial Appointments Commission then this foul organisation is history.

Boris, Truss and Sunak have all held that ability. Why on earth haven’t they used it??

charles bradshaw
charles bradshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

I recently saw at my daughter’s primary school a wall presentation with photos and text titled ‘The Victorians’. Of the 13 Victorians presented, 10 were black.

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

I think most of the them are only Conservative in name. The people that have occupied the top levels of government under this guise in recent times are also complete medicroties. The few that don’t wear a Conservative skinsuit merely as a way to attain power have neither the insight or capability to resist the left’s almost total capture of our institutions.

And talking of ‘education’ I read just the other day that almost half of 18-24 year olds now believe this country to be ‘built on racism’. We can only expect this figure to approach 100% as the years go by.

It breaks my heart that the country I love is transforming beyond recognition for the overt worst whilst those who vowed to protect it have stood by and let it happen – and all this whilst having the otherwise undoubted support of the majority of people living here.

We have been utterly failed.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Jam
Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

It is not just Education that is governed by the Progressive Left. The entire NMI architecture – the vast unelected Technocracy – established first by Blair Brown RULES us all – Bank OBR PHE NHS Quangos the lot. The scheming useless civil service is a political operator in its own right targetting the key Brexiteers one by one for making them cry in the office – Priti Raab Suella and key decapitation – Johnson. Why do we pretend they serve the elected goverment?? They are the STATE. In league with their metro pals the Supreme Human Rights lawyers and the Pravda State Broadcaster, power is wielded and HELD by these anti enterprise pro Socialist forces outside national Parliaments. That was the EU plan and way. How long are we going to wail..but this Executive are not acting like Tories!!!!! They are meek useless puppets – Labour too. Nothing and no one dare take on the ruling permanent STATE – not even a party with 80 seat majority. The Orthodoxy rules. The State controls. Learn your place!!!!

charles bradshaw
charles bradshaw
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

I recently saw at my daughter’s primary school a wall presentation with photos and text titled ‘The Victorians’. Of the 13 Victorians presented, 10 were black.

Michael Furse
Michael Furse
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

mercaciously? I sometimes wear a suit but I have never come across the term….

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Furse

Thanks for bringing attention to the spelling mistake Michael. I’m sure we can all agree this was an invaluable contribution to the debate.

Thanks again so much.

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago
Reply to  Michael Furse

Thanks for bringing attention to the spelling mistake Michael. I’m sure we can all agree this was an invaluable contribution to the debate.

Thanks again so much.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

It’s always baffled me that conservatives seem unable to grasp that, so long as education is centrally controlled, we are always going to be fighting a rearguard battle against the expansion of the state.

Michael Furse
Michael Furse
1 year ago
Reply to  Jim Jam

mercaciously? I sometimes wear a suit but I have never come across the term….

Jim Jam
Jim Jam
1 year ago

I think at this point the Tory / Labour ‘choice’ is nothing but a mirage. Events seem to have convieniently transpired to apparently leave no other option but a high tax, utterly government dependent society, with large swathes of the country as reliant on state largesse as heroin addicts on their next feverishly awaited hit.

And if I was perhaps more conspiratorially minded I might just suggest that this was all carefully planned – or at the very least forseen as a possible outcome, with conscious efforts expended to ruthlessly exploit (or possibly even to generate) crisies in order to guide the plane down into this socialist landing area. Afterall – what form of governance do almost all the most powerful individuals on the planet want? Have we not seen them openly declare in their various conferences their plans for the future; plans wholly reliant on a level of state control that could hitherto not be imagined in free western societies? Have we not seen our leaders rubbing shoulders with these people or otherwise explicitly signing up to their organisations?

The most galling thing of all is that if it wasn’t for the lies and reality-warping of the media it would be abundently clear that government action – especially of the sort that was somehow mercaciously coordinated and continually in line with the wishes of the suited globalist cabal (I’m thinking here of the covid response and genocidal energy policy) – is what put us in this catastrophic situation in the first place. The citizenry have now been convinced (perhaps justifiably – that was the whole point) that its only more of the same – state omnipresence and interference at every level – that can prevent their nations from completely collapsing.

So, with all this in mind I’m in a dilemma: my first thought is to not to even bother voting in the next election as I would feel an utter fool participating in the spectacle of illusory democracy, but on the other hand, completely disengaging with the political process is exactly what my opponents want.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jim Jam
Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

If I was Sunak I would go big on immigration. I would set out the following principles:

1.The final decision of who can enter, live, work or claim asylum in the UK, and in what numbers, rests solely with the British Parliament.
2.No one may enter, live, work or claim asylum in the UK except by official routes with the correct paperwork. Illegal entry, absconding, arriving without documents will only lead to detention and deportation (to a safe third country if necessary).
3. The total number of immigrants a year must be capped at a number suitable for the UK’s existing infrastructure and public services and ability and willingness to build new houses.
4. All immigrants should be selected on the basis of their potential to contribute to Britain’s future. Asylum criteria must be published.
5.The government should assist British firms to move away from processes that require low cost labour through capital investment tax breaks and training of British kids.

Say that and do the necessary to make it happen and 2024 is in the bag!

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

That would be the obvious thing to do for a patriotic government anyway. Unfortunately…

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Well we can dream…
(For now at least! Dreaming of a patriotic government with traditional views and common sense might soon be a thought crime).

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

Well we can dream…
(For now at least! Dreaming of a patriotic government with traditional views and common sense might soon be a thought crime).

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Point 2 will not work unless you also have a point 6; ID cards to be carried at all times by all adults. I believe ID cards are normal in most EU countries.
Without them, you can’t really know or control who is living and working in your territory. People on the libertarian right will hate this suggestion, of course.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Doesn’t bother me. You could use the NHS app for this purpose. Make good use of the money it took to develop it and roll it out. Have to show it to get doctors appointment, school place, apply for universal credit etc. Connect system to border system so leaving and entering country is captured too. Should be simple to enhance.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Do you remember the Morecambe Bay tragedy. Twenty three cockle pickers were found dead on the beach. They were Chinese illegals, brought over in the back of a lorry and managed by a gangmaster. My point is that they had no NHS numbers. They had no NI numbers either. Live people are easy to hide when no-one has to carry ID. Dead people are much more easily seen by the authorities.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I must be missing your point.
What is the difference between an 1) ID card and 2) carrying an app on your phone which in certain circumstances you are asked to scan to prove that you are a citizen or have a visa to remain here?
Please explain.
Surely the Chinese illegals would have been picked up by the local police in Grange-over-Sands with a routine inspection of the cockle pickers and a request to see their app.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

If you can be required to display an app on your phone that is no different at all, so the argument disappears.
People without smartphones will still be compelled to carry the card.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Exactly so. There would need to be guidelines for the police or other authorities so they didn’t harass law-abiding citizens but if they stop people who they suspect might be in breach of an immigration offence, they should be able to ask to see the person’s immigration status on their phone.
Yes grannies would need some paper alternative which was the case with vaccine passports.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Exactly so. There would need to be guidelines for the police or other authorities so they didn’t harass law-abiding citizens but if they stop people who they suspect might be in breach of an immigration offence, they should be able to ask to see the person’s immigration status on their phone.
Yes grannies would need some paper alternative which was the case with vaccine passports.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

If you can be required to display an app on your phone that is no different at all, so the argument disappears.
People without smartphones will still be compelled to carry the card.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I must be missing your point.
What is the difference between an 1) ID card and 2) carrying an app on your phone which in certain circumstances you are asked to scan to prove that you are a citizen or have a visa to remain here?
Please explain.
Surely the Chinese illegals would have been picked up by the local police in Grange-over-Sands with a routine inspection of the cockle pickers and a request to see their app.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

I’m against ID cards, as in being required to produce one by a passing policeman, but I’m in favour of having to demonstrate ones entitlement to public services. I would go for evidence that one is “known to HMRC” but using the NHS app is a neat idea.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Do you remember the Morecambe Bay tragedy. Twenty three cockle pickers were found dead on the beach. They were Chinese illegals, brought over in the back of a lorry and managed by a gangmaster. My point is that they had no NHS numbers. They had no NI numbers either. Live people are easy to hide when no-one has to carry ID. Dead people are much more easily seen by the authorities.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

I’m against ID cards, as in being required to produce one by a passing policeman, but I’m in favour of having to demonstrate ones entitlement to public services. I would go for evidence that one is “known to HMRC” but using the NHS app is a neat idea.

Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

As a right wing libertarian, I would observe not that non of these “civic rights” argument held any water against lockdowns or vaccine passports. Maybe the tory party should top giving credit to a small fringe of left-wing concern trolls posing as (economic) freedom fighters.

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I may hate the idea of ID cards but that doesn’t mean I don’t see a necessity for them…alas it should have come to this.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Not really. All that is required is to make it an offence – with substantial penalties – to employ somebody who does not have an NI number.I

There is a practical problem here in that our treasonous civil service has spent the last two decades handing out NI numbers like confetti. But it is not beyond the wit of man to fix that.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Doesn’t bother me. You could use the NHS app for this purpose. Make good use of the money it took to develop it and roll it out. Have to show it to get doctors appointment, school place, apply for universal credit etc. Connect system to border system so leaving and entering country is captured too. Should be simple to enhance.

Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

As a right wing libertarian, I would observe not that non of these “civic rights” argument held any water against lockdowns or vaccine passports. Maybe the tory party should top giving credit to a small fringe of left-wing concern trolls posing as (economic) freedom fighters.

Jacqueline Burns
Jacqueline Burns
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I may hate the idea of ID cards but that doesn’t mean I don’t see a necessity for them…alas it should have come to this.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Not really. All that is required is to make it an offence – with substantial penalties – to employ somebody who does not have an NI number.I

There is a practical problem here in that our treasonous civil service has spent the last two decades handing out NI numbers like confetti. But it is not beyond the wit of man to fix that.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Re 1) fair enough, good idea – in theory. BUT…
Re 2) good luck with those deportations. You need the cooperation of whichever country you want to deport them to. And most countries aren’t interested in taking people back (even migrants’ home countries – if you can find out which country that is)…THEREFORE…
Re 3) anyone who manages to get into the UK (or any other country in the EU for that matter) is probably going to stay there so capping numbers will simply be a number on paper that doesn’t have any real world impact except for brief applause from voters for tough rhetoric
Re 4) fine for legal immigrants, but pretty pointless as regards illegal immigrants: see 2 & 3
Re 5) that, again, is a fair point (at least as far as education is concerned) because you can always do that irrespective of who is coming into the country (legally or otherwise).

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Thanks Katherine.
I think people get too pessimistic about this issue. With enough political will it can be done. The popular support for it is clearly there. People said leaving the EU would be unthinkable yet here we are!
In that spirit, here is my response to your objections.
1)Thanks
2)There are a few steps that could be taken here. A) restrict entry visas to citizens of countries that don’t take returnees (this was included in the recent Nationality and Borders Act), B)Detain all illegals until repatriation can be arranged – a huge part of the problem is that once you let people live in the community, they start accruing rights C) If the illegal is a genuine refugee or their nationality can’t be established then deportation to Rwanda or another third country that we pay to take them.
3)See the point above. This cap will apply to the issuance of work visas and family reunion visas and asylum offers combined. I would suggest the cap is set at half the number of new houses that were built in the previous year – this would have resulted in the cap being about 80k this year.
Obviously, as you imply, without sorting out 2) you can’t do 3).
4)The circumstances in which we grant asylum must be transparent so the British public can keep tabs on the Home Office. Every approved asylum case should be published (obviously with names redacted) so we can make sure it is not overly generous.
5)True but I think the public should be offered a comprehensive package on immigration and things like training and skills should be part of it.

I would say the most difficult step is getting enough secure accommodation to detain the number of illegal immigrants we have to deal with. That should be priority number 1.
Then you would need more third country deals but apparently there are a number of countries interested. We should put them at the top of the list for Foreign Aid if they volunteer.
Obviously any objections from ECHR or other international agreements would need to be legislated. If they couldn’t get it through this parliament because of Tory Wets, Rishi should withdraw the whip from the ring leaders and call an election. The people would back him I’m sure.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

This
Enforcing an immigration policy is simple, it requires some goodwill as well a some determination to crush sabotage by the open-border lobby.
But implementing such a policy would be a vote winner for 2024.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

Isn’t it rather pretentious to begin a post with the single word ‘This’?
The goodwill would have to come not only from the French, but from all the countries of origin of the migrants.
The ‘open border lobby’ seems to operate within the Home Office too. Priti Patel got blamed for bullying her staff, but maybe they need someone to put the stick about a bit?

Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Why the Franch ?
Just repatriate them to Rwanda (or Ukraine if Mr Zelensky needs conscripts).

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

Sending people to Rwanda means accepting an equal number of central African refugees from Rwanda. Did you know that that was part of the deal?
The Ukrainians are not stupid.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I have heard that said but never seen any evidence of this. Do you have a link? I had assumed we just paid the Rwandan government a load of money.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M
Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

So not an equal number.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Touche.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Touche.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

So not an equal number.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M
Jonathan Munday
Jonathan Munday
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Internal exile on West Falkland provides no legal obstacles.
No one can pretend the illegal immigrants have to have a free council house in London.
Besides if the threat were ever imposed the lfow would stop. Illegal immigrants are rational people making rational economic judgements for their families. At the moment the UK is a no brainer for them but it would not take much to change the maths if we really meant to.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago

West Falkland is good, but South Georgia is better. It is uninhabited and as close to escape-proof as anything can be.

That said, West Falkland would be great for the tiny number of female illegal immigrants.The last thing we want to hear is the thunder of tiny migrant feet!

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago

West Falkland is good, but South Georgia is better. It is uninhabited and as close to escape-proof as anything can be.

That said, West Falkland would be great for the tiny number of female illegal immigrants.The last thing we want to hear is the thunder of tiny migrant feet!

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

I have heard that said but never seen any evidence of this. Do you have a link? I had assumed we just paid the Rwandan government a load of money.

Jonathan Munday
Jonathan Munday
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Internal exile on West Falkland provides no legal obstacles.
No one can pretend the illegal immigrants have to have a free council house in London.
Besides if the threat were ever imposed the lfow would stop. Illegal immigrants are rational people making rational economic judgements for their families. At the moment the UK is a no brainer for them but it would not take much to change the maths if we really meant to.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

Yes i don’t think the French need to be involved. It is great if they help patrol their own beaches but a system that relies on them is likely to fail.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

Sending people to Rwanda means accepting an equal number of central African refugees from Rwanda. Did you know that that was part of the deal?
The Ukrainians are not stupid.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

Yes i don’t think the French need to be involved. It is great if they help patrol their own beaches but a system that relies on them is likely to fail.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Why do we need “goodwill” from the French, or from their country of origin?

None of these migrants are Frenchmen, and France wants rid of them as much as we do.

Their countries of origin have a duty to accept them – so simply dump them there whether their own governments like it or not.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

Simply not possible. You can’t land an airliner or dock a ship in a sovereign country without the co-operation of the local authorities.
What is this ‘duty’ and who do you think enforces it?

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Who said anything about an airliner? A C130 Hercules needs about 1000 feet of runway, with clear approaches, and a surface adequate to drive a LandRover along it in 4wd.

Loading and unloading is handled by a built-in ramp which is strong enough to handle heavy trucks, so no airport facilities required.I

The navy’s assault ships carry hovercraft capable of delivering heavy loads onto any reasonably clear beach.

It is a generally accepted principle that one has a right to live in the country of one’s birth.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Who said anything about an airliner? A C130 Hercules needs about 1000 feet of runway, with clear approaches, and a surface adequate to drive a LandRover along it in 4wd.

Loading and unloading is handled by a built-in ramp which is strong enough to handle heavy trucks, so no airport facilities required.I

The navy’s assault ships carry hovercraft capable of delivering heavy loads onto any reasonably clear beach.

It is a generally accepted principle that one has a right to live in the country of one’s birth.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

Simply not possible. You can’t land an airliner or dock a ship in a sovereign country without the co-operation of the local authorities.
What is this ‘duty’ and who do you think enforces it?

Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Why the Franch ?
Just repatriate them to Rwanda (or Ukraine if Mr Zelensky needs conscripts).

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  D Glover

Why do we need “goodwill” from the French, or from their country of origin?

None of these migrants are Frenchmen, and France wants rid of them as much as we do.

Their countries of origin have a duty to accept them – so simply dump them there whether their own governments like it or not.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

It seems to me to be the only possible option for Rishi Sunak if he wants to win. A sensible, fair, once-in-a-generation settlement on immigration will re-assemble the 2019 coalition because Labour cannot follow them down this path – they are essentially an Open Borders party led by a “Human Rights” lawyer who made his name overturning government attempts to stop illegal immigration.
If they don’t do it, the boats will keep coming and it will be the Tories, not the dinghies, that will be sunk.

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago

Isn’t it rather pretentious to begin a post with the single word ‘This’?
The goodwill would have to come not only from the French, but from all the countries of origin of the migrants.
The ‘open border lobby’ seems to operate within the Home Office too. Priti Patel got blamed for bullying her staff, but maybe they need someone to put the stick about a bit?

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

It seems to me to be the only possible option for Rishi Sunak if he wants to win. A sensible, fair, once-in-a-generation settlement on immigration will re-assemble the 2019 coalition because Labour cannot follow them down this path – they are essentially an Open Borders party led by a “Human Rights” lawyer who made his name overturning government attempts to stop illegal immigration.
If they don’t do it, the boats will keep coming and it will be the Tories, not the dinghies, that will be sunk.

Bob Pugh
Bob Pugh
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Indeed, Austrailia has managed to turn thier problem arround quite sucessfully, but they are not fetterered by the EHCR.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Pugh

Given that our allegedly Tory government has a majority of 80 – probably now down to 75 – it shouldn’t take them more than a few minutes to pass a one-line Act of Parliament getting us out of the ECHR.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Pugh

Given that our allegedly Tory government has a majority of 80 – probably now down to 75 – it shouldn’t take them more than a few minutes to pass a one-line Act of Parliament getting us out of the ECHR.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

There is an aspect to the difficulties of “getting it through Parliament because of Tory Wets” which doesn’t seem to have occurred to people.

Probably less than a quarter of MPs could earn as much on the outside as they get from their MP ‘s salary, expenses, free London house etc.

If there were to be a General Election tomorrow, most of them would be out of jobs. That gives Sunak a Sword of Damocles to hang over their heads – far more powerful than a 3-line Whip:

“Vote as I tell you, or I shall call a General Election and immediately resign. “

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

Good point Bill

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

Good point Bill

Emmanuel MARTIN
Emmanuel MARTIN
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

This
Enforcing an immigration policy is simple, it requires some goodwill as well a some determination to crush sabotage by the open-border lobby.
But implementing such a policy would be a vote winner for 2024.

Bob Pugh
Bob Pugh
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Indeed, Austrailia has managed to turn thier problem arround quite sucessfully, but they are not fetterered by the EHCR.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

There is an aspect to the difficulties of “getting it through Parliament because of Tory Wets” which doesn’t seem to have occurred to people.

Probably less than a quarter of MPs could earn as much on the outside as they get from their MP ‘s salary, expenses, free London house etc.

If there were to be a General Election tomorrow, most of them would be out of jobs. That gives Sunak a Sword of Damocles to hang over their heads – far more powerful than a 3-line Whip:

“Vote as I tell you, or I shall call a General Election and immediately resign. “

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Item 2. See my reply to Matt M above.

People who arrive without the required paperwork should be sent straight to South Georgia until their applications can be considered.

While there they should have the right to withdraw their application at any time, upon which they would be repatriated to their homeland by the first available transport.

You worry that their homelands might not want them back, even though they have a legal duty to allow their own citizens in.

In which case, repatriate them by force. (If not by force them why the hell am I paying taxes for a navy and an airforce?)

I’m practice, very little force would be needed. It would be easy to deposit them on e.g. a deserted beach, and be gone before the local authorities realised what was happening.

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Thanks Katherine.
I think people get too pessimistic about this issue. With enough political will it can be done. The popular support for it is clearly there. People said leaving the EU would be unthinkable yet here we are!
In that spirit, here is my response to your objections.
1)Thanks
2)There are a few steps that could be taken here. A) restrict entry visas to citizens of countries that don’t take returnees (this was included in the recent Nationality and Borders Act), B)Detain all illegals until repatriation can be arranged – a huge part of the problem is that once you let people live in the community, they start accruing rights C) If the illegal is a genuine refugee or their nationality can’t be established then deportation to Rwanda or another third country that we pay to take them.
3)See the point above. This cap will apply to the issuance of work visas and family reunion visas and asylum offers combined. I would suggest the cap is set at half the number of new houses that were built in the previous year – this would have resulted in the cap being about 80k this year.
Obviously, as you imply, without sorting out 2) you can’t do 3).
4)The circumstances in which we grant asylum must be transparent so the British public can keep tabs on the Home Office. Every approved asylum case should be published (obviously with names redacted) so we can make sure it is not overly generous.
5)True but I think the public should be offered a comprehensive package on immigration and things like training and skills should be part of it.

I would say the most difficult step is getting enough secure accommodation to detain the number of illegal immigrants we have to deal with. That should be priority number 1.
Then you would need more third country deals but apparently there are a number of countries interested. We should put them at the top of the list for Foreign Aid if they volunteer.
Obviously any objections from ECHR or other international agreements would need to be legislated. If they couldn’t get it through this parliament because of Tory Wets, Rishi should withdraw the whip from the ring leaders and call an election. The people would back him I’m sure.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Katharine Eyre

Item 2. See my reply to Matt M above.

People who arrive without the required paperwork should be sent straight to South Georgia until their applications can be considered.

While there they should have the right to withdraw their application at any time, upon which they would be repatriated to their homeland by the first available transport.

You worry that their homelands might not want them back, even though they have a legal duty to allow their own citizens in.

In which case, repatriate them by force. (If not by force them why the hell am I paying taxes for a navy and an airforce?)

I’m practice, very little force would be needed. It would be easy to deposit them on e.g. a deserted beach, and be gone before the local authorities realised what was happening.

David Whitaker
David Whitaker
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

All immigrants should be selected on the basis of their potential to contribute to Britain’s future.” Might this be a step on the path towards a similar assessment (and exile to Rwanda etc if they don’t pass) of British citizens?

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

You made similar comments in a recent thread re Suella Braverman. But your points need making again and again, until they sink in – so I am glad you did make them again!

However I shall make the same comment as I did to that earlier thread:

Item 2. Why a “safe third country” ? The island of South Georgia is perfect for the job and is sovereign British territory, so there is no opening for Woke lawyers to claim that it is not safe (which they could do, with considerable justification, in the case of Rwanda).

And why pay foreigners to do something we can do better ourselves?

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

Thanks Bill.
I am sick of reading my own words making these points but I am baffled as to why the governing class doesn’t want to know.
I would have thought a democratically-controlled immigration system which was predictable, didn’t overwhelm the welfare state or lead to concreting over the greenbelt, brought new talent and skills into the country, prioritised training our own kids and gave sanctuary to (a reasonable number) of genuine refugees would be popular with 90% of the country.
On South Georgia/Rwanda: I would say that the first was one of the places where illegal immigrants should be housed while we arrange for deportation to their home country. Rwanda would be the final destination for genuine refugees who can’t be returned home (say they are from an active warzone) but who enter the country illegally. We cannot ever allow asylum to be offered to people who try to bypass the system – if you do, every b*gger will chance their arm.
My scheme would be to:
A) Moor some retired RN transport vessels off Dover
B) Take all dinghy arrivals aboard without them stepping foot on dry land
C) Start deportation proceedings
D) When the ship is full, it is sailed to a British Overseas Territory where it moors until its passengers have had their deportation orders confirmed.
E)The ship sails to a location from which they are flown off to their final destinations
F) The ship returns back to Kent for round 2.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Tomlinson

Thanks Bill.
I am sick of reading my own words making these points but I am baffled as to why the governing class doesn’t want to know.
I would have thought a democratically-controlled immigration system which was predictable, didn’t overwhelm the welfare state or lead to concreting over the greenbelt, brought new talent and skills into the country, prioritised training our own kids and gave sanctuary to (a reasonable number) of genuine refugees would be popular with 90% of the country.
On South Georgia/Rwanda: I would say that the first was one of the places where illegal immigrants should be housed while we arrange for deportation to their home country. Rwanda would be the final destination for genuine refugees who can’t be returned home (say they are from an active warzone) but who enter the country illegally. We cannot ever allow asylum to be offered to people who try to bypass the system – if you do, every b*gger will chance their arm.
My scheme would be to:
A) Moor some retired RN transport vessels off Dover
B) Take all dinghy arrivals aboard without them stepping foot on dry land
C) Start deportation proceedings
D) When the ship is full, it is sailed to a British Overseas Territory where it moors until its passengers have had their deportation orders confirmed.
E)The ship sails to a location from which they are flown off to their final destinations
F) The ship returns back to Kent for round 2.

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

That would be the obvious thing to do for a patriotic government anyway. Unfortunately…

D Glover
D Glover
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Point 2 will not work unless you also have a point 6; ID cards to be carried at all times by all adults. I believe ID cards are normal in most EU countries.
Without them, you can’t really know or control who is living and working in your territory. People on the libertarian right will hate this suggestion, of course.

Katharine Eyre
Katharine Eyre
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

Re 1) fair enough, good idea – in theory. BUT…
Re 2) good luck with those deportations. You need the cooperation of whichever country you want to deport them to. And most countries aren’t interested in taking people back (even migrants’ home countries – if you can find out which country that is)…THEREFORE…
Re 3) anyone who manages to get into the UK (or any other country in the EU for that matter) is probably going to stay there so capping numbers will simply be a number on paper that doesn’t have any real world impact except for brief applause from voters for tough rhetoric
Re 4) fine for legal immigrants, but pretty pointless as regards illegal immigrants: see 2 & 3
Re 5) that, again, is a fair point (at least as far as education is concerned) because you can always do that irrespective of who is coming into the country (legally or otherwise).

Last edited 1 year ago by Katharine Eyre
David Whitaker
David Whitaker
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

All immigrants should be selected on the basis of their potential to contribute to Britain’s future.” Might this be a step on the path towards a similar assessment (and exile to Rwanda etc if they don’t pass) of British citizens?

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Matt M

You made similar comments in a recent thread re Suella Braverman. But your points need making again and again, until they sink in – so I am glad you did make them again!

However I shall make the same comment as I did to that earlier thread:

Item 2. Why a “safe third country” ? The island of South Georgia is perfect for the job and is sovereign British territory, so there is no opening for Woke lawyers to claim that it is not safe (which they could do, with considerable justification, in the case of Rwanda).

And why pay foreigners to do something we can do better ourselves?

Matt M
Matt M
1 year ago

If I was Sunak I would go big on immigration. I would set out the following principles:

1.The final decision of who can enter, live, work or claim asylum in the UK, and in what numbers, rests solely with the British Parliament.
2.No one may enter, live, work or claim asylum in the UK except by official routes with the correct paperwork. Illegal entry, absconding, arriving without documents will only lead to detention and deportation (to a safe third country if necessary).
3. The total number of immigrants a year must be capped at a number suitable for the UK’s existing infrastructure and public services and ability and willingness to build new houses.
4. All immigrants should be selected on the basis of their potential to contribute to Britain’s future. Asylum criteria must be published.
5.The government should assist British firms to move away from processes that require low cost labour through capital investment tax breaks and training of British kids.

Say that and do the necessary to make it happen and 2024 is in the bag!

Last edited 1 year ago by Matt M
Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

I’n not sure why the authors’ recipe for the remainder of the Tory administration makes sense only in relation to trying to stymy a future Labour government; why not just carry out those measures anyway? After all, and to use the much-coined and seemingly facile phrase, they might be “the right thing to do”. Justifying such measures with reference to creating difficulties for your opponents hardly liberates an administration as the author suggests.

Steve Murray
Steve Murray
1 year ago

I’n not sure why the authors’ recipe for the remainder of the Tory administration makes sense only in relation to trying to stymy a future Labour government; why not just carry out those measures anyway? After all, and to use the much-coined and seemingly facile phrase, they might be “the right thing to do”. Justifying such measures with reference to creating difficulties for your opponents hardly liberates an administration as the author suggests.

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago

I find the this article utterly depressing. Instead of focussing on how the Tories could use their remaining time actually fixing the glaring problems facing the country, which would in themselves help their electoral chances, the author concerns himself with silly party political knockabout.
The situation with Channel crossings is a disgrace.To pick tens of thousands up economic migrants who are exploiting a weak immigration asylum system, and place them in luxury hotels is a grotesque spectacle, especially when the public are themselves in facing dire financial circumstances. The Tories could fix this by pulling out of the ECHR and reforming the system. They should be doing this not to game Labour but because it is obviously the right thing to do.
The British public have made clear that they want a dramatic reduction in immigration, to see the woke infestation of our institutions eradicated, to have functioning public services not afflicted with strikes and stay at home workers. The Tories should be fixing these thngs. Again, not because of political advantage, but because it desperately needs doing.
The author trots out the most exhausted political clichĂ©s: the (insert party name) have run out of ideas. There aren’t any new poitical or economic ideas, and it’s simply a case of picking ones that have historically worked as opposed to those that dont.
The Tories started out 12 years ago as continuity New Labour. They then drifted left to social democracy. With the Autumn Statement, the Tories took the final step in their journey left by prioritising maintaining a bloated, dysfunctional state at the expense of causing great damage to the productive part of the economy with ever more tax rises. Even Tory socialism eventually runs out of other people’s money, and that’s where we are.
The Tories haven’t run out of ideas. It’s just that for 12 years they have chosen to pinch Labour’s bad ideas and drifted ever further left. Now the Tories seem incapable of bringing themselves to actually implement any policy that is recognisably conservative, even when it is the the right thing to do, and even to save their own skins.
A Conservative Party absent of conservatives and indistinguishable from Labour deserves to perish. The absence of a real party of the Right within British politics has created an imbalanced dyfunctional monoculture of failed leftist ideas.

Last edited 1 year ago by Marcus Leach
Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

You say “the Tories could use their remaining time … fixing the glaring problems facing the country” .

Seems to me that the most glaring of all those problems is precisely immigration.

Some might contend that the inflation resulting from two decades of money printing should take pride of place.

But, 50 years hence, that inflation will be of interest only to specialist economic historians – whereas the consequences of immigration will remain a stark reality.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Marcus Leach

You say “the Tories could use their remaining time … fixing the glaring problems facing the country” .

Seems to me that the most glaring of all those problems is precisely immigration.

Some might contend that the inflation resulting from two decades of money printing should take pride of place.

But, 50 years hence, that inflation will be of interest only to specialist economic historians – whereas the consequences of immigration will remain a stark reality.

Marcus Leach
Marcus Leach
1 year ago

I find the this article utterly depressing. Instead of focussing on how the Tories could use their remaining time actually fixing the glaring problems facing the country, which would in themselves help their electoral chances, the author concerns himself with silly party political knockabout.
The situation with Channel crossings is a disgrace.To pick tens of thousands up economic migrants who are exploiting a weak immigration asylum system, and place them in luxury hotels is a grotesque spectacle, especially when the public are themselves in facing dire financial circumstances. The Tories could fix this by pulling out of the ECHR and reforming the system. They should be doing this not to game Labour but because it is obviously the right thing to do.
The British public have made clear that they want a dramatic reduction in immigration, to see the woke infestation of our institutions eradicated, to have functioning public services not afflicted with strikes and stay at home workers. The Tories should be fixing these thngs. Again, not because of political advantage, but because it desperately needs doing.
The author trots out the most exhausted political clichĂ©s: the (insert party name) have run out of ideas. There aren’t any new poitical or economic ideas, and it’s simply a case of picking ones that have historically worked as opposed to those that dont.
The Tories started out 12 years ago as continuity New Labour. They then drifted left to social democracy. With the Autumn Statement, the Tories took the final step in their journey left by prioritising maintaining a bloated, dysfunctional state at the expense of causing great damage to the productive part of the economy with ever more tax rises. Even Tory socialism eventually runs out of other people’s money, and that’s where we are.
The Tories haven’t run out of ideas. It’s just that for 12 years they have chosen to pinch Labour’s bad ideas and drifted ever further left. Now the Tories seem incapable of bringing themselves to actually implement any policy that is recognisably conservative, even when it is the the right thing to do, and even to save their own skins.
A Conservative Party absent of conservatives and indistinguishable from Labour deserves to perish. The absence of a real party of the Right within British politics has created an imbalanced dyfunctional monoculture of failed leftist ideas.

Last edited 1 year ago by Marcus Leach
Nick Wade
Nick Wade
1 year ago

I’m afraid politics is simply a clown show to distract the plebs and/or keep them entertained. The media control the path of politics through carefully curated stories, released at the appropriate time. And certain people control most of the media. You only have to look at the way the same narrative, and policies were drummed out all over the world in the last 2 years, with minor regional tweaks.

Case in point, Boris. Don’t tell me the media didn’t have plenty of dirt on that guy. They just chose to release it when it was time for him to go. In the same vein, Truss was not the approved choice of our shadowy globalist deep state masters, whoever they may be, so despite Rishi losing a leadership contest twice, he’s now in charge, with the ever popular Hunt. These creatures then travel to the G20, Davos, COP27 etc to receive their instructions to instigate policies none of their electorate asked for.

On some occasions the electorate do ask for things, but they have been simply brainwashed by the media to want them. Lockdowns were a good example, as is the “Climate Emergency”, although now these things are costing money, they’re not so popular. Too late
.. The relentless barrage of propaganda from the usual media suspects, funded by the other usual suspects is something to behold. But the notion that you can get anything different through an election is, I’m afraid a carefully crafted illusion.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nick Wade
Nick Wade
Nick Wade
1 year ago

I’m afraid politics is simply a clown show to distract the plebs and/or keep them entertained. The media control the path of politics through carefully curated stories, released at the appropriate time. And certain people control most of the media. You only have to look at the way the same narrative, and policies were drummed out all over the world in the last 2 years, with minor regional tweaks.

Case in point, Boris. Don’t tell me the media didn’t have plenty of dirt on that guy. They just chose to release it when it was time for him to go. In the same vein, Truss was not the approved choice of our shadowy globalist deep state masters, whoever they may be, so despite Rishi losing a leadership contest twice, he’s now in charge, with the ever popular Hunt. These creatures then travel to the G20, Davos, COP27 etc to receive their instructions to instigate policies none of their electorate asked for.

On some occasions the electorate do ask for things, but they have been simply brainwashed by the media to want them. Lockdowns were a good example, as is the “Climate Emergency”, although now these things are costing money, they’re not so popular. Too late
.. The relentless barrage of propaganda from the usual media suspects, funded by the other usual suspects is something to behold. But the notion that you can get anything different through an election is, I’m afraid a carefully crafted illusion.

Last edited 1 year ago by Nick Wade
Bob Pugh
Bob Pugh
1 year ago

The only way the Labour party can win is by getting into bed with the Liberals and the Scots Nats. Once the realities become apparent to the electorate I’m not sure the English will buy it. We all know the Liberals talk big and deliver nothing and the SNP are deeply unpopular south of the border.

Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Pugh

I thought Kier Starmer’s plan to get rid of the House of Lords might be a vote winner.
I’m not supporting the abolishment of the House of Lords. I’m just saying that it would be popular with a lot of people who may be undecided.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
Steve Elliott
1 year ago
Reply to  Bob Pugh

I thought Kier Starmer’s plan to get rid of the House of Lords might be a vote winner.
I’m not supporting the abolishment of the House of Lords. I’m just saying that it would be popular with a lot of people who may be undecided.

Last edited 1 year ago by Steve Elliott
Bob Pugh
Bob Pugh
1 year ago

The only way the Labour party can win is by getting into bed with the Liberals and the Scots Nats. Once the realities become apparent to the electorate I’m not sure the English will buy it. We all know the Liberals talk big and deliver nothing and the SNP are deeply unpopular south of the border.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago

What an utterly cynical article. It typifies everything that is rotten about what others in these comments have called the “clown show” of British politics.
Instead of at least trying to do its best for the country while in office, the government should focus all its efforts on scheming and planting grenades for the government that follows.
If the author is a “corporate strategist” I’d like to know who his clients are so I can avoid having anything to do with them. It’s people like him who are polluting the corridors of power. Come back Malcolm Tucker, all is forgiven.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago

What an utterly cynical article. It typifies everything that is rotten about what others in these comments have called the “clown show” of British politics.
Instead of at least trying to do its best for the country while in office, the government should focus all its efforts on scheming and planting grenades for the government that follows.
If the author is a “corporate strategist” I’d like to know who his clients are so I can avoid having anything to do with them. It’s people like him who are polluting the corridors of power. Come back Malcolm Tucker, all is forgiven.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago

“Moving powers away from Westminster to places where your support is stronger is a good way of minimising the effects of a change of power.”
That was Blair’s idea with Scottish devolution. It hasn’t aged well.

Dougie Undersub
Dougie Undersub
1 year ago

“Moving powers away from Westminster to places where your support is stronger is a good way of minimising the effects of a change of power.”
That was Blair’s idea with Scottish devolution. It hasn’t aged well.

Alan Hawkes
Alan Hawkes
1 year ago

If the Tories are going down perhaps they could focus on legislation that is good for the country, not somethings that are bad for Labour.

Alan Hawkes
Alan Hawkes
1 year ago

If the Tories are going down perhaps they could focus on legislation that is good for the country, not somethings that are bad for Labour.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

Whoah! Spreading bear traps for the incoming government. No! Try repairing some of the damage done, implementing some manifesto promises. It’s not Bridge or Chess or Monopoly. Try leaving with at least a visible attempt at good intentions, some credit.
Labour will do what they’ve said they’ll do. Some is being practised now on their behalf. They’ll double down, the IMF and the EU will get a desk each in Starmer’s office, like visiting VAT inspectors but permanent.
Like Soubry, Grieve, Gauke, Umunna and co, Sunak & co will be off to their boardooms and sinecures with the same ‘good riddance’ ringing in their ears.

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

Whoah! Spreading bear traps for the incoming government. No! Try repairing some of the damage done, implementing some manifesto promises. It’s not Bridge or Chess or Monopoly. Try leaving with at least a visible attempt at good intentions, some credit.
Labour will do what they’ve said they’ll do. Some is being practised now on their behalf. They’ll double down, the IMF and the EU will get a desk each in Starmer’s office, like visiting VAT inspectors but permanent.
Like Soubry, Grieve, Gauke, Umunna and co, Sunak & co will be off to their boardooms and sinecures with the same ‘good riddance’ ringing in their ears.

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
1 year ago

I would especially like to see amendments of the Equality Act so that we have a level rights field whether a person has British heritage or nonBritish heritage.

The protected characteristic of race/ethnicity/nationality means unequal legal rights which often results in a reduced right of address when British heritage is used to victimise, harass or discriminate. It also leads to vexatious claims of racism in order to impose, intimidate and inquisition those with a British heritage.

Steve Gwynne
Steve Gwynne
1 year ago

I would especially like to see amendments of the Equality Act so that we have a level rights field whether a person has British heritage or nonBritish heritage.

The protected characteristic of race/ethnicity/nationality means unequal legal rights which often results in a reduced right of address when British heritage is used to victimise, harass or discriminate. It also leads to vexatious claims of racism in order to impose, intimidate and inquisition those with a British heritage.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

What about having a cruise liner (past its seaworthy days) anchored off Dover as a holding base for illegal immigrants?

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Two problems with your plan.

1. Prison hulks – which is effectively what this would be – have a bad record of becoming centres for disease epidemics, and this would give Wokey lawyers a lever to demand that they be allowed ashore.

2. Plenty of those migrants are going to take their chances jumping overboard and swimming ashore. If they fail, and drown, the Wokey lawyers will have a field day; if they succeed they will vanish into the community.

For these reasons I suggest using a ship registered in Australia and operating in mid Channel. The logic is that when a ship is outside territorial waters it is subject to the laws of the country in which it is registered. Australia does not recognise the ECHR and has an excellent track record for dealing robustly with illegal immigrants.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Iris C

Two problems with your plan.

1. Prison hulks – which is effectively what this would be – have a bad record of becoming centres for disease epidemics, and this would give Wokey lawyers a lever to demand that they be allowed ashore.

2. Plenty of those migrants are going to take their chances jumping overboard and swimming ashore. If they fail, and drown, the Wokey lawyers will have a field day; if they succeed they will vanish into the community.

For these reasons I suggest using a ship registered in Australia and operating in mid Channel. The logic is that when a ship is outside territorial waters it is subject to the laws of the country in which it is registered. Australia does not recognise the ECHR and has an excellent track record for dealing robustly with illegal immigrants.

Iris C
Iris C
1 year ago

What about having a cruise liner (past its seaworthy days) anchored off Dover as a holding base for illegal immigrants?