X Close

The Tories are fleeing a sinking ship The exodus of talent is a symptom of necrosis

I'm a Tory, get me out of here! (ITV)


November 29, 2022   5 mins

When necrosis sets in, the living body starts to die. The infected parts lose their integrity, become sore and whither. It starts to spread, with further parts dropping off. If untreated, it is often fatal.

It’s hard to shake the feeling of parliamentary necrosis within the Tory party. In the last few weeks, around a dozen MPs have indicated they will be stepping down at the next election. The party is decaying before our eyes.

At every election, a few old faces and former big-wigs shuffle off the stage, but what is striking now is the youth and vigour of those announcing their early exit. Chloe Smith, Chris Skidmore, and Andrew Percy were Bright Young Things of the Cameron era and are still barely into their forties. William Wragg, elected in 2015, is 34, while Dehenna Davison, the breakout starlet of the Red Wall, is only 29. This is not the stream of usual retirements, but an exodus of some of the party’s most promising hopes for the future.

Equally, it seems like those who could form the backbone of an opposition cabinet are mulling their options. Though none has explicitly handed in their badge, Matt Hancock’s appearance on I’m A Celebrity suggests that he will be standing down, having irritated both the whips and his local association by spending a fortnight chowing down on kangaroo penis rather than attending to their political needs. Michael Gove, despite his renewed interest in housing and Levelling Up, also feels like he is easing his way to retirement.

It’s not hard to see why they might step away. Most of those who have announced they are off represent seats the Tories won on the way back to government and are likely to lose on the way down. For some, this is exacerbated by the proposed boundary changes. Fighting an electoral battle is a gruelling experience, especially when you anticipate losing comprehensively. Even if they do defy the current polling, these MPs would find themselves on the opposition benches for the first time — denied both the chance to chase ministerial briefs and to get stuff done.

The departure of so many young MPs, however, points towards the changing nature of how we see parliament — less of a vocation, more of a career choice. For much of the 20th century, those who went into parliament at a young age stayed in and around politics for life. Harold Macmillan was first elected to parliament in 1924, three decades before he reached the highest office (and more than six before he gave his final speech in the Lords). Churchill’s parliamentary career spanned 64 years, and like Macmillan he found himself losing seats before staging a comeback. On the other side of politics, Attlee served a similar time. Those who only stayed in office a term or two tended to have entered politics late, a nod to public service in their later years.

By contrast, the trend of youngish MPs returning to private life seems to be increasing. Labour’s opposition period also saw young MPs walking away, whether they were established (David Miliband) or up-and-coming (Tristram Hunt). These departures, like some of the Tory ones, were partly tied to ideological disagreements with their own side and the prospect of a long time in opposition, but also the increasing onerousness of being an MP.

A parliamentary career was once seen as a rather gilded time of public service. It appealed to the bright and young who wanted to change the world, often off the back of early success in private life, and the elder statesmen who fancied some time giving something back. Now it is a far less appealing prospect. Increasingly, constituency workloads have placed more demands on the time of parliamentarians, while social media has exposed them to new levels of abuse. The generosity of the expenses regime has been curtailed, and salaries have lagged compared to the outside world. Though still nearly three times the median wage, an MP’s pay is likely lower than an inner-London headteacher’s, never mind comparable private-sector roles.

As the incumbent party staring into the wilderness, the Tories are going to feel the brunt of this. This will be compounded by the general malaise which haunts the party; its inertia means few will feel that the party is going in their direction, or that the period in opposition will be a brief one. An early, dignified exit might well seem preferable to defeat or a lacklustre term watching Labour enjoy themselves.

This unwinding will only magnify the Conservative Party’s problems. Losing experienced MPs in winnable seats as well as those that go to Labour will increase the damage done. The Tory opposition will lack institutional memory and parliamentary experience. It’s hard to keep the government on its toes when you are still finding your feet in Westminster. Meanwhile, returning MPs will have significant sway over the post-defeat direction of the party. The narrower this group is, the narrower the road becomes.

This is not just a problem for the party, but for politics too. Poor oppositions allow poor governments to flourish without proper scrutiny. Equally, the longer it takes for the Tory party to be rebuilt (or, indeed, replaced) the more one-sided our politics may remain. It’s essential to have the balance there to hold Labour to account, and to make an active case for Right-of-centre politics. In an era where people are becoming more disillusioned with democracy, the retreat of one party could be dangerous.

In the meantime, rebuilding the parliamentary party will become even more difficult as the party’s popularity diminishes. The Conservatives have always relied on a vanguard of talented wunderkind to shape and lead the party — the post-war intake of 1950 had Heath, Macleod, Maudling (and Powell), while Clarke, Howard and the rest of the Cambridge Mafia sustained the party through the late Eighties and Nineties. Cameron and Osborne led the party back to power while still under 50, and now the mantle has passed to the youthful Sunak. Each generation brought with it a fresh energy to the political problems of the day. Now they seem to be fleeing.

Where the next vanguard comes from is unclear. The Tory vote has collapsed among younger people, with some polls suggesting the party is at single-figure support in the under-50s  The party is especially struggling with the professionals it used to tempt into the parliamentary party. Failing to connect with these voters not only harms the party’s long-term electoral process but narrows the pipelines of potential MPs. At the same time, a party’s ideas are defined by its people, and the fewer young MPs the less it will be connected to the needs of those demographics.

On an individual level, the actions of these MPs are entirely rational. Their political career is likely to be ended at the next election and stepping down now is beneficial for everyone — the party has a chance to select a new candidate well in advance, and the MPs can have the pick of the best jobs they might be offered. They also get to ease away over the next year or so, spending more time with their families after years of what can be a very isolating job.

For the party, however, it feels like a symptom of hastening decline. MPs are drifting away, not even committed to the pretence that they might win. Equally, they seem to show little interest in the rebuilding project and fightback that is likely to be needed. For the rest of this parliament, it will make them harder to control, with little to fear from the games of the whips. Moreover, unless managed well, this lack of optimism will infect the bloodstream of the backbenches, making them more likely to stand down or just check-out.

As the rot sets in, more MPs will be looking to polish their CVs. Public affairs and lobbying firms will offer handsome remuneration without abusive DMs or Saturday mornings knocking on doors. Matt Hancock will likely try to follow Ed Balls and Michael Portillo into the world of inoffensive TV. It’s hard to blame them, with their lack of enthusiasm matched by many Tory members, activists and voters.

The worrying thing for the party, though, is where the infusion of new, hungry talent might come from. If the necrosis spreads too far, too fast, there will be no recovery. The Conservative Party will decompose — leaving Labour, and Britain’s voters, deprived of any meaningful Opposition.


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

55 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

“…leaving Labour, and Britain’s voters, deprived of any meaningful Opposition.”
Here is the root of my problem with this article. I just don’t see “opposition”. I know I am over simplifying, but not by much. At the core of each of the three main parties I see people representing the same economic and social interests and professing the same view on just about everything. The personnel are essentially interchangeable, and which party they belong to is simply an accident of their private histories. Their conflicts are about who gets to drive around in the ministerial limo and which dinner parties they might, if they are lucky, get invited to.
From this point of view, it doesn’t really matter if one of the wheels falls off the chariot.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I understand your sentiment but this seems overly cynical.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

How can one possibly be ‘overly cynical’ about this?
It has been like this since at least 1945! Have you forgotten the litany of cretins who have ruled over us?Was Eden for example any better than Johnson, or Heath any better than May?
Clement Attlee is conspicuous because of his decency but few others can emulate him, sadly.

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

I actually agree with you. Surely, the problems is not simply the cretins but the party system.

A similar system has produced a series of cretins as US president. Think of Bush (the younger version). We don’t seem to be able to get away from this system because you need a lot of money to fight a political campaign. Only political parties can find the money. Whatever wonderful ideas you have as a candidate are completely stifled in the he-haws of parliamentary debate.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris W

I wonder if some form of ‘Direct Democracy’ isn’t the answer.
For the first time ever we have the technology, don’t millions ‘vote’ on various vacuous TV shows?

Off course that would mean ‘trusting’ the dreaded Demos, and that wouldn’t go down well in Quislington would it? Yet we already ‘trust’ them on Jury Service.

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

Wonderful idea but imagine the neverending claims of electoral fraud!

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris W

When elections are rigged and stolen, as happens now regularly in the US, “claims” of fraud are facts of fraud. The only answer is to safeguard elections by cleaning up the voter roles (no more dead and fake people), demanding ID, in-person one day voting and ballot counting, and prosecution of malefactors committing voting crimes.

Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago

Correct me if I’m wrong, but due to a warped electoral college system a Democrat presidential candidate typically needs for more votes to get into office than a Republican.
I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed before picking hairs in the fine details that characterize election challenges.

Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago

Correct me if I’m wrong, but due to a warped electoral college system a Democrat presidential candidate typically needs for more votes to get into office than a Republican.
I think that is an issue that needs to be addressed before picking hairs in the fine details that characterize election challenges.

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris W

When elections are rigged and stolen, as happens now regularly in the US, “claims” of fraud are facts of fraud. The only answer is to safeguard elections by cleaning up the voter roles (no more dead and fake people), demanding ID, in-person one day voting and ballot counting, and prosecution of malefactors committing voting crimes.

Barry Brierley
Barry Brierley
1 year ago

I have been thinking the same thing Charles. I would rather have the oppurtunity to vote on individual issues how I see fit. My MP may vote on my behalf if I don’t bother. Of course the tech is there.
I also think we should tripple MP salaries. Why not attract the best talent? The caveat would be that taking bribes or even entering into discourse with a business or organisation becomes a criminal offense.
Let’s be even braver, how about saying that the cabinet can only be comprised of the very best and most senior civil servants, rather than politicians who have risen to the top based on the sharpness of their blades and sweetness of their tongue, and who won’t care what happens after their term is done.
And while we’re at it, I’m loving the noises about overhauling the House of Lords. As with all aspects of government, we should constantly see what works well in other parts of the world rather than be mired in pomp and tradition. I like the concept of the Austrailian upper house (senate) for example. Shorter terms, with the best of the lower house put forward and voted into the upper house.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Brierley

By all means raise MP’s salaries three fold but also reduce their numbers by the same amount.
The Australian Senate sounds fine, but frankly nearly anything would be better then the ridiculous HoL we are currently saddled with?
For example why on earth is the actor Julian Fellowes in there? And there are countless other ludicrous examples.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Brierley

I’d simply scrap the Lords. In my view a second chamber adds nothing to democracy apart from adding more salaries to the public purse

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Brierley

I agree. Politics will inevitably devolve to smaller communities and it looks like the House of Lords will be our only opposition.

Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Brierley

It’s odd to think that PMs receive a paltry salary compared professionals and management. And they’re expect to leave like saints and be crucified for taking a break.
Furthermore, to all intents and purposes, you can’t sue the press for deformation, or even suggest they’re wrong.
Only a fool would want to go into politics…

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Brierley

By all means raise MP’s salaries three fold but also reduce their numbers by the same amount.
The Australian Senate sounds fine, but frankly nearly anything would be better then the ridiculous HoL we are currently saddled with?
For example why on earth is the actor Julian Fellowes in there? And there are countless other ludicrous examples.

Billy Bob
Billy Bob
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Brierley

I’d simply scrap the Lords. In my view a second chamber adds nothing to democracy apart from adding more salaries to the public purse

Vici C
Vici C
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Brierley

I agree. Politics will inevitably devolve to smaller communities and it looks like the House of Lords will be our only opposition.

Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago
Reply to  Barry Brierley

It’s odd to think that PMs receive a paltry salary compared professionals and management. And they’re expect to leave like saints and be crucified for taking a break.
Furthermore, to all intents and purposes, you can’t sue the press for deformation, or even suggest they’re wrong.
Only a fool would want to go into politics…

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago

I would be happy with a Swiss style democracy. In US many states have referendums to decide controversial issues.
“The dreaded Demos” (think of Brexit referendum – a few points swing and Remain would have won) might disappoint you, Charles.
The life movement in US (that loudly proclaimed that people were against abortion) got hammered in every single state-wide referendum.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Don’t worry I am now beyond being disappointed.
However knowing a little bit about it, I to am a great fan of the Swiss system. It is precisely what one would expect from a people who had fought hard for their freedom since the days of ‘William Tell” & Co.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

The rot set in when Britain ceased to be run and controlled by those who owned it…. As Tocqueville said ” Do not confuse democracy with the will of the masses”….

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

The rot set in when Britain ceased to be run and controlled by those who owned it…. As Tocqueville said ” Do not confuse democracy with the will of the masses”….

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Don’t worry I am now beyond being disappointed.
However knowing a little bit about it, I to am a great fan of the Swiss system. It is precisely what one would expect from a people who had fought hard for their freedom since the days of ‘William Tell” & Co.

Andrew Carson
Andrew Carson
1 year ago

Charles.
Yes.
2022 democracy and not 1922 democracy.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Carson
Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Carson

In 1922 we actually had democracy. Not in 2022.

Bill Tomlinson
Bill Tomlinson
1 year ago
Reply to  Andrew Carson

In 1922 we actually had democracy. Not in 2022.

Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Just look at Switzerland.. there they neither know nor care as to who is pm?! They have low taxes, special individually negotiated low taxes for the super rich so as to attract their funds, are not in the EU, have no terrorism threat, no immigration problem and a more than sound economy and super strong currency… Why can we not manage this?

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Also the most heavily armed society certainly in Europe if not the planet.
Nearly everyone has a high velocity rifle, or worse, ‘under the bed’!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago

Also the most heavily armed society certainly in Europe if not the planet.
Nearly everyone has a high velocity rifle, or worse, ‘under the bed’!

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

I recall Ken Clarke a few years ago citing Burke to a bored and un-interested Commons. Essentially, Clarke was pointing out that a parliamentary democracy is not a plebiscite democracy but febrile populism fails to appreciate the distinction:
——————Burke quote:
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his un-biased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
– Edmund Burke, 1774
That quote from Burke would not sit well with Brexiters, or anyone in the SNP, or indeed anyone who believes in referendums.
(I’m with Thatcher on referendums: “Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,” she observed, “when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.”
Nowadays, and this was very evident in relation to Brexit, there is widespread misunderstanding of the difference between a representative democracy and a plebiscite democracy. Brexiters who were furious at what they saw as stalling by the Commons were sincerely furious. Some of them (e.g., Farage, Brendan O’Neill at Spiked) appeared genuinely to believe that an elected representative is bound to implement the result of a popular poll without delay or reflection.
In reality, the UK, like many Western democracies, is a representative democracy. That means (as we all (used to) know) that individual voters entrust elected representatives to act in our best interests and to make decisions on our behalf. *The important point is that they do not do our direct bidding.* They never have done. We expect (or at least hope) that the decisions they take will be aligned with their manifesto or their general economic / social values and opinions. If the decisions they take contradict their manifestos / pre-election promises, then our primary remedy is to vote the baftards out at the next election.
The critical point here is that elected representatives are not mere puppets / ciphers who blindly and uncritically do our bidding. Once elected, the very nature of a representative democracy is that they can pretty much do what they like (within reason and within the bounds of the law) until we next get a chance to boot them out at the next election.
By contrast, in a direct democracy, people call the shots directly. This is what Brexiteers tend to prefer; which is fair enough.
However, some Brexiters seemed to assume that the UK already had that variant of democracy.
Both types of democracy are valid; both have pros and cons.
Nowadays, so used are we to Bake Off, Internet polls etc, that this fundamental distinction has been blurred, if not lost.
As John Harris noted:
“But there is also something deeper at play. For all that it remains the best model of government and politics human beings have yet come up with, in the 21st century, representative democracy is a very tough sell. When people spend half their lives online and can experience at least the sensation of agency and instant gratification, the idea that we elect MPs to exercise their own judgment and then eventually submit their record for approval or rejection can easily seem woefully old-fashioned. I have lost count of the number of people I have met over the last few years who have angrily told me that the function of the Commons was to simply “do our bidding”.
In a recent YouGov poll, 63% of respondents agreed that MPs must “act according to the wishes of their constituents, even when this goes against their own judgment”, a figure that reached 78% among leave voters and – at which point Edmund Burke spins in his grave – 81% of Tory supporters. It is no accident that, like so many populist forces, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party claims to be in favour of direct democracy.”
I blame the Internet. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see a new TV show – “Nigel’s Great British Vote-Off” wherein all the great national issues of the day – politics, defence, economics – would be decided by viewers online or via their mobiles: “option 1 to cancel the dole in Liverpool; option 2 to bomb Palestine; option 3 to sell N Ireland – nice to screw you, to screw you, nice!”
Levity aside, my own view is that plebiscites, whether for Brexit or for Scottish independence or anything else, are always a lazy idea.
And 12 people focussing on a single trial over a period of weeks is different from some muppet “swiping left to abolish Trident” while pleasuring himself, which is all “direct democracy” would amount to – onanist rule.
Referendums are too intrinsically febrile, and too susceptible to troll-farm / mob-capture. A system of representative democracy moves more slowly and any change emanating therefrom will be less socially divisive and longer lasting. That is, if you don’t like something, you need to get out there, form a party, sell your ideas to the electorate and get into government on your manifesto. That takes real commitment and tends to weed out the bullfhitters. By contrast, voting in a referendum is no more onerous than voting in bake-off.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

What an excellent polemic if I may say so?
I agree with you wholeheartedly but in the last 30 years something has gone terribly wrong with our ‘representative democracy’ and I am not confident that it can be repaired. As Goethe said “nothing lasts forever”.

I am also struck by the fact that two centuries ago Switzerland was one of the poorest regions in Europe, riddled with goitre in certain areas due to inadvertent (probably) inter-breeding, and other such delights, too numerous to list here.

However despite their frankly medieval ‘system’ of direct democracy, based on referendums, it allowed them to somehow adapt and reinvent themselves during the tumultuous years of both the Industrial Revolution, and the political Revolutions of 1830, 1848 etc.

So perhaps we might even learn something from them? Either way Edmund Burke would weep if he could see us today, and who could blame him?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Parliament, and Cameron were too cowardly to make the decision, they handed it over to the electorate and expected they’d get their views endorsed, so in the case of Brexit it is right that Brexiteers complained.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Agree with Charles, a very well-argued post which points out some of the subtleties of democracy that evade many of its most ardent supporters.
As Churchill also said “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

What an excellent polemic if I may say so?
I agree with you wholeheartedly but in the last 30 years something has gone terribly wrong with our ‘representative democracy’ and I am not confident that it can be repaired. As Goethe said “nothing lasts forever”.

I am also struck by the fact that two centuries ago Switzerland was one of the poorest regions in Europe, riddled with goitre in certain areas due to inadvertent (probably) inter-breeding, and other such delights, too numerous to list here.

However despite their frankly medieval ‘system’ of direct democracy, based on referendums, it allowed them to somehow adapt and reinvent themselves during the tumultuous years of both the Industrial Revolution, and the political Revolutions of 1830, 1848 etc.

So perhaps we might even learn something from them? Either way Edmund Burke would weep if he could see us today, and who could blame him?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Parliament, and Cameron were too cowardly to make the decision, they handed it over to the electorate and expected they’d get their views endorsed, so in the case of Brexit it is right that Brexiteers complained.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Agree with Charles, a very well-argued post which points out some of the subtleties of democracy that evade many of its most ardent supporters.
As Churchill also said “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.”

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

Wonderful idea but imagine the neverending claims of electoral fraud!

Barry Brierley
Barry Brierley
1 year ago

I have been thinking the same thing Charles. I would rather have the oppurtunity to vote on individual issues how I see fit. My MP may vote on my behalf if I don’t bother. Of course the tech is there.
I also think we should tripple MP salaries. Why not attract the best talent? The caveat would be that taking bribes or even entering into discourse with a business or organisation becomes a criminal offense.
Let’s be even braver, how about saying that the cabinet can only be comprised of the very best and most senior civil servants, rather than politicians who have risen to the top based on the sharpness of their blades and sweetness of their tongue, and who won’t care what happens after their term is done.
And while we’re at it, I’m loving the noises about overhauling the House of Lords. As with all aspects of government, we should constantly see what works well in other parts of the world rather than be mired in pomp and tradition. I like the concept of the Austrailian upper house (senate) for example. Shorter terms, with the best of the lower house put forward and voted into the upper house.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago

I would be happy with a Swiss style democracy. In US many states have referendums to decide controversial issues.
“The dreaded Demos” (think of Brexit referendum – a few points swing and Remain would have won) might disappoint you, Charles.
The life movement in US (that loudly proclaimed that people were against abortion) got hammered in every single state-wide referendum.

Andrew Carson
Andrew Carson
1 year ago

Charles.
Yes.
2022 democracy and not 1922 democracy.

Last edited 1 year ago by Andrew Carson
Nicky Samengo-Turner
Nicky Samengo-Turner
1 year ago

Just look at Switzerland.. there they neither know nor care as to who is pm?! They have low taxes, special individually negotiated low taxes for the super rich so as to attract their funds, are not in the EU, have no terrorism threat, no immigration problem and a more than sound economy and super strong currency… Why can we not manage this?

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

I recall Ken Clarke a few years ago citing Burke to a bored and un-interested Commons. Essentially, Clarke was pointing out that a parliamentary democracy is not a plebiscite democracy but febrile populism fails to appreciate the distinction:
——————Burke quote:
“Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his un-biased opinion, his mature judgement, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.”
– Edmund Burke, 1774
That quote from Burke would not sit well with Brexiters, or anyone in the SNP, or indeed anyone who believes in referendums.
(I’m with Thatcher on referendums: “Perhaps the late Lord Attlee was right,” she observed, “when he said that the referendum was a device of dictators and demagogues.”
Nowadays, and this was very evident in relation to Brexit, there is widespread misunderstanding of the difference between a representative democracy and a plebiscite democracy. Brexiters who were furious at what they saw as stalling by the Commons were sincerely furious. Some of them (e.g., Farage, Brendan O’Neill at Spiked) appeared genuinely to believe that an elected representative is bound to implement the result of a popular poll without delay or reflection.
In reality, the UK, like many Western democracies, is a representative democracy. That means (as we all (used to) know) that individual voters entrust elected representatives to act in our best interests and to make decisions on our behalf. *The important point is that they do not do our direct bidding.* They never have done. We expect (or at least hope) that the decisions they take will be aligned with their manifesto or their general economic / social values and opinions. If the decisions they take contradict their manifestos / pre-election promises, then our primary remedy is to vote the baftards out at the next election.
The critical point here is that elected representatives are not mere puppets / ciphers who blindly and uncritically do our bidding. Once elected, the very nature of a representative democracy is that they can pretty much do what they like (within reason and within the bounds of the law) until we next get a chance to boot them out at the next election.
By contrast, in a direct democracy, people call the shots directly. This is what Brexiteers tend to prefer; which is fair enough.
However, some Brexiters seemed to assume that the UK already had that variant of democracy.
Both types of democracy are valid; both have pros and cons.
Nowadays, so used are we to Bake Off, Internet polls etc, that this fundamental distinction has been blurred, if not lost.
As John Harris noted:
“But there is also something deeper at play. For all that it remains the best model of government and politics human beings have yet come up with, in the 21st century, representative democracy is a very tough sell. When people spend half their lives online and can experience at least the sensation of agency and instant gratification, the idea that we elect MPs to exercise their own judgment and then eventually submit their record for approval or rejection can easily seem woefully old-fashioned. I have lost count of the number of people I have met over the last few years who have angrily told me that the function of the Commons was to simply “do our bidding”.
In a recent YouGov poll, 63% of respondents agreed that MPs must “act according to the wishes of their constituents, even when this goes against their own judgment”, a figure that reached 78% among leave voters and – at which point Edmund Burke spins in his grave – 81% of Tory supporters. It is no accident that, like so many populist forces, Nigel Farage’s Brexit party claims to be in favour of direct democracy.”
I blame the Internet. I wouldn’t be entirely surprised to see a new TV show – “Nigel’s Great British Vote-Off” wherein all the great national issues of the day – politics, defence, economics – would be decided by viewers online or via their mobiles: “option 1 to cancel the dole in Liverpool; option 2 to bomb Palestine; option 3 to sell N Ireland – nice to screw you, to screw you, nice!”
Levity aside, my own view is that plebiscites, whether for Brexit or for Scottish independence or anything else, are always a lazy idea.
And 12 people focussing on a single trial over a period of weeks is different from some muppet “swiping left to abolish Trident” while pleasuring himself, which is all “direct democracy” would amount to – onanist rule.
Referendums are too intrinsically febrile, and too susceptible to troll-farm / mob-capture. A system of representative democracy moves more slowly and any change emanating therefrom will be less socially divisive and longer lasting. That is, if you don’t like something, you need to get out there, form a party, sell your ideas to the electorate and get into government on your manifesto. That takes real commitment and tends to weed out the bullfhitters. By contrast, voting in a referendum is no more onerous than voting in bake-off.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Chris W

I wonder if some form of ‘Direct Democracy’ isn’t the answer.
For the first time ever we have the technology, don’t millions ‘vote’ on various vacuous TV shows?

Off course that would mean ‘trusting’ the dreaded Demos, and that wouldn’t go down well in Quislington would it? Yet we already ‘trust’ them on Jury Service.

Chris W
Chris W
1 year ago

I actually agree with you. Surely, the problems is not simply the cretins but the party system.

A similar system has produced a series of cretins as US president. Think of Bush (the younger version). We don’t seem to be able to get away from this system because you need a lot of money to fight a political campaign. Only political parties can find the money. Whatever wonderful ideas you have as a candidate are completely stifled in the he-haws of parliamentary debate.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

In my youth, Labour and the Tories disagreed over some pretty fundamental issues.
Tell what they disagree on now, Max? I don’t mean what mood music they play during the election campaign, but what they do when in office.

John Howes
John Howes
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I am compelled to agree, we have 2 Partys soft liberal (note the lower case l!) struggling to occupy a crowded Left of centre spot. In an attempt to distance themselves from the Left or Right ‘extremists’ in their respective Partys. it has become a battle of soundbites and bitching, with neither Party displaying a scintilla of of understanding of the root cause. In a ‘Dynamic’ political system there should arguably be an acknowledgement of Structure>Process>Outcome. They are locked in an interminable battle about structure, they differ on Process and are distinctly uncertain about Outcomes, other than those which are political pot stirring when the whole country is in crisis.

John Howes
John Howes
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I am compelled to agree, we have 2 Partys soft liberal (note the lower case l!) struggling to occupy a crowded Left of centre spot. In an attempt to distance themselves from the Left or Right ‘extremists’ in their respective Partys. it has become a battle of soundbites and bitching, with neither Party displaying a scintilla of of understanding of the root cause. In a ‘Dynamic’ political system there should arguably be an acknowledgement of Structure>Process>Outcome. They are locked in an interminable battle about structure, they differ on Process and are distinctly uncertain about Outcomes, other than those which are political pot stirring when the whole country is in crisis.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

How can one possibly be ‘overly cynical’ about this?
It has been like this since at least 1945! Have you forgotten the litany of cretins who have ruled over us?Was Eden for example any better than Johnson, or Heath any better than May?
Clement Attlee is conspicuous because of his decency but few others can emulate him, sadly.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago
Reply to  Max Price

In my youth, Labour and the Tories disagreed over some pretty fundamental issues.
Tell what they disagree on now, Max? I don’t mean what mood music they play during the election campaign, but what they do when in office.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I agree that the Tories have burnt out and devoured themselves in a gruesome prolonged death rattle. But I still affirm that the problem is so much deeper and darker than the Tories. The sheer weight and power of the permanent unelected Technocracy/Quangocracy/Blob has eviscerared all parliamentary democracy. Power – real power (supreme laws/interest rates/regulations of public services inc the monolithic failed NHS – lies not in the hands of the 50 odd elected Executive. The technocrats have held those levers as part of the Blairite & EU revolution for 20 years and they have overseen titanic strategic disasters at every turn; QE, no energy, covid, net zero madness. So we have now reached the stage where Treasury Orthodoxy or NHS money demands cannot even be resisted by the here today gone tomorrow politicians (RIP Truss). The shockingly poor educational standards and disconnection of modern politicians from real life (how many have run a business??) means this shift toward Oligarchy is irreversible. A Labour party will be even more malleable as they are the Party of the entitled disastrous public sector. They like the SNP or Biden will pack the Commins with nutty students who despise Tory scum and their own History. They will focus only on identitarianism identity politics and the advancement of the toxic cultural socialism agenda that has – in parallel with this unacknowledged collapse of parliamentary democracy – atrophied and poisoned our cultural life.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I understand your sentiment but this seems overly cynical.

Walter Marvell
Walter Marvell
1 year ago
Reply to  polidori redux

I agree that the Tories have burnt out and devoured themselves in a gruesome prolonged death rattle. But I still affirm that the problem is so much deeper and darker than the Tories. The sheer weight and power of the permanent unelected Technocracy/Quangocracy/Blob has eviscerared all parliamentary democracy. Power – real power (supreme laws/interest rates/regulations of public services inc the monolithic failed NHS – lies not in the hands of the 50 odd elected Executive. The technocrats have held those levers as part of the Blairite & EU revolution for 20 years and they have overseen titanic strategic disasters at every turn; QE, no energy, covid, net zero madness. So we have now reached the stage where Treasury Orthodoxy or NHS money demands cannot even be resisted by the here today gone tomorrow politicians (RIP Truss). The shockingly poor educational standards and disconnection of modern politicians from real life (how many have run a business??) means this shift toward Oligarchy is irreversible. A Labour party will be even more malleable as they are the Party of the entitled disastrous public sector. They like the SNP or Biden will pack the Commins with nutty students who despise Tory scum and their own History. They will focus only on identitarianism identity politics and the advancement of the toxic cultural socialism agenda that has – in parallel with this unacknowledged collapse of parliamentary democracy – atrophied and poisoned our cultural life.

polidori redux
polidori redux
1 year ago

“…leaving Labour, and Britain’s voters, deprived of any meaningful Opposition.”
Here is the root of my problem with this article. I just don’t see “opposition”. I know I am over simplifying, but not by much. At the core of each of the three main parties I see people representing the same economic and social interests and professing the same view on just about everything. The personnel are essentially interchangeable, and which party they belong to is simply an accident of their private histories. Their conflicts are about who gets to drive around in the ministerial limo and which dinner parties they might, if they are lucky, get invited to.
From this point of view, it doesn’t really matter if one of the wheels falls off the chariot.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

This article seemingly fails to point out that the Tories rotted out decades ago. After 12 years in power they have conserved nothing, presiding over same sex marriage, divorce liberalisation, the Equality Act, a population explosion in the millions, draconian medical policies and most of the party fighting against the will of the people over leaving the EU. Any chunks of flesh that fall off at this point can only be a good thing. Tories delenda est.

Will Will
Will Will
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Well said.

Last edited 1 year ago by Will Will
Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

conserved nothing,

Just saying NO to things is not an answer.
And it is not a vote winner.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Smith
R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

“Just saying NO to things is not an answer.”
Yes it is. Reactionism is the raison d’etre of being a conservative. There is no other reason for a conservative to be in power.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

“Just saying NO to things is not an answer.”
Yes it is. Reactionism is the raison d’etre of being a conservative. There is no other reason for a conservative to be in power.

Jeff Andrews
Jeff Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I don’t understand, do you mean ‘the people’ didn’t vote to leave the EU? Or that these conservatives where reluctant to leave the EU?

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Andrews

The people voted to leave the EU in an official referendum prepared by the Conservative party and UK Government, and subsequently the Tories spent 3 years trying to collapse it all. It took the threat of electoral oblivion at the hands of Farage’s Brexit Party in 2019 to have Theresa May cast out and some measly form of the process concluded.

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeff Andrews

The people voted to leave the EU in an official referendum prepared by the Conservative party and UK Government, and subsequently the Tories spent 3 years trying to collapse it all. It took the threat of electoral oblivion at the hands of Farage’s Brexit Party in 2019 to have Theresa May cast out and some measly form of the process concluded.

Will Will
Will Will
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

Well said.

Last edited 1 year ago by Will Will
Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

conserved nothing,

Just saying NO to things is not an answer.
And it is not a vote winner.

Last edited 1 year ago by Jeremy Smith
Jeff Andrews
Jeff Andrews
1 year ago
Reply to  R Wright

I don’t understand, do you mean ‘the people’ didn’t vote to leave the EU? Or that these conservatives where reluctant to leave the EU?

R Wright
R Wright
1 year ago

This article seemingly fails to point out that the Tories rotted out decades ago. After 12 years in power they have conserved nothing, presiding over same sex marriage, divorce liberalisation, the Equality Act, a population explosion in the millions, draconian medical policies and most of the party fighting against the will of the people over leaving the EU. Any chunks of flesh that fall off at this point can only be a good thing. Tories delenda est.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago

This exodus is not just limited to politics. It’s happening across the public sector board too. As our institutions become increasingly sclerotic and corrupt, their best people will look for greener pastures in which to put their skills to good use.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

 increasingly sclerotic and corrupt

sclerotic may be but corrupt? where is the evidence that MPs are “selling” their votes for money?!

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Don’t you recall both Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind getting into “a bit of bovver” over this very issue?

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Isn’t there a “Friends of China” organisation with CCP financing certain Brits? John Major etc.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug Pingel

China financed one Labour backbencher to the tune of £500k – what did they expect for that money I wonder?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  Doug Pingel

China financed one Labour backbencher to the tune of £500k – what did they expect for that money I wonder?

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

I’m not talking about that kind of corruption. ‘No longer fit for purpose’ may be a better term. Almost every institution has become extractive in that, despite outward appearances and noble mission statements, their main aim is to maintain the salaries of a bloated managerial class. Think of universities where administrators are paid six-figure salaries while the majority of faculty are on zero-hour work contracts and the students pay 9,000 pounds a year for tuition.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Most of our universities are worthless, and should be turned back into the Polys they originally were before that complete idiot John Major ‘upgraded’ them.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

Most of our universities are worthless, and should be turned back into the Polys they originally were before that complete idiot John Major ‘upgraded’ them.

franco cout
franco cout
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Do MPs even have a say? Here in Canada, they vote according to party line (or are expelled), a party line dictated from the prime minister’s office… who performs on behalf of his enablers? Elections are staged to provide an appearance of democracy. Did you know our prime minister trained as a drama teacher? That is all the training you need to stage this muppet show.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Don’t you recall both Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind getting into “a bit of bovver” over this very issue?

Doug Pingel
Doug Pingel
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Isn’t there a “Friends of China” organisation with CCP financing certain Brits? John Major etc.

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

I’m not talking about that kind of corruption. ‘No longer fit for purpose’ may be a better term. Almost every institution has become extractive in that, despite outward appearances and noble mission statements, their main aim is to maintain the salaries of a bloated managerial class. Think of universities where administrators are paid six-figure salaries while the majority of faculty are on zero-hour work contracts and the students pay 9,000 pounds a year for tuition.

franco cout
franco cout
1 year ago
Reply to  Jeremy Smith

Do MPs even have a say? Here in Canada, they vote according to party line (or are expelled), a party line dictated from the prime minister’s office… who performs on behalf of his enablers? Elections are staged to provide an appearance of democracy. Did you know our prime minister trained as a drama teacher? That is all the training you need to stage this muppet show.

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago
Reply to  Julian Farrows

 increasingly sclerotic and corrupt

sclerotic may be but corrupt? where is the evidence that MPs are “selling” their votes for money?!

Julian Farrows
Julian Farrows
1 year ago

This exodus is not just limited to politics. It’s happening across the public sector board too. As our institutions become increasingly sclerotic and corrupt, their best people will look for greener pastures in which to put their skills to good use.

ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago

The Tories collapsed from within long ago. Cameron was simply a Blairite entryist (interestingly, an apostate Thatcherite from the time when the Iron Lady seemed unassailable; a turn-coat, if you like)

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  ben arnulfssen

Which of these catastrophic policies are NOT supported by any one of the GreenLibLabCons
QE, Low interest rates, deficit, covid lockdown and Net Zero?
All 5 combined to cause the disaster we are seeing now, and it is no consolation that most of the rest of the World’s leaders did the same.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

The causes or reasons for the Fall of Roman Empire are still the subject of some animated debate.

The causes of our own fall are all too plain to see.Thank you.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Bill Bailey

The causes or reasons for the Fall of Roman Empire are still the subject of some animated debate.

The causes of our own fall are all too plain to see.Thank you.

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  ben arnulfssen

Which of these catastrophic policies are NOT supported by any one of the GreenLibLabCons
QE, Low interest rates, deficit, covid lockdown and Net Zero?
All 5 combined to cause the disaster we are seeing now, and it is no consolation that most of the rest of the World’s leaders did the same.

ben arnulfssen
ben arnulfssen
1 year ago

The Tories collapsed from within long ago. Cameron was simply a Blairite entryist (interestingly, an apostate Thatcherite from the time when the Iron Lady seemed unassailable; a turn-coat, if you like)

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago

If Hancock was the ‘talent’ then I think there were much bigger problems

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  Fran Martinez

LOL – you upset that the demos saw him in the Jungle and decided he wasn’t the monster the MSM & the Islington set painted him?

Bill Bailey
Bill Bailey
1 year ago
Reply to  Fran Martinez

LOL – you upset that the demos saw him in the Jungle and decided he wasn’t the monster the MSM & the Islington set painted him?

Fran Martinez
Fran Martinez
1 year ago

If Hancock was the ‘talent’ then I think there were much bigger problems

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

Every day Sunak and Hunt get worse. They’re looking like the victors of an invasion. I imagine the Saxons felt much the same after William the Conqueror came ashore as we do now.
For the two main parties, about 25 million vote. Traditionally half each with the balance going to the swing voter; a quarter wasted on the LibDem vote, though that helped Cameron out in 2010.
Some, like the deluded Tugendhat, think the Tories can recover. Others fantasise that Boris can return.
The writing’s on the wall for Sunak. Does Joe Public have the nerve, is he/she angry enough, to dispense with all of them? Labour included?

James Kirk
James Kirk
1 year ago

Every day Sunak and Hunt get worse. They’re looking like the victors of an invasion. I imagine the Saxons felt much the same after William the Conqueror came ashore as we do now.
For the two main parties, about 25 million vote. Traditionally half each with the balance going to the swing voter; a quarter wasted on the LibDem vote, though that helped Cameron out in 2010.
Some, like the deluded Tugendhat, think the Tories can recover. Others fantasise that Boris can return.
The writing’s on the wall for Sunak. Does Joe Public have the nerve, is he/she angry enough, to dispense with all of them? Labour included?

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
1 year ago

This writer talks of a loss of talent.
Where? What talent has been in view these many years gone by?

Peter Scott
Peter Scott
1 year ago

This writer talks of a loss of talent.
Where? What talent has been in view these many years gone by?

Peter H
Peter H
1 year ago

Our current political structure is not only not working but is also keen to maintain the status quo. Five Star direct democracy might be new to many of you. Essentially, they are an idea rather than a political party. They have a vision of how change can be effected. With the growing concern regarding uncontrolled migration we need to urgently find a way of empowering interested individuals who feel they have a vision for Britain’s future.

Peter H
Peter H
1 year ago

Our current political structure is not only not working but is also keen to maintain the status quo. Five Star direct democracy might be new to many of you. Essentially, they are an idea rather than a political party. They have a vision of how change can be effected. With the growing concern regarding uncontrolled migration we need to urgently find a way of empowering interested individuals who feel they have a vision for Britain’s future.

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago

I do hope Mr Oxley is not suggesting that the loss of Nick Hancock would constitute an exodus of talent?

Rocky Martiano
Rocky Martiano
1 year ago

I do hope Mr Oxley is not suggesting that the loss of Nick Hancock would constitute an exodus of talent?

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago

People (including here) constantly complain about “career politicians”…well they should be happy now.
And if the local party organization is unhappy with the “out of touch” MP (with an MBA from UC Berkley) they can always select the village drunk/idiot to represent them.
I only hope that Mark Francois remains MP (full credit to the voters of R&W for electing him – again and again).

Jeremy Smith
Jeremy Smith
1 year ago

People (including here) constantly complain about “career politicians”…well they should be happy now.
And if the local party organization is unhappy with the “out of touch” MP (with an MBA from UC Berkley) they can always select the village drunk/idiot to represent them.
I only hope that Mark Francois remains MP (full credit to the voters of R&W for electing him – again and again).

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago

This seems like premature wish fulfilment.

Max Price
Max Price
1 year ago

This seems like premature wish fulfilment.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

The Tories kicked out most of the sensible or principled ones a few years ago anyway.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Starting perhaps with the blessed Enoch, sometime ago now.

CHARLES STANHOPE
CHARLES STANHOPE
1 year ago
Reply to  Frank McCusker

Starting perhaps with the blessed Enoch, sometime ago now.

Frank McCusker
Frank McCusker
1 year ago

The Tories kicked out most of the sensible or principled ones a few years ago anyway.

Mr Bellisarius
Mr Bellisarius
1 year ago

Well as the article indirectly notes, younger people are far more likely to leave a party that is in office than a party that is in opposition.
I would have thought the reason was obvious: MPs of a party that are in office have a better idea of what they can achieve and how far they could realistically go. The opposition, on the other hand, can dream on towards the glorious day…