Main Edition
US
FR
Would you trust them? (Dan Kitwood-WPA Pool/Getty Images)
What are the largest challenges for UK politics in 2023? Inflation? Climate change? Vladimir Putin? You’d be a fool to dismiss them. But if we are to get the country into a better place, then here’s another big one: the collapse of political trust.
Two major reports — from 2020 and 2021 — showed a major deterioration in how much the British people trust our leaders. Both analyses go back a long way — to 1986 and 1944 respectively. And, perhaps most alarmingly, both were published before Partygate and the chaos of 2022 — it seems inevitable that trust has nosedived since their release. One is reminded of the claim, by one of Ernest Hemingway’s characters, to have gone bankrupt twice: “Gradually and then suddenly.”
Cynicism about UK politics hovers above the fray — both more important and less urgent than the average passing crisis. But its role is entirely negative, reducing the public’s patience, goodwill, and readiness to “put into” the system — commodities which are vital if you want to change things in a long-term way. When disaffection reigns, the winners are the politicians who have the least integrity: those most willing to flatter the popular notion that bad people run the world.
This eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy, with those who genuinely lack scruples attaining high office. Hence the Prime Ministership of Boris Johnson, an abnormally unprincipled figure, who clambered the greasy pole through “boosterism” and “cakeism”, and ended up confirming the electorate’s deepest-held suspicions about the political class. Increase political trust, then, and you reverse the cycle of poor leadership. In the process you become better able to tackle the root causes of the energy crisis, the housing crisis, the refugee crisis, and countless other issues.
Yet before this is possible, we need to ask why trust is low in the first place. And for this to be meaningful, we must address two of the pat-answers often put forward. The first is that suggested by political partisans. This argues simply that the failures of the other side are to blame. In the case of the Left, the story might start with Iraq, and run through to the mishandling of Covid — taking in the lack of financial regulation pre-2008 and the Tories’ austerity and hostile environment policies. In the case of the Right, it may begin with “unchecked” freedom-of-movement and overspending in the 2000s, compounded by failure to meet the “tens of thousands” immigration target, deliver a radical enough Brexit or expel “wokery” from our institutions.
The problem with these explanations is that each pretends the failures they cite were forced through against a groundswell of popular dissent. Or that there was a perfect alternative. Or both. In a democracy such arguments rarely stack up. Many of the blows to trust listed either reflected the public mood or made sense based on the information at the time.
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‘… a media aiming to speak truth to power…’ Really? In a rather mediocre article this gives the game away – anybody who thinks the media’s real aims are summed up by this overused and very hackneyed phrase has no clue about why we have lost trust in our political system. As the rest of the article demonstrates.
Yes, that caught my eye too. Clearly the author is not living on the same planet as us.
Turns out he writes for the Independent, so take from that what you will.
I take from it that he’s part of the evil globalist Socialist homosexual elite plot to destroy everything good and noble, including, but not confined to, Melton Mowbray pork pies and shirts with proper collars.
I take from it that he’s part of the evil globalist Socialist homosexual elite plot to destroy everything good and noble, including, but not confined to, Melton Mowbray pork pies and shirts with proper collars.
Turns out he writes for the Independent, so take from that what you will.
But that is not the job of the media anyway, is it ? It’s only the self-importance and self-promotion of the media that has pushed this agenda of it being some sort of moral arbiter and force for good.
But the whole pretence of media virtue here is just another hypocrisy. There is very little transparency or public accountability of the self-appointed judges in the media.
It’s time we buried this “speaking truth to power” nonsense and started seeing the media for what it really is. And demanding higher standards from them. I’ve said for a long time that the media is far more guilty of lowering standards in public life in the UK than politicians.
Someone here used the term “crisis media” a few days ago. This is precisely what they do – push crises (real or imagined – or even ones they wish to create). Never is good news reported. No government announcement is ever noted on the BBC without some matching criticism from Labour. Who can be surprised if people then believe that everything the government does is suspect ? There must be a chance that some government policies are good …
In this regard, the daily press conferences during Covid opened the eyes of many people whose eyes weren’t already opened. The plethora of foaming-at-the-mouth media demands rather than questions were more akin to a pack of wolves than sentient humans.
Absolutely; and the cringingly stupid questions most reporters were asking revealed what shallow, scientifically illiterate people they are. One mistake (among many) that politicians make is to try and appease the rabble that passes for our free press.
There can never be trust in either politicians, the BBC and MSM, the civil service and our justice system. Yes, Covid lifted the veil to the awful reality that the groupthink of this governing London clerisy could so easily turn tyrannical. But it is the realisation that ALL the arms of the State are in the grip of a bigger more deep set cult-like hysteria that has changed our relationship to them all. The hysteria is rooted in a manic terror of ANY form of discriminatory action. Failure to conform – on race gender class everything – will result in instant & public social ostracism thanks to social media. So they ALL now cower. They ALL think the same. They cannot describe women, they hate the word growth, they dare not supply cheap fuel, they will not arrest criminals, they will not challenge the open border leftists and will not build houses for the 8 million unplanned arrivals. These sham Tories are all now tax loving Socialists and – like shallow sneaky Labour and the weedy Lib Dems – despise and seek to subvert wealth creation & enterprise (capitalism = root of inequality remember), meritocracy, the countryside and freedom of expression. Trust this lot? No. Never. None. They have lost it for good because they are all lost in zealotry themselves.
No chance of “hysteria” with you then, clearly. A calm, measured, carefully evidenced and rigorously rational post.
Thank you for your considered and intelligent thoughts on the matter.
No chance of “hysteria” with you then, clearly. A calm, measured, carefully evidenced and rigorously rational post.
Thank you for your considered and intelligent thoughts on the matter.
Absolutely; and the cringingly stupid questions most reporters were asking revealed what shallow, scientifically illiterate people they are. One mistake (among many) that politicians make is to try and appease the rabble that passes for our free press.
There can never be trust in either politicians, the BBC and MSM, the civil service and our justice system. Yes, Covid lifted the veil to the awful reality that the groupthink of this governing London clerisy could so easily turn tyrannical. But it is the realisation that ALL the arms of the State are in the grip of a bigger more deep set cult-like hysteria that has changed our relationship to them all. The hysteria is rooted in a manic terror of ANY form of discriminatory action. Failure to conform – on race gender class everything – will result in instant & public social ostracism thanks to social media. So they ALL now cower. They ALL think the same. They cannot describe women, they hate the word growth, they dare not supply cheap fuel, they will not arrest criminals, they will not challenge the open border leftists and will not build houses for the 8 million unplanned arrivals. These sham Tories are all now tax loving Socialists and – like shallow sneaky Labour and the weedy Lib Dems – despise and seek to subvert wealth creation & enterprise (capitalism = root of inequality remember), meritocracy, the countryside and freedom of expression. Trust this lot? No. Never. None. They have lost it for good because they are all lost in zealotry themselves.
Whilst I don’t dispute your point, I just question how far what you are talking about is effectively the rise of the internet. Essentially, ‘the media,’ just exploded into an almighty free-for-all with no limits on quantity or quality. In a pre internet world there was a (thin, admittedly) case that the media was about the disinterested presentation of events. Now it’s who screams loudest. The journalists themselves may not be to blame for the advance of technology and the bad trends that came with it. But journalists have very willingly embraced the idea of ‘post journalism.’
Take a look at a copy of a UK newspaper from the mid 1990s and compare it to a 2022 version. It’s embarrassing.
I do accept that perhaps we overplay the importance of the media, and especially social media. And we as the public perhaps need to take some responsibility for the bad trends. We’ve lapped it up – let’s at least be forthright enough to say it.
I admit that I was one of the idiots about 20 years ago who thought that the explosion in the quantity of media would be matched by an increase in quality. I cringe at my naivety. So whilst I certainly agree with your point about the media I think a lot of what you describe is a symptom rather than a cause.
Good points. And yes, I agree that a lot which has changed has been a direct result of technological change – something over which politicians don’t really have much control over.
Good points. And yes, I agree that a lot which has changed has been a direct result of technological change – something over which politicians don’t really have much control over.
Well said.
In this regard, the daily press conferences during Covid opened the eyes of many people whose eyes weren’t already opened. The plethora of foaming-at-the-mouth media demands rather than questions were more akin to a pack of wolves than sentient humans.
Whilst I don’t dispute your point, I just question how far what you are talking about is effectively the rise of the internet. Essentially, ‘the media,’ just exploded into an almighty free-for-all with no limits on quantity or quality. In a pre internet world there was a (thin, admittedly) case that the media was about the disinterested presentation of events. Now it’s who screams loudest. The journalists themselves may not be to blame for the advance of technology and the bad trends that came with it. But journalists have very willingly embraced the idea of ‘post journalism.’
Take a look at a copy of a UK newspaper from the mid 1990s and compare it to a 2022 version. It’s embarrassing.
I do accept that perhaps we overplay the importance of the media, and especially social media. And we as the public perhaps need to take some responsibility for the bad trends. We’ve lapped it up – let’s at least be forthright enough to say it.
I admit that I was one of the idiots about 20 years ago who thought that the explosion in the quantity of media would be matched by an increase in quality. I cringe at my naivety. So whilst I certainly agree with your point about the media I think a lot of what you describe is a symptom rather than a cause.
Well said.
Yes, that caught my eye too. Clearly the author is not living on the same planet as us.
But that is not the job of the media anyway, is it ? It’s only the self-importance and self-promotion of the media that has pushed this agenda of it being some sort of moral arbiter and force for good.
But the whole pretence of media virtue here is just another hypocrisy. There is very little transparency or public accountability of the self-appointed judges in the media.
It’s time we buried this “speaking truth to power” nonsense and started seeing the media for what it really is. And demanding higher standards from them. I’ve said for a long time that the media is far more guilty of lowering standards in public life in the UK than politicians.
Someone here used the term “crisis media” a few days ago. This is precisely what they do – push crises (real or imagined – or even ones they wish to create). Never is good news reported. No government announcement is ever noted on the BBC without some matching criticism from Labour. Who can be surprised if people then believe that everything the government does is suspect ? There must be a chance that some government policies are good …
‘… a media aiming to speak truth to power…’ Really? In a rather mediocre article this gives the game away – anybody who thinks the media’s real aims are summed up by this overused and very hackneyed phrase has no clue about why we have lost trust in our political system. As the rest of the article demonstrates.
A quick Google establishes that the author is a Labour party activist, which explains a lot about this utterly wrong headed article.
That damned public, up to no good again, not accepting their medicine.
And very nearly ending his article with “the adults are back in the room” as well. The nerve!
Interesting that the ‘partisan’ stories of both Left and Right he brings up at the start all (with the exception of Covid but let’s not open that can of worms) relate to failings of the Blair government which the Tories continuously allowed to get worse because they’re still basically the second cheek of the Blairite ar*e.
Putting another 10p in the ‘Peter Hitchens was right’ jar.
It’s amazing how much like social media this comments section is alike.
Don’t agree with the article, let’s dig out what political party and what newspaper he supports. Attack the man rather then critique his ideas…. or come up with an idea of your own
Exactly. Twitter on steroids.
The joke is that the Unherd herd all shout precisely the same cliched, bilious story at each other, whilst flattering ttheir self-image of independent free-thinkers fighting the intellectually-challenged zombies.
There will now follow a screed of intellectually-minded, free-thinking personal abuse. Thank you in advance.
You have made three comments that I’ve read. The first was amusing, as was the second, though more insulting. This one is aimed to inflame while containing a glimmer of truth.
Many of us here would really like to engage with the ‘other side’ but it rarely gets past these kind of comments which never make a case of their own to debate.
I thought this was a poor article in that it completely ignored the huge role of the media in magnifying the untrustworthy behaviour, minimising the good behaviour and being ridiculously partisan both ways.
What did you think of the article. Do you trust politicians?
I think it’s a pretty god article, on the whole. It talks about some of the broader changes that effect people’s views of their ‘leaders’, contextual things that are rarely discussed- the decline in a sense of automatic deference, the overload of constant ‘information’ about just about everything including the poor personal behaviour of our ‘betters’ that would have been unreported previously, and the rise of a kind of consumerist relativism- ‘my truth’.
Newspapers are now rather absurdly partisan, it’s true- the difference between news and opinion has largely disappeared. The standard headline in the so-called middle-brow papers starts invariably with the word “fury…”, as if this were a meaningful statement of a fact. But the internet is having, I think, a far more profound effect than ranting newspapers. It trades in distrust- that is its business model. There’s a big contingent on this supposedly unpartisan site (most, in fact) that obviously gets most of its ‘facts’ from online blogs, whether this be evidenceless assertions that vaccines are what kill Covid patients, or sweeping claims that there’s “no scientific basis to anthropogenic climate change whatsoever”. This is the world of “my Truth”, immune to and uninterested in facts. Obviously, elsewhere there’s an equivalent Progressive Wing of this same ‘Truthiness’ cult, equally uninterested in any concept of objective facts.
Do I trust politicians? Not really, as individuals, no- but the point is not whether one trusts them, but whether one has sufficient trust in the system as a whole to hold them to account, and to put a limit on their baser instincts. One my main worries is that ‘populism’- the manipulation of grievences to sow distrust of this system of limitations, or of the very idea of ‘disinterestedness’ itself in the pursuit of greater power – is still on the rise.
Talking of ‘Truthiness’ and the total conflation of facts with opinions, I was ‘downticked’ nine times on this site for writing a short description of the carbon cycle as it applies to wood burning. No-one bothered to write a repudiation of its accuracy- nine people were just outraged that I should have the bad taste as to mention it.
Thanks for taking the trouble to provide a well thought through answer. I find much to agree with.
In particular, you mentioned the collapse in deference is a wider, underlying issue..
This is one of Marx’s best known quotes.
“All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.”
Many of us on here are concerned that from Marx, through Gramsci, Foucault and, now, almost the entirety of Acedemia, this general concept of ripping apart the existing moral codes is what underlies the chaos that seems to be rolling towards us. If deference doesn’t exist, neither can rules. I don’t claim deference as some unalloyed good, just that a society of individuals making up their own rules cannot be a society. Since human community is essential to mental and physical well-being, some common understanding of the codes is essential. The new ones being imposed are, for many of us, dangerous.
The point is that the conscious destruction of a moral order is what is underlying all of these things. It’s not a conspiracy theory just a phenomenon that started to suit a lot of different, very powerful constituencies at the same time The politicians are no worse than they have ever been and for a member of one of those very guilty constituencies to point the finger in this way feels shallow.
On Unherd commenters I think it’s worth noting that this is one of the few reasonably wide circulation places which does give a voice to both sides of the argument, providing they are presented in a coherent fashion.
People on the conservative side of the argument (I stress not ring the right-wing, those titles now being meaningless) have very few platforms that cater to their need to read and discuss. Writers like Mary Harrington and Kathleen Stock are a joy to those of us who don’t have philosophical training. So yes the audience swings conservative and occasionally goes over the top but try putting a contra view in the Guardian comments to see really unhinged vitriol.
Thanks again
I agree about the mix of writers here- I only recently joined, but there’s been a genuinely stimulating range of views, from the fairly orthodox to the ‘mad as a badger in a sack’ (see Paul Kingsnorth).
So far, my experience of the comments section is been that it’s VERY ‘right-wing’, irrational, and largely of the Breitbart conspiracist variety. Maybe I’ve just been unlucky- but your type of reasonable, considered conservatism (which is what, as an old lefty, I was hoping to engage with) seems to be conspicuous by its absence. Trumpism seems to be the order of the day. And yes, the Guardian comments section can be shockingly dumb.
As to the “destruction of the moral order”- I think this is a can of worms. In conventional terms, both ‘left’ and ‘right’ have been part of the dismantling of the old moral order, although one should bare in mind that this ‘order’ was never unquestioned or universal. One of the rarely acknowledged fault-lines in Margaret Thatcher’s philosophy was the contradiction between her social conservatism and the actual, real-world effects of her economic beliefs. Her economics were globalist, libertarian, and quite happy to decimate local communities and the traditional values they lived by, in favour of hyper-individualism, consumerism and the primacy of private financial institutions over all else.
In fact, the Marxist ideologies of cultural disruption you talk about found a surprising ally, in many ways, in the ‘neo-liberal’ economic hegemony of the last fifty years. Just as hyper-consumerism needed the hippy revolution of the sixties to lay the groundwork for the individualism and materialism, the ‘freedom’ from the constraints of traditional social bonds, that we see today.
Thank you for the discussion- just as I was despairing of finding a vice that wasn’t an internet-styled foghorn.
“vice”- voice. Freudian slip.
“In fact, the Marxist ideologies of cultural disruption you talk about found a surprising ally, in many ways, in the ‘neo-liberal’ economic hegemony of the last fifty years“
We can definitely agree on that. The old left, the people who were really concerned for those at the bottom of the pile, and the old right, primarily concerned with social conservatism and genuinely appalled by naked greed, have both gone.
Look forward to sparring under another thread in future.
“vice”- voice. Freudian slip.
“In fact, the Marxist ideologies of cultural disruption you talk about found a surprising ally, in many ways, in the ‘neo-liberal’ economic hegemony of the last fifty years“
We can definitely agree on that. The old left, the people who were really concerned for those at the bottom of the pile, and the old right, primarily concerned with social conservatism and genuinely appalled by naked greed, have both gone.
Look forward to sparring under another thread in future.
I agree about the mix of writers here- I only recently joined, but there’s been a genuinely stimulating range of views, from the fairly orthodox to the ‘mad as a badger in a sack’ (see Paul Kingsnorth).
So far, my experience of the comments section is been that it’s VERY ‘right-wing’, irrational, and largely of the Breitbart conspiracist variety. Maybe I’ve just been unlucky- but your type of reasonable, considered conservatism (which is what, as an old lefty, I was hoping to engage with) seems to be conspicuous by its absence. Trumpism seems to be the order of the day. And yes, the Guardian comments section can be shockingly dumb.
As to the “destruction of the moral order”- I think this is a can of worms. In conventional terms, both ‘left’ and ‘right’ have been part of the dismantling of the old moral order, although one should bare in mind that this ‘order’ was never unquestioned or universal. One of the rarely acknowledged fault-lines in Margaret Thatcher’s philosophy was the contradiction between her social conservatism and the actual, real-world effects of her economic beliefs. Her economics were globalist, libertarian, and quite happy to decimate local communities and the traditional values they lived by, in favour of hyper-individualism, consumerism and the primacy of private financial institutions over all else.
In fact, the Marxist ideologies of cultural disruption you talk about found a surprising ally, in many ways, in the ‘neo-liberal’ economic hegemony of the last fifty years. Just as hyper-consumerism needed the hippy revolution of the sixties to lay the groundwork for the individualism and materialism, the ‘freedom’ from the constraints of traditional social bonds, that we see today.
Thank you for the discussion- just as I was despairing of finding a vice that wasn’t an internet-styled foghorn.
Talking of ‘Truthiness’ and the total conflation of facts with opinions, I was ‘downticked’ nine times on this site for writing a short description of the carbon cycle as it applies to wood burning. No-one bothered to write a repudiation of its accuracy- nine people were just outraged that I should have the bad taste as to mention it.
Thanks for taking the trouble to provide a well thought through answer. I find much to agree with.
In particular, you mentioned the collapse in deference is a wider, underlying issue..
This is one of Marx’s best known quotes.
“All fixed, fast-frozen relations, with their train of ancient and venerable prejudices and opinions, are swept away, all new-formed ones become antiquated before they can ossify. All that is solid melts into air, all that is holy is profaned.”
Many of us on here are concerned that from Marx, through Gramsci, Foucault and, now, almost the entirety of Acedemia, this general concept of ripping apart the existing moral codes is what underlies the chaos that seems to be rolling towards us. If deference doesn’t exist, neither can rules. I don’t claim deference as some unalloyed good, just that a society of individuals making up their own rules cannot be a society. Since human community is essential to mental and physical well-being, some common understanding of the codes is essential. The new ones being imposed are, for many of us, dangerous.
The point is that the conscious destruction of a moral order is what is underlying all of these things. It’s not a conspiracy theory just a phenomenon that started to suit a lot of different, very powerful constituencies at the same time The politicians are no worse than they have ever been and for a member of one of those very guilty constituencies to point the finger in this way feels shallow.
On Unherd commenters I think it’s worth noting that this is one of the few reasonably wide circulation places which does give a voice to both sides of the argument, providing they are presented in a coherent fashion.
People on the conservative side of the argument (I stress not ring the right-wing, those titles now being meaningless) have very few platforms that cater to their need to read and discuss. Writers like Mary Harrington and Kathleen Stock are a joy to those of us who don’t have philosophical training. So yes the audience swings conservative and occasionally goes over the top but try putting a contra view in the Guardian comments to see really unhinged vitriol.
Thanks again
I think it’s a pretty god article, on the whole. It talks about some of the broader changes that effect people’s views of their ‘leaders’, contextual things that are rarely discussed- the decline in a sense of automatic deference, the overload of constant ‘information’ about just about everything including the poor personal behaviour of our ‘betters’ that would have been unreported previously, and the rise of a kind of consumerist relativism- ‘my truth’.
Newspapers are now rather absurdly partisan, it’s true- the difference between news and opinion has largely disappeared. The standard headline in the so-called middle-brow papers starts invariably with the word “fury…”, as if this were a meaningful statement of a fact. But the internet is having, I think, a far more profound effect than ranting newspapers. It trades in distrust- that is its business model. There’s a big contingent on this supposedly unpartisan site (most, in fact) that obviously gets most of its ‘facts’ from online blogs, whether this be evidenceless assertions that vaccines are what kill Covid patients, or sweeping claims that there’s “no scientific basis to anthropogenic climate change whatsoever”. This is the world of “my Truth”, immune to and uninterested in facts. Obviously, elsewhere there’s an equivalent Progressive Wing of this same ‘Truthiness’ cult, equally uninterested in any concept of objective facts.
Do I trust politicians? Not really, as individuals, no- but the point is not whether one trusts them, but whether one has sufficient trust in the system as a whole to hold them to account, and to put a limit on their baser instincts. One my main worries is that ‘populism’- the manipulation of grievences to sow distrust of this system of limitations, or of the very idea of ‘disinterestedness’ itself in the pursuit of greater power – is still on the rise.
You have made three comments that I’ve read. The first was amusing, as was the second, though more insulting. This one is aimed to inflame while containing a glimmer of truth.
Many of us here would really like to engage with the ‘other side’ but it rarely gets past these kind of comments which never make a case of their own to debate.
I thought this was a poor article in that it completely ignored the huge role of the media in magnifying the untrustworthy behaviour, minimising the good behaviour and being ridiculously partisan both ways.
What did you think of the article. Do you trust politicians?
Exactly. Twitter on steroids.
The joke is that the Unherd herd all shout precisely the same cliched, bilious story at each other, whilst flattering ttheir self-image of independent free-thinkers fighting the intellectually-challenged zombies.
There will now follow a screed of intellectually-minded, free-thinking personal abuse. Thank you in advance.
And very nearly ending his article with “the adults are back in the room” as well. The nerve!
Interesting that the ‘partisan’ stories of both Left and Right he brings up at the start all (with the exception of Covid but let’s not open that can of worms) relate to failings of the Blair government which the Tories continuously allowed to get worse because they’re still basically the second cheek of the Blairite ar*e.
Putting another 10p in the ‘Peter Hitchens was right’ jar.
It’s amazing how much like social media this comments section is alike.
Don’t agree with the article, let’s dig out what political party and what newspaper he supports. Attack the man rather then critique his ideas…. or come up with an idea of your own
A quick Google establishes that the author is a Labour party activist, which explains a lot about this utterly wrong headed article.
That damned public, up to no good again, not accepting their medicine.
Low quality article I’m afraid, with a lot of self-tilted and orthodoxy accepting analysis – “two pat-answers” to borrow a phrase. For example, take the following generalisation:
“..Much of the cynicism about modern politics stems from the sense that politicians are “on the take”. There have unfortunately been many recent examples to corroborate this..”.
This ignores the fact that people are in fact aware that politicians are by and large, *not* on the take while holding office, but the nature of the subversion of the political process is more subtle: a long term revolving door across a particular and large technocratic cabal, which includes large numbers with decision making power who are not in fact in elected office but have climbed a ladder to high office, where the very same people who are engaged while in office in creating frameworks and legislation to the plug holes created, typically by accelerating technological and demographic changes, are then engaged in subverting the precise same frameworks with insider knowledge once out of office – for self gain. For example, some very senior high ranking HMRC officer who goes on to create a lucrative consultancy engaged in providing high quality, totally legal advice on tax avoidance – on laws they themselves architected. In that situation pointing the finger at specific individuals like Johnson as “abnormally unprincipled” is a misnomer, because here Blair is as much a culprit as Johnson is and no doubt Starmer will become and has already shown he is. Johnson is a mere example of pond life, with a particular shtick, and the issue is not specific denizens of the pond, but the pond itself. The problem is systemic.
There is loads of raw corruption. Those who regulate industry profit off it.
But this stupid bit showed how silly an article it is
”Deferring to sociologist Barbara Mistzal, it identified three benefits to trust. First, trust helps us to work with one another, creating legitimacy and toleration of shared decisions. Trust also brings people together, enabling social bonds. And finally, trust makes life certain and predictable, allowing us to form habits and routines.”
What? was this study debunking the popular thinking that ‘Trust stops us working together, creates illegitimacy and intolerance, and divides people; breaking social bonds, and finally makes life unpredictable.’
There is loads of raw corruption. Those who regulate industry profit off it.
But this stupid bit showed how silly an article it is
”Deferring to sociologist Barbara Mistzal, it identified three benefits to trust. First, trust helps us to work with one another, creating legitimacy and toleration of shared decisions. Trust also brings people together, enabling social bonds. And finally, trust makes life certain and predictable, allowing us to form habits and routines.”
What? was this study debunking the popular thinking that ‘Trust stops us working together, creates illegitimacy and intolerance, and divides people; breaking social bonds, and finally makes life unpredictable.’
Low quality article I’m afraid, with a lot of self-tilted and orthodoxy accepting analysis – “two pat-answers” to borrow a phrase. For example, take the following generalisation:
“..Much of the cynicism about modern politics stems from the sense that politicians are “on the take”. There have unfortunately been many recent examples to corroborate this..”.
This ignores the fact that people are in fact aware that politicians are by and large, *not* on the take while holding office, but the nature of the subversion of the political process is more subtle: a long term revolving door across a particular and large technocratic cabal, which includes large numbers with decision making power who are not in fact in elected office but have climbed a ladder to high office, where the very same people who are engaged while in office in creating frameworks and legislation to the plug holes created, typically by accelerating technological and demographic changes, are then engaged in subverting the precise same frameworks with insider knowledge once out of office – for self gain. For example, some very senior high ranking HMRC officer who goes on to create a lucrative consultancy engaged in providing high quality, totally legal advice on tax avoidance – on laws they themselves architected. In that situation pointing the finger at specific individuals like Johnson as “abnormally unprincipled” is a misnomer, because here Blair is as much a culprit as Johnson is and no doubt Starmer will become and has already shown he is. Johnson is a mere example of pond life, with a particular shtick, and the issue is not specific denizens of the pond, but the pond itself. The problem is systemic.
Err…there hasn’t been a Right of centre government in power since Thatcher…
And even they weren’t particularly socially Conservative….
Precisely. In fact only a slight diminution of the sanctimonious piffle ‘we’ have had to endure since Beveridge.
Precisely. In fact only a slight diminution of the sanctimonious piffle ‘we’ have had to endure since Beveridge.
Thatcher was a bloody Socialist.
And even they weren’t particularly socially Conservative….
Thatcher was a bloody Socialist.
Err…there hasn’t been a Right of centre government in power since Thatcher…
What an incompetent article that falls flat in the opening paragraphs.
“Many of the blows to trust listed either reflected the public mood or made sense based on the information at the time”
This is utterly wrong and entirely duplicitous. Cracking down on mass immigration has been near universally popular since at least the 1960s when Powell briefly became the most popular politician in Britain after his intervention. The refusal by decades of governments to deal with the issue did not reflect the public mood, hence the BNP, UKIP and Brexit Party getting millions of votes. If you think populism is going away while these problems are only getting worse you are clearly off your rocker.
What an incompetent article that falls flat in the opening paragraphs.
“Many of the blows to trust listed either reflected the public mood or made sense based on the information at the time”
This is utterly wrong and entirely duplicitous. Cracking down on mass immigration has been near universally popular since at least the 1960s when Powell briefly became the most popular politician in Britain after his intervention. The refusal by decades of governments to deal with the issue did not reflect the public mood, hence the BNP, UKIP and Brexit Party getting millions of votes. If you think populism is going away while these problems are only getting worse you are clearly off your rocker.
I don’t understand. Is the author suggesting Boris Johnson was a populist? Maybe it’s a different Boris Johnson.
And what the hell is wrong with a populist? Not every populist is Donald Trump.
Maybe the lack of trust comes from political leaders failing to do anything meaningful to improve the lives of their constituents. Maybe people are sick of politicians pandering to special interests.
I’m from Canada so I’m not as well informed about British politics, but I can’t think of one single accomplishment of Boris Johnson. And does anyone expect Sunak to be any better?
Earn trust by implementing policies that benefit the people.
I agree the term ‘populist’ is used a little too loosely and can mean different things to different people.
I see it as basically a term to describe a political approach seeking to appeal to ‘ordinary’ people who feel that their concerns have been overlooked by ‘elites’ for too long, but that crucially doesn’t entirely ‘level’ with these ‘ordinary’ people on the trade-offs required to give them what they’d like. Essentially it’s recently tended to come with quite a bit of ‘cakeism’ which then unravels and causes potentially even more disaffection. I think here Boris does earn the term ‘populist’.
One could also debate the definition of ‘ordinary’ and of ‘elite’ – both too easily chucked around undefined. Life is generally more complex, but we all hear every day politicians talk about ‘ordinary working people’ and think ‘he/she means us’. They more often mean well so I don’t see it as always malign, but it’s too simplistic of course when one gets into complex policy formulation.
“but I can’t think of one single accomplishment of Boris Johnson”.
He managed to successfully sabotage BREXIT, if nothing else.
No Brexit had its own inherent self-sabotaging mechanism esp once we’d gone for a very Hard version.
A key problem with Brexit is its proponents weren’t honest about the trade-offs. Boris was far from alone in this. They put too much stock in the assumption the EU would cave-in and allow the UK to remain part of the Single Market but without free movement obligations. (Farage’s view at the time). They then added to this with the assumption other trade deals would be additional ‘up-side’. Neither assumption held and both were naïve in the extreme.
They compounded this by secretly wanting to use Brexit to drive a de-regulation ‘Singapore-on-Thames’ model but without being straight with the public what this deregulation would mean for them, esp the Red Wall that had voted for both Brexit and Boris.
The one potential avenue that could have been navigated to some semblance of success was a ‘soft-Brexit’ with tightened application of already existing free movement regulations (e.g minimum capital requirements, all jobs advertised in UK first etc). Unfortunately for the whole project the over-promising and optimism bias killed any chance of some sensible realpolitik. I suspect we’ll find our way back to that but it’ll take a generation.
The benefits of the single market and customs union is a myth. In our last 20 years of being in the EU, we had a trade deficit with them, totalling around 800 billion, that’s not good. Yes, you can run a deficit, but you can’t run a large one and certainly not over a sustained period of time. In doing so, it leads to high levels of debt and low productivity, look around you and what do you see.
Don’t know where you are getting your figures from, but the OECD says UK is the only member of the G7 with an economy smaller than it was before the pandemic. Business investment in Q3 22 was 8% below pre-pandemic levels. The pound has taken a beating, making imports more expensive and stoking inflation while failing to boost exports. We’ve erected trade barriers for UK businesses and foreign companies that used Britain as a European base.
What reason do you give? The most plausible, and everyone knows it, is Brexit.
The TCA introduced a raft of non-tariff barriers, such as border controls, customs checks, import duties and health inspections on plant and animal products. The biggest imposition of bureaucracy on trade EVER. Before Brexit, a farmer in Kent could ship a truckload of potatoes to Paris just as easily as they might send it to London. Those days are gone. Read the CBI report and most specifically the elements related to small and medium sized businesses
BCC survey of c1k+ published in Dec reported that 77% said Brexit has not helped them increase sales or grow their businesses. The OBR expects Brexit to reduce Britain’s output by 4% over 15 years. Exports and imports are projected to be around 15% lower in the long run. The decline in exports to non-EU countries could be a sign that UK businesses have become less competitive as they battle higher supply chain costs
Folks didn’t vote for a slow, inexorable decline. The failures need to be repeatedly called out and they will be.
What apologists for the EU always forget is that the economic arguments are just one aspect of the Brexit package. Quoting relative economic performance is therefore a waste of time, and always a temporary issue in any case. When we joined the EEC, it was precisely that: an economic entity. It then started to morph into a political entity run by unelected bureaucrats. Those who voted for Brexit voted to rid our country of the malign political influence of the Commission, whose abject and in fact malign performance at the height of the Covid crisis revealed it in all it’s unedifying authoritarianism.
So will you and your fellow bureaucracy-seekers please just shut up. You have no case for re-entry into the EU, and never will have.
Err no fraid not. You are going to keep having it called out. Brexiteers told us it’d be wonderful and we’d have our cake and eat it. Well until that happens you need to own it.
Commission was slower on Vaccine procurement but in the end they delivered, and without all the other wasted money we incurred. Plus our Lockdowns didn’t turn out to be any shorter did they.
Commission is appointed by Council of Ministers and we had representation and a veto if needed. What say did you have in who is actually PM?
As it was I didn’t argue for immediate re-entry. That’s not going to happen for a generation at least. Once we’d voted for Brexit there were better options that could have limited the potential damage, better reflect where the country was too, but ideologues took over…albeit they now spend most of their time looking for scapegoats. Pathetic.
Brexiteers told us nothing of the sort.
Fine, just carry on wasting your time and boring the majority rigid. Happy New Year.
Is it true that Farage et al like to suggest they never promulgated remaining in the Single Market. Unfortunately a few statements they made get in the way.
Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market”
– Daniel Hannan.
“Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing”
– Nigel Farage
“The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people”
– Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
“Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK” – Arron Banks
And when you remember that Norway are in the Single Market but not the EU, it makes these quotes quite awkward reading don’t you think?
Like I said, going to keep pointing it out. Important bit of being in a pluralist society.
Don’t, for God’s sake, use evidence or empirical facts on this site.
It really isn’t that sort of place. Such stuff makes the Herd FURIOUS.
Don’t, for God’s sake, use evidence or empirical facts on this site.
It really isn’t that sort of place. Such stuff makes the Herd FURIOUS.
Is it true that Farage et al like to suggest they never promulgated remaining in the Single Market. Unfortunately a few statements they made get in the way.
Absolutely nobody is talking about threatening our place in the Single Market”
– Daniel Hannan.
“Wouldn’t it be terrible if we were really like Norway and Switzerland? Really? They’re rich. They’re happy. They’re self-governing”
– Nigel Farage
“The Norwegian option, the EEA option, I think that it might be initally attractive for some business people”
– Matthew Elliot, Vote Leave chief executive
“Increasingly, the Norway option looks the best for the UK” – Arron Banks
And when you remember that Norway are in the Single Market but not the EU, it makes these quotes quite awkward reading don’t you think?
Like I said, going to keep pointing it out. Important bit of being in a pluralist society.
Brexiteers told us nothing of the sort.
Fine, just carry on wasting your time and boring the majority rigid. Happy New Year.
It didn’t Morph, there were a whole series of treaties from Maastricht through to Lisbon which changed the ‘Community’ to a ‘Union’.
There was also a European wide referendum with which Europeans would have consolidated the change by approving the EU’s referendum. But that little detail was cancelled mid-vote when the EU realised they were going to lose the vote big time…
“So will you and your fellow bureaucracy-seekers please just shut up.”
It’s good to find a broad discussion site for the open-minded and intellectually curious.
Err no fraid not. You are going to keep having it called out. Brexiteers told us it’d be wonderful and we’d have our cake and eat it. Well until that happens you need to own it.
Commission was slower on Vaccine procurement but in the end they delivered, and without all the other wasted money we incurred. Plus our Lockdowns didn’t turn out to be any shorter did they.
Commission is appointed by Council of Ministers and we had representation and a veto if needed. What say did you have in who is actually PM?
As it was I didn’t argue for immediate re-entry. That’s not going to happen for a generation at least. Once we’d voted for Brexit there were better options that could have limited the potential damage, better reflect where the country was too, but ideologues took over…albeit they now spend most of their time looking for scapegoats. Pathetic.
It didn’t Morph, there were a whole series of treaties from Maastricht through to Lisbon which changed the ‘Community’ to a ‘Union’.
There was also a European wide referendum with which Europeans would have consolidated the change by approving the EU’s referendum. But that little detail was cancelled mid-vote when the EU realised they were going to lose the vote big time…
“So will you and your fellow bureaucracy-seekers please just shut up.”
It’s good to find a broad discussion site for the open-minded and intellectually curious.
The figures are available from the ONS. We’ve spent the last 4 decades exporting our factories, whilst at the same time importing workers, it will take time for the economy to adjust. I will accept that Johnson handled Brexit badly and it could have been done better, but we are where we are. As for the forecasts you mention, they are just forecasts. The EUs share of global trade has been shrinking year on year and we are better off, in both the mid and long term, being out of it.
I think your point has some validity on a broader globalisation basis. And one does suspect the trend in off shoring will now reduce/reverse to some extent as a result of pandemic experience and concern about China.
But whether we do as well as if we’d remained in the EU remains doubtful. No indication the big multinationals are seeing us as more attractive base given the trade friction we’ve put our hand up for. And when we see lauded developments such as BritishVolt and their huge NE England battery plant suddenly go onto life support it’s telling us something. The danger is we slide almost imperceptibly and then one day wake up.
I think your point has some validity on a broader globalisation basis. And one does suspect the trend in off shoring will now reduce/reverse to some extent as a result of pandemic experience and concern about China.
But whether we do as well as if we’d remained in the EU remains doubtful. No indication the big multinationals are seeing us as more attractive base given the trade friction we’ve put our hand up for. And when we see lauded developments such as BritishVolt and their huge NE England battery plant suddenly go onto life support it’s telling us something. The danger is we slide almost imperceptibly and then one day wake up.
If Brexit had been about increasing or decreasing GDP then your arguments could be relevant to a discussion.
And according to the Nuffield survey most remain voters did consider the issue in purely economic terms, and had totally failed to understand why people had voted leave.
Leave voters, on the other hand, were far more concerned about the UK remaining a country governed by its own parliament rather than being merged into a single nation.
Leavers got their wish. Remain voters did not. But is that not what a referendum is all about?
Well if we are are going to get into public opinion surveys, how about the recent ones suggesting 30% of Brexit voters now regret it and want closer ties with EU?
I do agree some Brexit voters in 2016 did so on half understood sovereignty grounds. The difference though was the immigration card that was played and the £350m NHS dividend. Both look somewhat sick now don’t they?
What nobody voted for was to be poorer or have their businesses crippled. What nobody voted for was more bureaucracy, and as a result, more bureaucrats!
People in the UK do want close ties with other European countries. And people in the EU want to maintain close ties with other countries.
What nobody wanted was the EU with it’s ‘Ever tighter integration’. They do not want a single nation, which is the EU’s goal.
Had there been no Maastricht, the UK would have never left the EEC. And had other countries not sold the farm by adopting the Euro there would be more countries looking at article 51.
As it stands it is the EU that blocking closer collaboration with the UK. They have an all or nothing policy; this is consistent with their goal of a single nation, but does not reflect what European citizens want.
You keep referring to the EU and ‘they’, without any description of who you mean. Some warped conspiracy theory in the background? An attempt to create a theory of the ‘other’ ? Look it’s lazy and sloppy thinking.
The EU structure and workings agreed by all the sovereign states, the elected EU parliament, and of course we had alot of say in it, wrote half the rules of the Single market etc, as well as veto’s and opt outs. And no obligation to be in the Euro.
The EU isn’t blocking closer working. We just don’t want the trade offs that come with the single market or customs union, and furthermore we want to tear up an international treaty we signed in full awareness of it’s consequences.
We signed Maastricht after negotiating a series of opt outs.
‘Ever closer Union’ might have worked for some states but we had plenty of room to stay to one side of that, and in fact increasingly we’d have had allies within the 26 to resist and strike a different balance.
Instead we stropped off and now get angry about not being allowed to have our cake and eat it.
Anyway we won’t be going back in anytime soon, but the starting point to this sequence was the view we could and should have gone for a much softer Brexit and avoided becoming poorer as a result. And in fact that’s what most of the arch-Brexit proponents thought best until they got carried away.
The “carried away”element of this is funny, but not in a good way.
‘Brexit’ rapidly became a mystical idea, more a vessel for every conspiracy ideation, resentment and fear about the modern world than a political policy. The result is that it’s become, even in its victory and realisation, a chimera, a mirage always disappearing whenever a Believer approaches it. Whatever is actually is, that’s not what the true Brexiteers wanted- because ‘They’ have stolen it, subverted it, besmirched it- ruined it somehow.
The “carried away”element of this is funny, but not in a good way.
‘Brexit’ rapidly became a mystical idea, more a vessel for every conspiracy ideation, resentment and fear about the modern world than a political policy. The result is that it’s become, even in its victory and realisation, a chimera, a mirage always disappearing whenever a Believer approaches it. Whatever is actually is, that’s not what the true Brexiteers wanted- because ‘They’ have stolen it, subverted it, besmirched it- ruined it somehow.
You keep referring to the EU and ‘they’, without any description of who you mean. Some warped conspiracy theory in the background? An attempt to create a theory of the ‘other’ ? Look it’s lazy and sloppy thinking.
The EU structure and workings agreed by all the sovereign states, the elected EU parliament, and of course we had alot of say in it, wrote half the rules of the Single market etc, as well as veto’s and opt outs. And no obligation to be in the Euro.
The EU isn’t blocking closer working. We just don’t want the trade offs that come with the single market or customs union, and furthermore we want to tear up an international treaty we signed in full awareness of it’s consequences.
We signed Maastricht after negotiating a series of opt outs.
‘Ever closer Union’ might have worked for some states but we had plenty of room to stay to one side of that, and in fact increasingly we’d have had allies within the 26 to resist and strike a different balance.
Instead we stropped off and now get angry about not being allowed to have our cake and eat it.
Anyway we won’t be going back in anytime soon, but the starting point to this sequence was the view we could and should have gone for a much softer Brexit and avoided becoming poorer as a result. And in fact that’s what most of the arch-Brexit proponents thought best until they got carried away.
People in the UK do want close ties with other European countries. And people in the EU want to maintain close ties with other countries.
What nobody wanted was the EU with it’s ‘Ever tighter integration’. They do not want a single nation, which is the EU’s goal.
Had there been no Maastricht, the UK would have never left the EEC. And had other countries not sold the farm by adopting the Euro there would be more countries looking at article 51.
As it stands it is the EU that blocking closer collaboration with the UK. They have an all or nothing policy; this is consistent with their goal of a single nation, but does not reflect what European citizens want.
Well if we are are going to get into public opinion surveys, how about the recent ones suggesting 30% of Brexit voters now regret it and want closer ties with EU?
I do agree some Brexit voters in 2016 did so on half understood sovereignty grounds. The difference though was the immigration card that was played and the £350m NHS dividend. Both look somewhat sick now don’t they?
What nobody voted for was to be poorer or have their businesses crippled. What nobody voted for was more bureaucracy, and as a result, more bureaucrats!
What apologists for the EU always forget is that the economic arguments are just one aspect of the Brexit package. Quoting relative economic performance is therefore a waste of time, and always a temporary issue in any case. When we joined the EEC, it was precisely that: an economic entity. It then started to morph into a political entity run by unelected bureaucrats. Those who voted for Brexit voted to rid our country of the malign political influence of the Commission, whose abject and in fact malign performance at the height of the Covid crisis revealed it in all it’s unedifying authoritarianism.
So will you and your fellow bureaucracy-seekers please just shut up. You have no case for re-entry into the EU, and never will have.
The figures are available from the ONS. We’ve spent the last 4 decades exporting our factories, whilst at the same time importing workers, it will take time for the economy to adjust. I will accept that Johnson handled Brexit badly and it could have been done better, but we are where we are. As for the forecasts you mention, they are just forecasts. The EUs share of global trade has been shrinking year on year and we are better off, in both the mid and long term, being out of it.
If Brexit had been about increasing or decreasing GDP then your arguments could be relevant to a discussion.
And according to the Nuffield survey most remain voters did consider the issue in purely economic terms, and had totally failed to understand why people had voted leave.
Leave voters, on the other hand, were far more concerned about the UK remaining a country governed by its own parliament rather than being merged into a single nation.
Leavers got their wish. Remain voters did not. But is that not what a referendum is all about?
Don’t know where you are getting your figures from, but the OECD says UK is the only member of the G7 with an economy smaller than it was before the pandemic. Business investment in Q3 22 was 8% below pre-pandemic levels. The pound has taken a beating, making imports more expensive and stoking inflation while failing to boost exports. We’ve erected trade barriers for UK businesses and foreign companies that used Britain as a European base.
What reason do you give? The most plausible, and everyone knows it, is Brexit.
The TCA introduced a raft of non-tariff barriers, such as border controls, customs checks, import duties and health inspections on plant and animal products. The biggest imposition of bureaucracy on trade EVER. Before Brexit, a farmer in Kent could ship a truckload of potatoes to Paris just as easily as they might send it to London. Those days are gone. Read the CBI report and most specifically the elements related to small and medium sized businesses
BCC survey of c1k+ published in Dec reported that 77% said Brexit has not helped them increase sales or grow their businesses. The OBR expects Brexit to reduce Britain’s output by 4% over 15 years. Exports and imports are projected to be around 15% lower in the long run. The decline in exports to non-EU countries could be a sign that UK businesses have become less competitive as they battle higher supply chain costs
Folks didn’t vote for a slow, inexorable decline. The failures need to be repeatedly called out and they will be.
Two points. First, we haven’t yet achieved the true value of Brexit. Second, had I been in UK I would have voted for the Common Market. But never for political union.
That goes for most people in Europe, including the UK.
They wanted the collaboration of the European Community, they did not want the one-size-fits-all European Nation, aka the EU.
That’s why the EU cancelled the referendum that was supposed to approve the constitution, and then brought in the changes by the back-door.
Separate debate about the role of referenda in complex decision making.
However how many EU countries have left since us? Err…none. And yet the arch-Brexiteers predicted otherwise. And would you believe it, Ukraine keen to join. Surely they’ve seen the example we’ve set and thought no it’s not for us, look at the good old Brits they know best.
As somebody living in the Eurozone I see quite a different picture. A poll in Italy came up with an incredible result; 2/3 would like to leave the EU but not the Eurozone!
The impossibility of that underlines the overall confusion. The fact is that the Euro was an excellent mechanism for locking countries into the single nation before people realised what they were getting into.
People did come up with plans for how their countries could extract themselves from currency union, but it was really difficult.
Larry Elliot, Economics editor of the Guardian, has written an excellent book about the reality behind the Euro. Well worth a read.
People are right to suppose that most people in Europe do not want a single nation. The trouble is that they have been tied in, in particular financially, and Brexit has made everybody aware just how bloody-minded the EU can be, offering neighbors less collaboration than would be normal for extra-European countries.
For the record, Switzerland did withdraw its application to join the EU, and several non-Eurozone countries, in particular Hungary and Poland, are daring to question whether the ECJ can overrule their own constitutional courts – i.e. are they still independent democratic nations. According to the EU, apparently not.
I’ve read Larry Elliott’s book and read all his columns. He’s good and I rate him. But I don’t agree with everything he says. Like too many IMO he assumes the EU was incapable of being changed or transformed in specific new directions. I no more think that impossible than I do of our own Executive and Legislature.
In fact I think a properly and fully engaged UK had immense potential to change ways in which the EU worked. We had considerable leverage. But politics does involve compromise, deals, trade offs, and doesn’t always play to over-simplification.
I suppose in essence I’d contend I had a stronger view of my countries potential and how it could be used.
I’ve read Larry Elliott’s book and read all his columns. He’s good and I rate him. But I don’t agree with everything he says. Like too many IMO he assumes the EU was incapable of being changed or transformed in specific new directions. I no more think that impossible than I do of our own Executive and Legislature.
In fact I think a properly and fully engaged UK had immense potential to change ways in which the EU worked. We had considerable leverage. But politics does involve compromise, deals, trade offs, and doesn’t always play to over-simplification.
I suppose in essence I’d contend I had a stronger view of my countries potential and how it could be used.
As somebody living in the Eurozone I see quite a different picture. A poll in Italy came up with an incredible result; 2/3 would like to leave the EU but not the Eurozone!
The impossibility of that underlines the overall confusion. The fact is that the Euro was an excellent mechanism for locking countries into the single nation before people realised what they were getting into.
People did come up with plans for how their countries could extract themselves from currency union, but it was really difficult.
Larry Elliot, Economics editor of the Guardian, has written an excellent book about the reality behind the Euro. Well worth a read.
People are right to suppose that most people in Europe do not want a single nation. The trouble is that they have been tied in, in particular financially, and Brexit has made everybody aware just how bloody-minded the EU can be, offering neighbors less collaboration than would be normal for extra-European countries.
For the record, Switzerland did withdraw its application to join the EU, and several non-Eurozone countries, in particular Hungary and Poland, are daring to question whether the ECJ can overrule their own constitutional courts – i.e. are they still independent democratic nations. According to the EU, apparently not.
Separate debate about the role of referenda in complex decision making.
However how many EU countries have left since us? Err…none. And yet the arch-Brexiteers predicted otherwise. And would you believe it, Ukraine keen to join. Surely they’ve seen the example we’ve set and thought no it’s not for us, look at the good old Brits they know best.
Any idea when we might? Your lifetime? My lifetime?
As regards political union – never going to happen. There are 26 sovereign states in the EU and none of them are giving up their existence. As it was we had more opt outs and veto’s than anyone, so we had best of all worlds until we lost the plot.
That goes for most people in Europe, including the UK.
They wanted the collaboration of the European Community, they did not want the one-size-fits-all European Nation, aka the EU.
That’s why the EU cancelled the referendum that was supposed to approve the constitution, and then brought in the changes by the back-door.
Any idea when we might? Your lifetime? My lifetime?
As regards political union – never going to happen. There are 26 sovereign states in the EU and none of them are giving up their existence. As it was we had more opt outs and veto’s than anyone, so we had best of all worlds until we lost the plot.
The benefits of the single market and customs union is a myth. In our last 20 years of being in the EU, we had a trade deficit with them, totalling around 800 billion, that’s not good. Yes, you can run a deficit, but you can’t run a large one and certainly not over a sustained period of time. In doing so, it leads to high levels of debt and low productivity, look around you and what do you see.
Two points. First, we haven’t yet achieved the true value of Brexit. Second, had I been in UK I would have voted for the Common Market. But never for political union.
Precisely what I thought.
’Hence the Prime Ministership of Boris Johnson, an abnormally unprincipled figure, who clambered the greasy pole through “boosterism” and “cakeism”’.
It seems like the author is still enraged by Brexit.
Boris destroyed the economy, education, pensions, health, of the nation with his Plandemic response and turning a regional conflict into WWIII.
He makes Chamberlain, who basically brought about WWII with his appeasement and pacifist policies, seem the only PM to wreck his country to an equivalent level.
Biden managed the same to USA – Boris/Biden…..more damage to the Western world than Attila the Hun.
You’re not afraid of a bit of stentorian exaggeration, are you Jonas?
You’re not afraid of a bit of stentorian exaggeration, are you Jonas?
No Brexit had its own inherent self-sabotaging mechanism esp once we’d gone for a very Hard version.
A key problem with Brexit is its proponents weren’t honest about the trade-offs. Boris was far from alone in this. They put too much stock in the assumption the EU would cave-in and allow the UK to remain part of the Single Market but without free movement obligations. (Farage’s view at the time). They then added to this with the assumption other trade deals would be additional ‘up-side’. Neither assumption held and both were naïve in the extreme.
They compounded this by secretly wanting to use Brexit to drive a de-regulation ‘Singapore-on-Thames’ model but without being straight with the public what this deregulation would mean for them, esp the Red Wall that had voted for both Brexit and Boris.
The one potential avenue that could have been navigated to some semblance of success was a ‘soft-Brexit’ with tightened application of already existing free movement regulations (e.g minimum capital requirements, all jobs advertised in UK first etc). Unfortunately for the whole project the over-promising and optimism bias killed any chance of some sensible realpolitik. I suspect we’ll find our way back to that but it’ll take a generation.
Precisely what I thought.
’Hence the Prime Ministership of Boris Johnson, an abnormally unprincipled figure, who clambered the greasy pole through “boosterism” and “cakeism”’.
It seems like the author is still enraged by Brexit.
Boris destroyed the economy, education, pensions, health, of the nation with his Plandemic response and turning a regional conflict into WWIII.
He makes Chamberlain, who basically brought about WWII with his appeasement and pacifist policies, seem the only PM to wreck his country to an equivalent level.
Biden managed the same to USA – Boris/Biden…..more damage to the Western world than Attila the Hun.
He got a Brexit that was deeply flawed, but Teresa had simply been humiliated by Brussels for three wasted years.
He financed the development and production of three covid vaccines. In the spring of 2021 the UK was well ahead of EU countries in getting jabbed. This was noticed by the French and the Germans.
He put weapons into Ukrainian hands quickly. We were sending NLAW anti-tank missiles when Germany could only offer 5000 helmets.
I neither like nor trust Boris, but he was a heck of a lot better than Corbyn.
Considering where we are now quite debatable whether Corbyn could have been any worse, and he’d have been pretty awful for sure.
As regards the vaccines – yes he does deserve some plaudits for this, but those close to it know the key person who made it happen was Kate Bingham brilliantly marshalling industrial pharma, the scientific community and Govt. She’s recently been v critical of how the Tories have now let this model drift away when it had shown what it could do. If Boris takes some credit for the initial vaccine he also needs to take responsibility for allowing the model to later fold.
He was though good on Ukraine, even if part of that was an attempt to save his own skin.
The vaccines are killing way more people than covid did – and the lockdowns the second most deaths – covid is a distant third for the harms it caused.
Please could we see the numbers that support this extraordinary claim?
Please could we see the numbers that support this extraordinary claim?
The Government spent over £200 Million on the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre at Harwell to put us at the forefront of vaccine research and promptly through Covid sold it off to an American Pharmaceutical company. Another Boris first.
The vaccines are killing way more people than covid did – and the lockdowns the second most deaths – covid is a distant third for the harms it caused.
The Government spent over £200 Million on the Vaccine Manufacturing and Innovation Centre at Harwell to put us at the forefront of vaccine research and promptly through Covid sold it off to an American Pharmaceutical company. Another Boris first.
”He financed the development and production of three covid vaccines. In the spring of 2021 the UK was well ahead of EU countries in getting jabbed. This was noticed by the French and the Germans.
He put weapons into Ukrainian hands quickly.”
These were the most destructive policies ever to harm Britain since the Black Plague. These things have wrecked Europe and the global economy!
‘Black Plague’? You need to go and check your history books JM and be more careful with your wording.
As regards the rest of your contention – just have a sneaky look at what’s going on in China right now if you get a chance.
Look up the word ‘hyperbole’ sometime.
‘Black Plague’? You need to go and check your history books JM and be more careful with your wording.
As regards the rest of your contention – just have a sneaky look at what’s going on in China right now if you get a chance.
Look up the word ‘hyperbole’ sometime.
Considering where we are now quite debatable whether Corbyn could have been any worse, and he’d have been pretty awful for sure.
As regards the vaccines – yes he does deserve some plaudits for this, but those close to it know the key person who made it happen was Kate Bingham brilliantly marshalling industrial pharma, the scientific community and Govt. She’s recently been v critical of how the Tories have now let this model drift away when it had shown what it could do. If Boris takes some credit for the initial vaccine he also needs to take responsibility for allowing the model to later fold.
He was though good on Ukraine, even if part of that was an attempt to save his own skin.
”He financed the development and production of three covid vaccines. In the spring of 2021 the UK was well ahead of EU countries in getting jabbed. This was noticed by the French and the Germans.
He put weapons into Ukrainian hands quickly.”
These were the most destructive policies ever to harm Britain since the Black Plague. These things have wrecked Europe and the global economy!
After several years of attempts by London remainers to kick the can down road on Brexit, Boris Johnson won a landslide election on the promise of ‘Get Brexit Done – Deal or no Deal’.
He did achieve this, against all odds. And despite having an excellent alibi (Covid) for not achieving it.
I would suggest that it was this success that led to so many people being against him, in particular his ex-colleagues in the media.
Partygate was the biggest media stich-up in the history of UK politics. The campaign to get Johnson out and Sunak in was led by husband and wife team James Forsyth and Allegra Stratton.
They are both journalists. Allegra is the press secretary pretending to give a drunken speech that got the scandal going. James is the political editor of The Spectator, and probably the most influential conservative journalist in the Westminster bubble.
They are very close friends of Sunak, and Sunak has now appointed Forsyth as his political secretary.
Your chronology is a bit out. He did the TCA deal and left the EU before Covid.
The rest is the usual conspiratorial nonsense to avoid responsibility.
And also he didn’t get Brexit properly done. We haven’t implemented our bit of the TCA as we are too scared of what it would mean for supply chains, further disadvantaging our own companies. And as for NI – well between now and Easter we’ll be quietly eating some humble pie.
The TCA was agreed on the 24th December 2020 and signed on the 30th.
Up until July 2020 it would have been possible to extend the exit deadline.
The Covid crisis, which broke out in March 2020, was being used to create political chaos and attempts were made to exploit this for further can-kicking.
The TCA was agreed on the 24th December 2020 and signed on the 30th.
Up until July 2020 it would have been possible to extend the exit deadline.
The Covid crisis, which broke out in March 2020, was being used to create political chaos and attempts were made to exploit this for further can-kicking.
Your chronology is a bit out. He did the TCA deal and left the EU before Covid.
The rest is the usual conspiratorial nonsense to avoid responsibility.
And also he didn’t get Brexit properly done. We haven’t implemented our bit of the TCA as we are too scared of what it would mean for supply chains, further disadvantaging our own companies. And as for NI – well between now and Easter we’ll be quietly eating some humble pie.
You zero in on the fractured relationship between politicians and the ordinary men and women of the country and I use the word ordinary deliberately.
They want a good education for their kids, access to health care, and functioning infrastructure. If they live in an area where there are high levels of crime they want that dealt with. Simple everyday issues.
Education has been batted between orthodoxies for years and teachers are now well fare consultants for amongst other things gender displacement. The demographic time bomb has exploded with a very large number of elderly comorbid as well as the voluntarily obese which slays the NHS and there is not a proper investment in infrastructure so access to work and opening up of wasted areas is not achieved.
Deal with those issues the basics and be honest about turnrounds and those who deliver will be applauded.
All over the west politicians have been found out for breaking the Covid restrictions and whilst it is a very emotional issue for those denied access to loved ones at the end of life it’s not what the majority really care about. The English make their own mind up about whether a rule is daft and let that be their compass.
If you have a democracy and pay taxes you want a result, not more of the same that’s what erodes trust.
The issue of the elderly co-morbid has been accelerating as a problem for some time and a new respiratory illness has shown the vulnerability of a policy that invests huge effort in keeping people alive way past their grace and dignity point. Many even now are still absent from normal life whilst others say quite rightly what’s the point? Would it not now be nice to have a conversation about it rather than just quietly or noisily (in the case of China) drop all the restrictions and think the problem has gone away?
I do not distrust politicians I just think they have little meaning in the context of what I want from them.
Thatcher made a difference, things changed (some may not like the changes) and she owned up to de-industrialization rather than anesthetizing the issue. All too often politicians opt for the latter borrowing the populaces money to do so.
I agree the term ‘populist’ is used a little too loosely and can mean different things to different people.
I see it as basically a term to describe a political approach seeking to appeal to ‘ordinary’ people who feel that their concerns have been overlooked by ‘elites’ for too long, but that crucially doesn’t entirely ‘level’ with these ‘ordinary’ people on the trade-offs required to give them what they’d like. Essentially it’s recently tended to come with quite a bit of ‘cakeism’ which then unravels and causes potentially even more disaffection. I think here Boris does earn the term ‘populist’.
One could also debate the definition of ‘ordinary’ and of ‘elite’ – both too easily chucked around undefined. Life is generally more complex, but we all hear every day politicians talk about ‘ordinary working people’ and think ‘he/she means us’. They more often mean well so I don’t see it as always malign, but it’s too simplistic of course when one gets into complex policy formulation.
“but I can’t think of one single accomplishment of Boris Johnson”.
He managed to successfully sabotage BREXIT, if nothing else.
He got a Brexit that was deeply flawed, but Teresa had simply been humiliated by Brussels for three wasted years.
He financed the development and production of three covid vaccines. In the spring of 2021 the UK was well ahead of EU countries in getting jabbed. This was noticed by the French and the Germans.
He put weapons into Ukrainian hands quickly. We were sending NLAW anti-tank missiles when Germany could only offer 5000 helmets.
I neither like nor trust Boris, but he was a heck of a lot better than Corbyn.
After several years of attempts by London remainers to kick the can down road on Brexit, Boris Johnson won a landslide election on the promise of ‘Get Brexit Done – Deal or no Deal’.
He did achieve this, against all odds. And despite having an excellent alibi (Covid) for not achieving it.
I would suggest that it was this success that led to so many people being against him, in particular his ex-colleagues in the media.
Partygate was the biggest media stich-up in the history of UK politics. The campaign to get Johnson out and Sunak in was led by husband and wife team James Forsyth and Allegra Stratton.
They are both journalists. Allegra is the press secretary pretending to give a drunken speech that got the scandal going. James is the political editor of The Spectator, and probably the most influential conservative journalist in the Westminster bubble.
They are very close friends of Sunak, and Sunak has now appointed Forsyth as his political secretary.
You zero in on the fractured relationship between politicians and the ordinary men and women of the country and I use the word ordinary deliberately.
They want a good education for their kids, access to health care, and functioning infrastructure. If they live in an area where there are high levels of crime they want that dealt with. Simple everyday issues.
Education has been batted between orthodoxies for years and teachers are now well fare consultants for amongst other things gender displacement. The demographic time bomb has exploded with a very large number of elderly comorbid as well as the voluntarily obese which slays the NHS and there is not a proper investment in infrastructure so access to work and opening up of wasted areas is not achieved.
Deal with those issues the basics and be honest about turnrounds and those who deliver will be applauded.
All over the west politicians have been found out for breaking the Covid restrictions and whilst it is a very emotional issue for those denied access to loved ones at the end of life it’s not what the majority really care about. The English make their own mind up about whether a rule is daft and let that be their compass.
If you have a democracy and pay taxes you want a result, not more of the same that’s what erodes trust.
The issue of the elderly co-morbid has been accelerating as a problem for some time and a new respiratory illness has shown the vulnerability of a policy that invests huge effort in keeping people alive way past their grace and dignity point. Many even now are still absent from normal life whilst others say quite rightly what’s the point? Would it not now be nice to have a conversation about it rather than just quietly or noisily (in the case of China) drop all the restrictions and think the problem has gone away?
I do not distrust politicians I just think they have little meaning in the context of what I want from them.
Thatcher made a difference, things changed (some may not like the changes) and she owned up to de-industrialization rather than anesthetizing the issue. All too often politicians opt for the latter borrowing the populaces money to do so.
I don’t understand. Is the author suggesting Boris Johnson was a populist? Maybe it’s a different Boris Johnson.
And what the hell is wrong with a populist? Not every populist is Donald Trump.
Maybe the lack of trust comes from political leaders failing to do anything meaningful to improve the lives of their constituents. Maybe people are sick of politicians pandering to special interests.
I’m from Canada so I’m not as well informed about British politics, but I can’t think of one single accomplishment of Boris Johnson. And does anyone expect Sunak to be any better?
Earn trust by implementing policies that benefit the people.
“This role tends not to sit within the average politician’s wheelhouse — the remit being to campaign rather than explain.”
Yet again we have another commentator on here who has no historical perspective. Listen to or watch political interviews and discussions from the 1970s or before. Politicians did talk at length and explain to the public and were not interrupted constantly by “presenters” trying to big themselves up and push their own agenda and brand. The word “media” wasn’t used back then and the presenters were real journalists who didn’t try to get in the middle and ask silly “gotcha” questions.
There really was detailed discussion of political and economic matters and people talked about what they actually believed rather than what focus groups or spin doctors told them to talk about.
If the media treat the politicians with no respect, why would you expect the public too ?
Truly, some of these commentators are stuck in Dunning Krugerland – they haven’t yet acquired the experience to know how little they really know.
“This role tends not to sit within the average politician’s wheelhouse — the remit being to campaign rather than explain.”
Yet again we have another commentator on here who has no historical perspective. Listen to or watch political interviews and discussions from the 1970s or before. Politicians did talk at length and explain to the public and were not interrupted constantly by “presenters” trying to big themselves up and push their own agenda and brand. The word “media” wasn’t used back then and the presenters were real journalists who didn’t try to get in the middle and ask silly “gotcha” questions.
There really was detailed discussion of political and economic matters and people talked about what they actually believed rather than what focus groups or spin doctors told them to talk about.
If the media treat the politicians with no respect, why would you expect the public too ?
Truly, some of these commentators are stuck in Dunning Krugerland – they haven’t yet acquired the experience to know how little they really know.
I tuned in to Martin Lewis after a few chaps at work recommended him as the above article. I found him to be hectoring and left-wing – not what I had expected from the reports. Just go and listen to his radio show – constant demands for more pay for all workers (public sector or not) and no real plans for where the money is coming from. “Raise taxes” is not a plan, you need to specify which taxes and by how much. I thought as a self-proclaimed money man he would have had some idea of this but it was all emotion and preening. But he seems to be doing very nicely off it all doesn’t he – 123mil and still proclaimed as a man of the people.
The politicians are always coming up with new ideas for reclaiming trust and the answer always seems to be more politicians (mayors, first ministers etc.). I think the less votes we have the better – once every 5 years for GE, more regularly for locals. One of my friends said that (as a scot) he had voted once a year since about 2014 (independence, GE, Brexit, MSP elections, locals). Voting once a year makes a nonsense of representative government. I backed the Brexit vote but still disagree with referenda in general as it allows extremists to get their pet views over the line. With Scottish independence the nationalists only need to win once as Brits get dissillusioned for voting for “no change”. Better to have few, big votes that actually mean something. Independence should need more than 50% support in opinion polls for a few years before it is put to the vote (as in NI). We should have less politicians with more accountability/power. The devolution experiment (in England,the other home nations and in referenda) has to end.
The uncritical view that politicians are on the take is just plain wrong – UK is among the lest corrupt proper countries in the world (Hong Kong needs to count for us not to be in the top 10 least corrupt countries). Anyone who knows people abroad can confirm this view of British (and by extension Anglosphere) probity over the rest of the world (barring Scandinavia). France is 22nd just as one comparison, USA 27th.
I agree with you re Martin Lewis. Totally.
The USA not part of the “Anglosphere”, then?
And if you “disagree with referenda”, why did you “back Brexit”?
No. They went their own way during the revolution. Good luck to them. Anglosphere countries are tied to Britain in different ways but about 200 years of separation and rejection of British values is enough to break those bonds.
If asked my opinion I will give it. Doesn’t mean that I don’t pity the question being asked in the first place.
No. They went their own way during the revolution. Good luck to them. Anglosphere countries are tied to Britain in different ways but about 200 years of separation and rejection of British values is enough to break those bonds.
If asked my opinion I will give it. Doesn’t mean that I don’t pity the question being asked in the first place.
I agree with you re Martin Lewis. Totally.
The USA not part of the “Anglosphere”, then?
And if you “disagree with referenda”, why did you “back Brexit”?
I tuned in to Martin Lewis after a few chaps at work recommended him as the above article. I found him to be hectoring and left-wing – not what I had expected from the reports. Just go and listen to his radio show – constant demands for more pay for all workers (public sector or not) and no real plans for where the money is coming from. “Raise taxes” is not a plan, you need to specify which taxes and by how much. I thought as a self-proclaimed money man he would have had some idea of this but it was all emotion and preening. But he seems to be doing very nicely off it all doesn’t he – 123mil and still proclaimed as a man of the people.
The politicians are always coming up with new ideas for reclaiming trust and the answer always seems to be more politicians (mayors, first ministers etc.). I think the less votes we have the better – once every 5 years for GE, more regularly for locals. One of my friends said that (as a scot) he had voted once a year since about 2014 (independence, GE, Brexit, MSP elections, locals). Voting once a year makes a nonsense of representative government. I backed the Brexit vote but still disagree with referenda in general as it allows extremists to get their pet views over the line. With Scottish independence the nationalists only need to win once as Brits get dissillusioned for voting for “no change”. Better to have few, big votes that actually mean something. Independence should need more than 50% support in opinion polls for a few years before it is put to the vote (as in NI). We should have less politicians with more accountability/power. The devolution experiment (in England,the other home nations and in referenda) has to end.
The uncritical view that politicians are on the take is just plain wrong – UK is among the lest corrupt proper countries in the world (Hong Kong needs to count for us not to be in the top 10 least corrupt countries). Anyone who knows people abroad can confirm this view of British (and by extension Anglosphere) probity over the rest of the world (barring Scandinavia). France is 22nd just as one comparison, USA 27th.
Just where can I read articles n the MSM where ‘media has aimed to seek truth to power’? Every outlet and it’s journo’s went along uncritically with all the WuFlu regs, no questions asked, just mantra repeated. It is disgusting.
Pravda in the USSR was the model all MSM is now based on. Orwell it seems wrote a future history book.
Pravda in the USSR was the model all MSM is now based on. Orwell it seems wrote a future history book.
Just where can I read articles n the MSM where ‘media has aimed to seek truth to power’? Every outlet and it’s journo’s went along uncritically with all the WuFlu regs, no questions asked, just mantra repeated. It is disgusting.
Parking cynicism for a moment, surely Theresa May was considered trustworthy? Whilst virtuous, that didn’t make her a good PM however, and if anyone ever needed a dose of populism it was her. Since the author is apparently a Labour activist I’m not surprised there is no mention of Starmer – now there’s a person who is slippery as an eel, less trustworthy than even Boris Johnson and also less populist.
Parking cynicism for a moment, surely Theresa May was considered trustworthy? Whilst virtuous, that didn’t make her a good PM however, and if anyone ever needed a dose of populism it was her. Since the author is apparently a Labour activist I’m not surprised there is no mention of Starmer – now there’s a person who is slippery as an eel, less trustworthy than even Boris Johnson and also less populist.
What utter rubbish this article is. When he praised localism and devolution as solutions I almost stopped reading; has he not noticed Drakeford and Sturgeon? Or the incredibly low esteem in which most (not all, by no means) local councillors are held?
It may well be that the current generation of politicians are of lower quality than we have previously had in this country, that would be well worth an analytical article if not a whole book, but we cannot avoid the fact that that we the public are destroying the standing of our leaders by endless and mostly mindless abuse on social media. We have the politicians not that we deserve, but which we have created.
I think if we had a higher quality of politician and councillor a degree of devolution could be desirable. It makes sense for local authorities to understand and cater for an area they are familiar with. The fault lies not with the concept of devolution, but the mental capacity of those in charge.
I think if we had a higher quality of politician and councillor a degree of devolution could be desirable. It makes sense for local authorities to understand and cater for an area they are familiar with. The fault lies not with the concept of devolution, but the mental capacity of those in charge.
What utter rubbish this article is. When he praised localism and devolution as solutions I almost stopped reading; has he not noticed Drakeford and Sturgeon? Or the incredibly low esteem in which most (not all, by no means) local councillors are held?
It may well be that the current generation of politicians are of lower quality than we have previously had in this country, that would be well worth an analytical article if not a whole book, but we cannot avoid the fact that that we the public are destroying the standing of our leaders by endless and mostly mindless abuse on social media. We have the politicians not that we deserve, but which we have created.
Whether I trust politicians or not is neither here nor there. The western world is being run by WEF with covid having given them the opportunity to crank up the agenda. “Green” was still green pre covid. Now suddenly we have net zero, electric cars, heat pumps, new boilers. On top of which open borders, cancel culture, identity culture, OTT diversity and inclusivity, vaccine passports for the next pandemic and total digital banking on the horizon. None of this was in any politician’s manifesto, left or right and none of them can do anything about it because the power lies in the unaccountable world banks and billionaire techies. Voting is a meaningless anachronism.
Whether I trust politicians or not is neither here nor there. The western world is being run by WEF with covid having given them the opportunity to crank up the agenda. “Green” was still green pre covid. Now suddenly we have net zero, electric cars, heat pumps, new boilers. On top of which open borders, cancel culture, identity culture, OTT diversity and inclusivity, vaccine passports for the next pandemic and total digital banking on the horizon. None of this was in any politician’s manifesto, left or right and none of them can do anything about it because the power lies in the unaccountable world banks and billionaire techies. Voting is a meaningless anachronism.
Read your Hemmingway, not just comments about Hemmingway. The whole point about how Mike went bankrupt was that it happened once, in two ways; ‘Gradually, then suddenly’.
haha, I saw that – kind of like all the article……sounds sort of like the truth, a bit, but looking closer you see it is All Wrong.
haha, I saw that – kind of like all the article……sounds sort of like the truth, a bit, but looking closer you see it is All Wrong.
Read your Hemmingway, not just comments about Hemmingway. The whole point about how Mike went bankrupt was that it happened once, in two ways; ‘Gradually, then suddenly’.
The author completely misses the point.
No clear headed, leader, with expertise, foresight, fair but tough would contemplate such an underpaid thankless task of being a politician let alone Prime Minister.
Thus we are ruled mainly by inadequate people, who are torn to shreds by our Oxymoronic “Responsible Journalists”.
Nowadays it is made even worse by Social Media where the minorities speak loudest and the civil service is so anti government and such a bad employer.
Churchill was right. Democracy as we know it is the least worst form of government, I believe Lord Reith once remarked that the best form of Government was, and I quote; “dictatorship followed by assassination”
Many conversations need to be had, civilly, to find a clear, safe, way for the brightest of our potential leaders to become politicians.
The author completely misses the point.
No clear headed, leader, with expertise, foresight, fair but tough would contemplate such an underpaid thankless task of being a politician let alone Prime Minister.
Thus we are ruled mainly by inadequate people, who are torn to shreds by our Oxymoronic “Responsible Journalists”.
Nowadays it is made even worse by Social Media where the minorities speak loudest and the civil service is so anti government and such a bad employer.
Churchill was right. Democracy as we know it is the least worst form of government, I believe Lord Reith once remarked that the best form of Government was, and I quote; “dictatorship followed by assassination”
Many conversations need to be had, civilly, to find a clear, safe, way for the brightest of our potential leaders to become politicians.
Yet another article from a journalist who appears to be ignoring the the massive disparity between the Gray report and what the media made people believe.
People have zero trust in politicians because the media have become better liars and mis informers than the politicians themselves.
And now we are left with swarms of journalists trying to pin the blame on anybody except themselves.
Yet another article from a journalist who appears to be ignoring the the massive disparity between the Gray report and what the media made people believe.
People have zero trust in politicians because the media have become better liars and mis informers than the politicians themselves.
And now we are left with swarms of journalists trying to pin the blame on anybody except themselves.
The reason I don’t trust politicians is they don’t do what they say they will and they have hidden agendas. Simple as that really.
Modern politicians are Foxes seeking to manage the hen-house – and succeeding.
Modern politicians are Foxes seeking to manage the hen-house – and succeeding.
The reason I don’t trust politicians is they don’t do what they say they will and they have hidden agendas. Simple as that really.
“As we enter a new year, the politicians most likely to earn back trust will be those who continue this break with populism,….”
What b*ll**ks. We are sick to the back teeth of politicians who, through gritted teeth, endorse policies that the public want in order to get elected only to do the exact opposite when in power.
Immigration, woke infiltration of universities an public services….
“We”? Define “we” here. Do you perhaps mean “me and my friends”?
I was using it in the same sense as the author. In his world a populist is a politician is someone who includes in their manifesto policies/commitments that appeal to ordinary members of the public who vote them into office. He implies that somehow this approach is loosing favour with the public.
I was suggesting the public are sick of politicians who include popular commitments in their manifesto in order to, say, ward off the threat of nascent parties, perhaps UKIP, who are an electoral threat because of the appeal of their popular policies, without any real intention of delivering on those manifesto commitments.
So the problem is not offering the public what they want it is failing to deliver what they vote for.
“In his world a populist is a politician is someone (sic) who includes in their manifesto policies/commitments that appeal to ordinary members of the public who vote them into office.”
Where does the author use that definition of the term ‘populist’? Your definition is a description of a conventional democratic politician, not a ‘populist’. When has a politician in a normal western democracy NOT formed policies that “appeal to ordinary members of the public”?
What you’ve failed to do is answer my question- who, exactly, is “we”? You are pretending that all “ordinary people” think the same, which happens to be the same as you think. This is the ‘populist’ fallacy- that ‘ordinary’ people (i.e., The People) all think the same, an undifferentiated mass, and if you DON’T think this, then you’re not an ‘ordinary’ person- you aren’t one of The People. If the 48% of British voters who voted for Remain aren’t ‘normal people’, for example, what are they? Vamires?
‘vampires’, ha.
Slow down you are working too hard, even if you are 24 hours late with most of your remarks.
Slow down you are working too hard, even if you are 24 hours late with most of your remarks.
VAMPIRES…….!
WHAT…….?
WHAT…….?
‘vampires’, ha.
VAMPIRES…….!
“In his world a populist is a politician is someone (sic) who includes in their manifesto policies/commitments that appeal to ordinary members of the public who vote them into office.”
Where does the author use that definition of the term ‘populist’? Your definition is a description of a conventional democratic politician, not a ‘populist’. When has a politician in a normal western democracy NOT formed policies that “appeal to ordinary members of the public”?
What you’ve failed to do is answer my question- who, exactly, is “we”? You are pretending that all “ordinary people” think the same, which happens to be the same as you think. This is the ‘populist’ fallacy- that ‘ordinary’ people (i.e., The People) all think the same, an undifferentiated mass, and if you DON’T think this, then you’re not an ‘ordinary’ person- you aren’t one of The People. If the 48% of British voters who voted for Remain aren’t ‘normal people’, for example, what are they? Vamires?
I was using it in the same sense as the author. In his world a populist is a politician is someone who includes in their manifesto policies/commitments that appeal to ordinary members of the public who vote them into office. He implies that somehow this approach is loosing favour with the public.
I was suggesting the public are sick of politicians who include popular commitments in their manifesto in order to, say, ward off the threat of nascent parties, perhaps UKIP, who are an electoral threat because of the appeal of their popular policies, without any real intention of delivering on those manifesto commitments.
So the problem is not offering the public what they want it is failing to deliver what they vote for.
“We”? Define “we” here. Do you perhaps mean “me and my friends”?
“As we enter a new year, the politicians most likely to earn back trust will be those who continue this break with populism,….”
What b*ll**ks. We are sick to the back teeth of politicians who, through gritted teeth, endorse policies that the public want in order to get elected only to do the exact opposite when in power.
Immigration, woke infiltration of universities an public services….
This article dances around the point and never finishes: we don’t trust the bastards in parliament because they don’t represent us, aren’t from the same stock as us, and won’t ever take our financial, social or national interests seriously over their own power play… That’s us: the majority of working, and middle class, British people who are not fully represented and not fought for at every decision and turn. The last 3 years of covid a case in point in destroying our basic freedoms and economy, all resting on false premises and authoritarianism.
This article dances around the point and never finishes: we don’t trust the bastards in parliament because they don’t represent us, aren’t from the same stock as us, and won’t ever take our financial, social or national interests seriously over their own power play… That’s us: the majority of working, and middle class, British people who are not fully represented and not fought for at every decision and turn. The last 3 years of covid a case in point in destroying our basic freedoms and economy, all resting on false premises and authoritarianism.
“Low trust is ultimately down to social changes that are broadly positive: lower deference, a more informed electorate, a media aiming to speak truth to power, a diverse electorate (politically and demographically), the rise of Judicial Review processes to challenge decisions, the expectation that businesses publish executive pay, and the fact that politicians are cross-examined more often (via public enquiries and select committee grillings, with footage of circulated on social media if they mess up).: not in my opinion it isn’t. Low trust is largely down to rubbish outcomes.
“Low trust is ultimately down to social changes that are broadly positive: lower deference, a more informed electorate, a media aiming to speak truth to power, a diverse electorate (politically and demographically), the rise of Judicial Review processes to challenge decisions, the expectation that businesses publish executive pay, and the fact that politicians are cross-examined more often (via public enquiries and select committee grillings, with footage of circulated on social media if they mess up).: not in my opinion it isn’t. Low trust is largely down to rubbish outcomes.
Obviously not. Running a country requires political choices at every turn: it is not a technocratic exercise analagous to recommending car insurance.
Obviously not. Running a country requires political choices at every turn: it is not a technocratic exercise analagous to recommending car insurance.
Someone remarked that the last person to enter Parliament with good intentions was Guy Fawkes. Whether or not Martin Lewis presents a solution to that problem is hard to determine as he has not yet been minutely scrutinised. Equally important he has not yet held a position where it would behove whoever are running things to, one way or another, ensure his total commitment to their cause. No-one may be certain just what that cause is, but it’s increasingly difficult to imagine that the good of this country figures very prominently. Such an uninterrupted succession of bad decisions does not occur accidentally.
Having voted for Boris Johnson, I was soon inclined to think that he had been presented to a restless public as the jovial, shambling, hail-fellow-well-met antidote to the country’s growing resentment towards his appalling predecessors. His self-belief is so high that he may well not have appreciated that “when you see a turtle on a fence post – someone put it there”, but a few days into the covid fiasco he was disabused of the fact that he was in charge. It would be interesting to know whether his mid-life crisis marriage was in any way choreographed to ensure that he took his eye off the ball sufficiently to shoot himself in both feet [sorry!].
Rishi Sunak is merely another placeman, installed, at the second attempt, by a coup against one who looked like going off piste in an attempt to salvage something from the wreckage of the last two years.
It increasingly seems that, whoever you vote, for the puppeteers remain the same.
Appropos nothing at all: interesting in the light of Twitter revelations about CIA and FBI to have someone from GCHQ as guest editor of this mornings BBC’s Today programme. You couldn’t make it up.
Someone remarked that the last person to enter Parliament with good intentions was Guy Fawkes. Whether or not Martin Lewis presents a solution to that problem is hard to determine as he has not yet been minutely scrutinised. Equally important he has not yet held a position where it would behove whoever are running things to, one way or another, ensure his total commitment to their cause. No-one may be certain just what that cause is, but it’s increasingly difficult to imagine that the good of this country figures very prominently. Such an uninterrupted succession of bad decisions does not occur accidentally.
Having voted for Boris Johnson, I was soon inclined to think that he had been presented to a restless public as the jovial, shambling, hail-fellow-well-met antidote to the country’s growing resentment towards his appalling predecessors. His self-belief is so high that he may well not have appreciated that “when you see a turtle on a fence post – someone put it there”, but a few days into the covid fiasco he was disabused of the fact that he was in charge. It would be interesting to know whether his mid-life crisis marriage was in any way choreographed to ensure that he took his eye off the ball sufficiently to shoot himself in both feet [sorry!].
Rishi Sunak is merely another placeman, installed, at the second attempt, by a coup against one who looked like going off piste in an attempt to salvage something from the wreckage of the last two years.
It increasingly seems that, whoever you vote, for the puppeteers remain the same.
Appropos nothing at all: interesting in the light of Twitter revelations about CIA and FBI to have someone from GCHQ as guest editor of this mornings BBC’s Today programme. You couldn’t make it up.
Thanks. I think the research from Tom Tyler is relevant here on legitimacy (normally referring to law enforcement practices). If you feel someone is legitimately in place you are more likely to cooperate, comply and empower them. And the route to legitimacy is through procedural justice…itself delivered by demonstrating your motivation is good and that you listened. This concept has been empirically demonstrated in numerous randomised control trials (a great one being Mazarolle’s QCET experiment or Langley and Ariel’s airport trial – have a look). All relevant to politicians.
Thanks. I think the research from Tom Tyler is relevant here on legitimacy (normally referring to law enforcement practices). If you feel someone is legitimately in place you are more likely to cooperate, comply and empower them. And the route to legitimacy is through procedural justice…itself delivered by demonstrating your motivation is good and that you listened. This concept has been empirically demonstrated in numerous randomised control trials (a great one being Mazarolle’s QCET experiment or Langley and Ariel’s airport trial – have a look). All relevant to politicians.
Who’s Martin Lewis?
lol 🙂
He’s another fatuous journalist who makes money from giving facile advice to the less well off & is best known for being the target of multiple scams
I’d be happy if I’d never heard of him.
lol 🙂
He’s another fatuous journalist who makes money from giving facile advice to the less well off & is best known for being the target of multiple scams
I’d be happy if I’d never heard of him.
Who’s Martin Lewis?
Should have said that I agree with his last sentence ‘They must level with those they serve, and seek an adult relationship.’ But they won’t will they? Pollies mainly serve shortish terms and then move on to hugely paid sinecures in private enterprise while also pulling in a terrific pension. But it’s us voters at fault as we make no demands on them to tell us the truth.
Should have said that I agree with his last sentence ‘They must level with those they serve, and seek an adult relationship.’ But they won’t will they? Pollies mainly serve shortish terms and then move on to hugely paid sinecures in private enterprise while also pulling in a terrific pension. But it’s us voters at fault as we make no demands on them to tell us the truth.
It seems that this short essay has touched a nerve among some commentators. In my view it makes the correct observation that there is little trust in politicians. The simple fact is that the UK has suffered from a lack of quality leadership for many years, the public are wiser than the leaders give them credit for and it is now crunch time. If there are still leaders out there then they need to engage with the public and show that they are doing the best for Britain not for their party or personal ambitions. I didn’t read this essay as being right or left and I think that Britain is largely the same at this time. The choice is not between right or left but between the leadership we need and the leadership that politicians tell us we need.
The commentators have an issue with the premise on which his arguments are based.
Public opinion in politicians is at an all-time low because the media are getting so good at putting them down. I would argue that the media have now surpassed themselves and are a threat to democracy rather than an aide.
It’s worth reflecting on the fact that Johnson’s behavior whilst in office was probably one of the most politically correct and least scandal worthy of any PM. And yet this author has built on the media disinformation to further his arguments. That’s the sort of thing we expect on social media, not from responsible professional journalists.
Nice spin on Mr Johnson’s performance as PM, it surprises me to realise that there are still people who think he was capable of performing any job in the government.
This dire situation is due to the poor quality and performance of politicians. These days you can obviously find any view that you want to believe in the media. We all need to tread carefully and select the information that we trust and this essay is an example.
I believe that the main point is that people do not trust politicians, whatever you blame that situation on, it remains a problem and hopefully a leader will emerge, eventually.
Nice spin on Mr Johnson’s performance as PM, it surprises me to realise that there are still people who think he was capable of performing any job in the government.
This dire situation is due to the poor quality and performance of politicians. These days you can obviously find any view that you want to believe in the media. We all need to tread carefully and select the information that we trust and this essay is an example.
I believe that the main point is that people do not trust politicians, whatever you blame that situation on, it remains a problem and hopefully a leader will emerge, eventually.
The commentators have an issue with the premise on which his arguments are based.
Public opinion in politicians is at an all-time low because the media are getting so good at putting them down. I would argue that the media have now surpassed themselves and are a threat to democracy rather than an aide.
It’s worth reflecting on the fact that Johnson’s behavior whilst in office was probably one of the most politically correct and least scandal worthy of any PM. And yet this author has built on the media disinformation to further his arguments. That’s the sort of thing we expect on social media, not from responsible professional journalists.
It seems that this short essay has touched a nerve among some commentators. In my view it makes the correct observation that there is little trust in politicians. The simple fact is that the UK has suffered from a lack of quality leadership for many years, the public are wiser than the leaders give them credit for and it is now crunch time. If there are still leaders out there then they need to engage with the public and show that they are doing the best for Britain not for their party or personal ambitions. I didn’t read this essay as being right or left and I think that Britain is largely the same at this time. The choice is not between right or left but between the leadership we need and the leadership that politicians tell us we need.
With the greatest of respect to the author, this is to my mind a weak article. However almost buried in the middle is what I think is perhaps the most critical point of our day. The paragraph starting, ‘But the bigger reason why political trust matters is that it represents a social good in itself,’ is critical. We should just replace the article with that excellent paragraph.
What that paragraph is describing is effectively what used to be termed civil society and it is that civil society that that has been wholly undermined by so many bad trends in recent times. Our now-slavering media is essentially a symptom, not a cause of problems. In the past we had a real local media that supported local things and, most importantly, the institutions and norms that allowed for that civil society to form and thrive independent of government. Significantly the media then had some idea of why it was important to have a media strengthening a civil society. Now what’s regarded as newsworthy is basically shrieking and hacking at people with a public profile. It’s a bad trend entirely of a piece with other bad trends.
Trust came from a shared collective experience. That may have been working together on a production line, being in the same church congregation, meeting other parents at the school gate, playing sport together, being in a trade union and so on. When those are undermined or gone so to is the civil society they supported. Think of it this way: the 1980s estate agent may not have been trusted, but I’d have him over a contemporary BTL landlord any day.
Martin Lewis may be effectively a media celeb and he may or may not be good at saving money, but what he’s about is a shared and common experience.
Political trust matters because having confidence in the political (as in allocation of power) institutions of civil society buttresses everything else. Institutions don’t have to be politically neutral, but they have to be regarded as representing collective interests (rather than ideologies). Political parties in the past with their local branches were very much a part of a functioning civil society. We have seen in recent years just how atrophied as institutions of civil society parties have become. Having party memberships elect leaders and hence Prime Minister candidates works when those memberships are sensitive enough filters. Suffice it here to say that we have not seen really sensitive filters pick leaders in recent times.
We don’t need more politics and government (those two things are, of course, not the same thing). We need more society away from politics and government. David Cameron was not wrong when he said we needed a ‘Big Society.’ The problem was that Cameron very clearly had no idea what one of those was or the role of institutions in creating the conditions for one.
Of course nothing undermines commonality, trust and civil society more than the identitarian woke. A consideration that is strangely absent in the article.
I am, of course, very aware that I may have rose-tints on here. There never was a golden age and anyone who thinks there was asks to be deceived. If we’d had the internet in the past then the bad-tempered online world we see now would likely have emerged.
However as is said in the paragraph I referenced, ‘trust makes life certain and predictable, allowing us to form habits and routines.’ Those conditions are what we now need. Not more, ‘devolved,’ institutions, not more, ‘accountability,’ and not more, ‘media scrutiny.’
”With the greatest of respect to the author,”
Why?
…because anyone who sticks their neck out to express their opinions and add to a debate deserves respect. In this case, it would appear many if not most of the responders do not agree with the author. That’s not the point. Expressing views contrary to one’s own gives one a chance to think, refine and express one’s own views.
You dont think the Beautiful People who write for Unherd read the comments, do you? And this article for all its high-minded posturing is just more power being spoken to lived truth.
You dont think the Beautiful People who write for Unherd read the comments, do you? And this article for all its high-minded posturing is just more power being spoken to lived truth.
…because anyone who sticks their neck out to express their opinions and add to a debate deserves respect. In this case, it would appear many if not most of the responders do not agree with the author. That’s not the point. Expressing views contrary to one’s own gives one a chance to think, refine and express one’s own views.
”With the greatest of respect to the author,”
Why?
With the greatest of respect to the author, this is to my mind a weak article. However almost buried in the middle is what I think is perhaps the most critical point of our day. The paragraph starting, ‘But the bigger reason why political trust matters is that it represents a social good in itself,’ is critical. We should just replace the article with that excellent paragraph.
What that paragraph is describing is effectively what used to be termed civil society and it is that civil society that that has been wholly undermined by so many bad trends in recent times. Our now-slavering media is essentially a symptom, not a cause of problems. In the past we had a real local media that supported local things and, most importantly, the institutions and norms that allowed for that civil society to form and thrive independent of government. Significantly the media then had some idea of why it was important to have a media strengthening a civil society. Now what’s regarded as newsworthy is basically shrieking and hacking at people with a public profile. It’s a bad trend entirely of a piece with other bad trends.
Trust came from a shared collective experience. That may have been working together on a production line, being in the same church congregation, meeting other parents at the school gate, playing sport together, being in a trade union and so on. When those are undermined or gone so to is the civil society they supported. Think of it this way: the 1980s estate agent may not have been trusted, but I’d have him over a contemporary BTL landlord any day.
Martin Lewis may be effectively a media celeb and he may or may not be good at saving money, but what he’s about is a shared and common experience.
Political trust matters because having confidence in the political (as in allocation of power) institutions of civil society buttresses everything else. Institutions don’t have to be politically neutral, but they have to be regarded as representing collective interests (rather than ideologies). Political parties in the past with their local branches were very much a part of a functioning civil society. We have seen in recent years just how atrophied as institutions of civil society parties have become. Having party memberships elect leaders and hence Prime Minister candidates works when those memberships are sensitive enough filters. Suffice it here to say that we have not seen really sensitive filters pick leaders in recent times.
We don’t need more politics and government (those two things are, of course, not the same thing). We need more society away from politics and government. David Cameron was not wrong when he said we needed a ‘Big Society.’ The problem was that Cameron very clearly had no idea what one of those was or the role of institutions in creating the conditions for one.
Of course nothing undermines commonality, trust and civil society more than the identitarian woke. A consideration that is strangely absent in the article.
I am, of course, very aware that I may have rose-tints on here. There never was a golden age and anyone who thinks there was asks to be deceived. If we’d had the internet in the past then the bad-tempered online world we see now would likely have emerged.
However as is said in the paragraph I referenced, ‘trust makes life certain and predictable, allowing us to form habits and routines.’ Those conditions are what we now need. Not more, ‘devolved,’ institutions, not more, ‘accountability,’ and not more, ‘media scrutiny.’
Martin Lewis is trusted mainly because he deals in low level practical problems on a purely factual basis. He does not campaign for anything beyond stronger consumer protection. If he did he would not be trusted any more than any other politician.
A factor not considered in this article is the hugely enlarged role of the state since the 1930s. Given only two main parties and First Past The Post voting, it means a party and its politicians must appeal across a very wide range of issues in a coherent way. The issues are often linked in complex ways, making coherence in terms of political philosophy harder to reach. Complexity makes effective politics more difficult. For example rights have vastly increased and often conflict. Is there a recognised and accepted hierarchy of rights? No.
Another factor missed is that as a society advances materially its issues of concern change. What used to be of little concern becomes concerning. Gender is a good example. Nobody thirty years ago would have thought it worthwhile to ask a party leader to define a woman.
A third factor missed is the rise of international regulation and co-operation: United Nations (1945), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1948), World Health Organisation (1948), The Council of Europe (1949) and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) (1950), World Customs Union (1952), World Trade Organisation (1995), NATO (1949), World Economic Forum (1971), UNCLOS (1982) to give just a few examples.
Above all for the UK: the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) leading to the European Economic Community and EURATOM (1957/8) and the EU (1993).
As Remainer leader David Cameron said during the EU Referendum campaign, the UK no longer has the capacity for self-government, perhaps the most profound comment of that time.
And I have not even mentioned deep long term trends like declinism and the rise of identity politics which have profound and disruptive impacts on political discourse.
Martin Lewis is trusted mainly because he deals in low level practical problems on a purely factual basis. He does not campaign for anything beyond stronger consumer protection. If he did he would not be trusted any more than any other politician.
A factor not considered in this article is the hugely enlarged role of the state since the 1930s. Given only two main parties and First Past The Post voting, it means a party and its politicians must appeal across a very wide range of issues in a coherent way. The issues are often linked in complex ways, making coherence in terms of political philosophy harder to reach. Complexity makes effective politics more difficult. For example rights have vastly increased and often conflict. Is there a recognised and accepted hierarchy of rights? No.
Another factor missed is that as a society advances materially its issues of concern change. What used to be of little concern becomes concerning. Gender is a good example. Nobody thirty years ago would have thought it worthwhile to ask a party leader to define a woman.
A third factor missed is the rise of international regulation and co-operation: United Nations (1945), General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1948), World Health Organisation (1948), The Council of Europe (1949) and the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) (1950), World Customs Union (1952), World Trade Organisation (1995), NATO (1949), World Economic Forum (1971), UNCLOS (1982) to give just a few examples.
Above all for the UK: the European Coal and Steel Community (1951) leading to the European Economic Community and EURATOM (1957/8) and the EU (1993).
As Remainer leader David Cameron said during the EU Referendum campaign, the UK no longer has the capacity for self-government, perhaps the most profound comment of that time.
And I have not even mentioned deep long term trends like declinism and the rise of identity politics which have profound and disruptive impacts on political discourse.
Yurchak’s concept of hypernormalisation, introduced to us by Adam Curtis in the eponymous film, seems more and more relevant as time goes by – a collapsing social and economic order, but no one has any idea of an alternative one.
Installing Martin Lewis as Prime Minister may well be as good a solution as any.
Yurchak’s concept of hypernormalisation, introduced to us by Adam Curtis in the eponymous film, seems more and more relevant as time goes by – a collapsing social and economic order, but no one has any idea of an alternative one.
Installing Martin Lewis as Prime Minister may well be as good a solution as any.
Which one? Dean Martin or Jerry Lewis?
Which one? Dean Martin or Jerry Lewis?
Low trust is evidence the system is working well, apparently, so there’s nothing to worry about.
And all the political pathologies of the last 20-25 years have had the backing of those who never had any say in them. So what’s the fuss about?
Incidentally, am puzzled at this article’s “celebrity” sub-heading, one which I fail to see the salience of to the item it purports to represent.
“..climate change…you’d be a fool to dismiss them.”
The author should avoid ever reading the comments on Unherd, then.
Thankfully we now have a PM who has proved honourable during the electoral campaign and his premiership, both in parliament and in his dealings with the unions.. You may not agree with the stance he has taken with the unions but he does not make promises which he knows he cannot keep and which would not be in the best interest of the country.
Honorable? It was his best mate and his wife who invented the whole party-gate scandal (she’s the one doing an impression of a drunken press secretary). Her husband (notable journalist and political editor of The Spectator, James Forsyth) has been awarded with the post of Political Secretary to Sunak.
And yes, that is the same Sunak who was standing beside Johnson when he eat a slice of cake, and received the same fine.
Thankfully for them the UK is still full of gullible people.
Are you suggesting Boris Johnson was Rishi Sunak’s best mate? Hardly! I think you are mistaking good manners for friendship. Boris was his boss and recent events have shown that Boris has done everything possible to spike the PM’s guns.
James Forsyth was and still is Rishi Sunaks best mate. Their friendship goes back to their days at Winchester college.
It was James Forsyth, political editor of the spectator, and his wife Allegra Stratton (the press secretary who pretended to be drunk on a video that started the scandal) who orchestrated the partygate scandal.
For his troubles, Forsyth has been appointed political secretary to Sunak.
James Forsyth was and still is Rishi Sunaks best mate. Their friendship goes back to their days at Winchester college.
It was James Forsyth, political editor of the spectator, and his wife Allegra Stratton (the press secretary who pretended to be drunk on a video that started the scandal) who orchestrated the partygate scandal.
For his troubles, Forsyth has been appointed political secretary to Sunak.
Are you suggesting Boris Johnson was Rishi Sunak’s best mate? Hardly! I think you are mistaking good manners for friendship. Boris was his boss and recent events have shown that Boris has done everything possible to spike the PM’s guns.
Honorable? It was his best mate and his wife who invented the whole party-gate scandal (she’s the one doing an impression of a drunken press secretary). Her husband (notable journalist and political editor of The Spectator, James Forsyth) has been awarded with the post of Political Secretary to Sunak.
And yes, that is the same Sunak who was standing beside Johnson when he eat a slice of cake, and received the same fine.
Thankfully for them the UK is still full of gullible people.
Thankfully we now have a PM who has proved honourable during the electoral campaign and his premiership, both in parliament and in his dealings with the unions.. You may not agree with the stance he has taken with the unions but he does not make promises which he knows he cannot keep and which would not be in the best interest of the country.