Main Edition
US
FR
It may be difficult to believe, but when John Major’s tired and sleazy administration suffered a shattering defeat at the hands of Tony Blair’s New Labour in 1997, many Tories weren’t all that worried. Beneath the hype, they believed Blair was really a bit of a lightweight — a slick salesman who would, sooner rather than later, fall flat on his face. Hobbled by the socialist dinosaurs that still held sway behind the scenes, Blair and his colleagues would fail to rise to the task of running the country, at which point voters would return, as per, to Britain’s “natural party of government”.
As one rather less complacent insider once put it to me, the Conservatives effectively “behaved like a disappointed middle-aged wife whose husband’s just run off with his PA and thinks: ‘Well, give it three or four months and when he needs his socks darned and a home-cooked meal, he’ll come crawling back, begging for forgiveness.’”
It didn’t happen, of course. Blair went on to win two more general elections and it took the Tories the best part of a decade-and-a-half to make it back into Downing Street — and even then, without a majority to call their own. So hapless was the Tory party’s initial response that it arguably offers one of the best guides to what-not-to-do for any political party booted out of office.
With the Tories facing the prospect of another sojourn in political wilderness after next year’s election, the current crop of Conservatives should be trying to learn their lessons from 1997. If what happens next is anything like the period from 1997-2005, after which the Tories eventually took a punt on a shiny young moderniser called David Cameron, then they’re in for seven years of seriously bad luck.
Anyone who thinks that a huge defeat would be a wake-up call for the Tory party should think again. The atmosphere post-1997 was one of complacency, especially among smug Tory MPs who had managed to hold onto their seats and put their defeat down to a temporary swing of the political pendulum.
Of course, the rational thing for a defeated party to do would be to conduct a comprehensive post-mortem; perhaps one overseen by former MPs who lost their seats or have no intention of running again. But since when has politics been a rational business, or one untainted by overweening ambition?
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.
SubscribeFrankly, I’m getting sick of all the diatribes against populism. The author is telling me my opinion doesn’t matter – the elites will figure it out for me. It’s a condescending slap in the face.
And it you’re going to do it, at least try to be consistent. In one breath, the author argues that; “adopting headline-grabbing, populist positions is a dangerous game.”
Shortly later he argues; “…that it’s almost impossible to shape voter preferences when you’re in opposition. Rightly or wrongly, that means accommodating them — moving to where they actually are.”
Here’s my advice to the Tories. Listen to the people and create a positive vision. Don’t consult polls. Meet people at their door. Show contrition for the bone-headed policies of the past. Build stuff. Quit tearing stuff down.
I agree. It’s boring hearing for the millionth time that populism is uniquely evil. I see populism (and demagoguery) more as a style rather than ideology, and in some contexts it is justifiable. Elites are inevitable in society. However, we currently have rotten elites, so until a better alternative elite forms, the best approach for the British right (and the right in most developed countries) is to appeal to the working and lower middle classes over the head of the liberal-left professional classes.
Totally agree. Elites are a fact of life. We need them and they will always be there. The problem is with the elites who rule the west today – they talk about nonsense, they are completely insulated from real life and they don’t build things.
The idea that a populist will get elected and create some authoritarian regime is fantasy. Populism will create change when traditional parties absorb their views and adopt policies that benefit all members of society.
On your last point ML, arguably the problem for the Right is this will run counter to neo-liberal economics and thus a much more fundamental ideological fault-line the Tories will have to grapple with to appeal to this constituent. That same constituent did not support Brexit because it wanted more neo-liberalism and free market economics and the Brexit rallying card cannot be used again. Woke and culture wars are almost a comfort blanket that delays the real confrontation of ideas for the Tories.
That said the reason the Tories survived so long as a Party is adaptability. In time they’ll adapt. Power more important to them than Hayekian purity.
You’re correct. Boris won a large majority largely because he campaigned on moving away from the neoliberal economics that has run Britain for 40 years. The fact the Tories dumped him for a Thatcher tribute act in Truss followed by Sunak shows they never really grasped this. Either party that could release a manifesto leaning slightly left economically while being socially conservative would be into a winner
Yes, except that Boris’ campaign was fake, without a conservative bone in his body and a desire to spend as much as possible without any idea of creating the wealth to make this possible.
Yes, except that Boris’ campaign was fake, without a conservative bone in his body and a desire to spend as much as possible without any idea of creating the wealth to make this possible.
As you say the Tories are adaptable. In the 1880s-90s, 1920-30s and 1950s the Tories pursued an electorally successful kind of populism. In each era the approach did differ a bit but in all cases the Tories were offering neither socialism nor radical economic liberalism.
You’re correct. Boris won a large majority largely because he campaigned on moving away from the neoliberal economics that has run Britain for 40 years. The fact the Tories dumped him for a Thatcher tribute act in Truss followed by Sunak shows they never really grasped this. Either party that could release a manifesto leaning slightly left economically while being socially conservative would be into a winner
As you say the Tories are adaptable. In the 1880s-90s, 1920-30s and 1950s the Tories pursued an electorally successful kind of populism. In each era the approach did differ a bit but in all cases the Tories were offering neither socialism nor radical economic liberalism.
I hate the kind of populism you find in Hampstead and Nottinghill and other ‘ghettos’ inhabited by blond women who mouth off the rancid prejudices of middle class progressives .
Totally agree. Elites are a fact of life. We need them and they will always be there. The problem is with the elites who rule the west today – they talk about nonsense, they are completely insulated from real life and they don’t build things.
The idea that a populist will get elected and create some authoritarian regime is fantasy. Populism will create change when traditional parties absorb their views and adopt policies that benefit all members of society.
On your last point ML, arguably the problem for the Right is this will run counter to neo-liberal economics and thus a much more fundamental ideological fault-line the Tories will have to grapple with to appeal to this constituent. That same constituent did not support Brexit because it wanted more neo-liberalism and free market economics and the Brexit rallying card cannot be used again. Woke and culture wars are almost a comfort blanket that delays the real confrontation of ideas for the Tories.
That said the reason the Tories survived so long as a Party is adaptability. In time they’ll adapt. Power more important to them than Hayekian purity.
I hate the kind of populism you find in Hampstead and Nottinghill and other ‘ghettos’ inhabited by blond women who mouth off the rancid prejudices of middle class progressives .
Now JV you yourself are prone to chucking around the phrase ‘Progressives’ in an ill defined, lazy ‘catch all’ fashion too, but that said I concur the same applies to the use of ‘Populism’ by some Authors.
If ‘Populism’ is defined as slogans or rhetoric that conveys an intention without honesty on cost or consequences in order to garner support then I think not an unreasonable point to extol that such an approach likely to create even greater disengagement medium/long term. But it is over-used and quality writers will define what they mean by it first.
And some progressives are also populists.
These are all lazy terms. It may once have been argued that stereotypes in political discourse were useful to prevent constant qualification of the terms in use, but the muddying of the waters this past decade has left a vast amount of terminology useless at best and divisive at worst.
I think this is totally fair JW. I do paint much too broad a brush with my frequent use of the term progressive. I acknowledged this in what I consider was a thoughtful response to your comments on another thread, but our benevolent leaders here at Unherd decided to delete a bunch of posts.
And some progressives are also populists.
These are all lazy terms. It may once have been argued that stereotypes in political discourse were useful to prevent constant qualification of the terms in use, but the muddying of the waters this past decade has left a vast amount of terminology useless at best and divisive at worst.
I think this is totally fair JW. I do paint much too broad a brush with my frequent use of the term progressive. I acknowledged this in what I consider was a thoughtful response to your comments on another thread, but our benevolent leaders here at Unherd decided to delete a bunch of posts.
Where does he say anything bad about populism? He has warned that moving to the extremities is unlikely to see you re-elected in Britain any time soon, and in that he is absolutely correct. Most elections are won by being centre left or centre right, depending on the mood of the electorate at the time.
The very quote you have chosen to highlight “Rightly or wrongly, that means accommodating them — moving to where they actually are.” in fact states the exact opposite of the point you originally made about being told your opinion doesn’t matter. The author is saying parties need to listen to the voters if the want to win subsequent elections.
The author refers to populism repeatedly throughout the essay.
“With the economy failing to come to his rescue, Sunak looks set to play as many populist, anti-woke and “green-crap” cards as he can in order to stop the party being deserted by voters who are feeling the cost-of-living crisis and seeing public services come under serious strain.”
Just one example.
Populism as most people understand the term would be fringe parties or policies that don’t enjoy the support of the what has been the mainstream parties, so I can’t see a problem with using the word in the context the writer has
Populism as most people understand the term would be fringe parties or policies that don’t enjoy the support of the what has been the mainstream parties, so I can’t see a problem with using the word in the context the writer has
The author refers to populism repeatedly throughout the essay.
“With the economy failing to come to his rescue, Sunak looks set to play as many populist, anti-woke and “green-crap” cards as he can in order to stop the party being deserted by voters who are feeling the cost-of-living crisis and seeing public services come under serious strain.”
Just one example.
Indeed. I can see that one can term as populist, policies that contain internal contradictions, or implausible goals, such that they cannot be enacted, but that is not how the word is invariably deployed. Put simply, it is used to denote ideas that are popular, but to which the author does not subscribe – Usually out of self-interest.
I think the poisonous combination of alliance with the wretched Lib Dems and the incontinent proto socialism of the Fool Johnson and Furlo Sunak has shifted the Tories SO far to the Left of the spectrum that we are all wrong to even use the term Conservatives. There has been non stop appeasement of the Blairite Progressive New Order they inherited – and zero challenge to its numerous destructive interventions. The UK was re shaped violently (via EU & Supreme laws/Devolution/Welfarism/ Quangocracy & mass immigration) into a fully compliant EU Statelet, not a nation state. The Tories bowed to this Order and so have just been swallowed up into a de facto Blob-run One Party One Credo State. High taxes. Windfall taxes. Class envy. Furlough. Lockdown. NHS Worship. Net Zero & First ULEZ. Penny Pro Trans & Stonewall & DEI wokery happily attached to the State they are supposed to command. They are NOT conservative. They are not Tories. They warrant our contempt for surrendering so absolutely to progressivism and for abandoning the UK to the even more vacant and dangerous fellow travelling Starmerites.
I agree. It’s boring hearing for the millionth time that populism is uniquely evil. I see populism (and demagoguery) more as a style rather than ideology, and in some contexts it is justifiable. Elites are inevitable in society. However, we currently have rotten elites, so until a better alternative elite forms, the best approach for the British right (and the right in most developed countries) is to appeal to the working and lower middle classes over the head of the liberal-left professional classes.
Now JV you yourself are prone to chucking around the phrase ‘Progressives’ in an ill defined, lazy ‘catch all’ fashion too, but that said I concur the same applies to the use of ‘Populism’ by some Authors.
If ‘Populism’ is defined as slogans or rhetoric that conveys an intention without honesty on cost or consequences in order to garner support then I think not an unreasonable point to extol that such an approach likely to create even greater disengagement medium/long term. But it is over-used and quality writers will define what they mean by it first.
Where does he say anything bad about populism? He has warned that moving to the extremities is unlikely to see you re-elected in Britain any time soon, and in that he is absolutely correct. Most elections are won by being centre left or centre right, depending on the mood of the electorate at the time.
The very quote you have chosen to highlight “Rightly or wrongly, that means accommodating them — moving to where they actually are.” in fact states the exact opposite of the point you originally made about being told your opinion doesn’t matter. The author is saying parties need to listen to the voters if the want to win subsequent elections.
Indeed. I can see that one can term as populist, policies that contain internal contradictions, or implausible goals, such that they cannot be enacted, but that is not how the word is invariably deployed. Put simply, it is used to denote ideas that are popular, but to which the author does not subscribe – Usually out of self-interest.
I think the poisonous combination of alliance with the wretched Lib Dems and the incontinent proto socialism of the Fool Johnson and Furlo Sunak has shifted the Tories SO far to the Left of the spectrum that we are all wrong to even use the term Conservatives. There has been non stop appeasement of the Blairite Progressive New Order they inherited – and zero challenge to its numerous destructive interventions. The UK was re shaped violently (via EU & Supreme laws/Devolution/Welfarism/ Quangocracy & mass immigration) into a fully compliant EU Statelet, not a nation state. The Tories bowed to this Order and so have just been swallowed up into a de facto Blob-run One Party One Credo State. High taxes. Windfall taxes. Class envy. Furlough. Lockdown. NHS Worship. Net Zero & First ULEZ. Penny Pro Trans & Stonewall & DEI wokery happily attached to the State they are supposed to command. They are NOT conservative. They are not Tories. They warrant our contempt for surrendering so absolutely to progressivism and for abandoning the UK to the even more vacant and dangerous fellow travelling Starmerites.
Frankly, I’m getting sick of all the diatribes against populism. The author is telling me my opinion doesn’t matter – the elites will figure it out for me. It’s a condescending slap in the face.
And it you’re going to do it, at least try to be consistent. In one breath, the author argues that; “adopting headline-grabbing, populist positions is a dangerous game.”
Shortly later he argues; “…that it’s almost impossible to shape voter preferences when you’re in opposition. Rightly or wrongly, that means accommodating them — moving to where they actually are.”
Here’s my advice to the Tories. Listen to the people and create a positive vision. Don’t consult polls. Meet people at their door. Show contrition for the bone-headed policies of the past. Build stuff. Quit tearing stuff down.
Two key differences though.
1. The internet. There were plenty of Blair-skeptics even in 1997 but they couldn’t coalesce, and maybe didn’t even know others existed. Now they can communicate and co-ordinate.
2. Starmer is no Blair. He also has no Brown, Mandelson or Campbell equivalents (the originals are past their sell by date).
Two key differences though.
1. The internet. There were plenty of Blair-skeptics even in 1997 but they couldn’t coalesce, and maybe didn’t even know others existed. Now they can communicate and co-ordinate.
2. Starmer is no Blair. He also has no Brown, Mandelson or Campbell equivalents (the originals are past their sell by date).
“..making them excessively wary about spending money on expensive, in-depth research into public opinion.”
It amuses me that modern politicians don’t instinctively understand the aspirations of the social groups that they pretend to represent. Perhaps they should stick to marketing toothpaste.
Love this.
Love this.
“..making them excessively wary about spending money on expensive, in-depth research into public opinion.”
It amuses me that modern politicians don’t instinctively understand the aspirations of the social groups that they pretend to represent. Perhaps they should stick to marketing toothpaste.
It might help if the Tories stopped regurgitating dross from the past.
For example did anyone hear one Andrew Mitchell* a week ago last Monday, pontificating hysterically about Climate Change on Radio4?
(* He of the notorious Plebgate Affair, where he proved conclusively to the Nation he is neither “an Officer nor a Gentleman “.)
It might help if the Tories stopped regurgitating dross from the past.
For example did anyone hear one Andrew Mitchell* a week ago last Monday, pontificating hysterically about Climate Change on Radio4?
(* He of the notorious Plebgate Affair, where he proved conclusively to the Nation he is neither “an Officer nor a Gentleman “.)
Until a party stands up against the global warming/ LGBT/ racism fascists, the majority votes, there to be had, will go unwon…
Precisely, that is why we do NOT want male hysterics such as Andrew Mitchell in government, posing as yet another faux Tory.
Precisely, that is why we do NOT want male hysterics such as Andrew Mitchell in government, posing as yet another faux Tory.
Until a party stands up against the global warming/ LGBT/ racism fascists, the majority votes, there to be had, will go unwon…
“Of course, the rational thing for a defeated party to do would be to conduct a comprehensive post-mortem”
What they need above all else is a strategy for getting the Civil Service to do what they’re bloody told.
“Of course, the rational thing for a defeated party to do would be to conduct a comprehensive post-mortem”
What they need above all else is a strategy for getting the Civil Service to do what they’re bloody told.
I’m finding it difficult to see where any Conservative Comeback is going to come from, quite honestly. They (or rather their voters) have run out of patience with the unofficial Conservative / Liberal “coalition” that has kept them ahead of the game for decades. Now, through sheer ineptitude they have also lost the “Labour” section of the new coalition that they so brilliantly replaced it with in 2019.
There are no obvious further voter or MP coalitions available, and their Conservative core vote (like the UK population) is well below “replacement rate” and shrinking fast. After 5 to 15 years in opposition, many more of these will have died off – probably including this former member, who will certainly not vote for them next time anyway. Who else will join their creaking bandwagon while they are in the irrelevance of opposition? I’m seeing absolutely no answer.
And if I’m right, the point about that is that the Conservative Party could be finished. I think there’s a tendency to overestimate its potency, or assume that it will always be there, as it has been so successful at gaining and keeping power for so long. But it’s only a political party (and a very shaky lash up of political views it is too). And what it has to offer now isn’t nearly big enough or broad enough to win any sort of majority, or even a convincing minority, I’d say.
To sum up, when you’ve always been “all things to all people”, and no one wants any version of it any more, then, well, the music’s stopped, hasn’t it? It’s Over.
Does anyone have any arguments against?
The Conservative Party will lose the election because it has governed dreadfully. The Labour Party will be worse and is inheriting a ship of state holed below the waterline.
In its turn it will lose either in 29 or 34, probably to something branded as The Conservative Party but with a very different look to todays.
Nobody believes a word any of them say, which will get worse. Protest voting against the incumbent will keep the churn going.
Historically the Conservative Party has hit similar periods of disrepute but then performed an about face on previously unquestioned policies and relaunched itself.
What policies could it pivot on in the near future, which are unquestioned today?
Scottish independence
Northern Ireland independence or abandon EU alignment
Make Net Zero an attitude, not a goal
Encourage micro nuclear power generators
Overhaul the NHS along European lines
Stop further delivery of HS2
Build an extra runway at Heathrow
Reform the taxation system
Reduce the number of QUANGOs
Reduce university education to a more practical percentage
There’s plenty to go at, although the cries from the vested interests would be loud.
The Conservative Party will lose the election because it has governed dreadfully. The Labour Party will be worse and is inheriting a ship of state holed below the waterline.
In its turn it will lose either in 29 or 34, probably to something branded as The Conservative Party but with a very different look to todays.
Nobody believes a word any of them say, which will get worse. Protest voting against the incumbent will keep the churn going.
Historically the Conservative Party has hit similar periods of disrepute but then performed an about face on previously unquestioned policies and relaunched itself.
What policies could it pivot on in the near future, which are unquestioned today?
Scottish independence
Northern Ireland independence or abandon EU alignment
Make Net Zero an attitude, not a goal
Encourage micro nuclear power generators
Overhaul the NHS along European lines
Stop further delivery of HS2
Build an extra runway at Heathrow
Reform the taxation system
Reduce the number of QUANGOs
Reduce university education to a more practical percentage
There’s plenty to go at, although the cries from the vested interests would be loud.
I’m finding it difficult to see where any Conservative Comeback is going to come from, quite honestly. They (or rather their voters) have run out of patience with the unofficial Conservative / Liberal “coalition” that has kept them ahead of the game for decades. Now, through sheer ineptitude they have also lost the “Labour” section of the new coalition that they so brilliantly replaced it with in 2019.
There are no obvious further voter or MP coalitions available, and their Conservative core vote (like the UK population) is well below “replacement rate” and shrinking fast. After 5 to 15 years in opposition, many more of these will have died off – probably including this former member, who will certainly not vote for them next time anyway. Who else will join their creaking bandwagon while they are in the irrelevance of opposition? I’m seeing absolutely no answer.
And if I’m right, the point about that is that the Conservative Party could be finished. I think there’s a tendency to overestimate its potency, or assume that it will always be there, as it has been so successful at gaining and keeping power for so long. But it’s only a political party (and a very shaky lash up of political views it is too). And what it has to offer now isn’t nearly big enough or broad enough to win any sort of majority, or even a convincing minority, I’d say.
To sum up, when you’ve always been “all things to all people”, and no one wants any version of it any more, then, well, the music’s stopped, hasn’t it? It’s Over.
Does anyone have any arguments against?
Two key issues were not discussed in the article: who elects Tory leaders and who funds the Tory party. Conservative Party members have a poor record of electing leaders that appeal to the electorate: Hague, IDS, Cameron (who couldn’t win a majority after Labour had run the country into a financial crisis and recession) and Liz Truss were duds. Only Johnson initially had broader appeal. The Tory Party is funded by bankers and builders whose preferred policies have turned young couples who can’t buy a home to socialism.
Surely Johnson was popular only because he promised to get Brexit done.
Liz Truss was kicked out by the blob. She was not a dud. Those we have now however, are duds.
Surely Johnson was popular only because he promised to get Brexit done.
Liz Truss was kicked out by the blob. She was not a dud. Those we have now however, are duds.
Two key issues were not discussed in the article: who elects Tory leaders and who funds the Tory party. Conservative Party members have a poor record of electing leaders that appeal to the electorate: Hague, IDS, Cameron (who couldn’t win a majority after Labour had run the country into a financial crisis and recession) and Liz Truss were duds. Only Johnson initially had broader appeal. The Tory Party is funded by bankers and builders whose preferred policies have turned young couples who can’t buy a home to socialism.
The Tories, at least as currently understood, need to be electorally eradicated, burned to ash, crushed and not just defeated. For 13 years, the primary obstacle to small-c conservative policies has been the absurdly misnamed Conservative Party.
Labour will be at best more of the same, a clown show on crack, but that’s what we have now. The Stupid Party had their turn, time for the Evil Party to have a go.
And election after next, from the discredited institutional ruins, maybe an actual small-c conservative party worth voting for will arise. Perhaps a reconstituted Conservative Party that Thatcher would have recognised, or perhaps Reform, or maybe something else entirely.
But the current Blue Blairite Party needs to be burned, the ground on which it stood salted, its apparatchiks rejected and abominated.
Swap Labour for Conservative and you’d be right. Thatcher emasculated the men on both sides of the House. Now they self emasculate.
Swap Labour for Conservative and you’d be right. Thatcher emasculated the men on both sides of the House. Now they self emasculate.
The Tories, at least as currently understood, need to be electorally eradicated, burned to ash, crushed and not just defeated. For 13 years, the primary obstacle to small-c conservative policies has been the absurdly misnamed Conservative Party.
Labour will be at best more of the same, a clown show on crack, but that’s what we have now. The Stupid Party had their turn, time for the Evil Party to have a go.
And election after next, from the discredited institutional ruins, maybe an actual small-c conservative party worth voting for will arise. Perhaps a reconstituted Conservative Party that Thatcher would have recognised, or perhaps Reform, or maybe something else entirely.
But the current Blue Blairite Party needs to be burned, the ground on which it stood salted, its apparatchiks rejected and abominated.
The author’s centrist mewling here isn’t wirth reading.
The author’s centrist mewling here isn’t wirth reading.
You could make an argument that ‘Learning from History’, election post mortems and even Royal Inquiries don’t work. The questions asked are not the right ones, blame is improperly cast, and the actions for the future are severely watered down. Plus the people in charge are still mostly in charge and don’t want to hear any criticism.
So move on. Don’t refight the last election. Aim to win the next. And if that means some political ‘truths’ need to be abandoned then do so, and don’t be shy about it.
You could make an argument that ‘Learning from History’, election post mortems and even Royal Inquiries don’t work. The questions asked are not the right ones, blame is improperly cast, and the actions for the future are severely watered down. Plus the people in charge are still mostly in charge and don’t want to hear any criticism.
So move on. Don’t refight the last election. Aim to win the next. And if that means some political ‘truths’ need to be abandoned then do so, and don’t be shy about it.
It didn’t really matter to most middle class people that Blair won in 1997 because he made sure that house prices and rents continued to rise.
Starmer will do the same. Meanwhile public services will continue to crumble under the pressure of mass immigration, education will continue to be replaced by brainwashing and the upward transfer of wealth will accelerate.
Tens of thousands of people lose their bank accounts in a purge that would have embarrassed Stalin and the shadow Chancellor claims it’s the multi-millionaire bankers who are being ‘bullied’.
Don’t worry – we’re in safe hands.
It didn’t really matter to most middle class people that Blair won in 1997 because he made sure that house prices and rents continued to rise.
Starmer will do the same. Meanwhile public services will continue to crumble under the pressure of mass immigration, education will continue to be replaced by brainwashing and the upward transfer of wealth will accelerate.
Tens of thousands of people lose their bank accounts in a purge that would have embarrassed Stalin and the shadow Chancellor claims it’s the multi-millionaire bankers who are being ‘bullied’.
Don’t worry – we’re in safe hands.
But they are NOT Tories any more?!!!
But they are NOT Tories any more?!!!
The last two paragraphs contradict the rest of the article. Refusing to ‘abandon the mainstream centre right’ is exactly the refusal to ‘move on’ which previous paragraphs are criticizing
The last two paragraphs contradict the rest of the article. Refusing to ‘abandon the mainstream centre right’ is exactly the refusal to ‘move on’ which previous paragraphs are criticizing
Wouldn’t it be good if a person aspiring to lead the party and eventually the country put forward a programme that addressed the huge structural problems facing the United Kingdom. The high tax high spending bureaucratic welfare state has parasitised and impoverished our society. A heroic conservative leader would try to educate and sell to the electorate a programme of low tax small government liberal enterprise economy and society by reforming the welfare state to pass control from providers to the public (for example the Australian model of universal healthcare with substantial private sector provision), fiscal conservatism and a commitment to paying down national debt, protecting the environment, zero population growth, law and order, universal mandatory pension saving to fuel the enterprise economy, free tertiary education and write off of student debt, ending the bbc licence fee, legalising drugs, transition of the House of Lords to make it an elected body, compulsory voting, alternative vote, photo I’d. Of course it would be unpopular and difficult but that is the programme that would deliver a prosperous and happier society. Follow the Hong Kong model rather than the welfare state model.
Wouldn’t it be good if a person aspiring to lead the party and eventually the country put forward a programme that addressed the huge structural problems facing the United Kingdom. The high tax high spending bureaucratic welfare state has parasitised and impoverished our society. A heroic conservative leader would try to educate and sell to the electorate a programme of low tax small government liberal enterprise economy and society by reforming the welfare state to pass control from providers to the public (for example the Australian model of universal healthcare with substantial private sector provision), fiscal conservatism and a commitment to paying down national debt, protecting the environment, zero population growth, law and order, universal mandatory pension saving to fuel the enterprise economy, free tertiary education and write off of student debt, ending the bbc licence fee, legalising drugs, transition of the House of Lords to make it an elected body, compulsory voting, alternative vote, photo I’d. Of course it would be unpopular and difficult but that is the programme that would deliver a prosperous and happier society. Follow the Hong Kong model rather than the welfare state model.
We already know what is going to happen. Labour landslide followed by a hard right turn from the decimated Tories. Sunak will be sacrificed to the tiny fringe of extremists who elect Tory leaders and you’ll go through a couple of swivel eyed loons (Braverman please!) before someone reasonable emerges and the pendulum eventually swings back. Two general elections at least.
It’s going to be delicious!
I fear you’re right. My impression of the current Tory party is that they’re not really interested in responding to voters’ concerns. Liz Truss was on the right path before she lost her nerve and resigned.
So another ten wasted years! Doesn’t matter if you’re 70/80 but appalling if are 25/35.
I’m really not sure why anyone would want to celebrate an incompetent and ineffective conservative or labour party. If those two parties actually represented their constituents, at least some of our problems might go away, including the rather nebulous concept of populism.
Populism has just become lazy shorthand for any fringe parties or ideas outside what has been the consensus since the days of Thatcher and then New Labour
Who said anything about the new Labour government being incompetent?
I suspect they will be a lot more competent than the current mob.
Populism has just become lazy shorthand for any fringe parties or ideas outside what has been the consensus since the days of Thatcher and then New Labour
Who said anything about the new Labour government being incompetent?
I suspect they will be a lot more competent than the current mob.
I fear you’re right. My impression of the current Tory party is that they’re not really interested in responding to voters’ concerns. Liz Truss was on the right path before she lost her nerve and resigned.
So another ten wasted years! Doesn’t matter if you’re 70/80 but appalling if are 25/35.
I’m really not sure why anyone would want to celebrate an incompetent and ineffective conservative or labour party. If those two parties actually represented their constituents, at least some of our problems might go away, including the rather nebulous concept of populism.
We already know what is going to happen. Labour landslide followed by a hard right turn from the decimated Tories. Sunak will be sacrificed to the tiny fringe of extremists who elect Tory leaders and you’ll go through a couple of swivel eyed loons (Braverman please!) before someone reasonable emerges and the pendulum eventually swings back. Two general elections at least.
It’s going to be delicious!