Snap! Read the first two paragraphs and gave up. Come on Unherd, there’s a lot going on in the world atm that would benefit from clear, insightful analysis; find someone who can deliver on that.
Jim Veenbaas
2 months ago
I can forgive many things, but verbose, awkward writing ain’t one of them.
A friend with a PHD described the act of studying for one was “learning more and more about less and less”.
Jonathan Andrews
2 months ago
In other words, politics is a game fighting over the centre ground and the Tories ought find someone like that nice Mr Blair who is honest, practical and straight as a die.
Certainly not someone with ideals contrary to whatever governing philosophy we’ve lived under for a few decades.
Martin Bollis
2 months ago
Well sneered sir.
If a fox or a hedgehog is able to keep the whole show running, you will no doubt have a lucrative career parading your second rate erudition.
Bit of a muddle that.
If one accepts for a moment the ideologue/everyman characterisations is it not still the case that the Tories/Right have not even begun to dissect what really went wrong, let alone what a more coherent practical policy response might be to predictable challenges come 29?
What is the Right’s answer to our national demographics and labour shortages that can fundamentally reduce reliance on migration? What is the answer to the social care funding crisis? Why do we have 8m less homes than France yet similar population? Why is our investment culture so poor and even inward investment dropped post Brexit? What is really the substance behind Levelling Up? What is the multi-national response to illegal migration and our role in it? What is the national response and does it include ID cards to tackle the disappearance of visitors and the black market? Etc.
Currently one fears the headline slogans will just reappear but lack much practical foundation. Is that not why the Right struggled so much? They now have time to debate these matters, but instead one fears the tough choices and thinking will be avoided once again. Quite apart from that not being in the Right’s interest, it’s not in the Country’s interest as it leaves us all somewhat infantilised.
I’d be more receptive to the argument the right is ideologically adrift if there was any evidence the left had a coherent strategy for any of these things.
All I’m seeing is infighting, cronyism and a bash the rich rhetoric (non doms, private schools, pension raids). The only consistent mantra is net zero. Since modern economies are built on energy, making our supply intermittent, expensive and dependent for many of its components on a hostile nation, isn’t a winning strategy.
Article was about the Right though MB, and I assume that however bad Lab might be you don’t think wise the Tories/Right use that as an excuse to not really dissect, consider and debate their own lessons?
I think the Right does have an ideological dilemma – it wants a small State but to gain a majority in Parliament that’s not going to work – the public is pining for better public services not less public services (rightly or wrongly). Neo-Liberalism economics is not cutting it. Then below this it has the more ‘competency’ issue – what is the practical policy formulation below our desires? On this I think Lab grappling with same issue – a desire is not an effective policy.
Fair enough, the article was about the right and they don’t seem to have any big ideas. I think your answer agrees, neither does the left They are two cheeks of the same backside. Both now have so many piles they can’t even carry out the basic task of sitting comfortably.
It seems to me a big part of the answer is more money. If we weren’t broke we could fix some stuff. Super charged growth will require massive de regulation (which will also cut a lot of state expenditure). The massive bureaucratic load that stifles all business but particularly small and start up enterprises. Feels like the right is more likely to get to that eventually than the left. The left’s obsession with net zero alone will make us very significantly poorer by the next election.
They are too confused to even be the Blob: at least the Blob is competent. Not competent in the skills that the country needs, but they are competent. That is the problem.
John Lanchester’s ‘Whoops’ on the 2008 crash, in the chapter ‘Boom and Bust’ on why the UK never joined the Euro, tells you why our housing sector is so different to France and also tackles our investment culture. It’s worthwhile reading for a non-specialist.
Eh? No, “everyman” as most often located in the collective British psyche and culture, definitely does not!. This is an observation made by many people British and foreign for a couple of centuries, in particular to explain the lack of interest in political extremes.
Katharine Eyre
2 months ago
The ideologue is marked by his possession of a theory, the everyman by his possession of a disposition.
Sod the theory and the disposition, what they need is common sense and a plan.
A plan sets out what you think you know, so others with different knowledge can add, discuss and modify, and worse! 🙂
Eventually, a more realistic plan evolves, and there cones a time when it is good enough to, at least, announce the project, and start the first stage.
It’s what Engineering is about, and Business.
Recent politicians implement these same steps but in reverse order.
PhD are awarded for research and they don’t really know what they are doing, at least initially. If they knew what they were going to do, it wouldn’t be research.
But I would avoid anyone with a PPE, or History. I could list all Energy Secretaries, but the list is too long! 🙂
Ben Jones
2 months ago
Oxford Oxford Oxford Oxford. Oh, Oxford? Really? Is there anyone at UnHerd who didn’t go to bloody Oxford? Or, even if they did, not shoehorn it into their insufferably dull articles?
I went to UCL having failed to get into Oxford and spent much time with a chip on my shoulder about it. How silly, UCL and being a student in London were amazing experiences.
Not so much instant recognition abroad, of course (people always assume I mean “UCLA” when I say what my alma mater is) but there again, the British snobbishness about university rankings doesn’t travel that well either.
I’d rather highlight the fact that I attended the same university as Mahatma Gandhi and John Stuart Mill (who both took classes there). And also one bonkers enough to still have an autoicon of its philosophical father sitting on the premises.
Unherd’s Chief Editor, Freddie Sayers, private schoolboy and, guess what…yep Oxford. How do you think half these Authors get the gig?
Interesting though that the Right gets it’s knickers in a twist so much about the elite Uni’s. Overwhelmingly the Right wing establishment has been there, and often preceded by time at one of the elite private schools.
Let’s just test that theory then with the 4 Conservative candidates on offer (assuming that it actually matters):
Kemi Badenoch : state schools and University of Sussex (Computer Systems Engineering)
James Cleverly : private schools,then BA from Ealing College of Higher Education (Hospitality Management Studies)
Robert Jenrick : private school, then Cambridge (History)
Tom Tugenhadt : private school, the University of Bristol (Theology)
Interestingly no Oxford PPEs amongst them. That’s something, at least – a bit more diverse than the preceding crew. Hague, Cameron, Truss, Sunak: all Oxford PPEs. May: Oxford (Geography). Johnson: Oxford (Classics). Howard: Cambridge (Law).
Indeed. And added reason had alot of time for Kemi. Just think she’s got found out a bit. But if she gets into last two v good chance.
Robert Lloyd
2 months ago
It hard to make out what the author means, I concur with Frederick Dixon (or should I simply agree with him?). I think that his prior assumption is that there are only two types of Conservatives, the ideologues and the pragmatists. Upon this simplication he builds his thesis which, I think but can’t be quite sure, is that idealogues win the heart of the Party and pragmatists win the heart of the Electorate. His error lies in his analogy. People are not actually that simple.
No, nothing is THAT simple, but we use broad meaningful categories to distinguish things, people and societies all the time. Apart from quibbling about the terminology I can’t really see what issue the most of the objectors have here. it’s quite obvious that Macmillan, for example was broadly a pragmatist and Margaret Thatcher broadly an ideologue or at least she grew into one. That is she had one over arching arguments about how to improve the economy and society and acted upon that even when this weakened other historically conservative goods such as local government.
Norman Powers
2 months ago
Weird that the author considers writing down political views in pamphlets or books to be “swivel eyed”. This is actually perfectly normal behavior for politicians, in fact it’s considered mandatory. Says a lot about academia that a PhD student thinks writing long documents with diagrams is somehow beyond the pale.
These are 22,000 words of views with diagrams and four pages of footnotes. They are not just political views.
A PhD student knows that he’s writing for an audience of 7-12, twelve if he’s unlucky – it means either there’s problems with his thesis, or problems with the examining committee itself.
Badenoch is not ultimately writing for that kind of audience. But she has anyway.
Thus while I like Kemi Badenoch, I doubt very much she’ll get anywhere near leadership, with that kind of a lack of instinct for what appeals.
John Holman
2 months ago
This is a quite awful piece. It started badly, with the evocation of the bore’s bore in Isaiah Berlin and ends up with some waffle about a non-existent contest between everyman and ideologue. It is not just dull, but awkwardly written.
Must do better Unherd. Much better.
Sam Brown
2 months ago
John Maier is …. PhD student at the University of Oxford. Sums it up.
Michael Cazaly
2 months ago
In answer to headline…no, they want…and need…a miracle.
Oddly enough Starmer may actually give them a miracle by being much worse than they were..
Oliver Peck
2 months ago
What even is an ‘everyman’ in Britain, 2024? We’re far too socially, geographically, and tribally fragmented for that. This is going to be an ongoing problem for the triangulators in both main parties – their everymen look increasingly the same and yet simultaneously keep losing support
Norfolk Sceptic
2 months ago
Before the Conservative Party can formulate any life saving policies, they need to know where it, and the country, have gone wrong.
David Starkey might be slightly erratic, because he has fewer responsibilities than most, but he has the freedom to delve into the country’s constitution and retrieve a few gems that can then be sorted and rearranged into a credible explanation, so policy at least looks credible: https://youtu.be/YErFxeH6jJA
He would be worth interviewing.
Peter Mott
2 months ago
Lot of negative rants about this piece but I think the point is useful if somewhat drawn out.
Francisco Menezes
2 months ago
Is there actually anyone interested in what happens in the Tory Party?
Bret Larson
2 months ago
My guess is the writer is a swivel eyed loon. But I’m sure he can choose fruitcake or racist.
Main Edition
US
FR
An important and impressive contribution. Well, I suppose it must be since I can’t make head nor tail of it!
Yes, a sense of trying to be too clever, epitomised by the last sentence.
Deeply pointless word salad, pointless and unconvincing analogies.
Snap! Read the first two paragraphs and gave up. Come on Unherd, there’s a lot going on in the world atm that would benefit from clear, insightful analysis; find someone who can deliver on that.
I can forgive many things, but verbose, awkward writing ain’t one of them.
Well, t’lad is a PhD student. They’re notorious for parading their learning, instead of getting to the point.
A friend with a PHD described the act of studying for one was “learning more and more about less and less”.
In other words, politics is a game fighting over the centre ground and the Tories ought find someone like that nice Mr Blair who is honest, practical and straight as a die.
Certainly not someone with ideals contrary to whatever governing philosophy we’ve lived under for a few decades.
Well sneered sir.
If a fox or a hedgehog is able to keep the whole show running, you will no doubt have a lucrative career parading your second rate erudition.
A lifelong career in academia awaits ….
Bit of a muddle that.
If one accepts for a moment the ideologue/everyman characterisations is it not still the case that the Tories/Right have not even begun to dissect what really went wrong, let alone what a more coherent practical policy response might be to predictable challenges come 29?
What is the Right’s answer to our national demographics and labour shortages that can fundamentally reduce reliance on migration? What is the answer to the social care funding crisis? Why do we have 8m less homes than France yet similar population? Why is our investment culture so poor and even inward investment dropped post Brexit? What is really the substance behind Levelling Up? What is the multi-national response to illegal migration and our role in it? What is the national response and does it include ID cards to tackle the disappearance of visitors and the black market? Etc.
Currently one fears the headline slogans will just reappear but lack much practical foundation. Is that not why the Right struggled so much? They now have time to debate these matters, but instead one fears the tough choices and thinking will be avoided once again. Quite apart from that not being in the Right’s interest, it’s not in the Country’s interest as it leaves us all somewhat infantilised.
I’d be more receptive to the argument the right is ideologically adrift if there was any evidence the left had a coherent strategy for any of these things.
All I’m seeing is infighting, cronyism and a bash the rich rhetoric (non doms, private schools, pension raids). The only consistent mantra is net zero. Since modern economies are built on energy, making our supply intermittent, expensive and dependent for many of its components on a hostile nation, isn’t a winning strategy.
Article was about the Right though MB, and I assume that however bad Lab might be you don’t think wise the Tories/Right use that as an excuse to not really dissect, consider and debate their own lessons?
I think the Right does have an ideological dilemma – it wants a small State but to gain a majority in Parliament that’s not going to work – the public is pining for better public services not less public services (rightly or wrongly). Neo-Liberalism economics is not cutting it. Then below this it has the more ‘competency’ issue – what is the practical policy formulation below our desires? On this I think Lab grappling with same issue – a desire is not an effective policy.
Fair enough, the article was about the right and they don’t seem to have any big ideas. I think your answer agrees, neither does the left They are two cheeks of the same backside. Both now have so many piles they can’t even carry out the basic task of sitting comfortably.
It seems to me a big part of the answer is more money. If we weren’t broke we could fix some stuff. Super charged growth will require massive de regulation (which will also cut a lot of state expenditure). The massive bureaucratic load that stifles all business but particularly small and start up enterprises. Feels like the right is more likely to get to that eventually than the left. The left’s obsession with net zero alone will make us very significantly poorer by the next election.
You mean, the Conservative Party is on the Right?
They are too confused to even be the Blob: at least the Blob is competent. Not competent in the skills that the country needs, but they are competent. That is the problem.
The multi-national response to illegal immigration is to more or less let it continue, and that has been the case for the last twenty years.
Aided and abetted by NGOs
John Lanchester’s ‘Whoops’ on the 2008 crash, in the chapter ‘Boom and Bust’ on why the UK never joined the Euro, tells you why our housing sector is so different to France and also tackles our investment culture. It’s worthwhile reading for a non-specialist.
It was an utterly pointless distinction. Does Everyman not have an ideology? I’m so glad I’m not this idiot’s supervisor.
Eh? No, “everyman” as most often located in the collective British psyche and culture, definitely does not!. This is an observation made by many people British and foreign for a couple of centuries, in particular to explain the lack of interest in political extremes.
The ideologue is marked by his possession of a theory, the everyman by his possession of a disposition.
Sod the theory and the disposition, what they need is common sense and a plan.
If you want those, you need to stay well clear of people with PHDs in PPE.
Absolutely, Ian. I’d just lop the words “in PPE” off the sentence.
A plan sets out what you think you know, so others with different knowledge can add, discuss and modify, and worse! 🙂
Eventually, a more realistic plan evolves, and there cones a time when it is good enough to, at least, announce the project, and start the first stage.
It’s what Engineering is about, and Business.
Recent politicians implement these same steps but in reverse order.
PhD are awarded for research and they don’t really know what they are doing, at least initially. If they knew what they were going to do, it wouldn’t be research.
But I would avoid anyone with a PPE, or History. I could list all Energy Secretaries, but the list is too long! 🙂
Oxford Oxford Oxford Oxford. Oh, Oxford? Really? Is there anyone at UnHerd who didn’t go to bloody Oxford? Or, even if they did, not shoehorn it into their insufferably dull articles?
Yes, agree. They need to get some people who went to Cambridge to write articles.
I went to UCL having failed to get into Oxford and spent much time with a chip on my shoulder about it. How silly, UCL and being a student in London were amazing experiences.
Not so much instant recognition abroad, of course (people always assume I mean “UCLA” when I say what my alma mater is) but there again, the British snobbishness about university rankings doesn’t travel that well either.
It seems, incredibly, that you have something in common with the disgraced Huw Edwards!
I’d rather highlight the fact that I attended the same university as Mahatma Gandhi and John Stuart Mill (who both took classes there). And also one bonkers enough to still have an autoicon of its philosophical father sitting on the premises.
I think Huw Edwards went to University College, Cardiff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huw_Edwards
Unherd’s Chief Editor, Freddie Sayers, private schoolboy and, guess what…yep Oxford. How do you think half these Authors get the gig?
Interesting though that the Right gets it’s knickers in a twist so much about the elite Uni’s. Overwhelmingly the Right wing establishment has been there, and often preceded by time at one of the elite private schools.
Let’s just test that theory then with the 4 Conservative candidates on offer (assuming that it actually matters):
Kemi Badenoch : state schools and University of Sussex (Computer Systems Engineering)
James Cleverly : private schools,then BA from Ealing College of Higher Education (Hospitality Management Studies)
Robert Jenrick : private school, then Cambridge (History)
Tom Tugenhadt : private school, the University of Bristol (Theology)
Interestingly no Oxford PPEs amongst them. That’s something, at least – a bit more diverse than the preceding crew. Hague, Cameron, Truss, Sunak: all Oxford PPEs. May: Oxford (Geography). Johnson: Oxford (Classics). Howard: Cambridge (Law).
I believe Truss went up to do Natural Sciences of some sort, and changed.
Indeed. And added reason had alot of time for Kemi. Just think she’s got found out a bit. But if she gets into last two v good chance.
It hard to make out what the author means, I concur with Frederick Dixon (or should I simply agree with him?). I think that his prior assumption is that there are only two types of Conservatives, the ideologues and the pragmatists. Upon this simplication he builds his thesis which, I think but can’t be quite sure, is that idealogues win the heart of the Party and pragmatists win the heart of the Electorate. His error lies in his analogy. People are not actually that simple.
A lot of simples there. It is clear that I am not a stylist.
No, nothing is THAT simple, but we use broad meaningful categories to distinguish things, people and societies all the time. Apart from quibbling about the terminology I can’t really see what issue the most of the objectors have here. it’s quite obvious that Macmillan, for example was broadly a pragmatist and Margaret Thatcher broadly an ideologue or at least she grew into one. That is she had one over arching arguments about how to improve the economy and society and acted upon that even when this weakened other historically conservative goods such as local government.
Weird that the author considers writing down political views in pamphlets or books to be “swivel eyed”. This is actually perfectly normal behavior for politicians, in fact it’s considered mandatory. Says a lot about academia that a PhD student thinks writing long documents with diagrams is somehow beyond the pale.
These are 22,000 words of views with diagrams and four pages of footnotes. They are not just political views.
A PhD student knows that he’s writing for an audience of 7-12, twelve if he’s unlucky – it means either there’s problems with his thesis, or problems with the examining committee itself.
Badenoch is not ultimately writing for that kind of audience. But she has anyway.
Thus while I like Kemi Badenoch, I doubt very much she’ll get anywhere near leadership, with that kind of a lack of instinct for what appeals.
This is a quite awful piece. It started badly, with the evocation of the bore’s bore in Isaiah Berlin and ends up with some waffle about a non-existent contest between everyman and ideologue. It is not just dull, but awkwardly written.
Must do better Unherd. Much better.
John Maier is …. PhD student at the University of Oxford. Sums it up.
In answer to headline…no, they want…and need…a miracle.
Oddly enough Starmer may actually give them a miracle by being much worse than they were..
What even is an ‘everyman’ in Britain, 2024? We’re far too socially, geographically, and tribally fragmented for that. This is going to be an ongoing problem for the triangulators in both main parties – their everymen look increasingly the same and yet simultaneously keep losing support
Before the Conservative Party can formulate any life saving policies, they need to know where it, and the country, have gone wrong.
David Starkey might be slightly erratic, because he has fewer responsibilities than most, but he has the freedom to delve into the country’s constitution and retrieve a few gems that can then be sorted and rearranged into a credible explanation, so policy at least looks credible:
https://youtu.be/YErFxeH6jJA
He would be worth interviewing.
Lot of negative rants about this piece but I think the point is useful if somewhat drawn out.
Is there actually anyone interested in what happens in the Tory Party?
My guess is the writer is a swivel eyed loon. But I’m sure he can choose fruitcake or racist.
It’s his game.