Rishi Sunak and the Conservative Party.

[Gloster]

Such a situation also occurred in 1985 when Ulster Unionist MPs staged a "walkout" in protest against the Anglo-Irish Agreement. In that case, appointees were immediately dismissed after appointment to be replaced by the next in line, which is what I presume will happen this time.

Not quite: the new appointment automatically replaces the holder and there is no need to actually dismiss the incumbent (see #2,980).

According to today's Times, CCHQ makes the final decision on selections, and it would be 'unthinkable' that anyone the PM vetoed would be allowed to stand. I suspect Johnson has already triggered sufficient 'alerts' in his statements and utterances that he could be held to be in contravention of his party's rules on continued membership, should they have the cajoules to kick him out, which is highly unlikely.

I suspect that Johnson is hoping to go off and make as much money as he can before his star wanes, and then return as a forgiving saviour to rescue the party when it is in chaos after a drubbing. “See! Only I have the power to refresh parties that other politicians cannot reach. Make me your leader again!” With most politicians this would be calculated opportunism, but it is quite possible that he generally believes it. Our only hope is that he has passed the point of no return, but I wouldn’t bet on it. He could still cause a lot of trouble for everyone.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What the country needs a different democratic system that better reflects the views of its citizens but neither Labour nor the Tories would ever agree to that.

I genuinely don’t understand why Labour wouldn’t ever consider such a thing. It’s not like FPTP particularly helps Labour massively as a political party as things stand anyway.

I get their nervousness in the run-up to a general election after the 2015 “coalition of chaos” rhetoric (I’m so glad we got strong and stable Tories, the last seven years have been so bland…) but really Labour’s best bet is to stand alongside the other progressive parties and not split the anti-Tory vote.

Our only hope is that he has passed the point of no return, but I wouldn’t bet on it. He could still cause a lot of trouble for everyone.

I think he’ll cause a lot of trouble for Rishi Sunak, which is really his aim. Johnson is both vapid and venal but he is both loyal to his followers (hence the neoptism and the corruption) and the opposite to people who crossed him. This is a big part of why the Conservative Party is full of talentless spivs: he promoted the likes of £100m Ben Houchen and 30p Lee Anderson and defenestrated the likes of Dominic Grieve and Rory Stewart.

FWIW I think the Tories will lurch even further to the right if they lose the next election,

 

[nw1]

We now have a situation where more resignations exist than "office of profits" under the Crown, which is the archaic means of allowing an MP to resign outside of GEs.

I hope Adams is the one who gets the title transiently.

Not a fan of either, but, it would be more fun to have Crown Steward and Bailiff Dorries and Johnson....

 

[yorksrob]

I take it the Chiltern Hundreds are already spoken for !

 

[Gloster]

I take it the Chiltern Hundreds are already spoken for !

I think they now alternate them and the Chiltern Hundreds was the last to have a new steward. So the first applicant to formally apply will get Northstead, the second the Chiltern Hundreds and the third Northstead.

 

[ASharpe]

I take it the Chiltern Hundreds are already spoken for !

I unsderstand they alternate between the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead. That way any number of MPs may resign at 'the same time" but actually each holds the position long enough for the legal fiction to be satisfied.

 

[yorksrob]

I think they now alternate them and the Chiltern Hundreds was the last to have a new steward. So the first applicant to formally apply will get Northstead, the second the Chiltern Hundreds and the third Northstead.

I unsderstand they alternate between the Chiltern Hundreds and the Manor of Northstead. That way any number of MPs may resign at 'the same time" but actually each holds the position long enough for the legal fiction to be satisfied.

Ah thanks, I'd never heard of the Manor of Northstead !

 

[Gloster]

Ah thanks, I'd never heard of the Manor of Northstead !

You, a Yorkshireman, admit that! It is in Scarborough.

 

[yorksrob]

You, a Yorkshireman, admit that! It is in Scarborough.

To be fair, I'm not from Yorkshire (as @yorkie will happily point out )

That said, I've lived here since the last century, but am always happy to learn more about my adopted homeland

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Elections such as 1983 and 1987 are really quite deceptive. UK adults in these years were not all rabid Thatcherites, and both of those elections - even 1983 - saw more Labour and (as was) Alliance votes combined than Tory ones. The dominance of Thatcher was brought about by one thing - FPTP.

While it's true that Labour and the Alliance got more votes than the Tories combined in those elections, i wonder if you're making the mistake of assuming those elections were mainly, Tory vs anti-Tory. Politics in the 1980s wasn't the same as today: Today the main fault line tends to be between the Tories on one hand and Labour/LibDems/Greens/etc. on the other hand - but that wasn't the case in the 1980s. The LIberal/SDP Alliance really was a genuinely centrist grouping - unlike today where the LibDems are arguably quite left wing and there is no real centre party. In the event of a hung parliament, it would have been just as plausible to imagine the Alliance working with the Tories as Labour (possibly more plausible since particularly in 1983 Labour was widely seen as unelectable and extremist). I would hazard a guess that, even if we'd had PR, then based on the election results in 1979, 1983 and 1987, Mrs. Thatcher would still have ended up Prime Minister on all three occasions - but just, leading either a coalition or a minority Government, so less able to pursue the policies she would have wanted.

I should add Labour having to water down that policy is also a perfect demonstration of why an opposition party should not come up with several policies until an election is nigh (despite several people demanding Labour come up with them) because something can come up that means things have to be changed.

I'm not entirely sure what policy is being referred to here. But in principle, I would assume that the other side of that argument is that, if an opposition party comes up with a policy, and that policy is shown to be bad and they have to backtrack on it, then it's probably better that that happens mid-way through a parliament rather than - say - in the middle of the general election campaign. So I can't see that that makes a good argument for the opposition not to come up with policies.

 

[Strathclyder]

So if not mid-Beds, where?

I nominate Rockall. A one-way ticket for him and his flock of flying monkeys. They can take that bleedin' honors' list with them while they're at it.

 

[Gloster]

I nominate Rockall. A one-way ticket for him and his flock of flying monkeys. They can take that bleedin' honors' list with them while they're at it.

A bit unfair on the chap who is on Rockall at the moment. He is expecting to get away from it all and then guess who turns up…

 

[Strathclyder]

A bit unfair on the chap who is on Rockall at the moment. He is expecting to get away from it all and then guess who turns up…

I propose a swap then. He and his minons get deposited on Rockall when that chap leaves. Wouldn't wish being stuck on Rockall with that cretin on anyone.

 

[Tetchytyke]

where the LibDems are arguably quite left wing

I think it shows just how far the Tories have lurched to the right if the LibDems are now being described as left-wing!

The LibDems are centrist, just as Starmer is. The LibDems haven’t moved their position since the 2010-2015 coalition.

The Momentum lot are left-wing.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I think it shows just how far the Tories have lurched to the right if the LibDems are now being described as left-wing!

The LibDems are centrist, just as Starmer is. The LibDems haven’t moved their position since the 2010-2015 coalition.

Ummm... have you looked at the kind of stuff the LibDems advocate these days? Things like, paying everyone an income for doing nothing, demands to increase expenditure on almost anything you can name, knee-jerk opposition any private sector involvement in just about anything where there's a public-vs-private debate, demands for windfall taxes, a general attitude of presuming that private businesses are bad, etc. A constitution that actually makes 'equality' one of their core aims. They are light years from the usual meaning of 'liberalism' or from where the they (or the Liberals) were a few decades ago, and definitely not centrist. (Which I personally feel very sad about because I used to hugely respect them, and a big part of me wishes that the UK had a genuinely liberal party that I could vote for).

The Momentum lot are left-wing.

Now that's a rare thing we can both agree on

 

[brad465]

Ummm... have you looked at the kind of stuff the LibDems advocate these days? Things like, paying everyone an income for doing nothing, demands to increase expenditure on almost anything you can name, knee-jerk opposition any private sector involvement in just about anything where there's a public-vs-private debate, demands for windfall taxes, a general attitude of presuming that private businesses are bad, etc. A constitution that actually makes 'equality' one of their core aims. They are light years from the usual meaning of 'liberalism' or from where the they (or the Liberals) were a few decades ago, and definitely not centrist. (Which I personally feel very sad about because I used to hugely respect them, and a big part of me wishes that the UK had a genuinely liberal party that I could vote for).

Windfall taxes are not the most left wing thing that can be done in relation to where they are applied, the most left wing action is to nationalise whatever said tax would be being applied to, whereby all revenue is the state's, not just whichever proportion of profit a windfall tax takes for the state.

On the whole liberalism point, the trouble is that this has failed to deliver for many, especially after the 2008 crash, and this has led to a rise in support for more extreme positions, left and right. This in turn has meant politicians/figures who claim to be able to deliver these more extreme positions/policy areas surge in support, and those supporting liberalism get drowned out or dismissed. We see this with Tory politicians from pre-2016, and certainly pre-1997, getting chastised by current Tory members/politicians as much as, if not more than non-Tories, and similar in Labour regarding current vs former. I think the big mistake was failing to do an FDR-style reform after the 2008 crash, which could have kept more extreme politics at bay.

I'm not entirely sure what policy is being referred to here. But in principle, I would assume that the other side of that argument is that, if an opposition party comes up with a policy, and that policy is shown to be bad and they have to backtrack on it, then it's probably better that that happens mid-way through a parliament rather than - say - in the middle of the general election campaign. So I can't see that that makes a good argument for the opposition not to come up with policies.

Well certainly coming up with some policies makes sense, especially ones unlikely to need to be dumped, and at worst just modified accordingly, but they certainly shouldn't be coming up with a full manifesto until no earlier than within 6-12 months of an election being expected.

 

[nw1]

Windfall taxes are not the most left wing thing that can be done in relation to where they are applied, the most left wing action is to nationalise whatever said tax would be being applied to, whereby all revenue is the state's, not just whichever proportion of profit a windfall tax takes for the state.

On the whole liberalism point, the trouble is that this has failed to deliver for many, especially after the 2008 crash, and this has led to a rise in support for more extreme positions, left and right. This in turn has meant politicians/figures who claim to be able to deliver these more extreme positions/policy areas surge in support, and those supporting liberalism get drowned out or dismissed. We see this with Tory politicians from pre-2016, and certainly pre-1997, getting chastised by current Tory members/politicians as much as, if not more than non-Tories, and similar in Labour regarding current vs former. I think the big mistake was failing to do an FDR-style reform after the 2008 crash, which could have kept more extreme politics at bay.

I'd tend to agree here.

I suppose it's all in the eye of the beholder, but I'd also consider the Lib Dems and Starmer's Labour as centrist or just slightly left of centre, and only the Corbynites are strongly left-wing. Certainly the current Lib Dems and Labour are much more what I'd call "middle of the road" than the current Tories.

By contrast I'd consider the current, post-2019, Conservative Party as distinctly right-wing (in no way centre-right), easily the most right-wing government of my lifetime - including even Thatcher. (I wouldn't say this about all Tory governments: I'd consider the Major government as centre-right, and even Cameron on some matters, albeit not austerity). Put it this way, the current Government seems to have more in common with people like Meloni than with traditional continental centre-right parties, I think that says it all.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Windfall taxes are not the most left wing thing that can be done in relation to where they are applied, the most left wing action is to nationalise whatever said tax would be being applied to, whereby all revenue is the state's, not just whichever proportion of profit a windfall tax takes for the state.

To some extent. I would say that windfall taxes are not the most left wing thing if you regard them as something that is undesirable in principle, but sometimes necessary when there are special, exceptional, circumstances. But if you treat windfall taxes as a completely normal thing that you slap on whenever businesses that you don't like are making a profit, then it becomes part of an anti-business, anti-entrepreneurialism agenda that is very decidedly left-wing. As far as I can see, that seems to be where the LibDems (and to some extent Labour) are at.

 

[DerekC]

What's the chances of Johnson and Farage getting together and forming a new party?

 

[nw1]

To some extent. I would say that windfall taxes are not the most left wing thing if you regard them as something that is undesirable in principle, but sometimes necessary when there are special, exceptional, circumstances. But if you treat windfall taxes as a completely normal thing that you slap on whenever businesses that you don't like are making a profit, then it becomes part of an anti-business, anti-entrepreneurialism agenda that is very decidedly left-wing. As far as I can see, that seems to be where the LibDems (and to some extent Labour) are at.

I don't think it's dislike of them making a profit per se. It's just a way of redistributing their profits when times are difficult. For example, now windfall taxes could be a way of helping people out with their energy bills when many energy companies are making a big profit. It's a somewhat left-wing approach (not hard-left) admittedly, but you could also say that large companies providing necessary (not luxury) services (as in, energy and water) making large profits at the expense of others during hard times is rather right-wing.

 

[birchesgreen]

What's the chances of Johnson and Farage getting together and forming a new party?

Very low, both are massive egomaniacs who will want to lead.

 

[nw1]

Very low, both are massive egomaniacs who will want to lead.

There is also a difference in the sense that Farage is a genuine hard-right reactionary while Johnson just wants one thing: power for himself - and is prepared to take almost any position to achieve that, as long as it's not too left-wing.

It would not surprise me if Boris comes back as part of a rejoin EU movement (sorry) in a few years' time, for example, if that is seen as what people want. There is no way Farage would do that.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

I don't think it's dislike of them making a profit. It's just a way of redistributing their profits when times are difficult. For example, now windfall taxes could be a way of helping people out with their energy bills when many energy companies are making a big profit. It's a somewhat left-wing approach (not hard-left) admittedly, but you could also say that large companies making large profits at the expense of others during hard times is rather right-wing.

If companies are making profits at the expense of others then yes, it might be appropriate to redistribute some of those profits. But notice the loaded language you used there: In most cases, businesses do not make profits at the expense of others: They make profits by providing goods or services that help their customers. And I would argue that is largely true even in the recent case of the energy companies making high profits because the war in Ukraine caused a shortage of energy. Businesses making a profit at the expense of others is true in a few cases - notably it's common if you get a monopoly, and it also happens if businesses are causing environmental or other harm to non-customers, or if they are selling something harmful (tobacco) - but it's not the norm, and assuming that it is the norm makes for a decidedly left-wing (and unrealistic) assumption.

 

[Acfb]

That looks like an ultra-safe Tory seat - they were on 60.3% of the vote in 2019. Unlike Mid Bedfordshire, the 2nd place challenger is pretty clear: Labour. I suspect that'll help the Tories a bit because there'll be some Tory voters who would've swapped to the LibDems but would be reluctant to swap to Labour. And generally speaking, Labour usually isn't capable of pulling off the kinds of spectacular by-election swings that the LibDems can often do. Even so, given how volatile things are at the moment, I wouldn't be that confident of the Tories holding on in a by-election even here: Although I would expect that if they lost it to Labour in a by-election, they'd easily get it back at the next general election (ignoring boundary changes so assuming the seat will still exist - I haven't checked that).

The Selby and Ainsty by election looks by far the most interesting of the three IMO even though Labour needs an 18% swing and on paper and the boundaries are less favourable to Labour than the pre 2010 version which they held. I'm genuinely not sure what will happen there and am glad we're getting a by election there. Labour already has a strong base in Selby itself and Sherburn in Elmet going off the May 2022 Council results even if the rest of the constituency is obviously more difficult :https://www.andrewteale.me.uk/leap/map/2022/469/. A narrow Labour gain there wouldn't shock me if they ran a strong candidate like their 2017 candidate who is Mayor of Tadcaster.

Uxbridge and Mid Bedfordshire by contrast look like almost inevitably being lost to Lab and LDs respectively if they are both held on the same day like with what happened in Tiverton and Wakefield last year.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Ummm... have you looked at the kind of stuff the LibDems advocate these days?

Yes, all pretty centrist fare, unless one compares it to the increasingly far-right Conservative Party.

In most cases, businesses do not make profits at the expense of others: They make profits by providing goods or services that help their customers.

Which is why most businesses will never be subject to a windfall tax. Windfall taxes are reserved for sectors where there is rampant profiteering and exploitation of a position, i.e. the energy and financial services industries. And if food manufacturers such as Unilever and Heinz don’t stop ripping people off, they’ll be next.

Windfall taxes have only ever targeted sectors where there isn’t any “entrepreneurship”, merely price-gouging.

And I would argue that is largely true even in the recent case of the energy companies making high profits because the war in Ukraine caused a shortage of energy

There was only a shortage of energy because the energy producers turned down supply in order to increase the price. Gas was affected by the war, yes, but oil was not, and nor were sustainable energies like wind and solar. Yet they all whacked their price up.

Happens in loads of sectors, agriculture (with four companies controlling 90% of the world’s grain supply) is a more hidden example, de Beers controlling the diamond industry is the more obvious example.

 

[DerekC]

There is also a difference in the sense that Farage is a genuine hard-right reactionary while Johnson just wants one thing: power for himself - and is prepared to take almost any position to achieve that, as long as it's not too left-wing.

That’s true - but right now Johnson is peddling the line that the current Tory party are not proper Conservatives and that Brexit hasn’t been done properly, because he thinks that might get him back into power - and it fits a Farage agenda too.

It would not surprise me if Boris comes back as part of a rejoin EU movement (sorry) in a few years' time, for example, if that is seen as what people want. There is no way Farage would do that.

Also true - but Johnson is king of “make it up as you go along” so I don‘t think it affect things in the short term.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Reading a fascinating article about the behaviour of the elite creates political instability:

Welcome To The ‘Turbulent Twenties’ | NOEMA

We predicted political upheaval in America in the 2020s. This is why it’s here and what we can do to temper it.

www.noemamag.com

Our model is based on the fact that across history, what creates the risk of political instability is the behavior of elites, who all too often react to long-term increases in population by committing three cardinal sins. First, faced with a surge of labor that dampens growth in wages and productivity, elites seek to take a larger portion of economic gains for themselves, driving up inequality. Second, facing greater competition for elite wealth and status, they tighten up the path to mobility to favor themselves and their progeny. For example, in an increasingly meritocratic society, elites could keep places at top universities limited and raise the entry requirements and costs in ways that favor the children of those who had already succeeded.

Third, anxious to hold on to their rising fortunes, they do all they can to resist taxation of their wealth and profits, even if that means starving the government of needed revenues, leading to decaying infrastructure, declining public services and fast-rising government debts.

Such selfish elites lead the way to revolutions. They create simmering conditions of greater inequality and declining effectiveness of, and respect for, government.

Sums up where we’re going pretty well IMO.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Yes, all pretty centrist fare, unless one compares it to the increasingly far-right Conservative Party.

Really? Since when was paying everyone a salary to do nothing (if you want to look at it another way which amounts to the same thing, extending the welfare state so that everyone gets welfare payments whether they need it or not) 'centrist fare'? Since when was unbridled hostility to private enterprise 'centrist fare'? Since when was responding to almost every problem by demanding that the state spends more money 'centrist fare'?

I think your idea of centrist rather differs from mine.

And as to 'far right Conservative party'.... to my mind, 'far right' usually refers to groups like the BNP or the French National Front or Nazi or fascist groups. Of course the Conservatives are a right wing party, but to describe them as 'far right' is beyond ridiculous.

Which is why most businesses will never be subject to a windfall tax. Windfall taxes are reserved for sectors where there is rampant profiteering and exploitation of a position, i.e. the energy and financial services industries.

The energy industry has in recent years sold its products at the market rate. That is not 'profiteering' or 'exploitation', no matter how much you or I might wish that prices were lower. (Of course, if you could show that they were engaging in cartels or unethical/monopolistic practices to deliberately drive prices up, that would be profiteering. I believe there may be some evidence that some of the Arabic state controlled oil producers may have attempted to do that recently, but I'm not aware of any evidence of UK-based companies doing so).

And if food manufacers such as Unilever and Heinz don’t stop ripping people off, they’ll be next.

How are Unilever and Heinz ripping people off? What's your evidence? (You may note that (a) prices being higher than you'd ideally like is not the same as 'ripping people off', and (b) the food business is very competitive, so a food company that was actually ripping people off would probably very quickly go out of business)

There was only a shortage of energy because the energy producers turned down supply in order to increase the price. Gas was affected by the war, yes, but oil was not, and nor were sustainable energies like wind and solar. Yet they all whacked their price up.

The price of wind and solar went up because it's largely a single market for energy, so less gas available translates into a higher demand for alternative energy sources, which then causes prices of those alternative sources to rise (because if the prices didn't rise, demand would outstrip supply and you'd have people trying to buy energy - including renewable energy - that simply isn't there.

I'm afraid your readiness to accuse all of sundry of profiteering whenever you don't like the prices being charged suggests to me a lack of understanding of how markets work.

 

[Yew]

And as to 'far right Conservative party'.... to my mind, 'far right' usually refers to groups like the BNP or the French National Front or Nazi or fascist groups. Of course the Conservatives are a right wing party, but to describe them as 'far right' is beyond ridiculous.

Try comparing them to the Conservative party of the 1960's...

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Really? Since when was paying everyone a salary to do nothing (if you want to look at it another way which amounts to the same thing, extending the welfare state so that everyone gets welfare payments whether they need it or not) 'centrist fare'? Since when was unbridled hostility to private enterprise 'centrist fare'? Since when was responding to almost every problem by demanding that the state spends more money 'centrist fare'?

I think your idea of centrist rather differs from mine.

And as to 'far right Conservative party'.... to my mind, 'far right' usually refers to groups like the BNP or the French National Front or Nazi or fascist groups. Of course the Conservatives are a right wing party, but to describe them as 'far right' is beyond ridiculous.



The energy industry has in recent years sold its products at the market rate. That is not 'profiteering' or 'exploitation', no matter how much you or I might wish that prices were lower.

It is windfall though when market moves widely higher but of course nobody is interested when its widely lower

How are Unilever and Heinz ripping people off? What's your evidence? (You may note that (a) prices being higher than you'd ideally like is not the same as 'ripping people off', and (b) the food business is very competitive, so a food company that was actually ripping people off would probably very quickly go out of business)

This inflation spike has given companies pricing power for the first time in over a decade though but ultimately in a competitive market prices won't deviate that much from each other in the end unless a cartel is being operated. What i see is some high headline prices but plenty of decent offers if you can get your timing right.

The price of wind and solar went up because it's largely a single market for energy, so less gas available translates into a higher demand for alternative energy sources, which then causes prices of those alternative sources to rise (because if the prices didn't rise, demand would outstrip supply and you'd have people trying to buy energy - including renewable energy - that simply isn't there.

Not in UK pricing is marginal so the last generator on the system each half hour sets the price for all other generators called on that half hour. So given most half hours only gas can rapidly respond to changing demand its the one that gets called and with gas prices so high all other generators have benefitted which is why it was proposed to extend windfall taxes to renewables. Renewables is massively subsidised by consumers yet we don't benefit from the promised low prices under this system.