There’s a pattern: the foolishness unfolding under the Starmer government often gestated under the previous Conservative ones. The Online Safety Act is probably the most egregious example (although some Tories attacked it at the time, to no avail). Another might be that the UK embarked on the idea of offloading the Chagos Islands – a strategic blunder that may yet be countered by the Trump administration – under James Cleverly (then foreign minister). (Cleverly has, with some level of brass neck, since denounced the Chagos fiasco.)
Another example is creating a football regulator. The UK pioneered football (aka soccer) more than a century ago, and it has become a global phenomenon. The English Premier League is a big and profitable brand (judging by all the people I see watching games on TV when I am on business trips in Singapore, New York or Dubai). Yes, there have been controversies about players’ taxes, and crowd behaviour. But that’s what HM Revenue & Customs and the police are there for. But apparently the “beautiful game” requires supervision from a regulator. The usual warnings about “regulatory capture” apply, and one assumes that Conservatives might have been aware of such a risk. But no. The former administration proposed it. And unsurprisingly, the incoming Labour government liked the idea, because it likes regulation almost as an end in itself.
In the fag-end of the last government, Chancellor of the Exchequer Jeremy Hunt signalled that if re-elected, he would scrap the UK’s resident non-domicile tax system and replace it with a residency-based system. Hunt probably thought he was being clever in trying to “shoot the fox” of Labour, which has railed about non-doms for years. But he could have changed the narrative and challenged the economic illiteracy of those who want to hammer wealthy foreigners. Instead he conceded to Labour the terms of debate, which a good general never does.
Another case: shotgun licensing. The UK now requires that an application for a shotgun requires two referees, not one as before. This move was initiated under the past Tory government, reacting to a case of a shooting in Plymouth, southwest UK. While designed to stop problems, it also makes it that much harder for a farmer, for example, to obtain one to shoot game and vermin with such a weapon.
And so on and so on. Hence why you hear people refer to Labour and the Conservatives as a sort of “uni-party”. Even when that is a bit unfair, because differences genuinely exist, there is an edge to the criticism because it does speak to a genuine problem. The Tories contain a lot of people who are at base paternalists in how they think of the role of government, and also share some of the same post-colonial cringes of those on the Labour side. There is also, arguably, a failure of nerve and self-confidence that goes very deep.
Johnathan Pearce – the difficulty is that there was no Conservative government, whether it was making Mr Johnson impose “lockdowns” that he hated, or making Mr Sunak spend money like a drunken sailor – which Mr Sunak hated, the officials and “experts” delighted in humiliating and abusing the elected ministers.
And when a minister such as Jacob Rees-Mogg issued orders that the officials and “experts” did not like – they ignored them.
Sadly the problem with the basic system of governance in the United Kingdom is much deeper than elected people being no good – the elected people seem to have little power, and can be removed – as Deputy Prime Minister Raab was forced out, and Prime Minister Truss was forced out (in her case by the Bank of England Quango).
As for Mr Hunt – yes I agree, a deeply odd person.
For example, how could he think his wife is Japanese when she is not only Chinese – but works for Chinese state television news and current affairs?
Not for nothing do Manton’s us now make reference to the ‘Uniparty’ …
Oh, Behave JP! It is the end in and of itself. Why do you think the left and Islam are in (an admitedly co-abusive) relationship? Because both want rules for everything.
The Fake Conservatives liked to pretend there was nothing they could do about civil service policies which they supported. The Fake Conservatives had zero interest in reducing immigration, zero interest in reducing government spending and were all in on the ridiculous, oppressive and ruinously expensive lockdown measures.
There was no Conservative government because the party is a lie, made up mostly of people better suited to the LibDems.
Whereas in the 2000s and 2010 I’d wearily sigh about the inadequacies of the Tories but feel there was no real alternative at least in national politics, it became really easy in the 2019-24 years to just outright hate the Tories. Even putting COVID aside there was the ‘Global Britain’ rubbish used to justify the Boriswave. Sunak piously warning about a far-right threat, supposed Tory ultras like Steve Baker adopting woke causes. And so on. Just reprehensible. The revelations later about the likes of Ben Wallace organising bringing in tens of thousands of Afghan refugees quietly just makes them easier to just thoroughly dislike.
Yes the blob, the managerial class etc always sabotage Tory governments. But I don’t think that alone explains how bad the 2019-24 government was.
You could make an argument that the (recent) Conservatives abandoned their rightish principles for the sake of occupying the political centre.
And now Labour strike out for the left but are obliged to tack back towards the centre.
The famous poem “The Second Coming” written by Irish poet William Butler Yeats in 1919 contains the lines:
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
and
The best lack all conviction, while the worst
Are full of passionate intensity.
and finally
And what rough beast, its hour come round at last,
Slouches towards Bethlehem to be born?
The poem is just over a hundred years old.
Hence why you hear people refer to Labour and the Conservatives as a sort of “uni-party”. Even when that is a bit unfair, because differences genuinely exist
Experience of the past 25 years – and specifically during the time of Convid – would show most emphatically that there are NO differences……
I note in passing that it was La May who put Net Zero on the books…
If I recall correctly, the legislation got passed with next to no (maybe none) opposition at all. Exactly at the time country was very split on Brexit, parliament was unanimous on Net Zero.
Especially in hindsight, the net zero issue should have been bigger deal than being/not being in EU.
Agreed. and that is why claims of a Uniparty blob are quite correct.
Net Zero should (if anyone is left alive to grave the images) go down in history as the worst mistake ever.
Eventually it will have to be admitted that net zero cannot work and that the barely comprehensible damage it has caused and will continue to cause for decades to come was brought about by one of the two greatest lies ever inflicted on our country.
However the immigration policies of the past thirty years can never be reversed and so, in a macabre sense, they would have my vote as the greater evil of the two.
I am glad that the latest government BS regarding shotguns has been mentioned.
It used to be the case that an applicant for a shotgun certificate needed one referee, and for a firearms certificate two were needed. Then it was changed from merely the application, to renewals as well. Now shotgun certificates will need two referees.
The only reason this is being done is to create more friction for those poor souls who wish to own guns legally. I have no doubt that the fear of civil unrest is behind it, as it has been behind all efforts at gun control since 1920.
Incidentally, before Hungerford, the Home Office realised that the whole idea of having to furnish such referees was a pointless waste of time, and they proposed to do away with them. However, in the frenzy of panicked legislation which followed that tragedy, naturally that plan was discarded. Now there is no end to the bureaucratic nonsense which must be put in the way of anyone foolish enough to wish to own a gun legally. The state doesn’t want you to.
Marius – I gave the examples, so spare us the “fake Conservatives” stuff.
People like Jacob Rees-Mogg were-not-in-power.
Even Prime Ministers were made to do things that were the opposite of what they wanted to do.
Why is it so difficult for you to understand that this is not a democracy?
For example, at Unitary Authority level – do you think I wanted to increase Council Tax 4.9% every year for the last four years?
If your answer is “yes” – then you know nothing about me, but then you do not know much about the other people I mentioned in my first comment.
And if you were elected (by the way have you ever been elected to anything – ever?) you would find yourself in the same position.
Does that make you “fake” as well Marius?
@NickM
Net Zero should (if anyone is left alive to grave the images) go down in history as the worst mistake ever.
“Hmmh”, history scowls and says: “hold my beer”.
The Socialist Progressive Uniparty SPU, pronounced “spew”.
Paul Marks : Even Prime Ministers were made to do things that were the opposite of what they wanted to do.
My recollection is that in December 2019, the Tories got a majority of 80. Whatever it might be that prevented them from doing Tory things was within their power to eliminate within a little over a year. (Let us assume that the House of Lords, and the courts, would have blocked anything and everything, during that first year or so.)
If they were inconvenienced by the Equality Act or the Human Rights Act or the Ministerial Code or whatever else was in the way, they could have got rid of it. They didn’t. No use them claiming now that it wasn’t their fault, they had no choice, and so on.
They had the choice. They lacked the will.
They got blobbed – they could have chosen otherwise.
Lee Moore.
The Conservatives had a large majority on North and West Northants Unitary Authorities – and none of the Conservatives wanted to increase Council Tax – yet it increased by 4.9% each year. Now the Reform Party have a large majority on both these councils and none of their councilors wants to increase Council Tax – yet it will still go up by 4.9% each year.
Nationally Mr Johnson (who won that large majority in 2019) detested the lockdowns – but he was still made to impose them, and Mr Sunak detested spending money like a drunken sailor (for example almost half a TRILLION Pounds on Covid policies which everyone knew were counter productive) – but he was still made to do it.
In theory the House of Commons can indeed do anything (you are correct Sir) – but in practice it, mostly (mostly), does that it is told to do – told (indirectly) by officials and “experts”.
Remember Deputy Prime Minister Raab was removed for just questioning officials.
Will a Reform Party House of Commons be any different?
Perhaps it will – perhaps Mr Farage will disband the Civil Service, abolish the Quangos (such as the Bank of England – who destroyed Prime Minister Truss) and so on – but it all seems a bit far fetched.
Take the issue of Islamic immigration and natural increase (mostly natural increase – births, now) Mr Farage seems to be giving way on that (see Ben Habib, Rupert Lowe and others on how Mr Farage is already giving way in this “war of cultures”) – and he is not even in office, if he was in office the pressure to sell out – on this and other matters – would be a thousand times greater.
I agree with you that it is a matter of will – but the incredible burden of ritual and custom (which, by the way, includes even the monarchy – sadly it really does) is a very hard thing to overcome. The establishment controls almost every aspect of British life – and it is an establishment whose beliefs and policies are undermining the nation – the very existence of the British people.
Where do you start in such a situation?
I think I can see a difference between the two parties. Officials present ministers with three choices, “annoying”, “harmful” and “disastrous”. Officials are happy with any choice but prefer “disastrous”.
Tories will generally chose “annoying” or “harmful” while Labour will immediately chose “disastrous” which is why they are the preferred party of officials.
I’d say this was generally correct until Boriswave immigration, which was more disastrous than any previous immigration policy, Labour included.
The fact they used Brexit to justify Boriswave is truly irredeemable.
Paul asks – where do you start ?
1. With a large enough majority in the HoC
2. Composed of people who will not shirk from the necessary measures (which was the real reason the Tories failed – most of their MPs would not have supported the necessary measures.)
3. Enact the necessary measures, overriding HoL objections using the Parliament Act
What are the “necessary measures” ?
Whatever it is – legally – that forces Ministers to obey the Civil Service, and whatever it is that allows courts to override government decisions based on the courts view of what is “reasonable”
I am not an expert on such legal matters, but there is no reason why either the Tories or Reform should arrive in government like a deer in the headlights- they can have the necessary half dozen Bills ready to go. And a year later they can start governing.
This is not a cure for weak hearts or tiny cojones. Nor does it mean that governing will be easy and full of easy choices.
I may be wrong but I believe that the “being forced to spend like a drunken sailor” problem doesn’t need to take a year to solve. Money Bills etc.
Since personnel is policy, item one can be making all civil servants including quangocrats dismissible at will. Item two – that new appointments to quangos are at the Minister’s discretion- no being required to pick froma curated list of the blob approved. Item zero might be getting rid of the Ministerial Code. Refreshing my memory on the Raab thing it looks like one of those “nobody could be against this” things that is actually a knife that civil servants can hold to Ministerial throats.
Your 4.9% illustration is irrelevant. You did not have the legal power to do anything else. Parliament can make its own rules – if it has the will. The Tories didn’t.
I might add – one reason why the Tories were too timid to take on the Blob was that they feared what the civil service could do to their electoral prospects.
Well now they know what being pussies gets you, electorally.
In the unlikely event of a Tory return to power, or for Reform, they already know that pussydom is electorally disastrous.
Lee Moore,
It’s a curious thing that although I have read many times that all politicians care about is getting re-elected, this doesn’t seem to apply to the Conservatives who recently don’t seem to care much either way.
One of the reasons I am sceptical about Reform is that I suspect that if they do actually get an overall majority, many of their new MPs will turn out to be “sheep in wolves clothing” and will not back Farage swinging the chainsaw. Reform won’t reform any more that Conservatives conserve.
You may well be right.
But when selecting soldiers for the decisive battle – do you go for untried, untested ones; or do you go for ones that ran away last time ?
There isn’t an obvious answer btw. Those who ran away last time may be deeply ashamed of themselves and may be eager to make amends. There were a few Tory MPs who didn’t cave – but fingers of one hand stuff. And I expect there are a few Tory ex Ministers who would like their time again. (Although personalities and circumstances are different between the US and UK, Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 are instructive. Trump 1.0 played by the rules to the extent that he was psychologically capable of doing so. Trump 2.0 is not going to die wondering.)
I suspect Reform’s bigger problem is the rabble problem. If they were to win a majority, I expect that most of them would be ready for a fight, and not scared of losing their seat. After all, you hardly join Reform as part of a long term career plan to polish a seat at Westminster for a couple of decades and then retire to the Lords or a nice plump Quango slot. It’s not where conformists go. It’s where chancers go. Hence the rabble problem. After all they only got a taxi full of MPs in 2024, but that didn’t stop one of them departing.
As I mentioned – the Tories began the “suddenly” phase of their bankruptcy by becoming an undisciplined rabble over Brexit – the shrivelling of the, already unimpressive, cojones was merely the embarrassing “whimper” at the death.
Lee Moore – I agree with a lot of what you say, but I would go further.
I would not make appointments to Quangos the free choice of ministers – I would abolish the Quangos, most certainly including the Bank of England.
However, I believe that real reform is unlikely to happen in the United Kingdom – the “educated classes” (such as the officials and experts that Rour le Jour mentions) are committed (totally committed) to a system (a system of policies and institutions) that will destroy this nation – yes they are part of an international establishment (which is utterly vile) – but they are more extreme than in some other nations.
Tragically I see no hope for our nation – none.
Let us hope I am mistaken.
A few hours ago I watched the start of a discussion on GB News – watching it gave me an attack of what Winston Churchill called “the black dog” – which, as some people here know, I am prone to.
It was a discussion on the proposal to make “Islamophobia” a “crime”.
The “Conservative” spokesman started with “no one is advocating Islamophobia…..”, thus indicating his support for the idea that opposition to Islam and Islamic expansion is a “phobia” (a mental illness) – he then went on to quibble about the exact definition of the term.
And Mr Nigel Farage was no better – he was the same. Accepting the principle – and then quibbling over details.
I did not wait to listen to what the leftist on the panel said – after all the two “right wingers” had already defeated themselves.
Yet another reason to wish we had died many years ago (perhaps in 1989 – having watched the Berlin Wall fall, that would have been a good time to die – one could die thinking we had won, and before Mrs Thatcher was betrayed) – if there is any hope, I can not see any evidence of it.
Showing your ignorance of football here and what the average fan wants. We do need a football regulator to protect the game from foreign buyers and countries(Saudi and the US). We also need a football regulator to ensure finacial stability. Football is about community. Take it away from the community and you have no club.
Are you having a lark? That’s like saying you want a brewer to make sure no one gets pissed.
Nothing kills community quite like the dead hand of the the state.
Rachel, try and keep things civil. Starting off by calling ignorant isn’t a way to start a conversation.
I’m a football fan: Ipswich Town, if you like to know. Been to Portman Road many times, good and bad.
Association football in the UK has been going on as an organised game since the mid19th century. Some teams were founded by factory workers. Their owners tended to be local businessmen, like the Cobbolds who owned Ipswich or the Edwards family that owned Manchester United. Things have changed. Now it’s private equity firms and pension funds.
There’s no need for a special regulator. Clubs are indeed sort of a community, but a state regulator means they’re sort of under the thumb of the State. Why?
Ordinary fans – however you define that – want competition, the edge that comes with promotion and relegation. But they are using the services provided by business. If they dislike that, and prefer to watch a different local sport, or play it, they can. The way that people use their spare time isn’t a matter for government beyond maintaining order (such as policing of matches, etc).
And how will it be decided who should own a club, or even create a new one from scratch? It will make the sport stagnant.
Argue what you want. But leave the rudeness at the door and play nice.,
There are many more votes contained within that center apex of the bell curve than at the outlying edges.
So, from a pure form-over-function view, the Torys’ triangulation leftward to the center made some sense, especially with demographics that seem to be swinging leftward naturally.
I think they just forgot that they were also moving that Overton window of acceptability of thought further to the left when they did that.
Oops. Now they’re just Lefty-light, and there is no reason to choose them.
Biggest danger is that, in 2029, too many people will split between Reform (or whoever) and the Tories, thinking the Tories have learned their lesson. You almost have to find a way to finally drive a stake in them before that.
@Johnathan Pearce
I’m a football fan: Ipswich Town, if you like to know. Been to Portman Road many times, good and bad.
I think what enshitifies football, certainly compared to when I were a lad, is that so much focus is on the mega teams, Arsenal, Chelsea, Liverpool etc, or in Scotland Rangers and Celtic only. I was born three streets over from Ibrox so I am and always have been a Rangers fan, so perhaps not the best advocate of this position, but surely a lot of the joy in football is supporting your smaller teams. After Rangers’ bankruptcy and their delegation to the pee-wee leagues, I think it was some of the best and most exciting football in Scotland seeing them soar back up to the top.
All a football regulator would do is enshrine in place the current ugly system where the mega teams rule and everyone else is mostly ignored. If you care about football go watch Queens Park Rangers, or Norwich City, or (sorry Jonathan) Ipswich Town. Less glitz, more men busting their guts out in the mud and the rain. It is like going to see Taylor Swift, verses going down the pub and listening to some cool new band.
(BTW, “soccer” in the USA? Not worth watching.)
There’s already state involvement in football.
An increasing number of the most successful clubs are controlled by sovereign wealth funds or other state owned or backed enterprises. For example the Saudi sovereign wealth fund owns Newcastle. A Qatari state enterprise control Paris SG. The Abu Dhabi firm that own Manchester City claim to be ‘private’ but leaks have shown the Abu Dhabi government manages the company’s accounts. A UK government regulator would probably be incompetent, but I think if the debate is whether there should be government involvement in football, it’s already over. Was over the moment football teams started being owned by Arab government companies and Chinese multinationals where all the key personnel all just happen to be high profile CCP members.
Perhaps the great break in the Conservative Party came when Margaret Thatcher was betrayed in 1990 – yes 35 years ago.
The people who betrayed Margaret Thatcher either had bad (very bad) principles, for example Geoffrey Howe – that puppet of the European Union and the, accursed, “international community” generally. Or they had no principles at all – and just wanted to cling to office, and got rid of Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in order to give themselves a boost in the opinion polls – as the lady had become unpopular.
It was squalid betrayal of a sitting Prime Minister – something that honourable men would not have done.
And Margaret Thatcher was replaced by John Major – John “we have spent more money than Labour promised to spend!” Major (he thought this was a good thing).
And then, in 1997 (yes seven more years in office – “in office, but not in power”, that was what the betrayers bought themselves, that is what they sold their souls for) there was Mr “Tony” Blair – and then, after Blair-and-Brown, in 2010 – there was the “heir to Blair” David Cameron.
As I look back….. I suspect the Conservative Party never really recovered from the squalid betrayal of Margaret Thatcher in 1990.