Tories: unfit for office, unfit for opposition

Tories: unfit for office, unfit for opposition

Jul 22, 2024 | Bylines, News

Based on the evidence so far, it seems the Tories are as unfit for opposition as they were for office – and they only have themselves to blame, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines. 

On 4 July, the Conservatives suffered their worst election defeat in history, with a loss of 250 seats. After 14 years in power, and with his party way behind in the polls, Rishi Sunak called a snap election. The resulting disastrous campaign did nothing to change the government’s fortunes or their standing with the British public. Their time was finally up.

For the beleaguered party, the best that could be hoped for was a rejection of far-right policies and that lessons might be learned. Recent behaviour in the Commons by certain shadow cabinet ministers would suggest that they haven’t learned a thing.

“Constructive opposition”

Last Friday, new appointees were added to the shadow cabinet by Sunak, bringing the total number of shadow cabinet ministers to 51, or 42% of the total number of Tory MPs. Such is the dearth of MPs and ministers that 10 of those new appointees are being tasked with two or three different roles.

If the British public had been expecting better parliamentary behaviour from the Tories in opposition than in government, then we had set our sights too high. While many shadow cabinets ministers are new to the role and could be forgiven for failing to understand parliamentary rules and customs, it is those more experienced members who are causing discord in Westminster.

The worst examples of recent bad behaviour were to be witnessed during a speech by Environment Secretary Steve Deed. Steve Barclay, the shadow environment secretary, was critical of Labour plans for on-shore wind farms. Barclay said that the government planned “to take vast amounts of farmland out of food production in order to prioritise the eco-zealotry”. During his response, Deed denied a number of interventions from front-benchers Barclay, Kemi Badenoch and Victoria Atkins. Badenoch and Atkins, did not take it well.

Abominable behaviour

While Badenoch may have had a dig at Reed during his speech, it was Victoria Atkins, shadow health secretary, that took bad behaviour to another level. Standing at the despatch box, she repeatedly spoke over the environment secretary, breaking the Rules of Order and Decorum in House of Commons Procedure and Practice. The rules state that when a member is addressing the house, “no other Member may interrupt except to raise a question of privilege which has arisen suddenly or to raise a point of order”.

The behaviour was widely criticised by MPs, and eventually, by the deputy speaker, Christopher Chope, who said Atkins had “behaved abominably”. A response later supplied by Atkin’s office said she was merely “trying to get answers”, as if the ends had justified the means.

Badenoch, bad enough

In the debate that followed the King’s speech Kemi Badenoch, shadow levelling up secretary, launched an attack on Deputy PM Angela Rayner from the despatch box. In a speech that has been described as “patronising”, “disgraceful” and “unprofessional”, Badenoch told Rayner that she had been “stitched up” and made a “fall guy” by the Labour government. She offered to “hold her hand” at this “very difficult time”, and said she looked forward to telling Rayner “I told you so” when the new government repeated the mistakes of the old one.

The recent behaviour of both Atkins and Badenoch – although hardly out of character – has fuelled speculation that, yet again, their focus is on their own political careers, rather than the needs of their constituents. The fact that they believe this kind of behaviour is going to improve their chances in the race for leadership of the party just proves once more how detached they both are from the wishes and needs of the British people.

Tories lacking leadership material

Despite the drop in electoral support for the right-wing European Research Group – down from 107 to 24 MPs – the candidates for Tory leadership are predominantly from the right/far-right of the party. And despite the fact that moves to the right only damaged their election results, they seem determined to repeat the same mistakes.

For some, that move ever closer to Reform UK Party Limited, has resulted in them abandoning the Conservative Party altogether. Suella Braverman – twice relieved of the position of home secretary – is rumoured to be planning to defect to Reform UK, perhaps having accepted that the role of Tory leader is not within her grasp. She wouldn’t be the first Tory MP to defect to the party (sorry, company), or likely the last.

At a time when world leaders, and the British public, are welcoming a change of tone and attitude in Westminster, and Prime Minister Keir Starmer is as popular as Boris Johnson ever was, the Tories are still clinging to old, failed ideas.

It was clear during the election that they were fighting the wrong battles. They focused on trying to retain the attention and support of those on the right/far-right while ignoring the much bigger threat from the centre/left, and it cost them dearly.

The often-tetchy Sunak now seems far more comfortable is his new role than in his previous one. When he first appeared in the Commons on the opposite side of the House, he promised the Tories would “fulfil our duties as the loyal opposition, professionally and effectively”. He may have even believed it, or at least hoped that someone, anyone, in his party would take note and adjust their behaviour accordingly. Based on the evidence so far, it seems the Tories are as unfit for opposition as they were for office – and they only have themselves to blame.

Nigel Farage’s history of incitement and violent rhetoric

Nigel Farage’s history of incitement and violent rhetoric

Jul 20, 2024 | Bylines, News

Farage blamed Trump’s attempted assassination on Democrats’ rhetoric, yet he’s no stranger to using the language of violence himself, writes Bremain vice Chair Lisa Burton for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Nigel Farage laid blame on Democrats’ rhetoric for Donald Trump’s attempted assassination attempt. Yet, he is culpable in creating a political sphere where violence, incitement and threatening behaviour are commonplace.

A fish rots from the head down

Political violence, threats and incitement are sadly becoming more common in today’s political sphere. Drip fed into our politics for over a decade and driven by our media’s fascination with divisive political players like Farage and Trump.

Incrementally, they and other antagonists went further and further as they pushed the boundaries of everyday political discourse and language. The more outrageous, divisive and hyperbolic they became, the more coverage they got. In turn, the political sphere has become more divided, angry, inflamed, and threatened. All this has been amplified and aided by social media, misinformation, dark money, often foreign, and Russia’s hybrid warfare.

When politicians get away with it, the public follows

The constant scapegoating and blaming of minorities and migrants for all the woes of their countries is deeply concerning to many. Grown-up, sensible debates about migration, primarily fuelled by capitalists’ requirements for constant economic growth, are almost impossible. Many on the more liberal, progressive side of politics feel the language heard from the hard right is dangerous and reminiscent of the demonisation of Jews and other minorities in 1930s Germany. The language does indeed have very similar connotations.

Divisive, fear-driven politics has become mainstream from the right as they have shifted to a type of hard-right populism that only functions around division, fear and wedge issues, whether that be migration, climate change, LGBTQ+ rights, or abortion. This has caused a tremendous amount of fear and anxiety on both sides of the political spectrum for differing reasons and has led to an environment where people are constantly made to feel angry and inflamed. The extremes of this can be seen on social media daily

Farage has often used the language of incitement and political violence

Not known to miss an opportunity for self-promotion, Farage was quickly on the job as he spoke to the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg after the attempt on Trump’s life, saying, “The narrative put out there about Trump, by these liberals that oppose him, is so nasty… it almost encourages this type of behaviour”.

Farage has a very selective memory. He is by far one of the most divisive politicians the UK has ever seen, and he himself has used violent and threatening language on several occasions.

Instead of being shunned by the media, he became one of the most covered people in UK politics. Including being platformed an incredible 36 times on BBC Question Time

In this BBC interview before the Brexit referendum he said that “violence is the next step” if people feel that immigration is not being controlled and that voting doesn’t change anything. He then said it was “difficult to contemplate” it happening in Britain but added, “nothing is impossible”.

 

Farage is clever with his words. He knows how far to push and when to retract, and this rhetoric is intentional. His words have an aura of wishful thinking, and this is not the only example.

After the Brexit referendum, at an event where people paid to hear him speak, Farage was recorded saying:

“If they don’t deliver this Brexit that I spent 25 years of my life working for, then I will be forced to don khaki, pick up a rifle and head for the front lines.”

He also stated at the same event, “there will be widespread public anger in this country on a scale and in a way we have never seen before”.

In 2019, Farage was investigated by police (not charged) after multiple complaints about his comments in a speech he made in Wales. Talking about his frustrations over Brexit not happening fast enough he referenced the “overpaid pen pushers in Whitehall who are not doing a neutral job” and said “and once Brexit’s done, we’ll take the knife to them. Alright? Had enough of all of it. Had enough of all of it”.

The ‘take the knife’ remark by Farage was made just a month after a civil servant in his 60s was stabbed outside the Home Office. The Judge at the time stated, “This was an unprovoked, serious violent attack on a stranger, apparently on the basis that he worked for the Home Office”.

Threat to the judiciary

In 2016, business owner Gina Miller was the main plaintiff in a case that held the government at the time accountable for its attempts to ride roughshod over the British constitution and parliamentary sovereignty over the triggering of Article 50, which would start the process of leaving the EU. Farage made Brexit all about sovereignty, yet the executive’s moves were anti-democratic and denied parliamentary sovereignty.

Farage, however, wasn’t happy and threatened to lead a crowd of 100,000 protesters to Parliament Square and within earshot of the courthouse while the case was underway. The Welsh government’s top lawyer, Counsel General Mick Antoniw, at the time called for UKIP group leader Neil Hamilton to “disassociate himself from the comments that were made by his acting leader Farage who said they would be leading a march of 100,000 people to the Supreme Court, and that people were so angry that there might well be violence arising as a consequence … That, all I can see, is an attempt to intimidate an independent judiciary.”

The march was crowdfunded but never happened. The judges, however, faced intense backlash.

Sometimes, incitement comes without words

On 16 June 2016, just days before the Brexit referendum, Farage released, and stood in front of, this grossly inappropriate image, which garnered widespread condemnation from the media. It was denounced by left and right-wing politicians alike, and it was reported to the police that it incited racial hatred and breached UK race laws. The photograph used was of migrants crossing the Croatia-Slovenia border in 2015, with the only prominent white person in the picture obscured by a box of text. Many made the connection to images Nazis had used in their programme of fear and propaganda

Just hours later, Jo Cox, a Labour MP who supported inclusion, diversity, and remaining in the EU, was murdered in the street by a far-right terrorist, Thomas Mair, who shot her twice in the head and stabbed her. According to the eyewitness, he did so while saying, “Britain first, keep Britain independent, Britain will always come first”. Finally, he yelled: “This is for Britain.” Police found his room ‘stuffed’ with Nazi memorabilia and multiple links to far-right groups, including Americans.

Farage was unrepentant about the poster.

Take a stand

The assassination attempt on Trump was shocking. No matter your politics, we on all sides must reject violence, particularly political violence. But the fact that we often refer to ‘all sides’ tells us a lot too. There should be no ‘sides’ when it comes to our public servants and leaders. They are there to serve ALL the people, not just those who support them.

The populist far/hard right relies on discourse and rage creation to flourish. It’s all about us vs them. While it is impossible never to get angry and upset with what can often be cruel, deceitful and bigoted rhetoric, it’s up to all of us to reject all forms of threatening or political violence. Let’s try to live by the words of Michelle Obama:

 

“When they go low, we go high.”

The hypocrisy of Tommy Robinson and his fans

The hypocrisy of Tommy Robinson and his fans

Jul 6, 2024 | News

A squalid tale of grift and dishonesty as ‘Tommy Robinson’ is detained for immigration offences yet again, writes Bremain Vice Chair Lisa Burton for Yorkshire Bylines. 

Last week, Tommy Robinson, real name Stephen Yaxley-Lennon, the far-right activist, was arrested in Canada for an ‘outstanding immigration warrant’ after speaking at an event in Calgary. Within an hour, a fundraiser was launched in his name, not for the first time, to help him out with his many run-ins with the law.

His team filmed his arrest, with Robinson heard telling the officers in the police car: “Ain’t it mad how tough you get with immigration on the wrong people?”, “F*** Justin Trudeau” and “It’s mental innit. You act like absolute spineless cowards as a country, letting every bloody goddamn f**ing Abdul or whoever into your country – you don’t know nothing about them, their criminal histories, or anything, or their ideologies”.

It is a bit rich considering this wasn’t the first time Robinson has faced charges of immigration offences, and he has a lengthy criminal record, which bars him from entering many countries. In 2013, he pled guilty to trying to enter the United States illegally by using a friend’s passport. It’s just one of Robinson’s criminal convictions, amongst others for passport offences, mortgage fraud, contempt of court and assault. He’s served jail time on more than one occasion.

What the paperwork shows

What was different this time was that Robinson himself posted his immigration arrest documents online, which showed some curious anomalies. According to these documents, his name is Stephen Lennon, and not only is he an Irish citizen, but they also state he was born in Ireland.

Considering Robinson prides himself on English nationalism, is an anti-immigrant campaigner, and rallies against the criminal behaviour of people he deems ‘migrants’, who are often British-born people of colour, the double standards seemed to be obvious. So I posted the form on X with a comment.

The post took off and incredibly gained over 2.2 million impressions, driven mainly by a mass frenzy of his supporters who were unwilling to see or just blind to the fact that it is ok for their criminal idol to break immigration laws or to lie to illegally enter a country, to be an immigrant with a criminal record, all while demonising migrants, and many he categorises and migrants, even though they are British-born people who by their heritage don’t have the ‘privilege’ of being white.

Born in Ireland or England?

Now, it’s no secret that Robinson’s mother was Irish and his father is English. So, he is wholly entitled to an Irish passport, as are many with Irish ancestry. This was the main shouting point of many of his followers who didn’t quite understand the ‘born in Ireland’ hypocrisy. Because what’s really interesting is that Robinson has always said he was born in Luton, England, and he is English. He confirmed this in an interview article in the Telegraph from 2013 and on other occasions.

Below is a birth registry document for November and December 1982. You can see the entry for Stephen Christopher Yaxley, born in Luton. He later became Yaxley-Lennon to reflect the name of his stepfather, Thomas Lennon. Sometimes, he also goes by Stephen Lennon. However, in 2018, a judge reported at this hearing that his legitimate passport bears the name Paul Harris. Confused yet?

Of course, we don’t know the details of his current British passport. And there’s always a possibility that the immigration officers in Canada made an error on the arrest paperwork, and he has not yet been to court, but it’s unlikely. Robinson has form for entering countries where his criminal record would bar him from doing so, and he was heading to Canada for a tour.

Still, we can all agree it is not customary to have multiple names for no reason unless you’re trying to hide something. This leads us to conclude that this passport and identity confusion is deliberate. One passport states he is an Irish national and citizen, born in Ireland, and his name is Stephen Lennon. The other passport has a different name and we must assume, from his birth records, that it would state he is a British national born in Luton.

The most likely hypothesis is that he uses different passports to try and get past immigration officials and to avoid revealing his criminal convictions or previous immigration offences.

The hypocrisy doesn’t stop there

Research tells us that the majority of grooming gangs are white. However, there is far more manufactured outrage around sexual exploitation if the person or persons are of a minority background, and Robinson and other actions of the media have ensured that fallacy perpetuates.

He says he’s an advocate against sexual violence and exploitation of women and girls, particularly from grooming gangs (only if they are brown-skinned, of course). He is not. He has a long history of failing to condemn the abuse of children by his friends and supporters. Something, when pointed out to his sycophants, they also choose to ignore.

As reported here, “The EDL was a hotbed of sex offenders”. At least 20 members and supporters were convicted of child sexual exploitation offences (that we know of), and at least 10 of these were in the EDL while Robinson was still leading it. In June 2010, Lennon’s close friend and ally, Richard Price, was convicted of making indecent images of children. Far from condemning those crimes, the EDL launched a campaign for his release.

Leigh Mcmillan, a senior EDL figure during Lennon’s time as leader who was active in the Lee Rigby campaign, was sentenced to 17 years after abusing a 10-year-old schoolgirl 100 times in the mid-1990s. The list of offences is shocking and can be read here. No condemnation has been noted from Robinson regarding any of these cases.

Robinson has also defended Andrew Tate, the online media personality who is currently facing charges of rape and people trafficking.

Like all far-right ideologists, his support for illegal behaviour from his own tribe is typical behaviour. Blame others. Say it’s all a conspiracy. It gives them a blank card to deny everything and to corrupt all truth and evidence. It’s a vital part of their playbook, no matter how unhinged, and Robinson sounds completely unhinged.

Robinson, the Brexit supporter

Robinson campaigned for Brexit and received financial, political, and moral support from a wide array of foreign groups and individuals, including US think tanks, right-wing Australians, and Russian trolls. He campaigned for the end of freedom of movement while obtaining or already having an Irish passport, knowing he would never have to give up his freedom of movement. It is also rumoured that he lives in Spain.

There’s nothing wrong with that, his supporters would say. Of course, they would. Foreign interference when it backs their far-right causes is welcome; Obama speaks up about Brexit, and all hell breaks loose; but they have no issues if their false idol has the opportunities he wanted to deny his fellow compatriots

Bethan Nodwell exposes Robinson’s behaviour in Canada

Tommy Robinson went to Canada to ‘go on tour’, and Bethan Nodwell, a right-wing political activist, was going to assist him. So often, we see people willing to overlook alleged wrongdoing.

 

She alleges Robinson was drunk, taking cocaine, and went to massage parlours. She makes implications related to Robinson’s apparent hypocrisy as a proclaimed defender of women and girls. “If you are doing drugs with prostitutes, you aren’t defending women.” “Who are running these brothels […] who are they exploiting? Like marginalised, maybe some white girls, some minority girls.” “You’re actually betraying us; you’re betraying my girls.”

In the clip above, she also alleges that Robinson says he had sold no tickets for his tour and said he “was going to get nicked”, which she ties to getting money from his supporters. Robinson has subsequently denied these allegations.

Robinson is no patriot

So, there we have it laid out. Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon, aka Stephen Lennon, Tommy Robinson, Paul Harris or any other name he goes by, is a hypocrite of the highest order. A common thug and criminal who uses his ‘Englishness’ as a weapon to fuel racism, bigotry and the persecution of minorities while milking his supporters and relying on foreign money to fund his lifestyle and politics.

He is a dangerous individual whose organised marches often end in violence, including violence against the police, like with the Cenotaph demonstrations he initiated then ran away from last year, where the protesters chanted “you’re not English any more” at officers and attacked them.

With luck, the UK and Irish authorities will look into these anomalies, and who knows, maybe one of them will deem him to be a danger to the country, just like the British government did with Shamima Begum on national security grounds. She only had British citizenship, Tommy many names has at least two. He can take it.

Bremainers Ask… David Henig

Bremainers Ask… David Henig

Jun 28, 2024 | Bremainers Ask, News

A leading UK authority on international trade policy, David Henig is Director of the UK Trade Policy Project at the European Centre for International Political Economy (ECIPE), where he examines the economic and trade implications of Brexit and broader UK policy. He writes regularly for Borderlex, serves as an Expert Adviser to the House of Lords International Agreements Committee and advised the former UK Trade and Business Commission.

Until March 2018 David was a trade specialist in the UK Government, including 3 years on TTIP talks, establishing the Department for International Trade after 2016 and coordinating work on major international bodies such as the OECD and G7.

David Eldridge: What should be the top priorities for the new government?

Behaving like a normal, competent government would be a good start across a lot of policy areas. Listening to a broad range of experts rather than just those sharing a narrow ideology would be an improvement. There are so many interlinked issues of public services and the economy that need fixing, and upping the rate of growth is so important to tackling them. Regulatory stability would be a great place to start: rather than creating uncertainty in goods, at least we should link to the EU. This would provide an incentive for investment. Removing barriers to trade in the neighbourhood is complementary to this. Then there are the sensitive domestic issues directly linked to growth, of which overseas students is the largest – we really should be taking advantage of being an attractive place to study, not complaining that people want to come to the UK.

 

Steven Wilson: How sustainable is the prospective new Labour government’s attitude towards Brexit?

In the first instance, seeking small steps towards improving the EU relationship isn’t just sustainable, it is essential. Our negotiating legacy since 2016 is toxic in Brussels, and there is a need to build trust that the UK will actually negotiate in good faith and keep commitments. Within Labour’s red lines of not rejoining the single market or customs union there is more that can be done beyond the manifesto commitments of a Sanitary and Phytosanitary (SPS) deal, professional qualification recognition (actually very hard to achieve), and help for touring artists. Joining the pan-Euro-Med convention on rules of origin will help supply chain participation, and the EU wants a youth mobility scheme. A security agreement seems very likely. There’s more to be done on energy. Start to put all this in place first, and then I think there will then be a conversation on whether that is sufficient, or we need to revisit red lines or the referendum. I don’t think there is a way to short-cut this process.

 

Anon: Without rejoining the single market, does Labour have any hope of turning around the UK economy?

All countries have domestic policy choices that affect their trade and therefore economic performance, and the UK deciding to put up barriers to nearby markets is a handicap, but it doesn’t necessarily have to be fatal for economic performance. For example, there are sectors that are less affected, such as financial services, education or defence, and large companies are able to overcome barriers more easily. There is a scenario where we focus more on these to limit the economic damage, but of course there are also issues with these areas. We could also promise investors a level of stability while staying outside the single market, such as on regulation, and combine this with being generally more open to outsiders and neighbours and striking as many deals as we can across Europe. However, in general we are certainly making all of this harder for ourselves by giving our companies higher barriers to overcome than their counterparts in other countries.

 

Ruth Woodhouse: In terms of trade deals, to what extent do you believe Keir Starmer will, or should, give greater priority to negotiations with the EU than with the rest of the world?

Thanks to replicating trade deals that we were a party to as EU members, we have good coverage around the world. The priority therefore has to be to improve what we have in our own neighbourhood, not just with the EU but also Switzerland and Turkey, where we have active negotiations. By and large Free Trade Agreements alone do not significantly shift the economic dial, as they mostly benefit large commodity exporters facing high tariffs, which isn’t where our trade specialisms lie. What we should be looking for is deeper arrangements such as regulatory alignment and mutual recognition, plus whatever we can on services, and this is more likely with others in Europe. We should also stop fixating on a US trade deal, even before they were withdrawing from trade, they did not tend to give other countries many advantages.

Lisa Burton: European Movement’s newly released ‘Manifesto on Europe’ asks the government to implement a detailed assessment of the impact of Brexit. What did you think of the document overall?

With the exception of the commitment on a detailed assessment of Brexit, which I don’t think is best carried out by government, other suggestions in the Manifesto seem broadly sensible and consistent with the general idea of improving relations as the obvious next step. Membership of regulatory agencies is a particularly sensible step, and builds upon the success of the UK remaining within the European standardisation community, an unheralded but really significant achievement for the British Standards Institution (BSI) which required extensive work with the UK government and various EU bodies at a time when relations were not good. I think such bodies will have to decide in the next few years whether to push outright for rejoining the EU, or to seek either a Customs Union or single market as a ‘halfway house’. I think there are drawbacks with all options but, until that debate can be had, then Brexit will continue to be something of a hidden subject.

 

Matt Burton: How far could regulatory alignment with the EU go in reducing trade friction at the borders?

By itself, regulatory alignment does not reduce trade friction at borders, though it has an immediate benefit in that companies trading between the UK and EU do not have to meet two sets of regulations. Committing to similar regulations does open up the possibility of reduced or eliminated barriers subject to negotiations on mutual recognition agreements, which for food and drink products, which are always subject to the greatest level of inspections, could be significant. There isn’t a standardised form of such agreement, and hence it is hard to say exactly what may be included, but in general it should at least be possible to remove some frictions. This isn’t, however, an automatic process, and to even start such a negotiation there needs to be trust that both sides are committed. In general, industrial goods are subject to fewer checks than agricultural ones, but reducing barriers will still be helpful.

Tory wipeout or comeback?

Tory wipeout or comeback?

Jun 21, 2024 | Bylines, News

Apparently, all the Conservatives need to turn this around is an opportunity to make their arguments – and some policies – and a magician! Bremain Chair Sue Wilson writes for Yorkshire Bylines. 

I doubt it will have escaped your notice but there’s an election happening soon in the UK. If the polls are to be believed – and the results across multiple sites would suggest they can – then the Conservatives are about to suffer an almost complete wipeout. Or in the words of polling guru, Professor John Curtice, the results would be the worst ever “by a country mile”.

Polls apart

In a new poll by Savanta and Electoral Calculus for The Telegraph, Labour are predicted to win 516 seats and a massive 382-seat majority, with the Conservatives and LibDems neck-and-neck on 53 and 50 seats respectively. If that weren’t bad enough, Rishi Sunak is predicted to lose his own seat – a feat never before accomplished by any prime minister at a general election, and quite the personal legacy. Other big names are also at risk of losing their seats, including Chancellor Jeremy Hunt and numerous cabinet ministers.

Two other polls released on the same day – by More in Common and YouGov – have the Conservatives on 155 and 108 seats. Better, but not by much. And whichever way you look at it, a disaster for the government on a monumental and historic scale.

The collapse in popularity of the government could be down to any number of factors: the pain and damage of austerity; changing public attitudes to a mis-sold Brexit; cronyism and chronic waste of public money; mishandling of, well, just about everything they’ve touched, or directly down to Sunak and his colleagues. The list is a long one, and it’s still growing.

 

There’s still time…

But, all is not yet lost, it seems.

While the public, the media, and quite probably most of parliament can see the writing on the Conservative wall, Levelling Up Minister Michael Gove has other ideas. According to him, there is still time to stage a comeback and to pull a rabbit out of the hat in extra time. All that’s needed, apparently, is “an opportunity to make these arguments” before “the final whistle”. And some policies. And a magician.

Gove’s arguments, it seems, amount only to warning voters of Labour’s “tax dangers” and their “plans for the future”. In that respect, he would appear to be on the same page as Sunak and many government ministers, in that their election campaign is all about Labour’s plans, not their own. Not to mention the fact that much of the public seem to quite like what Labour are selling.

Former Brexit negotiator Lord Frost, however, does not share Gove’s optimism. The Conservative Party, says Frost, is “hurtling towards a terrible defeat” because the party is not “doing Conservative things”. Frost also warned that Labour would drag Britain back into the “orbit” of Brussels by renegotiating what Keir Starmer described as Boris Johnson and Frost’s “botched” deal. Again, no sign of any ideas or policies of their own, just more criticism of the opposition.

What Gove, Frost, Sunak et al fail to understand is that hardly anyone trusts them, or believes a word they say anymore. As for suggesting that Labour will increase taxes for the less well off, that’s more than a bit rich coming from the “biggest tax-raising parliament on record” and a bunch of out-of-touch millionaires to boot.

Whether you believe the Conservatives are heading for a wipeout or a comeback, Frost and Gove have something in common – a strong tendency towards delusional thinking that came to a head with Brexit and shows no signs of fading.

The Oxford English definition of ‘delusion’ is “a false belief or judgment about external reality, held despite incontrovertible evidence to the contrary”. There’s plenty of incontrovertible evidence that the Conservatives are going to lose, and lose badly. Those within the party that believe otherwise deserve to be nowhere near positions of power. Thankfully, in two weeks’ time it looks like they won’t be.

Unite the right

Unite the right

Jun 12, 2024 | Bylines, News

As Braverman calls for her colleagues to embrace Farage, it could be argued that they’ve already been there, done that, bought the t-shirt, writes Bremain Chair Sue Wilson MBE for Yorkshire Bylines.

Across Europe, far-right groups are celebrating minor gains in the EU elections. While not living up to earlier expectations or hype, the result will see an increase in far-right MEPs in Brussels, but only by nine seats. Pro-European centre parties have claimed the victory and will form the majority in the European Parliament. The election results are, however, causing some upheaval – most notably in Belgium and France – with the resignation of Belgian PM De Croo, and with French President Macron calling a snap election.

Here at home, desperate Conservatives have long been witnessing the rise of the far-right both inside and outside their own party. Despite being largely responsible for that shift to the far-right, Conservatives can now only stand back and watch Reform UK steal much of their thunder, while their own leader looks increasingly hopeless, hapless and helpless.

Unite the right

While more centrist Conservatives – if there are any left – lose hope for the soul of their party, one of their most extreme members – former Home Secretary and Attorney General Suella Braverman – has other ideas. Staunch Brexiter Braverman is urging her party to “embrace” Reform UK leader, Nigel Farage, saying she would welcome him into the party.

Braverman has argued that “there’s not much difference” between the policies of Farage and the Conservatives, as she called on her party to “unite the right”. This follows recent speculation that Farage could join the Conservative Party after the forthcoming election, potentially as leader – an idea supported by several senior party members, including Braverman, Liz Truss and Priti Patel.

Braverman’s comments follow a recent poll – conducted by the Independent newspaper – that suggested Farage was the most popular option to succeed Rishi Sunak as the leader, with 19% of votes cast. Hardly an overwhelming endorsement considering 48% of those polled said “don’t know” when asked who should be the next leader. Braverman herself received just 4% of the vote, coming in fifth, from a list of seven possible candidates.

When asked recently if he was proposing a merger between the Conservatives and Reform UK, Farage replied that it would be “more like a takeover”. First, though, there is the small matter of him winning a seat at Westminster after seven failed attempts.

 

UK election projection

Despite the rise in popularity of the far-right, the UK’s first-past-the-post voting system means Reform UK are unlikely to convert support into seats in Westminster. The latest YouGov poll shows a landslide result for Labour, with a projected 422 seats (a “historic majority of 194”), just 140 seats for the Conservatives, and no seats at all for Reform UK. For context, when Tony Blair won a landslide victory in 1997, Labour won 418 seats – the most ever – with a majority of 179.

YouGov’s director of political analysis, Patrick English, said the recent intervention of Farage as leader of the party “significantly increases the odds of Reform UK winning one, perhaps two seats at Westminster”. Farage’s return would also “improve Reform’s prospects” and, English added, their best hopes of success would come in constituencies where they were fielding ‘heavy hitters’. The three most likely constituencies to return a Reform UK candidate would be Clacton (where Farage himself is standing), Ashfield (Conservative defector, Lee Anderson) and Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice). The latest betting trends published by Oddschecker would seem to support English’s assertions

 

The Brexit effect

Brexiters Braverman, Anderson and Farage are all peas from the same populist, anti-immigration pod. When Anderson announced his defection from the Conservatives to Reform earlier this year, no one would have been surprised had Braverman followed suit. With Farage now keen to take over the Conservative Party, they could all end up in the same party. Assuming, of course, that any of them actually win enough support to be returned as MPs on 4 July.

As Braverman calls for her colleagues to embrace Farage, it could be argued that they’ve already been there, done that, bought the t-shirt. Farage’s influence, whether at the time of the Brexit referendum, or during the 2019 election, has brought the country, and the Conservatives, to where we are now – on the verge of a Labour landslide and with public trust in government completely eroded.

 

With few centrist voices left within what remains of the Conservative Party, their swing to the right, and their terrible legacy of failure, incompetence and waste, will surely bring about their electoral downfall. Perhaps even their total destruction. While the party was busy focussing on the loss of votes to Reform, they were blindsided by Labour’s resurgence, and a British public who have had quite enough.

What will happen to the Conservatives and Reform once our own election is over, remains to be seen. While they both skulk away to lick their wounds, the country will be switching its focus to the incoming Labour government. We’ll have questions. A lot of them. And many of them will focus on Brexit, whether they like it or not.

 

EU moves to the right

As for the European Union, it’s worth remembering that these were the first EU elections that excluded the UK electorate from voting. Not only that, but had we still been EU members, Labour would have – according to former Labour MEP Richard Corbett – “won enough seats to make the Socialists and Democrats the largest political group in the European Parliament”.

Brexit was supposed to be about “taking back control”. In reality, we lost control to far-right-extremists, losing our voice, our influence and our standing. At a time when we should be stood shoulder to shoulder with our allies, friends and neighbours, we’ve been isolated and adrift.

Being left alone to fight the battle against far-right extremism is a risk for the UK. As for Europe, the battle for the centre ground could be assuaged were London to stand beside Brussels. Perhaps, in this fight, the EU really does need us as much as we need them.

As for the next EU elections in 2029, will the UK have a vote? That may be a tall order. But don’t rule it out. A week, and five years, are a long time in politics.