A regular commentator on the blog asked an interesting question overnight. He asked:
Let us assume for one moment that the Conservatives can win this general election with enough of a majority to “get Brexit done” (ha!) at the end of January 2020, and then capitulate to all of the EU's demands to get some sort of trade agreement cobbled together by the end of the year (any fool can get an agreement by simply giving the other side everything they want, and giving up on whatever you want that they don't like … as we have seen already with the latest withdrawal agreement).
What are things going to look like in five years' time, when Brexit has bitten in full force, and global warming is ratcheting up year by year? How do the Conservatives hope to win the *next* election?
This is interesting for two reasons. First, it focuses on what this election should be about. Second, it lifts election thinking above the decidedly low level it has reached. So, let's consider it. I may well offer a separate thought on what a Labour government might do as well in a later blog.
The Conservative manifesto gives almost no clue as to what a Conservative Government might really do barring one thing. It's only objective, since it has become the Brexit Party in all but name, has been to deliver a withdrawal agreement from the EU by 31 January and an EU trade agreement by 31 December 2020.
I think a majority Conservative administration could deliver a withdrawal agreement by 31 January. Of that I have little doubt, although it will certainly upset some Christmas holidays. The deal is ready to go. I can't see many Tories breaking ranks that early in a parliament. The Lords are tied by this being a manifesto commitment. It will happen. The deal is bad. The reaction from Ireland will be grim. The news throughout 2020 will repeatedly focus on this issue. But the deal will be done.
And I happen to think that Johnson has shown how he will get a trade deal done as well. Just as he abandoned red lines, convictions and the Union to get a withdrawal agreement, so will he to get a trade deal.
But recall that some time ago Johnson admitted he had not read a deal he was discussing. Selected highlights were as far as he got. I am sure that he believes that the British electorate share his attitude to these matters. The assumption is that they will accept any trade deal because they will never appraise themselves of what it says. If the tin has Trade Deal written on it, that will do for them. Johnson is placing a great deal of faith in his MPs being of similar like mind so that they will vote it through, come what may. And the deal will be done.
I am not predicting the detail. I do not know it any more than anyone else might. But two things are certain if a deal is to be done. The first is that there will be vastly more alignment with the EU than any Tory now suggest likely. That is the only way a deal can be done in the time available. And getting a deal is, based on the evidence of selling Northern Ireland out to get one, more important than tearing up red lines.
But then, more importantly for my current argument, the deal will be ignored by Johnson and his government time and again. The evidence for this suggestion is also clear: Johnson has already said he has no intention of imposing trade barriers in the Irish Sea even though this withdrawal agreement will clearly require them. I can only suggest that the EU negotiators look very hard at just what sanction clauses they can include in any agreement. They are going to need them.
So, I do expect divergence, albeit it not as much as some might fear
I do expect friction in trade.
I do expect job losses, even with a deal.
I do expect lower consumer standards.
And I am not expecting that to result in lower prices. The pound will fall as trade gets harder.
Of course, all that can be described as project fear. Or expert opinion, which is as bad to some. But rationally, it's also likely. So I don't really care how it's described.
And it will deliver an economic downturn. I won't predict the scale, but I do think a downturn is likely. And the Tories have suggested that they will fix tax rates for all the big revenue generators. This means that unless they are willing to borrow heavily, and I doubt that they are, even for investment, then austerity will be back, in a big way.
We already face gross inequality. And real poverty. Children are being hit hard. And that will get worse. As will all the public services that support those with needs. And this is not by chance. It is part of the Britannia Unchained philosophy of those who now have control of the Tories. It is their belief that tough justice is what is required to make people work; the natural predisposition of people in the UK being, in their opinion, to avoid all forms of responsibility, including any obligation to work. So there will be no sympathy for those who their policies prejudice. There will instead be little short of contempt: the game will be to play off the remaining ‘haves' against the ‘have nots' and presume that the haves will still vote Tory, not least because the Britannia Unchained crowed will believe that by breaking the EU deal, and suffering sanctions, they will reinforce their populist support base. Again, I stress, that antagonism to the EU will be policy.
So what will a Tory government be like? The most divisive that we can recall, I suggest. And deliberately so. The policy will be overtly one of divide and rule. And it will all be based on fear. There will be the fear of the 'other' in Europe. And the fear that, but for grateful compliance a person will end up one of the ‘unfortunate others' the state refuses to support.
And that's how they intend to win in 2024, by dividing this country even more than it is already. It's a grim prospect. But I can see no other strategy that they could pursue and have any hope of winning again.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It is very easy to stop a Tory victory in 2024, it would have been easy to stop a Tory victory in 2019..have an opposition Party which appeals to the centre ground..it is really that simple. Instead we have a hard left Labour Party under the grip of iron grip Momentum. The anti semitic rhetoric is a fall out from this as is losing a significant proportion of the working class vote..Corbyn, Mcdonnell, Abbott, Raynor, Thornberry etc have no electoral appeal. Unfortunately i am not sure this is going to change in the near future..it is desperately frustrating..
So you don’t want a Labour party then?
More like the Lib Dems? They are standing
“More like the Lib Dems? They are standing”
Tatayana, did say ‘centre ground’. I’m not convinced that Lib Dems qualify.
🙂
Eh? What’s the point of speculating about the general election after this? Surely the focus should be on stopping the Tories having sufficient parliamentary support to form a government after 12 December. In a previous comment I suggested that it might be enough for Labour to capture the same number of seats as in 2017 (and ideally to push this total up to 270 or 280), that the other parties would secure enough seats to keep the Tories well short of a majority and that this looked achievable. Now, I’m not so sure.
And this is particularly the case after Jeremy Corbyn’s interview with Andrew Neil last night. “Car crash” is too hackneyed to describe it. Not surprisingly anti-semitism dominated, but Corbyn was equally weak on the other issues.
Anti-semitism is the original sin of Christendom and, although the major denominations belatedly have (the CoE as late as last week), not all Christian faiths have acknowledged and sought to make amends for their culpability. And even though over half the population do not declare an affilation to any faith, the legacy of Christianity is all around us in our customs and practices and in our built environment. Many of its precepts, having being made secular and universal, are embedded in our laws and governance. Everyone has a responsibility to root out anti-semitism and to expunge it from society. The use of “what aboutery” is totally reprehensible. And the demonstrable unwillingness to take the timely, forceful and unflinching steps to expunge it from the party he, Corbyn, leads and which his supporters totally control is even more reprehensible.
And that’s only one area where Corbyn and his acolytes demonstrate their lack of governance competence.
I fear now that leave-voting seats with Labour majorities (and often quite handsome ones) could fall to the Tories. Previously I had hoped that Brexit Party bravado might do more damage to the Tories than to Labour in these seats. But I can now envisage many traditional Labour supporters who voted leave switching directly to the Tories – and even some who voted remain.
However, Labour still has to supported in the seats it holds and those where it might win – and we can but hope for a better future for the party.
I’d say thinking about what the Tories will do is very relevant…
So – Andrew Neil is seen as some sort of ‘quality filter’ on behalf of the country for those who wish to run it?
Really?
Good lord – that is scraping the barrel – it really is.
I’ve looked at those exchanges and the questions that Neil asks are of the lowest possible quality you would expect from such an operator as Neil. Basically Neil asks what I would call ‘covert closed questions’ – questions that appear to be focussing on detail but actually ignore detail and any rationale being put forward, thus removing any contextual references for the audience.
As a result, the politician is made to look weak, the interrogator looks strong (which is good for his/her career and agent) and the audience learns nothing – absolutely nothing – to inform their choices.
Let’s see how he deals with Johnson.
But even then, treating politicians like this is counter-productive and futile because the public’s faith in them is undermined even if they are fundamentally decent people who offer hope with new ideas and may well as a result never get the chance to have a go at something different to break the punitive lock that the current orthodoxy has on us.
The media has a lot to answer for in the way that it has helped to turn people off politics and create cynicism.
I’ve been interviewed by Neil
He is tough
He can also be thrown off guard if you have done your preparation
Paul Hunt seems to accept the views being propagated by the media and perhaps would have liked to have seen this morning’s Daily Mail headline as “Corbyn admits his guilt”.
It’s funny how we all see the same events differently.
An interview with Andrew Neill was never going to be easy, and the timing of the Chief Rabbi’s announcement was unfortunate (or perhaps very fortunate, if you see what I mean).
I saw Corbyn manage to avoid falling into any of the “simple answer” traps put in front of him without swerving off and “not answering the question”. Defensive, yes, but consider the environment! But Paul and I are different people.
Someone asked in an earlier comment, what was it that she was missing, now that AS was back dominating the agenda? I’d suggest that it is any intelligent comparison of the Labour and Conservative manifestos in the “popular” media, be that newspapers, radio or TV.
Pilgrim Slight Return says:
“So — Andrew Neil is seen as some sort of ‘quality filter’ on behalf of the country….”
I’m afraid so. It gives him a position of great power and influence with absolutely no accountability.
By the end of the typical Andrew Neil interview the only opinion you can be certain of is his. And you could probably have guessed that anyway and been fairly close to the mark.
It will be ….interesting……. to see what he does to Boris Johnson. He should demolish him, but will he ? I doubt it. And there will be widespread media cries of ‘foul’ if he asks a hard question, let alone insists on a coherent answer.
Only if devoting effort to describing how bad they will be if they win contributes to the primary objective of removing them from government on 12 December…
@Pilgim Slight Returns and A.Pessimist,
In almost instances I disagree (and usually disagree fundamentally) with any political or economic view Andrew Neil expresses, but I totally respect his competence as a journalist. He interviewed Jeremy Corbyn as a prime minister-in-waiting and sought to test his capability to govern, because demonstrating a capability to deliver sensible competent governance is the primary requirement of any candidate for prime minister.
He focused initially on his perfomance as leader of the Labour party (which confers on him the role of prime-minister-in-waiting) and questioned how he had dealt with the pressing challenge of rooting anti-semitism out of the party – which revealed leadership and institutional failings. He then exposed the vacuity of his declared “neutrality” on Brexit and went on to explore how Corbyn would deal with the distributional and fiscal implications of two key policy proposals. He then briefly questioned the implications in government of Corbyn’s long-standing opposition to almost all aspects of the foreign policies pursued by the democratically elected governments of western nations and to his apparent unquestioning support for countries and movements determinedly and lethally opposed to the interests of western nations.
My view on Mr. Corbyn’s performance doesn’t matter a whit, because I have no option but to support Labour. But his abysmal failure to demonstrate a competence to govern may impact on traditional Labour supporters who voted leave and are thinking of switching to the Tories because they have serious doubts about Jeremy Corbyn and those who surround him or on Tory supporting remain voters who are repelled by Boris Johnson. Under our current party system and FPTP those are the voters who count.
Paul Hunt says:
“Eh? What’s the point of speculating about the general election after this? ”
I think it’s a valid and useful exercise in considering where the result of a Boris Johnson Tory party is likely to take us over the next five years. He specifically enjoins the electorate to see no further than ‘get it done’. Get what done exactly, he doesn’t tell us. There is no coherent vision of Brexit, it exists only as a collection of individual and probably quite incompatible fantasies. It is a word with no definition. It doesn’t even merit the distinction of being an ‘idea’.
On your other tack.
“Anti-semitism is the original sin of Christendom ”
Yes it is. Christianity (or I should say the Christian Church, for it is not part of Christian gospel teaching) is imbued with the Judaic idea of a ‘chosen people’. No good has ever come of that. And never can. It is a meme which infects the entire Western world, and is probably the seed of its destruction.
Zionists are playing an extremely dangerous political game stirring-up the anti-Semitic charges, currently only against one political party, which coincidentally has Palestinian sympathies, which are political and nothing whatever to do with religion. This will inevitably lead to a backlash. I am dismayed that the Chief Rabbi has been suckered into making what I regard as ill-considered comments.
“As Chief Rabbi of Ireland and before the opening of an Israeli Embassy in Ireland, he represented Israel’s interests at government level and in the media.”
I find it astounding that any pronouncement on antisemitism someone from a Jewish organisation makes is taken as if the person / organisation has no political affiliations when in every case they are extremely close to / supportive of the Israeli Government. If Corbyn is morally unacceptable as a prime minister- according to the Rabbi- why has no one asked him how it is he finds Benjamin Netanyahu morally acceptable?
AliB makes a very good point. How likely is it that the good Rabbi’s attack on the Labour Party leader is unconnected with his views, documented on Wikipedia, on the need for Israel to obtain supplies of weapons, and that sympathy for Palestinians under attack in Gaza has been “used as cover to voice antisemitic sentiment”?
Is it Mr Corbyn that he finds offensive, or is it the Labour manifesto, or both? Don’t bother waiting for the mainstream media to ask such questions.
@Andrew Crow,
Oh dear. Rather than treating Jews as a chosen people, almost two millennia of Christian tradition and practice condemned the Jewish people as an “accursed race” having a collective responsibility for deicide. This springs from the gospels’ accounts of the crowd calling for Barabbas to be released and Jesus to be condemned. There is no independent verification of this story. Of course, it was politically convenient for the early Christian scribes to implicate the Jews allegedly present at the time rather than to accuse the imperial power of Rome of deicide. And this has provided the rationale for the blood libels and pogroms over the centuries that culminated in the Nazis’ “final solution”. Perhaps you should have a look at the CoE’s latest effort at coming to terms with this long history of oppression:
https://www.churchofengland.org/more/media-centre/news/church-england-teaching-document-calls-repentance-over-role-christians
A Jew in Britain isn’t responsible for the behaviour of the current Israeli government in the same way as a Brit living abroad who doesn’t vote here is responsible for the behaviour of the UK government. But both are equally entitled to assert that these states and their citizens should exist and live in safety and security. And as for this left-wing obsession with Zionism, one of the founders of the German SPD, the oldest social democratic party in the world, August Bebel, gave currency to the observation that “Anti-semitism is the socialism of fools”. It remains true today.
And if Jeremy Corbyn had spent less time acting as the unofficial, but powerless, alternative foreign secretary virtue-signalling, moralising and giving comfort to anti-democratic and anti-western states and movements in conflicts where Britain has minimal influence and more time working with left-of-centre leaders in Europe to re-establish social democracy in the advanced economies he might be more electable.
I made clear that this is not an issue for here
And further comments will be deleted
A grim prospect indeed. When will the penny drop that the Tories have no intention of considering the needs of ordinary people in their tub thumping nationalslitic hatred of all foreigners. Johnson, Raab, Javid, Patel et al are all singing to the same hymn sheet which means continuing austerity as you say, ramping up the hostile environment to migrants with all the more vengeance. I am not a Labour Party member but I would far prefer the “hard left” Momentum policies than those of the Tories. Whether the British public will see the light in 5 years time is a moot point after another 5 years of far right ranting from the mass media including the BBC.
Your post prompts two comments.
“[The Conservative Party’s] only objective, since it has become the Brexit Party in all but name, has been to deliver a withdrawal agreement from the EU by 31 January and an EU trade agreement by 31 December 2020.”
Hmmmm… has it though ? Eu trade agreement by December 2020 is widely predicted to be impossible unless it simply accepts most of the status quo terms. So we face the prospect of the no deal situation we were threatened with this October being repeated this time next year. It was suggested that is precisely why and how Johnson won the support of the ERG zealots.
” It is part of the Britannia Unchained philosophy of those who now have control of the Tories. It is their belief that tough justice is what is required to make people work; the natural predisposition of people in the UK being, in their opinion, to avoid all forms of responsibility, including any obligation to work.”
Yes, well they judge everybody by their own standards, don’t they. !!
I’d hoped I’d addressed those points
I think they will give the EU what they demand
And then ignore the agreement….
“I’d hoped I’d addressed those points”
You language is rather more diplomatic than mine …… 🙂
Andrew Neil, in his interview with Jeremy Corbyn, hypothecated a case where by a retiree on the state pension, with a £4,000 annuity and in receipt of £2,000 a year in dividend payments would see a tax rise from £9 per year to £400 per year under Labour’s proposals. This was utter tosh.
The retirees combined pension and annuity would broadly cover his tax allowance although Mr Neil had not taken into account the reduction in his state pension, because they had been contracted out and the dividend payment would be subject to tax at their marginal rate, whoever wins the election, unless it is sheltered under a stocks and shares ISA.
Mr Neil’s guests are not the only ones guilty of a lack of preparation but he cannot interview himself.
My comment is aimed at Andrew Neil.
The fact that the ‘Neil brand’ has been able to assert itself and also maintain its presence to the point of being indispensable is troubling to me and his brand of ‘journalism’ is unacceptable. Such face offs are treated as entertainment – not serious debating or issue exploration.
So dealing with Neil proves that you are ‘what’ exactly in terms of being a Prime Minister? Well prepared for interviews? Authentic? Trustworthy? Moral?
Had I been in Corbyn’s coterie I would have advised him not to go on it at all. Fuck Andrew Neil and his interviews I say.
It’s looking like Johnson may have decided to chicken out of facing Andrew Neil.
BBC News Press Teamâ€ï€²Verified accountï‚™ @BBCNewsPR
For those asking when Boris Johnson’s interview will take place, we’re in ongoing discussions with his team but we haven’t yet been able to fix a date
https://twitter.com/BBCNewsPR/status/1199697628545650688
Well seeing as we are on a almost generalised narrative – fancy my tuppence for today?
Nicely played rope a dope on AS than with two rounds to go come bouncing back left cross on AS and right hook on NHS — taking out bbc, sky … who look stoopid for ignoring the revelation and sticking to script , 3 at a time question taking genius.
So with 2 weeks to go — over 4 million new registrations it goes down to — duh NHS stupid!
Clear question for voters what is more important to you a tory Brexit and Trump Trade Deal or OUR NHS.
Barry, Keir & co come out to show the depth and strength to show it aint just Jezza — the strategy is correct.
Last 2 rounds — no more rope a dope and dancing butterfly Just a barrage of stings and knockout blow.
What u say folks?
Cummings is forced into the open. IDS and Fallon (him???) on LBC. Neil is replaced by Laura to let her soft focus her pet project as the wheels fall of his bus.
This will be the KO punch
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/27/sayeeda-warsi-tory-islamophobia-muslim-prejudice-investigation
When she flips it is all over.
The ONLY way tories win is by ballot stuffing. It has been set up over last 9 years since Electoral Commission privatisation by Con/Lib coalition. Contract with co with peter Lilley. No audit trail.
Vital this gets attention within next two weeks.
Postal votes have gone up exponentially from 2 million to 8.5 million at last election. If they gone up more this time…..
This is serious vote rigging and THEY are doing it in the UK!!
The dirtiest election ever. The dodgy polls are setting up the excuse.
The polls are balls — as i showed already.
No prizes yet. They are rocking, double the effort and chaaaarggge — NO PASARAN!
I am not convinced by all your claims, I admit
I think many people vote by post because they realise they can and life is unpredictable day by day
I did for a long time
“Contract with co with Peter Lilley. No audit trail.”
That figures….. it makes my magic tinfoil hat vibrate….