What is the point of the Tories now? And why are they still in power?
The party of business could not give a damn about its fortunes.
The party of law and order breaks the law whenever it feels like it.
The party of tradition is destroying our parliament democracy that is built on respect for precedent.
They have allowed tens of thousands to die in this country with no good reason; it was simply their own incompetence that caused these deaths.
And the party that was once for empire, intervention and active foreign policy has not just disengaged from foreign engagement, but has proved to be a witless and impotent partner in a military defeat.
As for one nation, we could not be further from that if we tried. Inequality is rising, rapidly.
It's not even clear what the nation is anymore with the likelihood of the UK's demise in its current form now very high.
And yet the Tories retain a stubborn, albeit slightly declining, lead in opinion polls.
Is that because Labour appears an unattractive alternative?
Or is it because people don't care that we have a rotten government, because they'd rather we had a bunch of psychopathic dogmatists in charge even if they are incompetent?
Or is it simply because people in this country do not believe change is possible anyway and that come what may this is pretty much what we are headed for? Is it that they think that the Brexit vote in 2016 really did seal our fate both domestically and in the world at large, and that failure is now our destiny?
I genuinely do not know the answers to these questions. All that seems apparent is that in a failing state with a failed system of democracy with a failing government comprised of those who would fail at any task they were given, even if it was running a school tuck shop, authoritarianism appears to appeal to a sufficient minority to perpetuate a populist government in power even though what it is doing is so obviously against the best interests of so many who would seem to be its natural supporters.
In such a malign environment what is to be done to effect change when the forces of authority and the media are willing to sustain the grip on power that the Tories have despite all their failings?
That might be the question of this age. And the answer is still not apparent.
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:
Isn’t part of the issue that the majority of people don’t see things in such stark terms or within that framework.
Why don’t they?
Imagine Labour was in office and there were food shortages, rationed blood tests, a military defeat and tens of thousands of unnecessary deaths. How would people react to that?
What’s the difference?
The difference is the Tory-owned press would be screaming about it and without that the general population, unable to think for themselves, will only respond to obvious and life-threatening stimuli like an absence of food. Luckily, we should soon be seeing that so the riots won’t be too far away.
Richard, I will attempt an answer to your question by relating some personal experiences as follows:
I grew up in Sweden and left to live in London with my English husband in 1969. In the 1960s Sweden was ruled by The Social Democratic Party that had been in power since well before WW2. The culture of supporting all aspects of the welfare state was very strong amongst the Swedish population. The Swedish Conservatives even found it necessary to rename themselves as the Moderates.
When we arrived in London in the summer of 1969 the contrasts for me were enormous. My strongest memories from that time was greyness, formality to the nth degree and old fashioned attitudes if not backwardness, primarily from the tabloids but also amongst many older people. However, young people, Londoners, were radical with constructive opinions. Some older people with basic, working class occupations and minimal education were clearly very intelligent and should have had better opportunities and careers. The very positive feature was the friendships, the support and care from many, not only friends and acquaintances.
We lived amongst ordinary Londoners but worked with well educated, thoughtful colleagues. It was a divided country, between rich and poor, educated and uneducated, young and old but all these differences probably contributed to future, positive changes, it was not all negative.
I believe the problems you list are a result of history as well as present English culture. In the past, the British Empire made people believe in a glorified view of their own country. The low and average income earners, housewives, pensioners etc. didn’t know how deprived they were, even in the 1960s, in comparison with some other European nations. This type of idealised view of one’s own country is probably typical in previous and present empires and world powers, e.g. US today. In my view, present English tabloids and social media nurture views and opinions favouring status quo. So change is not popular unless it is directed from the prime minister and his Party, which you have outlined in your post very well. Nevertheless, there are differences of opinion, including your own, which I believe, will produce positive change in the future. So there is hope.
I agree with your view that a lack of an international perspective harms the UK and the perception here many have of the country
I think Birgitta has nailed it as far as the UK is concerned. For significant change to happen in the UK it’s divided class-ridden culture would have to change. A culture that has developed over a long period of time. Culture is slow to change. Sudden major change is likely to be accompanied by mayhem. The Nordic countries explicitly try to create equality but this country is the opposite.
‘will only respond to obvious and life-threatening stimuli like an absence of food. Luckily, we should soon be seeing that so the riots won’t be too far away.’
Bill kruse! You appear to be wishing people start to starve to make a political point. What the hell is wrong with you man ?
I am not sure he is wishing it as an outcome
I think he believes it might happen and that change might result from it
But I’d never advocate that as a route to change: it’s a failure of this government that the possibility is real
It’s already a national shame that so many who are in work need benefits and foodbanks to survive
Politicians are increasingly replacing acting for the public interest with acting for their private interest, a fundamental part of a failing state.
Political parties are there to solely win elections, and in between to serve sectional interests.
There is a comfortable club in the House of Commons to which the Tories, Labour and the SNP all belong. Why should any insider want to change this?
I’d suggest that the MSM is 95% Tory supporting come what may, largely owned by foreign new-cons who, as you say, would be having a field day if it was Labour in power but barely mention the range of disasters currently being enacted in front of our eyes. Secondly a Labour party leader who appears more interested in destroying the Labour Party than being a proper opposition. Is he an MI5 plant? it is quite hard to believe that he actually believes the Labour Party is benefiting from his actions.
I think Starner is sincere
And I am well aware that there are MI5 plants, probably in many organisations, but I would be surprised if he is one
That does not prevent him being very frustrating on occasion and hopeless on many issues
Starmer is clearly working to an agenda just like Blair and is trying to neutralise the Labour Party.
That I feel is self evident.
What are the Tories for?
Well, I thought it was for the rich – part of their hegemonic tactics to keep themselves rich. The Conservatives are conserving the power of money for the monied. Thatcher’s Tory party helped create this capacity and boosted it, so a take over of the Tories by what they created was always probable. They captured the Tory party of course (and have New Labour in their pockets too).
And not only the British rich but anyone else who will cross the Tory party’s hands with silver – Russians please take note.
As for the voter – well – everyday they are pummeled with lies and deceits by the information apparatus that is also captured by the same vested interests. It’s no good talking about the average man in the street and his/her lack of outrage in a world of constant soma (apps, social media, credit) and misinformation (think BREXIT and Covid).
We can berate the public as much as we like, but I would recommend we keep our eye on and our ire for those who are spending large amounts of donated money on keeping things exactly as they are by ‘creating their own reality’.
We know the public are increasingly ‘down’ on politics – whether its the lying, the hypocrisy, or even the detachment and lack of action. It turns them off. A lot of this I feel is done deliberately to deter interest in politics. The British state has always had a subtle anti-democratic element to it based on the class system.
The class system is now money – pure and simple – not about breeding, race, background – money and it’s power is blind to whether you were born with a silver spoon in your mouth or are an ex-East End barrow boy.
What matters is that you’ve got the cash – not if you drop your H’s when speaking the Queens English. And if you’ve got the cash, the Tories want you and are prepared to make sure that they are here to help.
The rest of us can go to hell.
I’ve no idea how long we will tolerate this for. But I feel that it will only change when a number of pressures all come together at the same time.
But even then, that will depend on who else is offering a viable alternative. And this leads me to my next point.
If people reject something, they have to have something else to move toward.
At this moment in time, there is nothing. That’s why I sort of refuse to be critical of the population. Sure, there are lots of ideas, but it’s not really what you would call a ‘movement’. People want something ready made and ready for action because they know too that time is short.
The Torres are there to continue the asset stripping of the whole country.
The media bombardment explains a lot of the why. But the supine opposition of the so called Labour Party has a lot to answer for.
The question of the age is why are Labour – the so-called party of ‘the many’ – not hell bent on fixing the UK’s rotten FPTP voting system? PR would end once and for all Tory hegemony on a minority vote; No more incompetence, corruption, climate inaction, protection of the billionaire press propaganda machine, etc. etc.
Yet from Labour the silence is deafening on the subject of reform.
They truly are the Tories greatest allies.
Mr Ferguson, I’ve come to the same conclusion myself re Labour. Their factionalism and tribalism make them the best ally the Tories have.
Yes, some of the electorate need to stop being so politically lazy and guillible, and yes, so much of the media landscape is as PSR notes, nothing more than right wing propaganda designed to keep the Tories in power no matter what.
But a party in a state of constant civil war with itself (just look at some of the comments here about Labour – Starmer an M.I.5 plant!?) with left and right constantly attacking each other, and which refuses to ally itself with other non Tory parties, and isn’t interested in replacing FPTP?
How can Labour even call itself a progressive party when, just like the Tories, they think they alone should be in power, and want to keep the FPTP ‘winner takes all, loser get lost’ voting system? That’s a regressive, right wing attitude if ever there was one.
Calling the Lib Dems ‘yellow Tories’, and wasting time and money in those 90 or so constituencies where the LD’s are the Tories main opposition by putting up Labour candidates and splitting the vote? Or refusing to contemplate an alliance with the SNP and acting as though all those Scottisn seats will return to Labour? Or arrogantly telling green voters like myself that a vote for the greens is a wasted vote, and they should be voting Labour?
Fabulous – for the Tories.
Very well put.
I see little hope for Labour – and by extension UK democracy – unless they switch leadership to someone who is a genuine visionary (Starmer’s so not it. On the other hand, Clive Lewis certainly is).
Such a tectonic shift is remote, except for the fact that we’re living through a climate and ecological emergency, which at some point very, very soon will make it blindingly obvious to Labour that its old, self-indulgent politics is over and that a new radical politics is needed and needed fast.
The reason Libdems are called Yellow Tories is because they kept them in power long enough for the Tories to dismantle the state and along with it our NHS.
New Labour really are red Tories in disguise, like the Libdems, New Labour carried on deregulating the City and financial sectors and spun the same Neo-Liberal doctrines that a government such as ours must raise taxation in order to spend.
What we all face, is a small elite that has turned on its own people and rigged a system that enriches them at our cost. In fact Bernie Sanders made a speech in Congress stating that in 2010, where said and I quote, “the 1% are at war with its own people”. The pity is most don’t realise it.
swing voters are ” relativerly conservative ” Will Hutton wrote recently
And look at the popularity of the Daily Mail
But I do think we’ll all wake up some time soon — remember the poll tax revolt came from nowhere quite suddenly
Agree, it is perplexing that the Tories, which such a damaging record are still supported to the extent they are. Many of the factors cited above contribute to what generally could be termed “apathy”. However this is not really an easy cop-out for thinking about the situation when the “majority” of people when not discussing politics seem to be reasonably well informed and are people of goodwill who would prefer a more equal society, would like radical action on climate, do not want to see endless foreign wars, would like to see a better-supported health service and decent social care. Labour and Tory are going to cling onto first past the post elections for they both benefit from them. Change may seem to take a long time like the Green Pary in Germany who passed the 5% threshold to get into the West German parliament in 1983 and are now in September 2021 on the verge of entering government if their present vote share holds up. The UK has not got another 38 years for Greens to succeed who now poll at 5% and much more in places like Brighton and Bristol. Revolution is not the British way, though social unrest may increase. You say the Conservative vote is slightly reduced, maybe this trend will continue but don’t hold your breath.
“The World is not ruined by the wickedness of the wicked, but by the weakness of the good.”
or in the present environment:
“The country is not ruined by the incompetence of the Tories, but by the apathy of the voters.”
I think that this updated quote by Napoleon puts succinctly the reason for the state of the U.K. today.
Why are they still in power? I thought the answer should be obvious. At the last election there were more than 16 million voters, across Labour, the Lib Dems and the progressive nationalists who were totally opposed to the Tories. The Tories clocked up just shy of 14 million votes, but presented a single offer.
It’s a total political failure on the part of Labour, the Lib Dems and the nationalists that they are not able to assemble a credible alternative programme of government. They are not being paid to ponce and posture and indulge in tribalism and petty feuds. They are being paid to make our system of competitive democracy work. There’s no point moaning about FPTP. The only way that may be changed is when the anti-Tories get their act together.
Of course, in addition to the being assaulted from without by the Lib Dems, nationalists and the Green fantasists, Labour is being assailed from within by the anti-capitalist, anti-western left, the purveyors of identity politics and the climate extremists.
Conversely, the Tories have been able to assemble this unlikely coalition of greedy, short-sighted house, property and other asset-owning, economic rent-capturing capitalists, socially conservative former Labour voters and resurgent English nationalists with relatively low educational attainments and poor economic prospects. But that coalition probably hit its peak 2 years ago and is certainly not a majority.
In addition, there is a rottenness at the heart of the democracies of many of the advanced economies as a result of four decades of this mis-named neoliberalism. The debacle in Afghanistan demonstrated that in spades.
But assembling an alliance of liberals and progressives as Joe Biden did in the US, Justin Trudeau has done in Canada and Jacinda Ardern in Aotearoa is the way out.
Shame Europe is in such a mess – with a serious absence of competitive democracy in many countries and with the EU going through one of its periods of profound institutional dysfunction, political ineptitude and strategic weakness and incoherence.
Paul
Sorry but the line about Green fantasists shows you are part of the problem
Unless you can learn to cooperate you want the Tories in power
Your language is totally opposed to your stated aim
Richard
You owe Paul an apology in my view.
One could reasonably conclude that he wants a cleaner and healthier environment while prosperity nudges upwards. In other words he wants Green realists and not Green fantasists.
Define the difference
And whatever it is, by being rude to some in the Greens he destroys any hope of achieving what he wants, which was my point
In a previous post you quoted Adam Smith’s TOMS. Smith set out how moral sentiments expand to form common bonds in ever increasing concentric circles. His focus was on the common bond that defines and underpins the nation-state and the governance required to sustain it. Conflict between different interests in a society always exists and democratic governance seeks to manage and resolve it. It is the job of politicians to inform, persuade and lead their voters in the management and resolution of these conflicts while ensuring least damage to this national common bond – and ideally reinforcing it. It is also their job, at all times, to present voters with two clear choices of governance so that, at elections, voters have a credible option to retain the outgoing government or to replace it with the alternative.
And politicians also have a responsibility to strengthen the ultimate common bond which is our shared humanity.
There will always be more than enough conflict in society without any increase in divisiveness or conflict that damages the common bond. However, many of the current factions are intent on promoting divisiveness and conflict. For example, there is no way that a majority of voters will ever be convinced that the capitalist system should be overthrown, supplanted or superseded. It may not be working well for many of them, but the job of politicians is to make it work better. So the anti-capitalist, anti-western left are at nothing and are simply causing unnecessary grief on the left. Yes, many politicians on the left were totally suborned by this misnamed neoliberalism, but there is strong evidence that many are now pivoting determinedly away from it.
Again, for example, most people recognise that human sexuality is a spectrum with most people clustering at either one end or the other and, over time, a majority may come to accept that gender is a social construct, but the identity politics warriors are causing unnecessary divisiveness and conflict that is damaging the national common bond.
As another example, a majority of people on this island will never accept that white people practise the most damaging, both currently and historically, form of racism. Again the identity politics warriors are causing unnecessary divisiveness and conflict.
And as for the Greens, there is no doubt that the advanced economies have a “carbon debt” they must pay down before stringent obligations to contribute to the reduction of GHG emissions are imposed on emerging and developing economies. But the kinds of societal and economic transformations many Greens are advancing will simply provoke concerted opposition from a majority of voters and set back efforts to decarbonise. When the Green “realos” were in government in Germany between ’98 and ’05, they were reasonably sensible, but the antics of the Irish Greens between ’07 and ’11 when they were in government disgusted me. Their down-playing of, or opposition to, nuclear and CCS is totally counter-productive. I suppose the killer for me was when, in the aftermath of Fukushima, Angela Merkel decided to phase out perfectly serviceable nuclear plants in probably the most geologically stable region on the planet so as to keep the Greens sweet.
And, yes, there will always be a substantial minority of voters who will seek to use and abuse the capitalist system to protect and advance their narrow selfish interests, but effective democratic governance will ensure their depredations are minimised.
So now, who do you think is part of the problem?
You
You are using the language of divisiveness to pursue what you call inclusiveness
How do you think that can work?
That is the question you need to answer
On the contrary. I’m making the case to re-include the millions of voters who have been, and are being, repelled and disgusted by the antics of the anti-capitalist, anti-western left, the purveyors of identity politics and the Green fantasists and climate extremists. Yes, I know the arguments about shocking them out of their comfort zones, but democracy, if it’s anything, is about informing and persuading.
Do you not realise that the anti-capitalist, anti-western antics of Jeremy Corbyn and his Neo-Stalinist and ultra trades unionist praetorian guard drove hundreds of thousands of decent, sensible, community-oriented former Labour party supporters in to the arms of the Tories? Or that the social conservatism and genuine sense of patriotism of millions of voters was, and is being, deeply offended by these antics and the antics of the purveyors of identity politics contending that the most vile racism is practised by white people and that anything is permissible in terms of self-identification of gender? Or that millions of voters are horrified by the ambitions of the Green fantasists and climate extremists?
I wish to sideline those who are damaging our national common bond and preventing us making genuine progress to tackle the challenges of the age via effective democratic governance.
Paul
If you want to get anywhere you really have got to change your language
I have some sympathy with you – and stood out against Corbyn and I also think identity politics is not helping the left right now, most especially amongst the young who think much of it patronising when they already get these issues – but your approach is dire
Richard
And I might add that by “sidelining” I mean reducing their noise and influence to be proportionate to the electoral support they secure. And I want the Tories to be reduced to the 30% rump they maintained between 1997 and the Iraq War. Labour’s majority in those years reflected the settled view of a majority of voters. It is our misfortune that three of the most gifted politicians of the modern era, Bill Clinton, Tony Blair and Gerhard Schroeder, were totally suborned by neoliberalism. The challenge is to re-secure that majority.
Paul, I am glad that you, along with a few others, have noticed what I thought was Corbyn’s failure of judgement of people. His spads consisted of 3 Stalinists and 1 fruitcake. One of the Stalinists left rather quickly for some reason. Who would select these people as advisors? Only someone whose judgement was poor. This let him down. Good ideas; poor judgement.
Paul,
Your comments about “Labour being assailed from within by the anti-capitalist, anti-western left, the purveyors of identity politics and the climate extremists” is so ludicrous I’d find it difficult to believe you understand anything about politics at all. Corbyn was continually undermined by the Blairites culminating in the mess we’re in now.
Also to even consider the likes of Joe Biden and Justin Trudeau as “progressives” is beyond all comprehension. Ridiculous!!
I’d suggest you read a book.
Jim.
Thank you, Richard. I expected you would share, at least some of, my take on these various factions. We’ll probably have to agree to disagree on the ‘approach’. But you might be surprised at the extent to which my approach resonates with many voters – even if it would be an anathema in the various echo chambers frequented by members of these factions.
Paul,
I think the polls would suggest differently.
The majority of people in this country want a viable alternative to the current Tory party and New Labour do not in any way shape or form offer an alternative.
Regards,
Jim.
@Jim,
I started out my contributions to this thread by pointing out that there is a clear anti-Tory majority among voters, but the politicians representing them have totally failed to present them with a credible alternative govenring proposition.
However, I suspect from your comments that you believe they’re all yearning for the establishment of the Democratic Socialist People’s Republic.
WYSIWYG.
Is it not just a fatal flaw that can be exploited by the unscrupulous who seek power? The vast majority of people don’t understand government lies and propaganda. If you try to talk about it most people will want you to shut up and go away. They think they are better off not knowing and will claim that what you are talking about is “depressing”.
It can be very frustrating once you become aware of it. People allow themselves to be duped and exploited.
Is the reason because we have not lived through the trauma of being shaken to our roots by being invaded and losing a war? We still think like we have a global empire and although this is obviously not true, we morph every change in our narrative back to that awful past. Any party that wants to win an election has to conform to that narrative. Our system is basically bullying and brutal.
The scrounging Tory scum haven’t finished stealing our taxes or nhs yet. They still have more of the country to destroy, not much tbf as their WA destroyed every industry.
The current situation is the result of the work of the ideologues who asset stripped public organisations under Thatcher. When the “ownership” of utilities, mutual societies, council housing etc. was passed into private corporate hands I said at the time we will end up with our wealth in the hands of small group who will then have the power to dictate how things run for their benefit. Like Brexit, this asset stripping was built on lies, public corporations were deprived of funds and investment, presented as failing economically and then “sold” to private investors including the “little ” people, Those shares valued so low were then traded in the “market”, rising in value they were then transferred to corporate investors who paid the “little” people a slightly higher, yet still undervalued price. Est voila, the ownership is now in the hands of those who seek the control of assets, built over decades by and for the public through tax revenue etc. The current situation is the result of this concentration of public wealth into private hands and the Conservatives, and indeed Labour, no longer serve the public but are in hoc to those to whom they have given away our wealth. We no longer invest for the long term, we think the quick rise in the stock markets or the currency markets is generating wealth but it is all an illusion that can evaporate like it did in 2008. There are those who will accrue concrete assets on the back of this illusory money that sustains them through a crisis to continue the magic show when things cool down. We have been conned and have sold our inheritance for a mess of potage and it is difficult to see how the levers of power can be wrested back into the hands of politicians who will serve us rather than their own wealthy backers.
I do not think this is a crank conspiracy theory I think it has been the long term execution of a plan for control of capital assets that used to be there for public service.
David, perhaps inadvertently, you have hit the nail on the head when you point out how long it took for the Greens to grow in Germany, not only that but how it also kept right governments in office since the war.
People really do think that just by changing the voting system we will rob right wing governments of popular support, when in fact it a change of mindset that is required, because irrespective of the voting system, Tories are in the majority, so will still be the biggest party, as proved in Germany since the last war.
The reason that the Greens have recently prospered is at the decline in support of the SPD who like New Labour carried on peddling Neo-Liberal policies.
Mervin Hyde says: “The reason Libdems are called Yellow Tories is because they kept them in power long enough for the Tories to dismantle the state and along with it our NHS.”
And this is exactly the kind of attitude from the left which helps keep the Tories in power. I suppose because of the LD’s being in coalition with the tories for 5 years means that people like yourself would never contemplate the possibility of sharing power with them, even if the alternative is another tory government?
The NHS is still here, 9 years after the 2012 Health and social Care Act, but how much longer it’ll be around with permanent tory governments due to Labour’s tribalism (amonf other things) is doubtful. I oppposed the Act myself, forcefully, and stopped voting for the LD’s as a result. And the LD’s were well and truly punished for being in coalition weren’t they, so that should satisfy your wish that they were punished for their ‘treachery’.
Maybe its time you moved on and recognised the bigger picture?
Sickoftaxdodgers:
Our problem within Labour is Neo-Liberal infiltration, Most of the MPs don’t represent real Labour values but represent the Neo-Liberal consensus that has built up over the last 50 years.
It really isn’t any good voting in a government that only carries on where the Tories left off, because ultimately you end up in the same place, as we witnessed with New Labour branded as profligate in public spending when it was the banking crash that was to blame, but they were responsible for deregulating the financial sector, hence their lack of defence.
What I find very troubling about comments like this is that they are fundamentally matti-democratic
Keir Starmer was elected by the Labour members
You can Arthurian you don’t like his values but if a majority of Labour members voted for him how is he not ‘real Labour’? Unless, that is Labour members who do not agree with you are to be ‘cancelled’.
I suggest you learn to live with democracy or leave Labour. I don’t like a lot of Labour policy, but it is indisputably real Labour policy because Labour chose it
Your attitude is profoundly worrying fro refusing to do so
Richard:
That argument flies in the face of recent experience, where it would seem ok to challenge Jeremy Corbyn who came into office with a far greater majority of support than Starmer currently has,
I joined the Labour Party back in 1974 recognising that the Tories were attacking everything I knew the Labour Party stood for. It is obvious to any casual observer that public services outperform the private sector. The deliberate policy of making public services return a profit as happened under Thatcher then creamed off and not reinvested in those enterprises, goes without saying, puts it at a disadvantage to the private sector that keeps its profits. Which is not how real Labour thinking perceive public services.
That is a Neo-Liberal construct designed to sabotage and replace public service with a service for profit. Indeed Nicholas Ridley in 1977 spelled that out in his so-called research document. New Labour are Neo-Liberal not socialist, the Labour Party is a socialist party, What we witnessed under New Labour were exactly the policies carried out under the Tories, in 1979 I rightly campaigned for Labour against PFI – it was one of Blair’s major planks, only to find he adopted it on gaining office and supercharged it lumbering hospitals with debts they now can ill afford to pay for.
Brown also deregulated the financial sector which ultimately ended up with the fiasco of the world banking crash, then was made a hero because someone who knew how the Banking system works told him about QE.
These are just a few retorts, to remind people of the consequences of voting for people that say one thing before they get elected then do exactly the opposite after. When Starmer was elected leader he promised 10 pledges that was to maintain the radical direction of the party, only to renege on them within his first year of office, apart from every other diversion away from democratic socialism to authoritarianism.
Currently his support by Labour members and supporters has consistently fallen where in polls he has far less support now than before. He has literally become a joke. Yet there are those who still claim that he can win the next election. My fear in that unlikely event is that he will be even worse than Blair.
You can believe all that
But believe that and seek to cancel those who disagree
Not if you are a democrat
Are you?
To answer the question: What is the point of the Tories now?
The answer is simple: to win elections and remain in power. Unlike the Labour party the Tories know and understand power.
They jettison leaders when they have served their use; Thatcher and May were tipped overboard when it was clear they had become an electoral liability. Johnson will be next if his poll ratings continue to slide, with Sunak as the heir apparent
The Tory party is an election winning machine, and it has been very successful. Factions within the party do not like it in its current guise as a big spending, big state party, but will swing behind it at the next election
With Labour moribund, and under the FPTP system, the UK is in danger of becoming a one party state
Robert, I’m not sure the UK will become a one party state, as I feel (possibly wrongly) that the permanent tory rule produced by English politics will become so unpalatable for the Scots that independence will happen sooner or later. Whether this will be peaceful or violent, a success or a failure for Scotland, I can’t tell but it will happen.
And that will accelerate the further break up of the UK. Given FPTP, Labour’s uselessness (i.e factionalism + tribalism = electoral failure), an uninterested and manipulable electorate, the Tories skill at winning elections in England (about the only skill they’ve really got now) and the voter suppression measures the Tories are bringing in, England will be a one party state, I agree.