What a week in British politics. And it’s only Wednesday. The Chief of Staff left on Sunday, the Chief of Comms on Monday and there are reports the Cabinet Secretary is on his way out. The leader in Scotland launched a missile, only to see it boomerang and explode right in front of him. Even the Italians are laughing at us.
What a year in British politics. There has been U-turn after U-turn, open rebellion on the government benches, and reshuffles in which Ministers refused to be reshuffled.
What a decade in British politics. There has been PM after PM. Putsches. Failed Putsches. Scandal. Soap Opera. Even Liz Truss.
With both major parties implicated, it would be tempting to reach for that most Reform of phrases – the Uniparty. There is no real difference between Tory and Labour. Nor even the Lib Dems. They are all one continuous if amorphous blob and the only way to fix things is to kick the bums out and elect Nige and his plucky band of chums.
There is something to this diagnosis, I think, but not in the way intended. For there is a unity of approach across British politics, one which Reform is every bit as fond of as their foes – find a slice of the electorate, tell them they can have what they want, and assure them someone else will pay for it. The only difference is which cohort a party targets and which poor suckers get to put their hands in their pockets – the rich for Labour/Lib Dems/Greens, the poor for the Tories and foreigners for Reform.
Politicians are reasonably rational actors. That they have all hit on the same approach suggests it works; in electoral terms, at least. As corroboration, last year’s local election debate on Channel 4 had many questions, but only one Question – how can you give me more stuff and cut my Council Tax?
If this works politically, it does not work practically. There is not enough money in the economy to allow it to carry on as it has, not enough down the back of the sofa for us to get our hands on. We are like Winston Churchill, insisting on buying silk underwear despite having lost most of his money in the Wall Street Crash.
This is not unknown. The analysis of the parties’ manifestoes in the last election made it clear that, financially, none were plausible. There were differences, certainly, but the difference was between being merely fantastical and utterly delusional. Reform, which we must remember is not part of the “Uniparty”, put forward a document in which, the IFS noted, the “sums…do not add up.”
And yet, they persisted. Every MP, except those elected in by-elections, was returned on a manifesto which was never going to survive first contact with reality. Labour was just unfortunate that theirs was the one which got to be tested. Cue tax rises and the Winter Fuel Allowance farrago.
What does this tell us about our elected representatives?
It may be that they were unaware of the analysis. If so, they are, at best, incurious, at worst illiterate, since it was covered in all the media.
It may be they did not understand the analysis. In which case they probably shouldn’t be trusted with sharp objects.
It may be that they were aware of the analysis and understood it, but thought they, uniquely, could escape the iron jaws of fiscal reality. Which suggests a God complex.
It may be they were aware of the analysis, understood it, realised they couldn’t do anything about the problem, but quite fancied being in Parliament and getting on telly. Which suggests a greater interest in self-service than public service.
It is reasonable, therefore, to suggest that being in the current Parliament is quite good evidence that one is not fit to be in Parliament.
But we are where we are.
And since we are where we are, is it any surprise that politics is where politics is?
If the system selects for people with these characteristics, why would we not expect them to blow up regularly? They do not correlate closely with unbridled success. Or, indeed, probity.
But that is who we elect. And it is who we will continue to elect for as long as we choose our politicians not on a reasonable understanding of reality, but on tribalism and promises of treats.
No-one, they say, votes to be poor. That’s why we vote for poor politicians instead. That’s why our politics is so poor. And why it will eventually have to be made clear to us that we are poor…
Stewart Slater works in Finance. He is now also on Substack, where you are welcome to follow him.
If you enjoy The New Conservative and would like to support our work, please consider buying us a coffee or sharing this piece with your friends – it would really help to keep us going. Thank you!
(1) Because anyone who thinks they ought to stand for election, really probably shouldn’t as they aren’t as clever or superior as they believe themselves to be.
(2) Because spending other peoples’ money is easy (and addictive). The days of saying ‘no, that’s too expensive, it’s not essential, or you can’t have that’ are not concepts politicians or most of the electorate understand.