I am not alone in feeling that with each successive Tory lie, scandal, excuse and PR disaster, anger and unhappiness with this government are building to a crescendo which should result in a general election but which the PM has ruled out for May at least. While a number of Tories have privately admitted that the Conservatives are finished and 62 have announced that they’re standing down (but not until the election so they can continue collecting their inflated salaries till then), Rishi Sunak and Cabinet members continue to pontificate from their parallel universe, trying to convince us how good things really are. As Tory plotters over the weekend continued their efforts to oust Sunak, PM allies urged colleagues to ‘hold their nerve’: that’s a tall order as by now their nerves could be shot to hell – ours certainly are. Sunak himself will need some ‘nerve’ this week as the Rwanda Bill returns to the Commons and on Wednesday he appears before the 1922 Committee, the forum which has the power to eject him, the legendary ‘men in grey suits’. He assumes his robotic script about ‘our plan, Labour doesn’t have a plan’ works on the public but it won’t cut any ice with the 1922 bunch.
Incidentally, at least some of the resignation letters indicate misplaced confidence that anyone in their right mind would employ these departing MPs: one alludes to a ‘new career’ and another to ‘a new chapter opening’. Good luck with that – at least they’re entitled to taxpayer funded specialised career coaching when the general populace is on its own.
The recent news agenda has evicted the Budget from the spotlight somewhat, but it’s worth recalling that its flagship policy, the 2p cut in National Insurance, was presented as a great thing when many would rather pay and be sure of better public services. One commentator described it as ‘two thirds of a Liz Truss budget’ and most have stressed that the NI reduction is a bit of a nonsense because overall tax rates are the highest since 1948. Besides its general weakness this Budget will go down in history for the Conservatives, having long derided the idea, pinching Labour’s key taxing of non-doms policy.
If you haven’t heard it it’s worth catching up with Amol Rajan’s grilling of Pinocchio Hunt on the Today programme (7 March), describing the economy as ‘drifting’ and ‘stagnant’ and Hunt being the ‘fiscal drag queen’ due to high inflation and static tax thresholds. It’s cathartic to hear the normally smooth-talking, truth twisting Hunt become very heated at this and then to play the same card as Jacob Rees-Mogg and others, ie to threaten the BBC on grounds of ‘impartiality’. They’re so used to BBC client journalists schooled in the Robbie Gibb agenda that they’ve come to expect the chummy interview usually delivered. Hunt said the comments were ‘unworthy’ of the BBC and of Amol himself and good for this presenter for not being cowed. In fact he chortled at the veiled threat and said: ‘It’s not about what I think – these are the facts. It’s a bit rich for you to say ‘I’m not a guy who does gimmicks’. People want radical change and you are not delivering it’. Again, Hunt rolled out his usual spin, comparing the UK’s performance favourably with that of other European or G7 countries and when Amol said he was trying not to be cynical, another threat from Hunt: ‘I’m not letting you get away with that’.
Several journalists have written about the Tory ‘death throes’, one senior Tory calling their chances ‘zero and getting worse’ and yes, every day the Conservatives seem to be polling lower. Unbelievably, some senior figures have been plotting to remove Sunak and install their third unelected leader, some placing Penny Mordaunt in the frame, others Grant Shapps. Good luck with that and what an indicator of Tory desperation that they think these inadequates can save them from electoral oblivion. But the Party is hopelessly split on this strategy, as about so much else. ‘Over recent days, the Tories’ already dark mood has worsened perceptibly, adding to a sense at Westminster that they are now locked into an irreversible doom spiral in which discipline is abandoned as fast as hope. The idea that the budget would be a turning point has already been consigned to history. Disaster has followed disaster….Frank Hester, Lee Anderson, an unpopular budget … as the catalogue of Conservative disasters piles up, discipline seems to be breaking down, and any hope of election victory fading’.
The hopeful (deluded?) ones are pinning their hopes on inflation and interest rates coming down and on the Rwanda scheme taking off over the coming months, allowing Sunak to present what he imagines to be a more positive picture to the electorate, but many more say it will take much longer than this for the economy to turn around and the Rwanda ping pong between the two chambers looks set to continue.
More on the ‘fag end’ of this government comes from Tim Bale in the Observer (Of all the fag-end governments, Sunak’s must be the worst): ‘There have been plenty of occasions on which the proverbial swing of the political pendulum has seen us governed by politicians who have served their purpose yet remain doggedly determined to hang on, hoping against hope that something will turn up while their supposed supporters tear them down and tear themselves apart in the process. Whether, though, we’ve seen anything that quite matches the truly chronic combination of torpor and turmoil that we’re witnessing right now is debatable’. Various past administrations are cited, some where the leaders seemed to have no idea they were about to be booted out, but although the one he reckons come closest to Sunak’s ‘zombie government’ is John Major’s, he doesn’t ever remember it being so ‘poisonous and pointless, or quite so loathed, as Sunak’s’. It would be interesting to know whether most of the current lot have any idea how detested they widely are and why or whether it’s a big gaslighting act they’re putting on.
Yet another commentator describes ‘a kind of frantic listlessness prevailing’ at Westminster. So many MPs lament that they don’t know when the election will be: surely it’s a major fault in the system that this is the decision of one individual, the PM, who, in this case, seems to feel the need to stick it out despite the damage he’s inflicting on the country. I’ve long thought that there should be a system of the electorate being able to demand an election in extremis (of course this would have to be defined), but if this isn’t extremis I don’t know what is.
But of course what’s taken centre stage during the last week is the defection of Lee Anderson to the Reform Party (actually a company), the decision to redefine extremism (more Alice in Wonderland politics, where words mean what you want them to mean), and the furore over top Tory donor Frank Hester’s remarks about Diane Abbott. It was also shocking that during the strong exchanges of last Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions Abbott herself rose to speak numerous times but wasn’t called by the increasingly weak Speaker.
It took Sunak 24 hours to admit that these remarks were racist, the culprit claims to have apologised but there was no real apology as this was for ‘being rude’ about her, the refusal of the Conservatives to return the massive £10m and their refusal so far to confirm or deny that an additional £5m is in the pipeline. Hapless Tories appearing in the media, the latest being the underwhelming robot transport minister Mark Harper on Sunday with Laura Kuenssberg, have struggled to justify their stance on both donor and donation, but the Party is thought to need around £10m for election chest digital ads and mailed leaflets because of the marked decline in their campaign base at grassroots level. It’s not only the party donation, though: Hester is now known to have paid £16k for Sunak to take a helicopter to a meeting in Leeds and we know how keen our PM is on helicopter rides.
Some commentators have pointed out another key issue – the symbiotic relationship between Hester’s donations and his ‘healthcare’ company, Phoenix Partnership, winning more than £400m of public contracts during the last 8 years. ‘Tom Brake of Unlock Democracy, commenting on the current system where donors can also be government contractors, said: “To avoid any suggestion of impropriety, the Conservative party treasurer and individual MPs and constituency parties should decline any donation from a company or individual who has benefited from government contracts.” An X user tweeted: ‘No one is talking about the far bigger scandal which is that this awful man’s huge donations are a reward (if not bribe) for being awarded the massively profitable NHS data contract. Basically a twist on insider trading’. And Lady Warsi (who must now be a painful thorn in the government’s side) told Times Radio: ‘They’ve got to give the money back. You don’t build election campaigns and you don’t build political parties on the back of money where an individual has these views’. Well done to the Guardian for digging out this Hester scandal. How many more are there waiting to be uncovered?
Hot on the heels of news (no surprise there) that levelling up mostly hasn’t delivered, the minister responsible, Michael Gove, attracted further attention for his culture wars stoking redefinition of ‘extremism’. I’m not the only one who can’t bear to listen to his pretentious, mincing voice, especially when it delivers unadulterated waffle on such a ridiculous policy. Besides resorting once again to the race card in a bid to gain support, it seems it will be up to Gove to decide which organisations fall into the ‘extremist’ category. ‘Deep concern’ was expressed byJonathan Hall KC, the government’s independent reviewer of state threat legislation, who referred to a lack of safeguards and the labelling of people as extremists by “ministerial decree”. There’s apparently no right of appeal and the only way to challenge the arbitrary decisions would be to go through the courts, which the government knows not many organisations can afford to do. An X user said: ‘Surely the most worrying, extreme aspect of the new definition of extremism is the complete refusal of the right to challenge the ministerial decision to label you an extremist? We really are flirting with totalitarianism-lite in the UK’. Another addressed the nonsensical and undemocratic nature of this measure: ‘It is the duty of any government to protect its people, but the new definition of extremism is problematic. The ‘guidance’ is ONLY for government, not for other public bodies, the wording is DELIBERATELY vague, decisions ONLY made by Secretary of State and there is NO right of appeal.’ We have to wonder what impact this half-baked strategy will have apart from sewing further division to satisfy the Far Right.
‘Their political trump card has always been low taxes and the sound management of the economy. But Liz Truss blew out of water any claim the Tories had to superior economic competence, and taxation is now at its highest sustained level on record. So the only card the Tories have left to play is the race card, and they are going to play it ruthlessly.’
Another issue still rumbling on (in fact the Twitter I Stand With Catherine hashtag was still trending yesterday) is the debacle over the Princess of Wales’s doctored family photo felt to be necessary to mark Mothers Day but which, like so many Palace PR stunts, backfired spectacularly. Clearly intended to quell the incessant speculation over the Princess’s health following her surgery in January, it’s only created more. Although it’s hard to credit that so many seem obsessed with her whereabouts to the extent of wild conspiracy theories, the speculators have a point that the lack of information is no longer acceptable. It’s trying to have it both ways.
The Princess gamely took the blame when the key news agencies ‘killed’ the photo but in my view both she and her advisers should have known better. What the ‘leave Kate alone’ brigade aren’t getting is that there’s much more to this issue than a bit of harmless photoshopping. The Princess’s lighthearted dismissal shows a worrying lack of understanding of this episode and indicates typical royal arrogance that it had been ok to do it in the first place. ‘Like many amateur photographers, I do occasionally experiment with editing. I wanted to express my apologies for any confusion the family photograph we shared yesterday caused. I hope everyone celebrating had a very happy Mother’s Day. C’.
Determination to look perfect when the surgery could have resulted in an appearance less than perfect equates to determination to further emphasise the difference between the royals and their ‘subjects’. These days people are far less willing to accept this, as evidenced by growing support for Republic. Commentator Simon Jenkins gets to the core of what was wrong: ‘The iron law of celebrity states that there can be no such thing as privacy. There may be sympathy. There may be understanding. But there is no secrecy’. The royals’ celebrity status relies on truth and trust and its lack, as seen in this case, will cause us to ask what else is being hidden. The royals have long cultivated the press and its massive publicity machine yet now appear to be flouting the principle of truth their status depends upon. ‘The moral of the editing of the royal picture is simple. Tell all. The princess has now admitted she edited the photograph but not why or what she edited out. At this stage, privacy does not work. It breeds rumour, gossip and fabrication. When fake news and fake pictures are rampant, secrecy is the enemy of truth. Just say what the matter is. It is more likely to generate respect’.
In response to those wanting sympathy for the royals as ‘real people’ one X user tweeted: ‘The problem is that they don’t want to be treated as real people. They don’t want to hear criticism, they don’t want to be challenged, and they don’t want to do anything substantial or be held to account for their actions. They want adulation and luxury and to be left alone’. The difficulty of the royals is that during the late Queen’s time this stance was essentially accepted but it no longer is, not least because of the power of social media.
It’s worth listening to Radio 4’s When It Hits the Fan podcast, featuring a discussion between two who were previously on opposite sides of the fence: former editor of The Sun David Yelland, and the late Queen’s first communications secretary, Simon Lewis. ‘In this special episode, they bring everything they know about how Palace PR works to shed some light on the events surrounding Kate Middleton’s absence and the controversy surrounding her Mother’s Day family photo. What’s really going on behind the scenes? And does a failure to master 21st century communications pose a genuine, real danger to the Royal Family’s survival?’
These two point out how the media reaction in this country (eg ‘lay off Kate’) is very different from that elsewhere in the world. The feed from Associated Press went to every single working journalist in the world: ‘the reputational damage that this (the Princess’s manipulation of the image) does is huge….the British tabloids are part of the problem…this is a very humbling moment…the fact is the Royal Family can only survive if we believe them..this photo is not real. Without trust they are nothing..this is a 16th century organisation trying to play 21st century games..if you don’t know what a crisis is and you can’t tell when a crisis is happening you should not be advising the royal family or anybody else’. Oof. It will be interesting to see where all this leads…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/m001x546
BBC radio has come in for some flak since announcing schedule changes which we listeners have not been consulted on but which the Radio 4 controller Mohit Bakaya insists represent giving listeners ‘more of what they want’. One example to have caused huge consternation is the moving of the Archers Omnibus from 10 am on Sunday to 11 am, which you might not think is a big issue but it is to those who have long maintained a lively ‘tweetalong’ amongst those who have long tuned in at that time. Bakaya was interviewed by BBC Feedback last week and in my view displayed the same arrogance we’ve previously seen from BBC editors and controllers who have repeatedly refused to admit any error or lack of consultation. When the timing difficulty was put to him, he said it would be available on Sounds from the previous evening but not everyone has access to Sounds and it completely ignores the potential loss of the sense of community the time shift could result in. It will be interesting to see how this pans out because some BBC decisions have had to be reversed – maybe such a volte face wouldn’t be necessary if the BBC properly paid attention to listeners.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/2023/bbc-radio-4-refreshed-schedule-new-commissions
Finally, health experts may not be best pleased to see that high street chain Greggs has delivered another ‘impressive’ set of results, sales increasing by nearly 20% and profits up by 26% to £188m. Customers’ love of their sausage rolls is a major factor but the bakery has also worked to keep prices low and has also been extending hours. Half its sites are open till 7 pm or later, a clear win in areas where everything shuts at 4 or 5 pm, and in London’s Leicester Square a ‘flagship site’ open till 2 am from Thursday to Saturday. The Week calls this ‘a very British success story’!
Politics and mental health - the missing link? 
Very thorough!
LikeLiked by 1 person