Natalie Elphicke’s decision to join Labour is mind-boggling, Starmer was a plonker, berk, nitwit, numpty and a stupid git to accept her

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 15th May 2024)

Last week we learned that young people are not familiar with certain insults that were common in my youth. They don’t know what ‘plonker’, ‘berk’, ‘nitwit’, ‘numpty’ and ‘git’ mean. These are just the polite ones. I was reprimanded once by the then Mayor of Brighton for calling another councillor an “a…”. I can’t say the word as this is a family newspaper!

Labour activists, especially here in Sussex where Labour is pitching itself as a fresh alternative to the Conservatives, will be at a loss for words to describe their bewilderment, confusion, perplexity, bafflement, bemusement, puzzlement and befuddlement that Sir Keir Starmer has welcomed the hard right Tory MP, Natalie Elphicke, into the Labour Party.  Perhaps some are privately, and some not-so-privately, are calling Starmer a plonker, berk, nitwit, numpty and a stupid git for this mind-baffling decision.

When I first heard that Elphicke had defected to Labour I had to check the date. It was May 8th, not April 1st. I couldn’t have been more surprised had Nigel Farrage joined George Galloway’s Workers Party of Britain!

But what a pyrrhic victory it is proving to be for Starmer. He will have relished the momentary befuddlement of Tory MPs at Prime Minister’s Questions when they realised that Elphicke had defected to Labour. Her following Lee Anderson to Reform UK was a more likely scenario.

Within minutes Labour MPs were expressing incredulity that one of the most right-wing Conservatives MPs, a member of the European Research Group, someone who was staunchly pro-Brexit, had been so warmly welcomed into their party.  Elphicke is not a good fit for the Labour Party. Just a year ago she wrote an article calling Starmer “Sir Softie” and she accused Labour of wanting “open borders”. She wrote: “Not only have Labour got no plan of their own to tackle illegal immigration, they simply do not want to.” Now Labour is having to resist Tory calls for an enquiry into Elphicke’s past behaviour.

Listening to Labour front benchers’ feeble attempts to justify the decision to accept Elphicke’s defection has been painful in the extreme. A regular on the airwaves, Anneliese Dodds, lost whatever remaining personal credibility she had as she failed to explain away Elphicke’s gaslighting of the victims of her husband’s sexual assaults and harassment, victim-blaming them. While Elphicke got the mildest censure from Parliament for this, surely someone with her record should have no place in Labour.  Dodds, Labour’s Shadow Secretary of State for Women and Equality, should be calling out Elphicke on this, not minimising it.

I often wonder why Labour fields lame performers such as Dodds, Pat McFadden and Jonathan Reynolds (the so-called Minister for the Today Programme). Does the party have a cunning plan to bore listeners into submission, believing that if we zone out before the end of their first sentence we won’t be left confused, perplexed, baffled, bemused, puzzled and befuddled by their tortuous non-answers. This strategy seems to be working as Labour extends its lead in the polls. Either that or, as is more likely, the Conservatives are now so discredited that not even a modern-day Churchill could possibly save them from their inevitable defeat come the general election. 

It won’t be this easy for Labour once in office. The banality of their spokespeople will be exposed. Fortunately Labour has some secret weapons who are not being utilised for fear of them looking dynamic and interesting when compared to Starmer himself. One is our own Peter Kyle who is intelligent, interesting, thoughtful, and charming in person and on the airwaves. 

As for the Green Party, the decision of their Brighton Pavilion candidate, Siân Berry, to resign from the Greater London Assembly a mere three days after being re-elected, will leave Londoners confused, perplexed, baffled … you get the idea. Labour activists are suggesting that it shows a lack of commitment, with some asking how can one support a candidate with so little staying power. But perhaps this is all part of a cunning plan by Berry. Gone at a stroke is her only source of income, but she is demonstrating her total commitment to Brighton Pavilion. It also shows her increasing confidence, supported by the polls and Labour fielding what appears to be a paper candidate, that she will retain the seat comfortably.

Back to Labour. Is there anyone that it wouldn’t accept as a member? Yes there is. While Starmer welcomes Elphicke with open arms, Britain’s first black woman MP, Diane Abbott, continues to be excluded. That alone suggests a lot about Starmer’s Labour Party. 

Shrinkflation: chocolate bars, my waist, and political spokespeople

At Easter there were a number of stories about the ever-reducing size of chocolate eggs being sold for the same price as their previously larger versions. Apparently most chocolate bars are getting smaller, as are the size of other everyday items we might buy. The price might not be going up but you are getting less for your money. This is known as ‘shrinkflation’.

I have my own personal experience of shrinkflation: I was alarmed to be told at a recent medical appointment that I am no longer 6’6”, but a mere 6’5”. So you are now getting less of me for the same price! Not all shrinkflation is bad. I went from 20 stone in weight to 16 stone following a radical change in my diet when I was diagnosed as being Type 2 diabetic. Cutting out daily double packs of custard creams, donuts, large packs of Doritos Chilli Heatwave, six bananas a day, and much more may have had something to do with that rapid weight loss. (It might also have had just a little to do with me becoming diabetic in the first place …).

There is shrinkflation amongst our political classes, too. Whereas in the past a government had bid names and big hitters in its ministerial ranks, this has now shrunk to a presidential style of politics, with the Cabinet, that once replace the party, has now been replaced by the all-seeing wisdom of the Leader. I shout at the television or radio when allegedly bright party spokespeople preface their answers with: “Rishi has said that …” or “Keir has made it clear that …”.  At least the Liberal Democrats don’t do this. After all, who would want to repeat anything that Ed Davey has to say! As the Beloved Leader of North Korea was saying just the other day: “Always look on the bright side of life”. 

I’ve written more about party spokespeople in my column for next Wednesday’s Argus saying that it seems as though the Labour Party has a policy of fielding the most boring, uninspiring people to do the morning shows. In the past Labour politicians said things that would be remembered. Now they say things that can’t be recalled 10 seconds after it has come out of their mouths. Does Labour have a cunning plan to bore the electorate into submission, hoping that we will zone out before we realise that the party stands for little these days and has very little to say?

Any politicians who says “There is no magic money tree” is treating the electorate as children and idiots. And now Rachel Reeves is acting like a latterday snake oil saleswoman.

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 3rd April 2024)

Whenever politicians say “There is no magic money tree”, they are treating the electorate as children and idiots. And all who use this pathetic, empty phrase should forfeit the right to be regarded as serious politicians because it closes down legitimate debate on their political priorities.

The politician who most famously used the phrase was Theresa May in 2017 when attacking Jeremy Corbyn. It has subsequently been used by Rishi Sunak and, most recently, by Sir Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner. Labour is also prone to say that the Conservatives have “maxed out the government’s credit card”, an equally stupid concept. The government does not have a credit card and government finances are not the same as those of a household, itself another simplistic and wrong concept favoured by politicians. Proof of this is that there is always money to fight wars.

The household comparison dates back to Margaret Thatcher who, as far back as the 1979 general election campaign, said: “Any woman who understands the problems of running a home will be nearer to understanding the problems of running a country”. Running a home and running the country are not the same, but what an inspired election slogan! 

There is nothing wrong with a country borrowing for investment, even at times of financial instability. What is not right is to borrow to fund tax cuts or day-to-day spending, at least in the long term. I can think of many occasions when nations, in the wake of economic turmoil, have borrowed to fund huge public investment.  One example, in the wake of the 1929 financial crash, was President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s ‘New Deal’ that promoted economic recovery and put Americans back to work through Federal activism. New Federal agencies controlled agricultural production, stabilised wages and prices, and created a vast public works programme for unemployed people. 

The post-war Labour government, at a time of huge debt, made massive investment in creating the NHS, expansion of state education, the building of council housing, and so on. There was a bipartisan approach, not least in housing. During the 1950s, Churchill’s Conservative government delivered new council housing at a rate not seen before or since. Investment in public housing through subsidising the cost of building new homes pays for itself over the years, with lower rents and less public subsidy to help people meet overblown rents. The economics of investment in housing is actually very simple. Investment in bricks and mortar retains value, whereas rent subsidies do not. This bipartisan approach was broken by Margaret Thatcher who began the dismantling of the social housing sector through the politically popular but economically disastrous Right to Buy programme. 

A new bipartisan consensus in favour of financial austerity has been created following the election of the Cameron government in 2010, and Labour front benchers have meekly performed lemming impersonations by following the Conservatives (and until 2015, the Lib Dems) over the austerity cliff. Historians will look back at this era with astonishment – that the major parties were so economically short-sighted and inept that the wellbeing of the nation was sacrificed in the pursuit of power.

If, as expected, Labour forms the next government, it will have voluntarily tied its own hands by adopting Conservatives financial rules. Labour supporters are not enthused by the wooden and lacklustre Sir Keir Starmer – “Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest, the Human Bollard” as Boris Johnson called him. They are destined to be as disappointed by the failure of Labour in government as they have been appalled by the Conservative’s demolition derby antics. 

Following the 2007-08 global financial crisis, the country needed investment but got austerity. When the country needed “strong and stable Leadership” as promised by Theresa May, we had a succession of circus clowns prime ministers unable and unwilling to invest in public services or to control the privatised monopolies. Successive Conservatives promised growth but had absolutely no idea how to achieve it. Now Rachel Reeves, acting like a latterday snake oil saleswoman, promises growth but rules out investment (not least in housing), promoting a valueless and fraudulent remedy that is destined to fail.

Labour will win the forthcoming general election, not because the electorate has any high hopes that “things can only get better” (to quote the 1997 Blairite strap line) but because voters are sick to the back teeth of the chaos of Conservative ‘rule’. And when Labour inevitably fails in government, it will be responsible for a massive swing to the right, by-passing a Conservative Party in mortal decline, to Reform UK and, even more worryingly, to parties on the extreme right.

Could a vote for ‘Rosie Duffield’ gain a head of steam in Brighton Pavilion?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 20th March 2024)

Some people in Brighton Pavilion are considering voting for a surprise, unofficial, candidate. She will not be on the ballot paper, but people have told me that they might write her name at the bottom of the ballot. She is not seeking nomination here and almost certainly will not endorse this move. She might even publicly denounce it. What is more, she will be standing for the Labour Party in the Kent constituency she already represents.

So why are people in Brighton Pavilion considering voting for Rosie Duffield? She won’t be elected here, and any vote for her will be counted as a spoiled ballot and won’t count. ‘Vote Duffield’ was my wife’s proposal. Rosie Duffield is the Labour MP for Canterbury but she was vilified on social media and shunned by Labour’s leadership because of her gender-critical views. She, like many of us, does not believe that anyone can change their sex regardless of how they might choose to live their lives.  

Tom Gray and Siân Berry

I don’t know how many will vote for ‘Rosie Duffield’. It might be just a small handful or it could yet gain a head of steam. Much depends on what the official Labour candidate, Tom Gray, says on the protection of single-sex spaces for those born female, spaces such as hospital wards, changing rooms, toilets, refuges and rape crisis services.

Siân Berry has had a consistent take on this issue. Her view is that transgender women (those born male) should be allowed to use women-only spaces even if they have all their male bits intact (my words, not hers). The Greens have lost support amongst many women and men because they relentlessly prioritise trans rights over women’s sex-based rights, their failure to investigate a Green Party member, the paedophile David Challenor, and their unlawful discrimination against their former deputy leader, Shahrar Ali, who holds gender-critical views. 

Siân has said she will never compromise on trans rights. Tom Gray, on the other hand, seems very reluctant to say what he believes or if he believes anything at all!  He has been challenged on social media to say where he stands, and some constituents have written to him on the issue. I have been told that he has not replied. 

In my first column this year, I wrote about the potential for this to be an election issue in Brighton Pavilion: “Tom will need to say where he stands. The trans rights lobby, including those in his own party, is very vociferous, especially on social media, but they are not significant electorally.” I pointed out that Labour has shifted from its previous support for self-identification which would have allowed people to legally change gender without a medical diagnosis and has, instead, recommitted itself to ensuring that some single-sex services and places should be accessed by biological women only. 

I have written to Tom asking for his views on this matter but was referred to the regional press office. I wrote to the named press officer, several times over a few weeks, but have had no response. Are they still captured by the trans-rights activists? Why are they unwilling to repeat the party’s new policy? So I wrote again to Tom, as have others who have contacted me. Tom has not replied to them either. If I was still a Labour member in Brighton Pavilion (I resigned my party membership back in 1994) I would be thoroughly disappointed and disillusioned by Tom’s non-campaign.

Why can’t Tom say that he supports the policy of his Party (even if his leader, Sir Keir Starmer can’t quite bring himself to say “sex-based rights”, preferring to refer to “safe spaces”)? Perhaps he feels that he cannot go against those vociferous activists who hold a different view to the party’s policy, as does the MP for Brighton Kemptown, Lloyd Russell-Moyle. If Tom is running scared of his own Party members, what will he be like when faced with more formidable opponents and vested interests when he is an MP?

A recent opinion poll put Siân Berry at almost 50% with Tom Gray at 37%. He needs something to ignite his rather odd and lacklustre campaign. If he could harness the ‘gender critical’ vote, then the result could be closer than it is currently likely to be. But for now, imagine the scene at the election count as Siân narrowly wins the seat, aided by outraged ‘Duffield’ votes that could otherwise have gone to Labour. It would be too late for regrets.

Was Sir Keir Starmer being honest about Labour dealing with homelessness and rough sleeping in Brighton and Hove?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 28th February 2024)

Tent outside Brighton Station (photo credit: The Argus)

Last week The Argus reported that a large four-person tent had been put up outside Brighton Station. The homelessness campaigner, Daniel Harris, was quoted as saying that the council cannot promote Brighton as a business and investment hub “while the first thing people see when they get here is a tent.”  He correctly points to the daily safety risks facing homeless people especially those in tents. As someone who has worked in homelessness services for over thirty years, I was also quoted in the article as saying: “(Tents) are not safe for people living in them or those working to help them. If someone has an emergency inside a tent, it can’t be seen.”

The answer, of course, is the provision of housing with the right support. But as Daniel points out, “limited housing options” in Brighton means it is difficult for people to escape rough sleeping. He says that what is needed is a strategic approach which “involves building more council homes, council-owned emergency accommodation to modern standards ensuring safety, and relocating those without genuine local ties where feasible and safe to so.”

The City Council was alerted to the presence of the tent on Monday of last week and it was gone by the weekend. The Chair of the council’s housing committee, Councillor Gill Williams, said: “Our street homeless outreach service always works with tent dwellers to help them find accommodation. Our primary concern is … the welfare of people living in them. We have a welfare first approach and offer help if those in tents are homeless, and always take action to remove encampments as soon as these circumstances and due legal process allow.”

When the leader of the Labour Party, Sir Keir Starmer, on a visit to Sussex last week, was asked by The Argus what a Labour government would do to tackle the homelessness crisis in Brighton, he said that given Labour has formed the administration locally, it was now in a position to help people get off the streets. He said: “I do think in Brighton, in particular, before we took over the council they didn’t put the support in place to deal with this. Luckily, we are now in a position to now turn this around. And that means providing not just a roof but also the support that people need.”

I was shocked by this disingenuous and misleading statement from the Labour leader. Under the previous Green administration, the one area where there was excellent collaboration and joint-working between the Greens and Labour, was on housing, homelessness and rough sleeping. Credit for this should go to the former Green councillors David Gibson and Siriol Hugh-Jones, and their Labour opposite number, Gill Williams. This joint approach often enjoyed all-party support including from the Conservative Mary Mears. But the council’s efforts were frustrated by the government’s squeeze on local government finances. Nevertheless, under successive Conservative, Labour and Green administrations, the council has continued to fund accommodation for over 700 people who have been, or might otherwise be, sleeping rough. In its budget agreed last week, the Labour administration is not investing anything extra into homelessness prevention. In fact, funding to help people move away from Brighton is under threat. 

For Keir Starmer to have made such a misleading assertion suggests that he was either badly informed or being dishonest. Perhaps he should set the record straight and give credit to the Greens where credit is due rather than make this cheap and dishonest bid for votes. 

A question that Sir Keir Starmer must answer is: will a Labour government provide the resources to tackle homelessness and rough sleeping by funding the necessary accommodation and the support homeless people need to get people off the streets, address underlying issues, and to help them into employment?  I fear that with Labour’s self-imposed spending restrictions, tackling rough sleeping and homelessness will not receive the priority it did under the Blair government when the Rough Sleepers Initiative saw a massive fall in the number of people sleeping rough. 

And critically, will Labour invest in the building of council houses, in their hundreds of thousands? Without this, the UK’s housing crisis will only get worse.

Given Sir Keir’s assertion that the Labour administration is now in a position to turn the homelessness problem around, let us hold the City Council to account by seeing whether it is providing enough accommodation for homeless people and also the support they need to move away from homelessness and into employment. Sir Keir says you are in a position to do so. Now let’s see you do it.

Let hostilities commence in Brighton Pavilion

At long last, several months after the Green’s Siân Berry launched her energetic and high-profile campaign, the Labour campaign in Brighton Pavilion has got into gear. Tom Gray’s election campaign was formally launched on Saturday morning and the streets of some central wards were awash with door knockers who had gathered from all over the south east. The Conservative campaign with the unrelentingly optimistic Khobi Vallis in Brighton Kemptown took to Woodingdean while the sitting Labour MP, Lloyd Russell-Moyle, was off campaigning in Brighton Pavilion.

Labour campaigned strongly in the two Worthing seats and in Hastings.

In Brighton Pavilion Labour campaigners came up against two negative main issues on the doorstep. The first was Labour’s most recent U-turn on its £28 billion pledge to tackle the climate crisis. This plays right into the hands of Siân Berry, and in an ultra marginal seat like Pavilion, this will be one of several factors that could decide the outcome. 

The second issue was Gaza, a concern I heard dismissed by a Londoner out on behalf of Tom Gray. She said that it is just a few middle class people who are concerned about this. Hmmm?  Loyalty to Labour’s spineless leader, Sir Keir Starmer, is one thing. Total denial is another. Labour is already taking private polling on this issue, such is the concern by national campaign managers that Starmer’s unconditional backing of Israel will harm the election campaign.

What I thought was most unfortunate in Tom Gray’s ‘Sorry I missed you’ leaflet was this statement: “We have a Green MP, but it hasn’t stopped Rishi Sunak digging oil wells or sewage pouring into our sea. Only a Labour government can do that.”  Yes, there is a solitary Green MP . But there are over 200 Labour MPs and that hasn’t stopped “Rishi Sunak digging oil wells or sewage pouring into our sea.” It could be said that Labour is over 200 times more culpable than Caroline Lucas for this failure. 

Feargal Sharkey with Green Party Peer, Baroness Jenny Jones of Moulsecoomb

Such campaigning rhetoric, Tom, does not cast you in a good light. I am not sure that Feargal Sharkey, who helped launch your campaign on Saturday, would endorse such an anti-Green sentiment as he is prepared to work across the political divide on clean water issues, including with the Green Party.  I imagine that particular line was fed to you by some faceless regional communication officer. My advice to you, Tom, is aim high in your campaign and don’t become the puppet of Labour’s regional office.  Nonsense such as blaming Caroline Lucas for single-handedly failing to stop the Conservatives from polluting the environment simply makes your campaign look stupid.

Will a Labour government stop the water companies polluting our sea and rivers? I hope, if elected, that it will. But if there is any cost to the Exchequer, Chancellor Rachel Reeves might have something else to say about this.

Update 12/02/2024 11.08am: Siân Berry held a rally at the weekend as well as door knocking as part of her campaign. She said at the rally: ““The people of Brighton Pavilion deserve a strong voice in Parliament, unafraid and unwhipped. If I’m elected to continue in Caroline Lucas’ footsteps I will be fearless in advocating for the things that matter to people”.

Note 13/02/2024 8.35am: The original version of this post had a scurrilous reference to Helena Dollimore, Labour’s candidate in Hastings and Rye. This has now been moved to a post of its own.

 

 

It’s Gomez Gray against Smokin’ Siân for the undisputed heavyweight title of Brighton Pavilion

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 3rd January 2024)

Ladies and Gentlemen, the main contest on this election card is the head-to-head fight for the undisputed heavyweight championship of Brighton Pavilion. In the red corner is Tom ‘Gomez’ Gray fighting out of Brighton via Liverpool. In the green corner, ‘Smokin’ Siân Berry from Camden in old London Town.

The battle lines are drawn for the campaign to succeed Caroline Lucas as the Member of Parliament for Brighton Pavilion. This will be a tough contest to call. Neither is likely to strike a knockout blow and it could come down to a split decision on points or, at least, a handful of votes.

The electoral tide is with Labour. When Caroline was first elected in 2010, Labour was way down in the polls, and the big ‘M’ – momentum (not the left wing organisation) – was with the Greens who were poised to seize control of the City Council the following year. The situation is now reversed. Labour enjoys a healthy national lead in the polls, notwithstanding the tepid Sir Keir Starmer. The Greens locally are now in the Doldrums having been humiliated in May’s elections to Brighton and Hove City Council while Labour had its best result ever.

Siân and Tom have different problems when it comes to commitments they might wish to make to the electorate. Tom can’t promise anything meaningful without incurring the wrath of Rachel Reeves if there is any cost attached. Meanwhile Siân has the opposite problem. Any promises she makes will be meaningless because, even if elected, she will never be in a position to deliver on any of them.

Labour should not take this as a reason to discourage people from voting Green. Caroline Lucas has shown that a lone Green MP can effectively shine a light on issues. Not so for yet another Labour backbencher who will be lost in the crowd, especially a backbencher in a party likely to have a stonking great majority.  Hundreds of under-employed backbenchers will wish to be seen by the Whips as being on best behaviour in order to secure promotion to the lowest bag-carrying position. 

Tom will face tricky questions over local issues, such as the proposed closure of St Bartholomew’s school in the constituency. Can he criticise, even campaign against, the Labour administration that is currently consulting on the closure? Siân will have no such difficulty and is already taking a stand on issues for which she will never be responsible. Caroline used to distance herself from the Green administration so much so that people used to say that they would never vote Green again but had no hesitation in saying that they would vote for her.

There is one specific issues that Tom will need to clarify: his views on women’s sex-based rights. Labour dodged a bullet by rejecting Eddie Izzard as its candidate. Not only does Eddie not support single-sex spaces for women, he actually intrudes on them on a regular basis. Tom will need to say where he stands. The trans rights lobby, including in his own party, is very vociferous, especially on social media, but they are not significant electorally.

All current Labour MPs were elected on the following manifesto commitment: “Ensure that the single-sex-based exemptions contained in the Equality Act 2010 are understood and fully enforced in service provision.” Last summer the Labour Party shifted from its previous support for self-identification which would have allowed people to legally change gender without a medical diagnosis. The party has also recommitted itself to ensuring that some single-sex services and places should be accessed only by biological women.

The Greens have lost support amongst many women and men because of their uncompromising policies on trans rights over women’s sex-based rights. Siân has made this a major part of her pitch saying she will never compromise on this. She even stood down as party leader because of a slight adjustment in the Green Party policy. Siân should expect questions on her position on women’s sex-based rights and, if she stands by her long-standing position, she can expect to lose support. There is also an employment tribunal discrimination case being brought against the Green Party by Shahrar Ali who was dismissed from his role as party spokesperson because of his support for women’s sex-based rights. This case might yet reflect negatively on Siân.  

Notwithstanding the above, in Tom and Siân we have two very engaging, strong candidates who will provide us voters in Brighton Pavilion with a pleasant dilemma as to whom we want as our next MP. Support for women’s sex-based rights might just prove decisive in a close contest.

Is Sir Keir Starmer Labour’s Weakest Link?

In recent times, the polling company, Survation, has had the best track record in getting its polls right in the run-up to a general election.  I have always trusted its forecasts more than others.

In its last poll before the end of the year, it has given Labour a 17 point lead, up three to 45, compared to the Conservative’s 28 points, up two points. (Both increases are compared to fieldwork undertaken in February 2023).

Survation has said: “We continue to find the Labour Party approximately 17 points ahead of the Conservatives with no observable positive reaction from the public to the various relaunches and campaigns coming from the Government throughout 2023.  Very roughly, at the coming General Election, the Conservative Party will need to have a 4-5 point lead in the polls over Labour, vs the current 17 point deficit, to secure a majority of 1 seat. This is probably the strongest argument for a ‘late’ October 2024 General Election – the certainty of losing if an early election was called.”

There are two other very interesting findings. The first is that the Green Party is down three points to just two. I can’t remember when the party was at such a low ebb.  This is probably the result of Labour continuing to fly high in the polls. It does not bode well for the Greens in their four target seats (including Brighton Pavilion which they will be defending).

Before Labour activists get too excited, the question on who would make the best prime minister will not make comfortable reading. For all the incompetence, failed relaunches and broken commitments of Rishi Sunak, he has actually closed the gap on Sir Keir Starmer. The Labour leader’s lead was nine points. It is now down to just six. Starmer is less popular than his party by eight points (45 to 37). Sunak, by comparison, is three points more popular than his party (31 to 28). At the start of the year Starmer was on 39 and Sunak 31. So Sunak’s rating has held, nudging up by one point, Starmer has reduced by three.

Labour is still on course for a thumping majority, but it must stop running the campaign as a presidential election because Starmer just doesn’t have it. He could end up being that slab of uneaten, unappetising turkey that is still in your fridge a week after Christmas.

Are the Conservatives on course to lose all seats in Sussex?

(This item first appeared in the Brighton Argus on 25th October 2023)

The King accepts the resignation of Liz Truss and asks Rishi Sunak to form a government

Today is the anniversary of Rishi Sunak becoming Prime Minister. Earlier in the day, the outgoing PM, Liz Truss, had been to the Palace to see the new King, just 49 days after she had flown to Balmoral where the late Queen had invited her to form a new government. Following years of tradition, the King asked Sunak, who had been elected the leader of the Conservative Party the previous day, to take over.

The Conservatives are well-versed in forming governments. After all, they have had five prime ministers in just seven years. Sunak has lasted longer than Truss, but how much longer will he survive? There are already rumours that members of the Conservative Party are submitting letters to the Chair of their backbench committee calling for a vote of no confidence in him. 

It would be understandable if a combination of their lead in the polls, and last Thursday’s two by-election results in Mid Bedfordshire and Tamworth led Labour activists, MPs and the party’s leadership to believe that a Labour victory in the general election is now nailed on. They are probably right. However, the Labour leadership has had political-Botox that makes outward-showing signs of confidence impossible.

The Conservatives have dismissed the by-election results, saying that it is almost inevitable that sitting governments lose by-elections, and that there is still a year until the general election. Anything can happen between now and then.

But make no mistake, these by-election results were sensational even though Tamworth was a Labour seat until going Conservative in 2010. Mid Bedfordshire was the more remarkable result, overturning a Conservative majority of almost 25,000.

It is unlikely that Labour will hold Mid Bedfordshire come the general election. Worryingly for Labour, there was no groundswell of support for the Labour candidate. In fact, the Labour vote went down by 156 from the 2019 election. The Conservatives point to the low turnout, saying that it was their voters who just didn’t turn out and that there was no enthusiasm for Labour and its lacklustre leader, Sir Keir Starmer. A modest increase in turnout by Conservative voters next year will see it returning to its traditional blue.

Meanwhile, election-guru, Professor Sir John Curtis, points out that a failure to get your vote out is indicative of your party’s malaise. And that is certainly true for the Conservatives. Which Tory party activist in their right mind can feel any enthusiasm for the bumblings and fumblings of the current government. Like a wonky shopping trolley, they lurch from one crisis to another. 

Some in the current government make former minister Chris Grayling look vaguely competent. It was Grayling who destroyed the probation service, created chaos in the prison system, and awarded ferry contracts to a company with no ferries, a company that operates out of a harbour that cannot accommodate … ferries. Anyone would have thought Grayling was once in charge of the high-speed train initiative, HS2, that has gone over-budget by billions of Pounds and which the government is now curtailing. Wait a minute, Failing Grayling was once in charge of that, too.

The Covid enquiry is showing that we had a prime minister (Boris Johnson) who was initially disengaged. As Churchill said of the Americans, Johnson could always be relied on to do the right thing … once he had exhausted all other possibilities. He locked down too late, and unlocked too soon. He ridiculed Starmer saying that the Leader of the Opposition had wanted to cancel Christmas while he, as Prime Minister, wanted restrictions to be lifted. Yet only a few days later he had to do just what Starmer had called for. All this time he was loyally supported by his poodle Chancellor, Rishi Sunak.

And in the last week or so we learned through the enquiry that Sunak, as Chancellor, launched the ‘Eat Out to Help Out’ initiative in spite of misgivings by the government’s leading scientific advisers including Professor Dame Angela McLean who dubbed him ‘Dr Death the Chancellor’. 

For just a bit of fun, Election Maps U.K. applied the Tamworth result across the country. If the swing and result there were to be applied to every constituency, Labour would have a majority of 424 seats with 537 MPs, the Lib Dem’s 46, the Conservatives 29 and others 19. On this basis the Conservatives would win no seats whatsoever in Sussex. That won’t happen, of course, but Sunak will have to pull one giant rabbit out of his magicians hat to avoid a humiliating defeat next year.

Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest Starmer defied expectations with a competent, engaging and inspiring speech. But Labour’s home ownership obsession disappoints

Over the last couple of years I have been critical of Sir Keir Starmer, not just for the absence of policy and his ultra-caution, but because of his lack of personality. I’ve said he is boring.  In fact, I have gone further.  In April I wrote that “Starmer is probably the most boring and uninspiring politician of my lifetime”.  I continued: “He teaches those parts of boredom that other politicians do not reach.”

This was too much for a mutual friend, Andrew Wealls (a former Conservative councillor in Hove) who reprimanded me: “Keir has been a close friend of mine for around 40 years. I’m fairly confident you’ve never met him, otherwise you wouldn’t repeat so frequently such disparaging remarks about him. As you know Keir and I differ politically, so feel free to criticise his politics! But repeatedly calling him boring doesn’t elevate the debate.”

Andrew was right.  I haven’t ever met Sir Keir Starmer, so I don’t know what he is like in private. However, as a commentator who is non-aligned (although left of centre) I just say how I find him. Others I speak to are less generous than me, even though they are Labour Party members and want him to be the next prime minister. 

I did laugh when Boris Johnson described Starmer as “old Sir Crasharooney Snoozefest, the human bollard.” It was actually very funny.

But today I wish to recant.  Having heard his speech at the Labour Party Conference in Liverpool, I have to say it was one of the most competent, engaging and inspiring speeches from a Labour Leader for quite some while, and perfect in the run-up to a general election.

He will have enthused his troops and will send them on their way with renewed vigour and enthusiasm. There certainly wasn’t any evidence of the old Crasharooney Snoozefest.

If this was the first major test in the long election campaign, Sir Keir passed with flying colours.

There remain a number of questions over his policies, not least the welcome commitment to build 300,000 homes per year.  1.5 million homes in the first term of a Labour government would be great. But they need to be the right sort of homes.  This is where I will take the advice of Andrew Wealls to criticise policies because Labour is priding itself on becoming the party of home ownership.  A commitment to home ownership is the recycling of failed Conservative policies.  At least Angela Rayner said that Labour will give local authorities and housing associations “stability for the long-term, so they have the confidence and security to invest in affordable, social and council housing stock.”

But Sir Keir said today that the party would “bulldoze through” a planning system that was “an obstacle to the aspirations of millions, now and in the future, who deserve the security of home ownership”, and Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves said: “It is now beyond doubt: it is Labour that is the party of homeownership.”

What we really need is more of the Angela Raynor approach, with 300,000 council houses each year.  That is the real need.  Without that we will not begin to address the housing affordability crisis.  Home ownership won’t do that.  We also need the investment in council housing. Without it, Labour’s housing ambitions are bound to fail and that will fail the country.