Brexit and the waning days of the United Kingdom

[Gups]

Mail is very strongly Truss (and they had a negative splash about Mordaunt every day for the last week I think). But looks like the Murdoch press are coming out behind Sunak. So far the right wing media's either been aiming at Sunak or Mordaunt - it feels like that's about to change. I'd be very surprised if the Murdoch press have not come up with a few scandals and hostile stories about Truss in the next month.

You say the Murdoch press but it's just two newspapers. The Times is generally left of centre but prefers Sunak to Truss for sure. The Sun is pro-tory and appears neutral on the leadership.

[Josquius]

e author=Josquius quote]

But that is the problem Gups has identified.  They are not going to be gone ASAP.  Whoever the new leader is will have two years to really muck things up before an election is required.

I'm not so certain they have that capacity given how messed up things already are, and whether they will be able to survive a full 2 years.

It's difficult with the tories as they tend to be very tribal by nature. But the more they embrace hard right idiocy the more repelled moderates in their ranks become, which is a bonus for truss.

On the other hand the ideal outcome of the next election is a minority government so a more moderate option has its benefits too. Nonetheless its interesting to see how triggered people can be at looking at the up sides of the on the surface worst option.

[Tamas]

But that is the problem Gups has identified.  They are not going to be gone ASAP.  Whoever the new leader is will have two years to really muck things up before an election is required.

Sure but look at the Tory record: Scotland nearly independent, Brexit mess, then Johnson. It is a very valid argument that the earlier they implode the better it is for the country.

[Sheilbh]

It's too bad Monty Python didn't do a right wing splitters sketch.

I think it's going to get really brutal. Stephen Bush had a few reasons why that struck me as true.

They have a genuine, serious disagreement on economics. She's surrounded by and representing Johnson's people; while he is accused by them of plotting to remove Johnson and surrounded by the people who wanted a change. This two together means it seems difficult to see them getting a big job in the cabinet if the other wins so they are to an extent not just fighting to become leader, but a little bit for their careers in frontline politics at all.

And the tables have turned. Sunak was the front runner who could be safety first with MPs, now he really needs to go on the attack (and already is saying Truss would lose the next election) to bring her numbers with the membership down.

Add a split in the right wing press and I think it's going to be a very hostile campaign in the way that leadership races aren't often.

You say the Murdoch press but it's just two newspapers. The Times is generally left of centre but prefers Sunak to Truss for sure. The Sun is pro-tory and appears neutral on the leadership.

True it's just the Times and likely ST at this stage, but I think the Sun will probably follow. Gove is reportedly very anti-Truss (for obvious reasons) and, I believe, still very close to News UK.

And they've had a couple of interventions that seem friendly to Sunak - so I think the day after the Ukrainian Foreign Minister praised Truss there was space in the Sun for Sunak to say his first foreign trip would be to Kyiv and he'd fully back Ukraine, with a very friendly write up on probably Sunak's weakest area.

Just on the "sooner they implode the better" thing. They won't implode. They have a big majority and a lot of MPs will risk losing their seats at the next election. A new leader is likely to have a honeymoon and might call a snap election, but I think that's unlikely. More likely is that they hang on until the last date possible hoping that something'll turn up - like Major. They'll do everything they can to not implode so they don't risk an election.

Although practically they might not be able to actually do much because party discipline is shot and they're clearly very divided - plus Johnson might still be there to help congeal any discontent.

[Syt]

Saw this pop up in my timeline. Is Truss a bit of a Thatcher fangirl?

[Josquius]

Not something I've ever been inclined to do but out of interest how hard is it to join the tories?
I do wonder whether we might well get Corbyn in reverse here with folk who want to see the tories burn and unaligned far right nuts joining just to vote truss.

I know with Corbyn the problem was this idiotic special supporter membership going for a few quid and the tories don't have that, so it'll never be such a bit factor. But I do wonder how much it can account for.

[PJL]

I'm sure Labour were delighted to have Margaret Thatcher as a Tory opposition leader in 1975. Unfortunately she got elected. Even when the economy did crash and burn, she still managed to get re-elected in 1983.

[Sheilbh]

Not something I've ever been inclined to do but out of interest how hard is it to join the tories?
I do wonder whether we might well get Corbyn in reverse here with folk who want to see the tories burn and unaligned far right nuts joining just to vote truss.

I know with Corbyn the problem was this idiotic special supporter membership going for a few quid and the tories don't have that, so it'll never be such a bit factor. But I do wonder how much it can account for.

It's as easy as joining the Labour Party or Lib Dems I think. But the Tories have really strict rules to prevent entryism. So I think you need to be a member before (and possibly for a period before) the leadership election to vote in it.

[Admiral Yi]

When do you learn the secret hand shake?

[Sheilbh]

Interesting piece on the Red Rishi attacks. What's really striking - as was the case during the last fortnight - is that Brexit hasn't come up as an issue, except as a cultural signifier/vibes.

The key issue has been - and will definitely be in a Truss v Sunak race - is sound money v tax cuts.
https://www.politico.eu/article/rishi-sunak-uk-how-the-brexit-thatcherite-unwittingly-became-the-tory-left/

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm sure Labour were delighted to have Margaret Thatcher as a Tory opposition leader in 1975. Unfortunately she got elected. Even when the economy did crash and burn, she still managed to get re-elected in 1983.

Agreed the assumption that Labour is guaranteed to win an election with Truss as Tory leader is dubious - the same logic that caused Democratic strategists in the US in 2015-2016 to cheer for Trump in the primary.  Especially since the electoral track record of every Labour leader not named "Tony Blair" over the last two generations does not inspire great confidence.

[OttoVonBismarck]

While I have no skin in the game I agree with Gups--you don't want a less qualified person running the country simply because they may be more beatable at the next general election. For one, normalizing low quality leadership harms the country regardless of what happens. Even if Trump never wins another election, the fact that he stood as an example of what the President could be, for four years, to the adoration of his cultish fans, did probably permanent harm to the country's political psyche.

Additionally, what we in the chattering class perceive as likely political outcomes are infamously inapt. Truss looks bad and like she'd be easy to beat, but that is no guarantee--Labour is more than capable of shitting the bed so to speak and Truss could easily rile up some part of the electorate that makes her harder to beat than she might at first seem.

The fact that she would almost certainly be a worse PM than Sunak, on top of those two points IMO would say most Labour supporting Brits should probably want Sunak to win. In the worst-case scenario for a Labour supporter--Sunak wins and then also wins another majority at the next general election, is still better than the situation where Truss does the same. If you lose another general election at least the person at the helm of the country is closer to competent and not someone who seems to be mentally addled based on my limited exposure to her public speaking.

[The Minsky Moment]

The key issue has been - and will definitely be in a Truss v Sunak race - is sound money v tax cuts.

OK, but that is also a phantom debate driven by slogan and signification over substance.

Truss proposes to deficit spend 30 billion pounds in tax cuts.  A bad idea?  Sure. But 30 billion pounds in a 2 trillion pound economy is of only marginal significance.  This is all about rhetorical signifying.

[Sheilbh]

While I have no skin in the game I agree with Gups--you don't want a less qualified person running the country simply because they may be more beatable at the next general election. For one, normalizing low quality leadership harms the country regardless of what happens. Even if Trump never wins another election, the fact that he stood as an example of what the President could be, for four years, to the adoration of his cultish fans, did probably permanent harm to the country's political psyche.

I'm not sure qualification is the right frame. Truss has been in the cabinet for the best part of a decade under Cameron, May and Johnson. She's been Environment, Justice, Trade and Foreign Secretary. In this campaign she's been vastly the most experienced candidate even against Sunak who was chancellor, but only became an MP in 2015. I think the qualification issue was fairer criticism of Mordaunt, Badenoch and Tugendhat. I think the worry is more what Truss has had to do to become the candidate of the right - plus a little bit of a raised eyebrow at the cynicism of that from a former deputy to Osborne and strong Remainer.

Additionally, what we in the chattering class perceive as likely political outcomes are infamously inapt. Truss looks bad and like she'd be easy to beat, but that is no guarantee--Labour is more than capable of shitting the bed so to speak and Truss could easily rile up some part of the electorate that makes her harder to beat than she might at first seem.

I agree. The only doubt I'd have with that is I just think Truss seems and comes across as weird - a bit like Ed Miliband - in a way where I just can't see her connecting with voters. Also her polling with the public is awful and the more people see her, the more they dislike her. Sunak is closer to Starmer in personal polling and both are met with broad indifference.

Truss proposes to deficit spend 30 billion pounds in tax cuts.  A bad idea?  Sure. But 30 billion pounds in a 2 trillion pound economy is of only marginal significance.  This is all about rhetorical signifying.

Rhetorical signifying matters - it is tougher to run against "uncosted Labour spending" if you've just cut £30 billion from annual revenue into the deficit. Also there is Truss' plan on covid debt which I actually think makes sense but I don't understand how you do it retrospectively. And I think there is a fundamental difference there that would make it very difficult for either to serve in the other's cabinet given how strongly they're criticising each other's economic plans (plus Sunak seems to have barely concealed contempt for Truss on economics).

And it might be a small amount in the scheme of the economy but in this climate it seems plausible that it causes the BofE to speed up their rate rises which would not be great for people. I also think it won't be that on its own but also greater spending pressure from departments given inflation and COVID catch up. I get a sense Sunak will resist that - less sure on Truss

Having said all that I think the reality is it's a deeply divided party, Sunak won 40% and Truss 32% of the MPs' votes. I think whoever wins they'll have very limited room for manoeuvre and very political capital as there's a broader economic crisis and they'll need it to either resist new spending or to cut taxes.

But you never know, one of them might appoint the next Ken Clarke who, despite a dying government leaves a relatively benign situation for his successor. Sadly it seems unlikely though.

[Sheilbh]

Ilia Ponomarenko on latest UK support for Ukraine:

+ over 20 M109 155 mm howitzers
+ 36 L119 105mm artillery guns
+ 1,600 anti-tank weapons
+ counter-battery radar systems
+ over 50,000 rounds of ammunition
+ hundreds of drones
+ hundreds of loitering aerial munitions

Johnson justifying one more trip to Kyiv, and who can begrudge him that. I also suspect he views this as a big part of his "legacy" so will try to lock his successor in on Ukraine - again, I'm not opposed to it I think it's probably key that whoever wins keeps Wallace at Defence and I like Sunak's idea of their first trip being to Kyiv.

Interesting comment from defence people here (I know nothing about this stuff) that a lot of this is stuff that's not in service in the British army which suggests the government's been out buying this equipment etc specifically for sending to Ukraine?