Heroes: Are the Tories Becoming Credible? 

 

‘First I’m gonna make it 

And then I’m gonna break it ’til it falls apart 

Hating all the faking 

And I’m shaking while I’m breaking your brittle heart” 

 
After last week, a number of commentators, myself included, are now beginning to see Sunak as a credible PM, who, if nothing else, might save the Tories from a humiliating defeat in the next election. Perhaps, the real test now, isn’t the PM, it’s the credibility of the party itself. 

Despite an improvement in Sunak’s personal rating he still lags behind Starmer by 9-points. The party, however, still trail Labour by C.20 points. 

Whilst YouGov finds that 72% of those polled had no or limited awareness of the whole NI fiasco, it has helped Sunak gain some control over his unmanageable party, as well as making some peace with the EU and “Getting Brexit Done.”  

Beginning the case for the prosecution we start with the economy. Tory economic policy has two settings; off and on. 

Let us start with the “on” setting as modelled by Liz Truss. 

The bedrock of the UK economy is property, which is the source of most individuals prosperity. According to the Nationwide, prices fell last month (February), the sixth consecutive monthly fall, leading to a 1.1% annual drop in property values. 

The BoE reported that mortgage approvals fell for a fifth month to just under 40,000 in January.  

As a direct result of Trussonomics the housing market is, with the exception of the early days of Covid in the spring of 2020, at its weakest since the GFC. 

Post-Truss Andrew Wishart, a property analyst at Capital Economics pointed out, that the size of the average mortgage approval dropped by 11% between January 2022 and January 2023 – from £248,600 to £222,100. Higher rates mean borrowers can only afford smaller mortgages. 

The knock-on effect is that house prices are now falling encourages potential buyers to sit tight in the hope that there will be further reductions in the months ahead. 
 

‘The knock-on effect is that house prices are now falling encourages potential buyers to sit tight in the hope that there will be further reductions in the months ahead’

 
We now turn to the “off” setting, better known as austerity, as modelled by Messrs Cameron and Osborne, and more recently by Sunak and Hunt.  

After the GFC Messrs Cameron and Osborne told us there was no alternative to austerity after the UK’s budget deficit rose to a then record high as a result of the GFC. They announced tough measures in the budget immediately after the 2010 general election, arguing that control of spending was necessary to maintain the confidence of the financial markets, reduce the national debt and keep interest rates low 

In a recent report, the Progressive Economy Forum (“PEF”) said that had state spending continued at the pace before David Cameron became prime minister, it would have been £91bn higher by 2019 – enough to cover the entire education budget in that year. In addition, public spending would have been £540bn higher had previous plans been continued. 

PEF researchers said the austerity measures had led to weaker growth, a low-wage economy and contributed to the vote to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum. Public spending rose by 1.5% a year in nominal terms on average between 2010 and 2019. 
 

‘the austerity measures had led to weaker growth, a low-wage economy and contributed to the vote to leave the EU in the 2016 referendum’

 
Using figures from the independent OBR, the paper demonstrates that successive Tory governments  could have maintained real-terms growth in public spending at the 3% level inherited from the previous Labour government and, by accompanying spending increases with matching tax rises, still have reduced Britain’s government debt burden by 2019. 

The report said; “After more than a decade of austerity, the UK lives with private affluence – if only for the privileged few – amid public squalor. This did not have to be the case, and does not need to be the case in the future.” 

The case made for austerity was that it would lead to faster growth by boosting confidence, instead it reduced the bargaining power of workers and contributed to the UK’s low-wage, low-productivity economic model. Britain’s debt to GDP ratio in 2019 would have been three percentage points lower, at C. 70% had governments pursued a balanced budget expansion in which spending was matched by tax increases. 

An inevitable consequence of austerity was the decimation of the public sector; the prosecution will focus on the NHS. 

Additional deaths are a direct result of austerity; The Royal College of Emergency Medicine says A&E waits are causing how up to 446 extra deaths a week. 
 

‘Additional deaths are a direct result of austerity…A&E waits are causing how up to 446 extra deaths a week’

 
Aside for starving the service of funding the Tory’s have treated the staff with a breath-taking degree of cynicism. 

Prior to the pandemic they crapped all over them giving staff real time pay cuts. When Covid came along they were “angels”, we were all told to spend 5-mins every Thursday evening clapping them. Then, as soon as the emergency was over, we resorted to crapping all over them again. 

The prosecution now turns to Brexit. The case here is simple, to date, despite all manner of promises it has delivered nothing. Perhaps a softer Brexit, where we remained in free-trade zone might have been a sensible compromise. 

If proof of the benefits of access to EU single market is required, then consider this; NI is described as “the world’s most exciting economic zone”. Why? Because they alone still have full access to the EU single market. In the rest of the UK, the CBI reports manufacturing falling by its fastest rate since 2020. 

In terms of priorities their’s appear to be all wrong. 

It is reported that the chancellor has £31bn more than he expected to spend in this month’s budget. A few, more enlightened party members, understand that this might be used to deal with public sector strikes, which, the IFS estimate, could cost £13bn. 

The majority are divided between Truss-style cut taxes now, or filling up the war chest to buy the next election. 

Lastly, we turn to the old dinosaur, Boris Johnson, a knackered old relic who’s time has passed. He is the Tory’s version of Corbyn; both were insurrectionists and populists, anti-establishment, anti-EU, and past their sell by date. Labour purged their’s, now it’s the Tories’ turn. 

Aside, from being utterly unsuited to the role of PM, there is the issue of Johnson’s unfamiliarity with the truth, as demonstrated by “partygate”. 

Despite all his protestations of innocence, there are an increasing number  of photos of Johnson flanked by bottles of wine, and new WhatsApp messages between aides worrying about a leak of “the PM having a piss-up”, and details of the government’s resistance to handing over Partygate evidence. 

A new interim report from the privileges committee paints a picture of an attempted cover-up by Downing Street. However, the role of the 7-MPs on the cross-party committee is only to consider whether Johnson misled the Commons and by doing so committed contempt by impeding the functions of parliament. 
 

‘Johnson announced the rules, broke the rules and then denied that the rules had been broken’

 
The evidence seems compelling: Johnson announced the rules, broke the rules and then denied that the rules had been broken. 

Johnson, with no sense of shame has released a C.500-word justification, followed up by a TV appearance, where he claimed the report had vindicated him because there was nothing saying he had misled parliament knowingly or recklessly. The committee may not yet have concluded definitively that Johnson misled the Commons, but in no way does it put him in the clear. 

Johnson has yet to give evidence to the committee, but he knows his future as an MP is at stake, and clearly he intends to fight for his political life by whatever means possible.  
 

‘He should know, it was him, with the catastrophic Brexit he voted for and supported that took it away from us’

 
His latest form of defence is to cast doubt on the credibility of the report into Partygate by Sue Gray, the civil servant who has just been announced as the new chief of staff for Keir Starmer. 

His allies have grasped the nettle too, with one urging Tory MPs to “take note: apparently it’s OK to be put through a parliamentary process which is reliant on material provided by the leader of the opposition’s chief of staff”. 

There is a small circle of dinosaur Tory MPs who remain loyal to Johnson, including the former cabinet ministers Nadine Dorries and Simon Clarke, alongside a substantial chunk of the membership. The increasingly preposterous Jacob Rees-Mogg called the Gray report a “leftwing stitch-up.” Whilst the Daily Mail, that font of all knowledge asks, “Is this proof the Partygate probe was a Labour plot?” 

Whatever those blinded by love say, Johnson position looks increasingly weak; he has failed to drum up much opposition to Sunak’s Brexit deal and did not challenge for the Tory leadership in the autumn. 

But, back to my original question; are the Tory’s becoming credible? 

Sunak has, without doubt, started to put his own stamp on the party, however there is still the fact that he was a part of Johnson’s government and a hard-Brexiter. 

As chancellor during the pandemic he exacerbated the situation with his ludicrous “eat out to help out” scheme. He was side-by-side with Johnson during Partygate, receiving his own fixed-penalty notice. His success in NI is tainted by the fact that as required to solve a problem created by a  government he was part of. 

He sold his triumph to the people of NI telling them they were in an “unbelievably special position”, having access to both the UK home market and the EU single market, and “nobody else has that,” He should know, it was him, with the catastrophic Brexit he voted for and supported that took it away from us. 
 

“Kill yr idols 

Sonic death 

It’s the end of the world” 

 
A rare treat with a third article from Philip this week, and one in which he delivers the ‘case for the prosecution’. 

Despite the fact that he may have thawed a little on Mr Sunak, the evidence as presented paints a picture of a basket case of a party, and solutions that are being delivered are solving problems created by waves of Tory mismanagement.  

There are plenty of stats, but they paint a pretty ugly picture. So, what was Philip thinking?:

Much has been made of Sunak dealing with NI, and credit is due for that. Conversely, he was part of the government that caused the problem, and an on-going supporter of a hard-Brexit.

I ask the question, are the Tory’s more credible now? In truth their “on” or “off” economic policies have bought such devastation that its hard to say anything but no.  

Interestingly, NI shows the necessary proof that had we remained part of the free-trade zone, Brexit would not have been such a disaster and seen the country so hobbled.

Should Labour win a clear majority at the next election, I wouldn’t be surprised to see some creeping back to what might be seen as a soft-Brexit. However, I think both parties will want to keep the election free of Brexit for obvious reasons.  

For Sunak, the hard-Brexit and those behind it are his Achilles heel. Unless he can rid himself of the ERG hard-right loonies, he will continue to have war on two fronts. If he is to achieve this he needs to start with the ring leader, Johnson.

For the enlightened in the Tory party, “partygate” could be their saviour, as, if found guilty, it will do for Johnson and his political career. Should he be vindicated, Johnson will have a new lease of life, and post the budget and local elections, I would expect him to ramp-up the pressure on Sunak. He will have the support of the majority of party members, and much of the media.

Are the Tory’s credible? Nah, incredible might be more apt.

Lyrically, we open with a personal favourite, Echo and the Bunnymen with “Bring on the Dancing Horses”. We close with Sonic Youth and “Kill Yr Idols”, which is just what Sunak needs.

 
@coldwarsteve
 

 

Philip Gilbert is a city-based corporate financier, and former investment banker.

Philip is a great believer in meritocracy, and in the belief that if you want something enough you can make it happen. These beliefs were formed in his formative years, of the late 1970s and 80s

Click on the link to see all Brexit Bulletins: