Hi Pete, I have been an avid reader of your Substack for a while now and over the past few years, as well as reading your blogs and listening to every interview you have given. I have also been doing the same with David Starkey and I think you may be wrong about your assertion that restorationists are delusional sufferers of ‘90s brain.’ I get that some of Blair’s constitutional reforms were a ratchet and are politically impossible to reverse. Particularly the hereditary peers he got rid of. Trying to persuade the public that Lords who owe their position to accident of birth and privilege are better than Lords who are political hacks or donors who owe their position to a political party is a fool’s errand, even if I think it’s true because of independent thought and, usually, a kind of knowledge and noblesse oblige with regards to their corner of the country. It just won’t wash and will be seen as retrograde and blatantly elitist and unfair. Expending political capital on this isn’t worth it and putting it in a manifesto gives a free hit to political enemies.
However, the call you make in your manifesto for a codified constitution is, I believe, a recipe for catastrophe which will, contrary to your assertions, diminish democracy. I take your point that a pre-1997 reset will hand a lot of dispersed power back to politicians and do nothing to ensure they won’t simply give them away again. But a written constitution, no matter how well-written, will eventually hand unaccountable power to judges who we can’t get rid of. I think the history of the US Supreme Court is instructive here. The Founding Fathers were intellectual giants, and their constitution was still undermined and warped by ‘imaginative interpretation.’ The nature of judicial activism is that it changes the meaning of words and clauses, so it doesn’t matter how long a constitutional convention is, how many sections or clauses are put to referendum, once it’s locked in, and only amendable with a supermajority, that is when judicial activist will get to work. Given that you think that the last 28 years has changed the British psyche so much that some mechanism through which the redress of grievances regarding ‘human rights’ will be demanded by the electorate, it will be impossible to draft a codified constitution which does not include them. This will provide much for leftist judicial activists, people wounded by the success of a resurgent patriotic Right, to work with. For all its faults, a sovereign Parliament restored largely to a pre-1997 state (with some caveats, as mentioned above), would likely be a better arrangement than a separate executive and a new codified constitution with a separate Supreme Court.
Another archaic arrangement, the restoration of which would be difficult to sell to the electorate, is the Law Lords. But, unlike the hereditary peers, I think it must be restored. Or, failing that, we would have to suffer the vulgarity of US-Style confirmation hearings and a vote on judicial appointments. Our teenage Supreme Court (the fact that it is only 16 years old is a point I would hammer on about if I was trying to argue for the restoration of the Law Lords) hasn’t sunk to the depths of the US Supreme Court in the 20th century yet, but it showed the first sign of power-grabbing in the prorogation decision, and considering the conveyor belt of radical leftist law graduates emanating from our universities, it is likely only a matter of time before we have an activist Supreme Court here too (see recent dissents of Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson in the US, along with Marbury v Madison, Roe v Wade and countless other decisions for a taste of it). Without a kind of British Federalist Society (not something I would want), we would in effect have a supreme third legislative chamber of unaccountable and militant leftists. Considering all the alternatives I think the restoration of the Law Lords is the least worst option and worth the political capital.
In the end, we have to trust the people. Blair’s constitutional reforms were successfully implemented due to stealth and the fact that their consequences were unpredictable. Opposing forces in Britain will have their guard up if a similar power dispersal was attempted in the future. It is also wrong in principle to tie the hands of future generations by trying to lock in things we think are desirable. Conservatism is, in my view, a reverence for the gradual, the empirical and the traditional. This was criminally violated by the Blairites and a restoration would return us, more or less to a settlement that was created by these three sensible and cautious principles. If future generations want to throw it all away again, more fool them, but we can’t and shouldn’t imprison their political aspirations. We must have faith that the policies and principles we favour work and produce a happier society. And that a restoration would return us to the core democratic principle that what the majority wants, it gets.
I agree with you on almost everything you’ve said about Reform, Restore, Advance and ‘slopulism’ but I don’t think restorationists (certainly not all of them) are delusional or haven’t thought about implications. Certainly not Starkey. Please forgive me if I have mischaracterised, misunderstood, or straw-manned any of your positions. All the best Pete!
Give them a chance. You are wrong about leadership. They both have better understanding of real leadership than the cheerleading shallowness of the much adored Nigel.
Remember the first principle of leadership is that boring quality, “Consistency”. (Principles of Leadership MOD). Both Lowe and Habib have that in spades. They have never changed their tunes nor deserted their posts.
Nigel flunks things at the last minute time and again, which is why thinking people don’t trust him. We’ve looked at his past record, including his performance on EU Parliament Committees and found him seriously wanting.
Reform is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and will likely be engineering to bring us our first Muslim Prime Minister. That doesn’t preclude them winning strategic votes from doubters but don’t dismiss the dissenters. They may be the only ones to save us later on. They may be the only ones with integrity.
I'm looking at getting odds on Farage bailing ahead of the GE installing Zia as leader in 2029.
Farage will be looking at this Annus Horriblus for Starmer, knowing that the country will be a pressure cooker in 2029, even poorer and weaker than right now, way way angrier, seeing how the bond markets in Darwinian fashion crushed Truss and may well do for Starmer and Reeves, and want nothing to do with trying to lead the nation as PM after 2029.
Expanding the armed forces due to Russian attack appears more of an excuse for the possibility of internal strife.
What a situation - due to the calamitous opening of the borders we face conflict. The same happened in Lebanon and civilian life during that war was harrowing.
Hmmm - I'm not sure I personally would ever trust the Conservatives again (I used to be a member) but they have broken the trust of the electorate and the party is now filled with Lib Dems. Fool me once etc. Been fooled too many times.
I don't trust Reform. I've joined Advance UK - Ben Habib's new party. At least he is a genuine person, unlike Farage. There are so many political parties on the Left (including the Conservatives!) that there needs to be some choice on the Right. The left-right dichotomy is a meaningless division of course - we need anti-globalist parties to vote for.
Praying like hope - isn't usually a winning strategy Mark - but that was my first thought too.
I actually think there is not only time for a Tory revival ( albeit with a more charismtic and better more communicative leader) but, given the 3-dimensionsional chess being played, we've the labour government soap opera, or the gift that keeps on giving - one year on and labour have achieved in 12 months what the Tories did in 14 years.
This makes no sense at all. British Law is merely an umbrella term for English (and Welsh) Law, Scottish Law (and Irish Law for the UK). There are certain common laws (eg driving, leaving the EU, many others) that are incorporated into English, Scottish and Irish, that could be called British but exist on the statutes of the three strands of the UK.
With Farage backing down on deporting all illegals and those with criminal records, what are we supposed to do? We need someone who will place them in detention centres awaiting deportation with no right of appeal.
Not sure if my experience is typical but having adult children in their 30s and 40s they are very aware of the mood in the UK. Even Labourites their age are now supporting Reform. 6th forms at local school harbour teenagers aware of a changing nation, and Reform is very much the party they choose. I am sick of 'Boomer' being used as a pejorative term.
Many older people are highly educated, productive members of society who are discerning and aware. Many are old socialists.
I'd agree with you that Reform has to become more structured and democratic and I'd agree that young parties like it and new movements created by the likes of Habib and Lowe will take a long time to get off the ground and find solid bases on which to build. A manifesto isn't enough.
However...even though Reform is riddled with problems and a lack of internal democracy, and Farage's ego seems to be getting in the way of growth, it remains the ONLY alternative to the electorate who will never go back to Labour or the Conservatives.
If there were an election tomorrow I predict Reform would win it.
They might make an almighty cock-up of governing, but...er...I give you the Labour Party.
Our present government, a long-established party, have got it so badly wrong - over and over again - during their 12 months' tenure.
That's a gamble the electorate will take. They want a party devoted to national issues that works for them and recognises them...and might even prioritise them.
I'll finish by saying I hope Reform and Habib and Lowe read your articles. They desperately need someone with your analytical bent to get them on track.
On the other hand, competition between the weird egos of the right is quite positive. As Labour flouders there is a short space for competition and we shall see who merges or disappears as the election gets closer. A financial crisis or worse will concentrate minds soon enough. In the meantime, Habib and Lowe are building their own networks and data sets, not quite parties, but chips that can be played for maximum impact. Sooner or later, the Tories or Reform will want them, at which point they can set their own price.
I hate to be the one to break it to you Pete but the Tories have as much chance of winning the next election as Homeland Party. They betrayed us continually for 14 years and the betrayals got worse over time, culminating in Johnson. They’re done. Forget them.
I agree that Conservatives are better at government than Labour. The evidence is there to support that. After that you’ve allowed opinion and guesswork to take over. You don’t know whether Reform will be able to govern or not. All you can do is make an assessment (hopefully an objective one) based on their people and their policies. You are also (incredibly in my opinion) ignoring how awful the Conservatives have been since Cameron left office. Mrs May was totally out of her depth. An honest trier but with little talent and woeful communication skills. Johnson could communicate but was a liar who ignored the reasons why he was elected - get Brexit done which he did after a fashion and slash immigration which he didn’t. Worse he had clear policies to ramp it up rather than cut it. Truss had the right ideas on the economy but terrible execution and communication. By Sunak’s turn people had stopped listening. So logic tells me we had eight years of rudderless government from the Tories from 2016-2024 and they ignored the clear instructions they had from the public. It was a clear case of “Vote Tory get LibDem”. The parliamentary party is still dominated by Liberals with some honourable exceptions like Jenrick, Danny Kruger, Katie Lam seems good but is close to Farage, Jack Rankin and Mark Francois.
You don’t know whether Reform will deliver or not. My judgement is they say more of the right things than the Tories. I can’t trust the Tories until I see evidence they’ve changed. I’m giving Farage a chance.
The corollary is that Starmer and acolyte's ( think of this hot shot trio - Reeves, Rayner and Lammy) have achieved in 12 months what it took the Tories 14 years to do - imagine what Labour will do in 2 or 3 years - implode or self immolate, it's not pretty.
Yes, the Tories behaved badly towards the end of their governing period - they were punch drunk with Brexit and Covid. There is still time to get their act together and win in 2029.
My gut feeling is that people aren’t thinking logically like that anymore. They look at the Tories and they think Covid contract sleaze with Matt Hancock and Boris, Truss mini-budget rightly or wrongly and worst of all the Boriswave of over 1m net migration from the cesspits of the world. Actually when I think of it like that, maybe they’re being very logical not to trust these idiots again. Why would you?
So - I'm a relativist - which/who does less bad? Sure all the things the Tories did led to mistrust and a huge kicking at the last GE - quaisi tragically, Labour has done much the same but in a significantly shorter period.
On gut, tealeaves, runes and an economic evidence base ( we've enough of that now) I've concluded that the Tories ( despite their faults) are better at government than Labour is or could ever be.
Government isn't all about elegant decision making - it's about hard decision making that Labour, Reform ( I suspect) is congenitally unable to do.
The Tories manifestly needed a period in the doghouse - but they now need to sharpen their act, create a narrative - Labour is providing an open goal ( Reform is superficial) - let's not waste the opportunity provided or let a good crises go to waste.
Reform treat their members with contempt and Reform members treat anyone who isn't Reform with contempt. Try criticising them, even constructively, and they fly off the handle and subject their critics with abuse. Try doing that on the doorstep and see how far that gets you. Blokey LibDems is what I call them.
As a country, we're going to need to get a grip sooner rather than later. One can't ever accuse the UK of being a true democracy (a la Harrogate Agenda). But if government websites are now erasing any responsibility of MPs to represent their own constituents, then I think that's pretty bad - to say the least! In my mind it's the ONLY job of MPs - in line with Harrogate Agenda of government ministers ceasing to be MPs due to the conflict of interests.
So whoever is going to bubble up from the depths with a decent overarching political vision and policy framework - they'd better do it soon.
The Black Belt Barrister discusses the changes to MPs' roles - as well as the UK dropping out of the list of countries regarded as 'Open' in terms of free expression:
IIRC Lowe has stated it is about getting the ideas they are pushing to be spoken about in a different way, or at all.
The policy areas can then form a basis for a petition, which then means a conversation in the house. This could lead to Tory MPs speaking to it.
Long shot, I know.
It could well enable the Tories to see the strength of feeling on an issue and not be the one that mentions it first.
Who knows, the Tories could end up being robust enough to run with the ball on some of the policy suggestions and then form concrete policies around them.
As far as I can tell, though, the No1 issue needed to get right is the correct order and mechanism to back out all the Blair vandalism. That has to be done fast.
This is a useful description of the situation, and for me, thought- provoking. I've long been sceptical of the existing party model, and see the situation you describe as evidence of this model coming apart. However, the party model is so embedded in our concept of representative government, that it seems impossible to conceive of such government without the concept of parties.
Good piece as ever Pete - you know I'm kind of torn on the whole 'internal democracy' thing. You eventually need it to make sure there's a conveyor belt of talent coming through, but the early days of any 'startup' are tough. You don't have a board of directors in a new company, just an owner/MD running the show. You need dynamism and agility.
The problem with Reform might not have been the model originally, of course it's now got to the size where 'shared stage' is entirely necessary and branches need a degree of autonomy if they've got the first idea what they are doing.
Farage might well be the right person to start a movement, but not to carry it on any further, you've mentioned the paradox around him before.
Lowe's move here is the more puzzling one, makes you wonder what he's going to do in four years or so. Might decide parliament is not for him and walk away.
As far as Ben Habib goes his heart is probably in the right place but he's somewhat all over the place in terms of policy and what he actually wants to do. Ben wants to do it democratically, but simultaneously he wants to get his way all the time. He may be in for a disappointment.
A lot of what you write is probably right but these are early days.
Of the two I think Lowe's Restore 'movement' will have more legs than Habib's Advance 'party' but we will have to wait and see what they do/achieve in the next 12 months.
Of course it is a given they need you on board and your father for that matter and may be the knock will come?
Hi Pete, I have been an avid reader of your Substack for a while now and over the past few years, as well as reading your blogs and listening to every interview you have given. I have also been doing the same with David Starkey and I think you may be wrong about your assertion that restorationists are delusional sufferers of ‘90s brain.’ I get that some of Blair’s constitutional reforms were a ratchet and are politically impossible to reverse. Particularly the hereditary peers he got rid of. Trying to persuade the public that Lords who owe their position to accident of birth and privilege are better than Lords who are political hacks or donors who owe their position to a political party is a fool’s errand, even if I think it’s true because of independent thought and, usually, a kind of knowledge and noblesse oblige with regards to their corner of the country. It just won’t wash and will be seen as retrograde and blatantly elitist and unfair. Expending political capital on this isn’t worth it and putting it in a manifesto gives a free hit to political enemies.
However, the call you make in your manifesto for a codified constitution is, I believe, a recipe for catastrophe which will, contrary to your assertions, diminish democracy. I take your point that a pre-1997 reset will hand a lot of dispersed power back to politicians and do nothing to ensure they won’t simply give them away again. But a written constitution, no matter how well-written, will eventually hand unaccountable power to judges who we can’t get rid of. I think the history of the US Supreme Court is instructive here. The Founding Fathers were intellectual giants, and their constitution was still undermined and warped by ‘imaginative interpretation.’ The nature of judicial activism is that it changes the meaning of words and clauses, so it doesn’t matter how long a constitutional convention is, how many sections or clauses are put to referendum, once it’s locked in, and only amendable with a supermajority, that is when judicial activist will get to work. Given that you think that the last 28 years has changed the British psyche so much that some mechanism through which the redress of grievances regarding ‘human rights’ will be demanded by the electorate, it will be impossible to draft a codified constitution which does not include them. This will provide much for leftist judicial activists, people wounded by the success of a resurgent patriotic Right, to work with. For all its faults, a sovereign Parliament restored largely to a pre-1997 state (with some caveats, as mentioned above), would likely be a better arrangement than a separate executive and a new codified constitution with a separate Supreme Court.
Another archaic arrangement, the restoration of which would be difficult to sell to the electorate, is the Law Lords. But, unlike the hereditary peers, I think it must be restored. Or, failing that, we would have to suffer the vulgarity of US-Style confirmation hearings and a vote on judicial appointments. Our teenage Supreme Court (the fact that it is only 16 years old is a point I would hammer on about if I was trying to argue for the restoration of the Law Lords) hasn’t sunk to the depths of the US Supreme Court in the 20th century yet, but it showed the first sign of power-grabbing in the prorogation decision, and considering the conveyor belt of radical leftist law graduates emanating from our universities, it is likely only a matter of time before we have an activist Supreme Court here too (see recent dissents of Sotomayor, Kagan and Jackson in the US, along with Marbury v Madison, Roe v Wade and countless other decisions for a taste of it). Without a kind of British Federalist Society (not something I would want), we would in effect have a supreme third legislative chamber of unaccountable and militant leftists. Considering all the alternatives I think the restoration of the Law Lords is the least worst option and worth the political capital.
In the end, we have to trust the people. Blair’s constitutional reforms were successfully implemented due to stealth and the fact that their consequences were unpredictable. Opposing forces in Britain will have their guard up if a similar power dispersal was attempted in the future. It is also wrong in principle to tie the hands of future generations by trying to lock in things we think are desirable. Conservatism is, in my view, a reverence for the gradual, the empirical and the traditional. This was criminally violated by the Blairites and a restoration would return us, more or less to a settlement that was created by these three sensible and cautious principles. If future generations want to throw it all away again, more fool them, but we can’t and shouldn’t imprison their political aspirations. We must have faith that the policies and principles we favour work and produce a happier society. And that a restoration would return us to the core democratic principle that what the majority wants, it gets.
I agree with you on almost everything you’ve said about Reform, Restore, Advance and ‘slopulism’ but I don’t think restorationists (certainly not all of them) are delusional or haven’t thought about implications. Certainly not Starkey. Please forgive me if I have mischaracterised, misunderstood, or straw-manned any of your positions. All the best Pete!
Thanks for that. I'm going to have to address this in full in a dedicated post. I'll have a bash tomorrow.
Give them a chance. You are wrong about leadership. They both have better understanding of real leadership than the cheerleading shallowness of the much adored Nigel.
Remember the first principle of leadership is that boring quality, “Consistency”. (Principles of Leadership MOD). Both Lowe and Habib have that in spades. They have never changed their tunes nor deserted their posts.
Nigel flunks things at the last minute time and again, which is why thinking people don’t trust him. We’ve looked at his past record, including his performance on EU Parliament Committees and found him seriously wanting.
Reform is a wolf in sheep’s clothing and will likely be engineering to bring us our first Muslim Prime Minister. That doesn’t preclude them winning strategic votes from doubters but don’t dismiss the dissenters. They may be the only ones to save us later on. They may be the only ones with integrity.
I'm looking at getting odds on Farage bailing ahead of the GE installing Zia as leader in 2029.
Farage will be looking at this Annus Horriblus for Starmer, knowing that the country will be a pressure cooker in 2029, even poorer and weaker than right now, way way angrier, seeing how the bond markets in Darwinian fashion crushed Truss and may well do for Starmer and Reeves, and want nothing to do with trying to lead the nation as PM after 2029.
The other problem is the talk of civil war.
Expanding the armed forces due to Russian attack appears more of an excuse for the possibility of internal strife.
What a situation - due to the calamitous opening of the borders we face conflict. The same happened in Lebanon and civilian life during that war was harrowing.
Depends when the lid blows off the pressure cooker. Better this side of a GE so Labour can take the blame, other side of the GE, could be a lot worse.
Good point! We wait but not holding our breath - this will take time to unfold.
What do you suggest we do then?
Pray for a Tory revival on the right basis.
Hmmm - I'm not sure I personally would ever trust the Conservatives again (I used to be a member) but they have broken the trust of the electorate and the party is now filled with Lib Dems. Fool me once etc. Been fooled too many times.
And when Reform break your heart, and millions of others?
I don't trust Reform. I've joined Advance UK - Ben Habib's new party. At least he is a genuine person, unlike Farage. There are so many political parties on the Left (including the Conservatives!) that there needs to be some choice on the Right. The left-right dichotomy is a meaningless division of course - we need anti-globalist parties to vote for.
Praying like hope - isn't usually a winning strategy Mark - but that was my first thought too.
I actually think there is not only time for a Tory revival ( albeit with a more charismtic and better more communicative leader) but, given the 3-dimensionsional chess being played, we've the labour government soap opera, or the gift that keeps on giving - one year on and labour have achieved in 12 months what the Tories did in 14 years.
Spread your bets and hold your nose.
We all make mistakes.
But your dalliance with Homeland and your strange promotion of Tories, even if getting Reform right, isn’t shrewd.
It’s 1 step forward, 2 back.
There will be a lot of movement over the next couple of years.
Alignments and re-alignment.
I am looking for genuine belief as a starter.
Habib and Lowe have this, so I believe, will act in the best interests of the UK, not themselves.
I’m still to see the Tories acting in the best interests of anyone other than themselves.
If it happens I’ll be delighted.
If it happens.
But all I see is Tory politicians manoeuvring for leadership.
Habib and Lowe have the approval of Musk, not a bad start.
When Blair came to power he was able to manipulate the legal system.
Somehow, nobody is able to do what Blair did?
Why?
A court case over the Runcorn by-election result (raised by the English Constitution Party) is being heard in October.
It will raise the question of what is superior, English or British law.
This isn’t just an intellectual discussion, it has serious implications for UK law.
This makes no sense at all. British Law is merely an umbrella term for English (and Welsh) Law, Scottish Law (and Irish Law for the UK). There are certain common laws (eg driving, leaving the EU, many others) that are incorporated into English, Scottish and Irish, that could be called British but exist on the statutes of the three strands of the UK.
English Law came before British Law and still applies.
That is part of the case being brought by ECP over the Runcorn election.
The establishment are worried enough to have 4 barristers (1 a senior partner in an international legal company) to fight the ECP.
Check the English Constitution Party on YouTube.
With Farage backing down on deporting all illegals and those with criminal records, what are we supposed to do? We need someone who will place them in detention centres awaiting deportation with no right of appeal.
He’s not backed down on deportation of all illegals or criminals at all.
A " boomer populist party"?
Not sure if my experience is typical but having adult children in their 30s and 40s they are very aware of the mood in the UK. Even Labourites their age are now supporting Reform. 6th forms at local school harbour teenagers aware of a changing nation, and Reform is very much the party they choose. I am sick of 'Boomer' being used as a pejorative term.
Many older people are highly educated, productive members of society who are discerning and aware. Many are old socialists.
I'd agree with you that Reform has to become more structured and democratic and I'd agree that young parties like it and new movements created by the likes of Habib and Lowe will take a long time to get off the ground and find solid bases on which to build. A manifesto isn't enough.
However...even though Reform is riddled with problems and a lack of internal democracy, and Farage's ego seems to be getting in the way of growth, it remains the ONLY alternative to the electorate who will never go back to Labour or the Conservatives.
If there were an election tomorrow I predict Reform would win it.
They might make an almighty cock-up of governing, but...er...I give you the Labour Party.
Our present government, a long-established party, have got it so badly wrong - over and over again - during their 12 months' tenure.
That's a gamble the electorate will take. They want a party devoted to national issues that works for them and recognises them...and might even prioritise them.
I'll finish by saying I hope Reform and Habib and Lowe read your articles. They desperately need someone with your analytical bent to get them on track.
On the other hand, competition between the weird egos of the right is quite positive. As Labour flouders there is a short space for competition and we shall see who merges or disappears as the election gets closer. A financial crisis or worse will concentrate minds soon enough. In the meantime, Habib and Lowe are building their own networks and data sets, not quite parties, but chips that can be played for maximum impact. Sooner or later, the Tories or Reform will want them, at which point they can set their own price.
I hate to be the one to break it to you Pete but the Tories have as much chance of winning the next election as Homeland Party. They betrayed us continually for 14 years and the betrayals got worse over time, culminating in Johnson. They’re done. Forget them.
I agree that Conservatives are better at government than Labour. The evidence is there to support that. After that you’ve allowed opinion and guesswork to take over. You don’t know whether Reform will be able to govern or not. All you can do is make an assessment (hopefully an objective one) based on their people and their policies. You are also (incredibly in my opinion) ignoring how awful the Conservatives have been since Cameron left office. Mrs May was totally out of her depth. An honest trier but with little talent and woeful communication skills. Johnson could communicate but was a liar who ignored the reasons why he was elected - get Brexit done which he did after a fashion and slash immigration which he didn’t. Worse he had clear policies to ramp it up rather than cut it. Truss had the right ideas on the economy but terrible execution and communication. By Sunak’s turn people had stopped listening. So logic tells me we had eight years of rudderless government from the Tories from 2016-2024 and they ignored the clear instructions they had from the public. It was a clear case of “Vote Tory get LibDem”. The parliamentary party is still dominated by Liberals with some honourable exceptions like Jenrick, Danny Kruger, Katie Lam seems good but is close to Farage, Jack Rankin and Mark Francois.
You don’t know whether Reform will deliver or not. My judgement is they say more of the right things than the Tories. I can’t trust the Tories until I see evidence they’ve changed. I’m giving Farage a chance.
The corollary is that Starmer and acolyte's ( think of this hot shot trio - Reeves, Rayner and Lammy) have achieved in 12 months what it took the Tories 14 years to do - imagine what Labour will do in 2 or 3 years - implode or self immolate, it's not pretty.
Yes, the Tories behaved badly towards the end of their governing period - they were punch drunk with Brexit and Covid. There is still time to get their act together and win in 2029.
My gut feeling is that people aren’t thinking logically like that anymore. They look at the Tories and they think Covid contract sleaze with Matt Hancock and Boris, Truss mini-budget rightly or wrongly and worst of all the Boriswave of over 1m net migration from the cesspits of the world. Actually when I think of it like that, maybe they’re being very logical not to trust these idiots again. Why would you?
So - I'm a relativist - which/who does less bad? Sure all the things the Tories did led to mistrust and a huge kicking at the last GE - quaisi tragically, Labour has done much the same but in a significantly shorter period.
On gut, tealeaves, runes and an economic evidence base ( we've enough of that now) I've concluded that the Tories ( despite their faults) are better at government than Labour is or could ever be.
Government isn't all about elegant decision making - it's about hard decision making that Labour, Reform ( I suspect) is congenitally unable to do.
The Tories manifestly needed a period in the doghouse - but they now need to sharpen their act, create a narrative - Labour is providing an open goal ( Reform is superficial) - let's not waste the opportunity provided or let a good crises go to waste.
Reform treat their members with contempt and Reform members treat anyone who isn't Reform with contempt. Try criticising them, even constructively, and they fly off the handle and subject their critics with abuse. Try doing that on the doorstep and see how far that gets you. Blokey LibDems is what I call them.
Reform are a mile wide, but paper thin and brittle.
And when does Farage convert his PLC to a proper political party?
More and more I'm thinking he bails ahead of the GE installing Zia at the helm.
Farage wants to remain the ultimate agent provacateur, the dynamite under the system.
First Brexit, now smashing the Uniparty.
He just doesn't want to be the person who has to put his neck on the chopping block, try to enact policy and deal with the fallout and failure.
As a country, we're going to need to get a grip sooner rather than later. One can't ever accuse the UK of being a true democracy (a la Harrogate Agenda). But if government websites are now erasing any responsibility of MPs to represent their own constituents, then I think that's pretty bad - to say the least! In my mind it's the ONLY job of MPs - in line with Harrogate Agenda of government ministers ceasing to be MPs due to the conflict of interests.
So whoever is going to bubble up from the depths with a decent overarching political vision and policy framework - they'd better do it soon.
The Black Belt Barrister discusses the changes to MPs' roles - as well as the UK dropping out of the list of countries regarded as 'Open' in terms of free expression:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAI_klp-0GY
IIRC Lowe has stated it is about getting the ideas they are pushing to be spoken about in a different way, or at all.
The policy areas can then form a basis for a petition, which then means a conversation in the house. This could lead to Tory MPs speaking to it.
Long shot, I know.
It could well enable the Tories to see the strength of feeling on an issue and not be the one that mentions it first.
Who knows, the Tories could end up being robust enough to run with the ball on some of the policy suggestions and then form concrete policies around them.
As far as I can tell, though, the No1 issue needed to get right is the correct order and mechanism to back out all the Blair vandalism. That has to be done fast.
This is a useful description of the situation, and for me, thought- provoking. I've long been sceptical of the existing party model, and see the situation you describe as evidence of this model coming apart. However, the party model is so embedded in our concept of representative government, that it seems impossible to conceive of such government without the concept of parties.
Good piece as ever Pete - you know I'm kind of torn on the whole 'internal democracy' thing. You eventually need it to make sure there's a conveyor belt of talent coming through, but the early days of any 'startup' are tough. You don't have a board of directors in a new company, just an owner/MD running the show. You need dynamism and agility.
The problem with Reform might not have been the model originally, of course it's now got to the size where 'shared stage' is entirely necessary and branches need a degree of autonomy if they've got the first idea what they are doing.
Farage might well be the right person to start a movement, but not to carry it on any further, you've mentioned the paradox around him before.
Lowe's move here is the more puzzling one, makes you wonder what he's going to do in four years or so. Might decide parliament is not for him and walk away.
As far as Ben Habib goes his heart is probably in the right place but he's somewhat all over the place in terms of policy and what he actually wants to do. Ben wants to do it democratically, but simultaneously he wants to get his way all the time. He may be in for a disappointment.
A lot of what you write is probably right but these are early days.
Of the two I think Lowe's Restore 'movement' will have more legs than Habib's Advance 'party' but we will have to wait and see what they do/achieve in the next 12 months.
Of course it is a given they need you on board and your father for that matter and may be the knock will come?
Criticism of Habib and Lowe is entirely legitimate. Lowe floated a new party for months.