Some have argued that Trump is a natural strongman, and that even if he is not sympathetic to Ukraine, Russia would be more cautious with someone as unpredictable as Trump. I think we can now see that argument as being, at best, flimsy.
Rebuilding support from affluent voters makes political sense. For it to succeed, however, greater emphasis on economic and fiscal credibility is needed which will require some political bravery on issues like the triple lock and EU relations. The party conference was a good start, but there is still a very long way to go.
The brutal truth today is that there is no money left for anything but, at best, the most growth focused tax cuts. Here is a test for the Conservative Party at next week’s party conference. Be better than Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats and refrain from making any stupid pledges on tax.
If Farage goes – and it remains an ‘if’ – the threat to the Conservative Party from its right will be diminished. It is a great opportunity but also creates a crucial strategic dilemma. The Conservatives can either attempt to fill the space Farage has left behind, or set out a platform with a broad appeal based on economic competence.
No 10 North would inevitably reflect the instincts of its founder. I fear it would be statist, prioritising reducing regional inequality over aggregate growth, and it would be suspicious of technological innovation if this resulted in job losses. It would tend towards people pleasing nostalgic romanticism over hard-headed realities.
Burnham is a Prime Minister who demonstrably tries, and the public will appreciate that for a while. But it is ultimately not good intentions that matter. Trying must be followed by succeeding, and that is a much harder test.
This, I repeat, is not an argument against devolution. But it is an argument for a hard-headed devolution that considers local responsibility to be more important than regional equality, and makes the tough argument that we have to live with the local consequences of devolved decisions.
In the context of Kemi Badenoch’s improving personal rating (now the least unpopular party leader in the country) and the growing evidence that the air is leaving the Reform balloon, in the gains of 18th June there are signs and genuine grounds for optimism.
Contrary to his parents’ wishes, the murder has become a political – and divisive – issue. Naturally there is close scrutiny of how the police acted and about wider police culture. But it has also revealed more about the character, temperament and political strategies of some leading politicians.
The strategic challenge for the Tories is that it has been losing support to both its right and left. Move decisively to the right and more votes get lost to left-wing parties, move decisively to the left and watch Reform steal the Tories’ lunch.
We know now that the country got out of its 1970s malaise thanks to a government committed to fiscal discipline and a market economy. Were matters worse in the seventies compared to today? Yes. Will matters resolve themselves as positively? Not necessarily.
For all the hope of bringing renewed dynamism to the British economy, Reform UK will not have assembled a pro-growth electoral coalition. The country may well need a brave and radical government, but the populist right – including Reform UK – is not going to provide it.
The Government – hoping to change the subject from scheduled fuel duty rises – accused fuel retailers of “price gouging” or“profiteering” despite no evidence to support that. Tory opposition is smart but short term. None of it addresses the realities of the public finances.
Wanting the US action against Iran to replace an evil regime with something much better is one thing, but the odds were always that is not going to be the case. In such circumstances, reticence in supporting the US was not a moral failure, but perfectly sensible.