It’s an irony that anyone would blame the leader of a party its rival on the right publicly declared was its mission and purpose to destroy, for not wanting to reach out across the divide to enter a partnership that is fraught with problems, not least how much they clearly hate the Conservatives.
But we mustn’t let that optimism cloud our judgement. If we take the foot off the pedal now, this will have all been for nothing. This is a party that has existed for close to two centuries, and, over the last 18 months, we have teetered on the edge of political extinction far more than I would have ideally liked. If we relax now, we risk that future.
Labour is running a content-free campaign in North London, and has found a candidate with an enchanting smile, but shows no sign of recognising that tough decisions about welfare reform will be needed in order to win back the North of England from Reform UK.
Blind pursuit of immediacy and quick fix policies are why we faced an outright bashing at the ballot box in 2024. To respond to such a bashing with yet more short-termist gimmicks would be silly, and show that we have abandoned the future of the country for the sake of a few more votes.
Gathered in Brighton two years on from the best result they’ve had those 72 MPs and many local councillors are starting to ask the question of themselves: What is the point of the Liberal Democrats, what are they for? And is it time to look elsewhere for leadership of their party?
ConservativeHome’s round-up of ten of our best articles from the preceding week.
I think the best way to sum up Griffith’s first speech would be to compare it to when your mum cooked you a cottage pie when you got home from school. It wasn’t amazing. You weren’t thrilled at the prospect. You weren’t bouncing off the walls, eager to wolf down the concoction of beef and potatoes. But you weren’t dismissive of it either. You didn’t hate it. It was just a bit meh.
If Burnham and Healey can’t see a way out within the fiscal rules, with borrowing costs where they are, looking for tax rises, and utterly boxed in on spending cuts – indeed demands for higher spending from their own side – then there is one option they might need to take: ‘go early’ for an election.
Kemi is popular because of her no-nonsense attitude. She says it how it is, and people like her because, even if they disagree with her, she stays true to her beliefs. If she is so serious about portraying such an image to the public, then break ranks from the rest of the establishment and pledge to scrap the triple lock.
She says her path is not going right, left or down the middle but one marked Conservative. That she’s defining that is entirely her right as leader. I get that people might not like every option agreed upon, but it seems a reasoned and reasonable position to take – as long as you check and check again you think you are right
Reducing the argument down to a binary decision seems to me to be a mistake. It really doesn’t need to be one or the other, and yet we have convinced ourselves that it must be so. Total abolition is not the only path forward, nor is keeping IHT exactly the way it is.
ConservativeHome’s round-up of ten of our best articles from the preceding week.
Burnham may have morphed the concept of “we talked right and governed left” into “we’re talking different, and governing the same”. It’s also possible we have the question he might try to pose in any 2027 election: ‘These are the things I want to do, and haven’t, yet. Now give me the mandate to keep spending on them’
That, above all else, underpins Reform’s change in strategy. They don’t need to persuade the masses that they are able to govern, they need only persuade enough of the country that everyone else has failed.
The entire issue of face coverings is like almost everything in politics far more complicated than each sides’ sympathies and perspectives admit. It’s too often: one general rule of thumb for all, except of course for those I agree and sympathise with, as to who should be exempt.