To me the biggest issue is lack of honesty around tax and funding. It is clear that neither of the main parties can tackle the systemic issues around poverty etc. Unless they are prepared to rethink their economic strategy we will just have more of the same problems.
It's a very fair point. The hope among Labour people I know is that the 1997 experience will be replicated: stick to Tory spending plans and then, when the economy improves, use the rise in tax revenue to fund anti-poverty measures. This worked in 1997 with policies such as Sure Start reducing child poverty. The problem this time is that the economic recovery, when it comes, will be modest and so will the tax revenues. The big test on poverty is the two-child benefit cap. My expectation is that cash for this will be found in the first half of the first term. It's not a huge sum of money. It's not in the manifesto because Labour didn't want it to be a wedge issue with swithering Tory voters.
The Tories have scunnered people across the board. Many believe the public would have been open to Keir Starmer offering some of the popular policies (as polls show) from the Corbyn manifesto he signed up to and applauded in his leadership campaign. Aditya Chakrabortty notes in the Guardian that instead he's gone more 'Ted Heath' and adds there may be a "great missed opportunity of this moment: that the public is ready for change of a kind that is simply not on offer."
The Ted Heath jibe is a tad harsh, I think. Let’s see what happens. My expectation is that the first budget in the autumn will free up money (capital gains tax, fuel duty, an accounting tweak to Bank of England national debt calculations that means paying less interest, new council tax bands) that will allow for action on poverty. There is more leeway in the govt books than the Tories have been willing to utilise.
If it goes as badly for the Tories as some folk are suggesting, do you think they might split into two parties? A more right-wing Braverman-esque group that gets into bed with Reform and a one-nation group?
It seems that a lot of our politics (Brexit, flights to Rwanda etc) of recent times as been as a result of the obvious schisms within the party? Could this be the end of the road?
Great question. Other European countries often have two or three parties of the right - one centrist and socially liberal, one hard right and socially conservative, and sometimes one identitarian as well. But these countries usually have proportional representation, allowing each party to have parliamentary presence even with a low share of the vote. With first past the post in the UK, ideological differences are more likely to play out within a party. Does that mean another Tory civil war? Yes. But the wildcard here is Nigel Farage. What's possible is a hostile takeover of the Tories by Farage/Reform. He's being increasingly bold and open about this, taking Canada as his model. When the Canadian Tories collapsed in the early 90s they were effectively taken over by a more right-wing outfit called, would you believe it, Reform. "Why do you think I chose Reform as a name," says Farage when asked about this. So in the Tory civil war you are likely to have one faction aligned, secretly or otherwise, with Farage. The other possibility is Farage actually joins the Tories and changes the party from within. Whatever happens it won't be pretty!
Many thanks. It will be fascinating to watch, especially as I have no skin in the game save for wanting our political system to work (and work better than it currently does) In a slight segue, your answer provides a compelling argument for PR at Westminster.
Thanks for the question, Dom. I've always been of the opinion that the SNP can have a bad Westminster election and then bounce back at the subsequent Holyrood election. There's been a pattern of this throughout the devolution years. So there's no rule that says votes lost to Labour from the SNP will stay lost. What matters is scale. The SNP is likely to lose seats across the urban central belt, but if the margin of loss in each seat is slim, there's a way back in 2026. If it's an urban landslide for Labour it suggests a cultural shift rather than a tactical vote to kick out the Tories and be part of a big political moment. So, scale is important. Same goes for the Tories. If the Scottish Tories do better than expected and hold on to a few seats then it will reassure the party that radical change is unnecessary. If it's a wipeout then it emboldens those who want a complete overhaul of the Scottish centre-right, with the party breaking away from the UK Conservatives and operating under its own steam, probably with a new name and identity. The contest to replace Douglas Ross will be a proxy for this existential debate, with the possibility of a new Scottish centre-right making its electoral debut in 2026.
5 & 6 July will be an interesting evening for several reasons.
I do wonder if the argument given over past cycles that Labour voters who switched to SNP were now lost to Labour. Once voters go back it’s in their mind for the future.
As for the Tories. Goodness knows what that could be.
Rather off the main beaten track with this, but re Alba's chances: I would predict they have no MPs after the GE and that although Alex Salmond says he will stand at next Holyrood election, I don't see him being elected either and he has to be their best chance. Their main relevance may be how much they damage the SNP by taking some votes from them? How do you think they will do?
Alba is "the dog that did not bark" of Scottish politics but that does not mean it can be safely ignored. You're right: Alba will win no Westminster seats and their vote will be pitifully small. I actually think their main rival is Reform rather than the SNP - despite the constitutional differences both parties appear to conspiracy theorists, self-styled mavericks and "a plague on all your houses" types. For Salmond this is just a holding election. His big opportunity if Holyrood 2026 and everything he does is with that in his sights. The SNP's recent shift to the right is bad news for Alba, given that much of its support is the old-school nationalist right wing. His big chance comes if the SNP downgrades independence as an issue, leaving a rump of disaffected fundamentalists looking for a new home.
If you'd asked me ten years ago, Ian, I'd have been a huge fan of PR for Westminster. I'm still on balance in favour, but there's part of me that says be careful what you wish for. If the future is a fractured right, do we really want to give every variety of bonkers right-wing populism their own place on the green benches? I'm not so sure. I think we need to separate two goals. One, get rid of an electoral system that can hand a parliamentary majority (and all the power that represents) to a party with less than 40 per cent of the vote. We need the overall make-up of parliament to reflect the overall opinion of the country. Two, we have to guard against the possibility that PR legitimises political parties with barely 5 per cent of the vote, and in some cases makes them kingmakers in a hung parliament and delivers them ministerial power they do not deserve. Look at Israel. So any PR system we agree for Westminster has to have a reasonably high bar for parliamentary representation. But I have not answered your question! Labour will never agree to PR until the left-wing unions are persuaded that it does not represent a permanent barrier to Labour radicalism in power. Some unions are moving towards PR but we're not there yet. Meanwhile we need to work on the model to ally the kind of fears I've just expressed.
I am looking at all the Rebus novels on the bookshelf as I type "I agree with Ian Rankin." That's my Father's Day made right there (assuming this Ian is, you know, the great man). Kenny: isn't the point to avoiding the crazies getting a seat to win the argument rather than stopping them from having a chance? Apologies if that's a wee bit pretentious
It’s a fair point. My argument is that PR amplifies and adds legitimacy to fringe positions that initially have very little support. There’s a lot of dubious ideas out there supported by 4 per cent of the population. Do they all need to be in parliament?
Yes, I think. Each of the 4% groups shouldn't be disenfranchised just because we don't think they paid attention in school or because they have jumped down a dark rabbit warren on the Internet. It's Churchill's point that democracy is the worst form of government except all of the others that have been tried
On the radio yesterday(Times radio) a Labour spokesperson was talking about the huge numbers of doctors teachers and mental health workers they were going to provide. Where are they going to get them from, how are they going to train them and where will they get the money to pay them?
Perhaps the most pertinent question of all. There's an appendix in the Labour manifesto that details where the money for particular promises is coming from, and most of the health promises - reducing waiting times, etc - are funded from the restrictions on non-dom tax status. Money for new teachers and new mental health support in schools is coming from the ending of the VAT exemption for private schools. There will of course be Barnett consequentials for Scotland from this new English spending, which will not be ring fenced for health/education and the SNP govt can use how it likes. I think you make a good point re training of doctors/teachers etc. There are often additional costs like this that are not initially taken into account. Who pays for the new college/uni places to teach these people? Who pays for the extra lecturers? Who pays for the extra student accommodation? Some of these numbers will only become clear once the civil service gets a hold of them.
Thanks Roger. It certainly looks like the kind of majority that lasts more than one term but then 2019 shows the flaw in that argument. Voters at the moment are fickle, restless and politically promiscuous. I would say it depends on a number of factors. Whether the economy picks up and workers feel more secure at work. Whether Labour can find the money to repair the public realm. Whether the public turns on Starmer if recovery is too slow or stalled. Whether there’s a new shock to the world economy (Taiwan? Covid?). And of course we don’t know the shape of the opposition. A Farage-led Tory party would be a new challenge, but might lose as many votes as it gains. If Farage sticks with Reform he splits the right just as the SDP split the left in the 80s, and Labour is safe not just for 10 years but possibly longer.
I’m struggling to decide who to vote for. All the talk is about the Parties, yet we have to vote for an individual mp. Currently, I have Johanne Cherry. She’s not well liked amongst many snp members, but I think democracy is stronger with some mps of independent minds. What’s your take on her?
Joanna is one of the most intelligent politicians in Scotland, but not always the smartest. She is thin-skinned for a professional politician and takes political setbacks personally. Her political experience is shallow and her political skills rudimentary - for example her campaign to replace Ian Blackford as Westminster leader was chaotic and amateur and she could have easily have won with more discipline and focus. My own view is that she could have been first minister by now if she had sought and taken advice from people who know the game better than she does. She was enormously popular with SNP grassroots after the indyref, arguably second only to Nicola in popularity. Her legal work opposing Brexit was nuanced and superb. At that time, in my view, she was the SNP heir apparent. But she ended up distancing herself from the SNP mainstream through her association with Salmond, when Salmond was intent on destroying the party. Then, for principled reasons one can only admire, she was subsumed by the trans debate and was very vocal on the gender critical side. A lot of people expected her to defect to Alba, and I'm told it was touch and go at one stage. But she stayed. She's now in a kind of limbo, hated by half the party, alienated from the leadership. Not sure where she goes from here. But would she be a good constituency MP? Yes.
Why are all media outlets giving coverage of Farage ( 8.10 on Today programme) and allowing him to voice his opinion on becoming PM in 5 years, when they were very critical when Jo Swinson said this? ( btw I think the ridicule of Jo Swinson was appropriate as there was no chance of her reaching that post)
Like him or not, Farage is one of the most consequential politicians of the age and there is indeed a chance he will be leader of the opposition in five years time. My eyes roll every time I see him in the box but I think the media obsession with him is (mostly) justifiable.
Whether you like him or not , he has never been an elected MP in the UK and ,although he may be a consequential figure , should the parties with elected members in the house be given an equal voice?
I appreciate this is nuanced as UKip did get millions of votes, but ,because of the electoral system, got no MPs.
UKip I meant. If it isn't he can't justify getting media attention. I've also heard Reform isn't a Party ,but a limited company, although I'm not sure that you can't be bothered?
It's true that it's a limited company, which raises all kinds of governance issues. But can you really argue with his centrality to the narrative of this election? There's polls showing Reform overtaking or level with the the Tories, so on that basis alone he deserves his place. I see the BBC have added a Panorama slot for him to be interviewed. Seems fair enough. In fact, not to include him might well leave broadcasters open to Ofcom problems on impartiality.
No I don't disagree. I'm sure his actions were a catalyst to the Brexit vote & Cameron's downfall, but I'm uneasy that an individual who has never been an MP should be allowed so much media coverage
Looking forward to your questions.
To me the biggest issue is lack of honesty around tax and funding. It is clear that neither of the main parties can tackle the systemic issues around poverty etc. Unless they are prepared to rethink their economic strategy we will just have more of the same problems.
It's a very fair point. The hope among Labour people I know is that the 1997 experience will be replicated: stick to Tory spending plans and then, when the economy improves, use the rise in tax revenue to fund anti-poverty measures. This worked in 1997 with policies such as Sure Start reducing child poverty. The problem this time is that the economic recovery, when it comes, will be modest and so will the tax revenues. The big test on poverty is the two-child benefit cap. My expectation is that cash for this will be found in the first half of the first term. It's not a huge sum of money. It's not in the manifesto because Labour didn't want it to be a wedge issue with swithering Tory voters.
The Tories have scunnered people across the board. Many believe the public would have been open to Keir Starmer offering some of the popular policies (as polls show) from the Corbyn manifesto he signed up to and applauded in his leadership campaign. Aditya Chakrabortty notes in the Guardian that instead he's gone more 'Ted Heath' and adds there may be a "great missed opportunity of this moment: that the public is ready for change of a kind that is simply not on offer."
The Ted Heath jibe is a tad harsh, I think. Let’s see what happens. My expectation is that the first budget in the autumn will free up money (capital gains tax, fuel duty, an accounting tweak to Bank of England national debt calculations that means paying less interest, new council tax bands) that will allow for action on poverty. There is more leeway in the govt books than the Tories have been willing to utilise.
Hi Kenny
If it goes as badly for the Tories as some folk are suggesting, do you think they might split into two parties? A more right-wing Braverman-esque group that gets into bed with Reform and a one-nation group?
It seems that a lot of our politics (Brexit, flights to Rwanda etc) of recent times as been as a result of the obvious schisms within the party? Could this be the end of the road?
Great question. Other European countries often have two or three parties of the right - one centrist and socially liberal, one hard right and socially conservative, and sometimes one identitarian as well. But these countries usually have proportional representation, allowing each party to have parliamentary presence even with a low share of the vote. With first past the post in the UK, ideological differences are more likely to play out within a party. Does that mean another Tory civil war? Yes. But the wildcard here is Nigel Farage. What's possible is a hostile takeover of the Tories by Farage/Reform. He's being increasingly bold and open about this, taking Canada as his model. When the Canadian Tories collapsed in the early 90s they were effectively taken over by a more right-wing outfit called, would you believe it, Reform. "Why do you think I chose Reform as a name," says Farage when asked about this. So in the Tory civil war you are likely to have one faction aligned, secretly or otherwise, with Farage. The other possibility is Farage actually joins the Tories and changes the party from within. Whatever happens it won't be pretty!
Many thanks. It will be fascinating to watch, especially as I have no skin in the game save for wanting our political system to work (and work better than it currently does) In a slight segue, your answer provides a compelling argument for PR at Westminster.
What are the key indicators we should look for in the election results for the 2026 Holyrood election?
Thanks for the question, Dom. I've always been of the opinion that the SNP can have a bad Westminster election and then bounce back at the subsequent Holyrood election. There's been a pattern of this throughout the devolution years. So there's no rule that says votes lost to Labour from the SNP will stay lost. What matters is scale. The SNP is likely to lose seats across the urban central belt, but if the margin of loss in each seat is slim, there's a way back in 2026. If it's an urban landslide for Labour it suggests a cultural shift rather than a tactical vote to kick out the Tories and be part of a big political moment. So, scale is important. Same goes for the Tories. If the Scottish Tories do better than expected and hold on to a few seats then it will reassure the party that radical change is unnecessary. If it's a wipeout then it emboldens those who want a complete overhaul of the Scottish centre-right, with the party breaking away from the UK Conservatives and operating under its own steam, probably with a new name and identity. The contest to replace Douglas Ross will be a proxy for this existential debate, with the possibility of a new Scottish centre-right making its electoral debut in 2026.
Thanks Kenny
5 & 6 July will be an interesting evening for several reasons.
I do wonder if the argument given over past cycles that Labour voters who switched to SNP were now lost to Labour. Once voters go back it’s in their mind for the future.
As for the Tories. Goodness knows what that could be.
Rather off the main beaten track with this, but re Alba's chances: I would predict they have no MPs after the GE and that although Alex Salmond says he will stand at next Holyrood election, I don't see him being elected either and he has to be their best chance. Their main relevance may be how much they damage the SNP by taking some votes from them? How do you think they will do?
Alba is "the dog that did not bark" of Scottish politics but that does not mean it can be safely ignored. You're right: Alba will win no Westminster seats and their vote will be pitifully small. I actually think their main rival is Reform rather than the SNP - despite the constitutional differences both parties appear to conspiracy theorists, self-styled mavericks and "a plague on all your houses" types. For Salmond this is just a holding election. His big opportunity if Holyrood 2026 and everything he does is with that in his sights. The SNP's recent shift to the right is bad news for Alba, given that much of its support is the old-school nationalist right wing. His big chance comes if the SNP downgrades independence as an issue, leaving a rump of disaffected fundamentalists looking for a new home.
Will we ever get PR in U.K. elections? And if we did, would it be a good thing?
If you'd asked me ten years ago, Ian, I'd have been a huge fan of PR for Westminster. I'm still on balance in favour, but there's part of me that says be careful what you wish for. If the future is a fractured right, do we really want to give every variety of bonkers right-wing populism their own place on the green benches? I'm not so sure. I think we need to separate two goals. One, get rid of an electoral system that can hand a parliamentary majority (and all the power that represents) to a party with less than 40 per cent of the vote. We need the overall make-up of parliament to reflect the overall opinion of the country. Two, we have to guard against the possibility that PR legitimises political parties with barely 5 per cent of the vote, and in some cases makes them kingmakers in a hung parliament and delivers them ministerial power they do not deserve. Look at Israel. So any PR system we agree for Westminster has to have a reasonably high bar for parliamentary representation. But I have not answered your question! Labour will never agree to PR until the left-wing unions are persuaded that it does not represent a permanent barrier to Labour radicalism in power. Some unions are moving towards PR but we're not there yet. Meanwhile we need to work on the model to ally the kind of fears I've just expressed.
I just think it unfair that, say, 250k votes can get a party 1 MP while another party can get more MPs with lesser numbers.
Yes, that is objectively mad. Needs looked at big picture, local picture, in the round.
I am looking at all the Rebus novels on the bookshelf as I type "I agree with Ian Rankin." That's my Father's Day made right there (assuming this Ian is, you know, the great man). Kenny: isn't the point to avoiding the crazies getting a seat to win the argument rather than stopping them from having a chance? Apologies if that's a wee bit pretentious
It’s a fair point. My argument is that PR amplifies and adds legitimacy to fringe positions that initially have very little support. There’s a lot of dubious ideas out there supported by 4 per cent of the population. Do they all need to be in parliament?
Yes, I think. Each of the 4% groups shouldn't be disenfranchised just because we don't think they paid attention in school or because they have jumped down a dark rabbit warren on the Internet. It's Churchill's point that democracy is the worst form of government except all of the others that have been tried
On the radio yesterday(Times radio) a Labour spokesperson was talking about the huge numbers of doctors teachers and mental health workers they were going to provide. Where are they going to get them from, how are they going to train them and where will they get the money to pay them?
Perhaps the most pertinent question of all. There's an appendix in the Labour manifesto that details where the money for particular promises is coming from, and most of the health promises - reducing waiting times, etc - are funded from the restrictions on non-dom tax status. Money for new teachers and new mental health support in schools is coming from the ending of the VAT exemption for private schools. There will of course be Barnett consequentials for Scotland from this new English spending, which will not be ring fenced for health/education and the SNP govt can use how it likes. I think you make a good point re training of doctors/teachers etc. There are often additional costs like this that are not initially taken into account. Who pays for the new college/uni places to teach these people? Who pays for the extra lecturers? Who pays for the extra student accommodation? Some of these numbers will only become clear once the civil service gets a hold of them.
Hi Kenny do you think this could be a death blow to the Tory Party and the Labour Party will be in power for at least 2 cycles?
I remember in both 1979 & 2019 the great and the good predicted the end of Labour. The same people predicted the Tory demise after 1997.
Will the general public forget & the Conservatives just bounce back?
Thanks Roger. It certainly looks like the kind of majority that lasts more than one term but then 2019 shows the flaw in that argument. Voters at the moment are fickle, restless and politically promiscuous. I would say it depends on a number of factors. Whether the economy picks up and workers feel more secure at work. Whether Labour can find the money to repair the public realm. Whether the public turns on Starmer if recovery is too slow or stalled. Whether there’s a new shock to the world economy (Taiwan? Covid?). And of course we don’t know the shape of the opposition. A Farage-led Tory party would be a new challenge, but might lose as many votes as it gains. If Farage sticks with Reform he splits the right just as the SDP split the left in the 80s, and Labour is safe not just for 10 years but possibly longer.
I’m struggling to decide who to vote for. All the talk is about the Parties, yet we have to vote for an individual mp. Currently, I have Johanne Cherry. She’s not well liked amongst many snp members, but I think democracy is stronger with some mps of independent minds. What’s your take on her?
Joanna is one of the most intelligent politicians in Scotland, but not always the smartest. She is thin-skinned for a professional politician and takes political setbacks personally. Her political experience is shallow and her political skills rudimentary - for example her campaign to replace Ian Blackford as Westminster leader was chaotic and amateur and she could have easily have won with more discipline and focus. My own view is that she could have been first minister by now if she had sought and taken advice from people who know the game better than she does. She was enormously popular with SNP grassroots after the indyref, arguably second only to Nicola in popularity. Her legal work opposing Brexit was nuanced and superb. At that time, in my view, she was the SNP heir apparent. But she ended up distancing herself from the SNP mainstream through her association with Salmond, when Salmond was intent on destroying the party. Then, for principled reasons one can only admire, she was subsumed by the trans debate and was very vocal on the gender critical side. A lot of people expected her to defect to Alba, and I'm told it was touch and go at one stage. But she stayed. She's now in a kind of limbo, hated by half the party, alienated from the leadership. Not sure where she goes from here. But would she be a good constituency MP? Yes.
Have you told her your opinion?
Ha! She hasn’t asked my opinion.
Reform really is a 1 trick pony. I suspect without Garage it'll wither and die just as the SDP did
Why are all media outlets giving coverage of Farage ( 8.10 on Today programme) and allowing him to voice his opinion on becoming PM in 5 years, when they were very critical when Jo Swinson said this? ( btw I think the ridicule of Jo Swinson was appropriate as there was no chance of her reaching that post)
Like him or not, Farage is one of the most consequential politicians of the age and there is indeed a chance he will be leader of the opposition in five years time. My eyes roll every time I see him in the box but I think the media obsession with him is (mostly) justifiable.
Whether you like him or not , he has never been an elected MP in the UK and ,although he may be a consequential figure , should the parties with elected members in the house be given an equal voice?
I appreciate this is nuanced as UKip did get millions of votes, but ,because of the electoral system, got no MPs.
I'm not even sure if Reform is UK?
Good questions.
UKip I meant. If it isn't he can't justify getting media attention. I've also heard Reform isn't a Party ,but a limited company, although I'm not sure that you can't be bothered?
It's true that it's a limited company, which raises all kinds of governance issues. But can you really argue with his centrality to the narrative of this election? There's polls showing Reform overtaking or level with the the Tories, so on that basis alone he deserves his place. I see the BBC have added a Panorama slot for him to be interviewed. Seems fair enough. In fact, not to include him might well leave broadcasters open to Ofcom problems on impartiality.
No I don't disagree. I'm sure his actions were a catalyst to the Brexit vote & Cameron's downfall, but I'm uneasy that an individual who has never been an MP should be allowed so much media coverage