Over last weekend, Dame Margaret Hodge claimed that the Labour Party are too frightened to talk about immigration. It is this, of course, which also makes them too frightened to talk about a return to the EU’s freedom of movement. So the success of attempts to return to the EU is inextricably linked to dealing successfully with the issues around immigration. Solve that problem, and Labour may feel more chipper about reconsidering the EU.
The prime minister is no fool, so can hardly not be aware of the swirling currents which bring these subjects together. But in his infinite obliquity he chooses not to disclose how closely one affects the other, or where the attempts to solve the immigration problems may lead. That position may – just may – have been understandable while he was still vying for office. But from a position of enormous strength, with one of the largest parliamentary majorities since the war and five years ahead of him, it would be perverse for such a logical man to ignore the reality before him.
*
As predicted last week by Pecksniff, Keir Starmer’s resolute move to confront the rioters and their supporters in politics and the media has seen them off, at least for the time being. They may return once they have licked their wounds, but in future it will not be possible for any of the apologists in positions of influence to hide behind people who have been proven racists and criminals, and are doing two years in the slammer.
As prime minister, Sir Keir has begun to restore propriety to public life. Power makes all things possible. Will he see the riots as further evidence that any mention of Brexit would be disastrous? Or will he decide that he would be able to face down his opponents even on something as momentous as Brexit?
*
The idea that government policy on this most pressing of issues can be based on a shrewd judgement by the British people is laughable. Their utter ignorance on anything related to the EU has always been astonishing and is absolutely the fault of our political class. That of course involves the Labour party as much as the Tories. At least the Tories intended Britain to leave, so it was in their interests to keep the public in ignorance of the advantages of EU membership.
Labour, on the other hand, at least until Jeremy Corbyn and latterly Keir Starmer, were supposed to be passionately in favour – as long as nobody noticed, that is. Political cowardice meant they never attempted to make the case or explain the principles of the EU.
This is demonstrated by the latest YouGov poll. The electorate, of whom the prime minister and his acolytes appear so terrified, show a greater majority in favour of joining the EU than joining the single market. The first of course includes the second and much else beside. So our xenophobic public would seem to prefer to go the whole hog rather than accept just a limited bit.
Does that make sense? Of course not. It is nonsense and based on complete ignorance. As a nation we wouldn’t know the difference between EU membership and a cheese and pickle sandwich.
*
We have suffered perhaps two decades of politicians who were frightened of their voters. It is not a good look. A government’s job is to lead, not follow. The whole principle of how our parliament works is that we elect MPs who we trust, to use their judgement. They are not delegates. It is not unreasonable to assume that those in whom we place our trust ought to know more about those weighty matters on which they deliberate than we do.
But that requires MPs who are prepared to face down those voters who demand that their opinions should carry the day. We have had few enough of them. Let’s see what the new lot can offer.
*
For many of us, the Conservative Party leadership contest is a mystery. So for those more preoccupied presently with buckets and spades, here is a brief pen picture of each candidate.
Tom Tugendhat is the one who looks like a geography teacher. Always considered a moderate, but in today’s party that is a distinction about as welcome as haemorrhoids.
Mel Stride is a Stanley Baldwin look-alike. He has said something sensible about how remarks by Nigel Farage on the riots were “deeply unhelpful”, so that can’t help his chances.
Robert Jenrick looks as though life has rubbed him smooth. He has a self-satisfied smirk, the kind of man who would wear suede shoes to a funeral. His gaffe over ‘Allahu akbar!” suggests everything he knows about Islam was picked up from Boys’ Own.
Self-satisfied smirks lead us to Priti Patel (Witham), treading the long corridors of political insignificance, trying all the doors to find a way back in. But polls still show she is seen as an annoying irrelevance.
James Cleverly (Braintree) has a predatory look, like an undomesticated animal of dubious temper. Though his opinions change, his certainty never does.
That leaves Kemi Badenoch (NW Essex), perhaps Rupert Murdoch’s anointed. She is waiting to see which way the wind is blowing: there is still a long time to go.
But as the political research director at Savanta says: “Unfortunately for all six Conservative candidates so far, the rule of thumb appears to be that the more the public see of them, the less they like them”.
*
Speaking of the ignorance of the public, as we were earlier, we can see a further example from an Ipsos poll, which mischievously includes on the list of candidates two who don’t even exist. They were simply invented by the pollsters. And between them, 15% of the public feel Stewart Lewis or Sarah Lewis would make a good leader.
*
“We don’t have a cure for poverty,” declares Kemi Badenoch, in a guileless admission which should surprise nobody.
We are in a way beginning to understand more fully the Tories’ attitudes to public service now they are out of office, better than when they were in government. (See Thérèse Coffey, below.) Their idea is not to serve the public, but to cherry-pick the bits they think they can make money from or improve their career prospects.
No cure for poverty? That only matters, as Ms Badenoch makes clear, if curing poverty is on your agenda.
*
As pointed out, Priti Patel is hardly a newcomer to tilts at party leadership. But she has never quite cut it, either with the public or the membership. This time she has declared she is “100% certain” she will win, which in itself calls into alarming question the quality of her judgement.
Almost two thirds of voters really don’t care who becomes Tory leader. However, unfortunately for Dame Priti, almost half say they know a great deal or a fair amount about her. Ms Patel is presently bottom of the polls by a long way, with a net rating of -27%.
This could be seen as an advantage. It means she can change her position shamelessly without its being much noticed. So it turns out Ms Patel is really rather in favour of some immigrants, after all. This may of course be because, after a dark night of the soul, she has realised that immigrants bring huge benefits to this country. Or it could be that the far-right position is becoming increasingly crowded and is likely to become bloody. At the moment Ms Patel sees the faintly more enlightened centre right role as her own.
*
To many observers, Thérèse Coffey was one of the monsters of the last government. Her speciality was hiding away inconvenient reports, whether on poverty or pensions or sewage in the waterways. And in their absence, Dr Coffey would give interview after interview of bovine insensitivity, utterly careless of the people and environments whose wellbeing was supposed to be her responsibility.
But though out of office, she is still displaying that same extraordinary insensitivity. We learn this week that she had applied for the job of UK director of the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, with a salary of £183,400.
But, as Dr Coffey must have known, the position is in the gift of the chancellor of the exchequer, now Rachel Reeves. So Dr Coffey didn’t get the gig.
Can it really be the case that she is so insensitive as to think her mortal political opponent would consider, as clearly she herself must do, that she can boast an unblemished record of public service and was the right one for the job?
Who are these people? Will any of them ever learn humility? Can they ever accept that the purpose of public service is to serve the public, not for the public to serve them?
*
Readers will recall Pecksniff exclusively revealing that Liz Truss had flounced out of office without so much as handing on her constituents’ casework to her South West Norfolk successor, Terry Jermy. Now we learn from Byline Times she is apparently “refusing” to hand over files, citing data protection laws.
This is of course nonsense. Those laws do not apply to the confidentiality vested in the MP constituent relationship. If they did, files would never be handed over to any incoming MP. So it must be down to one of two reasons. Those files may not even exist, or be so shambolic and show such incompetence that they would confirm just how bad an MP Ms Truss was. (After all, she is not known to have employed any dedicated case workers, and went out of her way to be as inaccessible to her constituents as possible.) In any case, why should she be so keen to work for her previous voters now, when she ignored them as their MP?
Or, this is another sad example of her refusal to accept that she really was as awful as everybody claims, and now she has lost any vestige of power or influence.
*
That last point might be upheld by the scarcely credible happenings in Beccles this week.
There is something increasingly ridiculous about Liz Truss, like a badly rehearsed character in an amateur production of an Alan Ayckbourn farce. She suffered further humiliation this week whilst on a ‘speaking tour’ to publicise her new book. An embarrassing banner scrolled down from the ceiling, courtesy of Led by Donkeys.
Ms Truss was not amused. She flounced out muttering: “This is not funny”. Readers may disagree.
A pro-Trump speaking tour in Suffolk? Trumpeting a waning loser on the other side of the world, who wouldn’t even give her an audience? And beginning (and apparently ending) in Beccles Civic Hall on a Monday evening in August, when everybody is on holiday? To tout a book that had tanked, last seen at number 223 in the charts? My dear Ms Truss, that is hysterical.
*
“No longer will you be at the end of the line,” Farage promised Clacton voters at his campaign launch. “No longer will you be ignored.”
But it’s six weeks after the election, and that seems to have been the last his constituents have seen of Nigel Farage. There has been a major fire in Jaywick, involving a care home and 10 houses, three of which were completely destroyed. Families are left homeless, having lost everything. Mr Farage promised to pop along when he has a moment. Clacton Carnival is the town’s annual weekend extravaganza, held last weekend. Everybody was there, everybody except Nigel Farage.
We're worried about Nige.
— Mark Rees 🗿 (@MarkReesLlety) August 13, 2024
If you see him, point him towards Clacton. pic.twitter.com/ERIDOIf0DH
It is usual for MPs to trudge back to their constituencies every Friday, for their surgeries. The first priority for most new members is to set that up. But so far, Mr Farage has held no surgeries. He is busy living it up in Brussels.
In fact, as East Anglia Bylines reminded readers in June when he revealed his candidature, only in March this year he had asked The Times rhetorically: “Do I want to spend every Friday in Clacton?”
Apparently not.
*
Your diarist owes you an apology. It is now weeks since the Blue Meanies were expelled into the outer darkness, yet still their ghosts haunt us and preoccupy these musings. Will James Cleverly ever find anything to believe in, other than his career? Can Liz Truss ever find true love again, now that her life-long devotion to herself has been brought to dust?
See next week’s amazing diary…
*
Thanks this week go to Karl Whiteman.
<<< Previous Pecksniff’s Diary
