Tag: Rishi Sunak

  • Opinion: James Cleverly, like Sunak after losing to Truss, will be back

    Christopher Jackson argues that James Cleverly isn’t done yet

     

    Sometimes it matters hugely how you lose. “We didn’t do it,” said James Cleverly at the low point in his career on Wednesday just after finding out he had failed in his bid to be leader of the Conservative Party.

    I was very struck by the nature of this video. It exuded confidence and, in fact, leadership. How was he able to do this? Although Cleverly admitted that it was disappointing for him personally, one had a sense in his concession video and throughout his leadership campaign that he wasn’t running solely out of personal motivation.

    Speaking to a Finito event last month, he spoke movingly about his love of the Conservative Party, and recalled staying up late as a young man on General Election night, going through the constituency results. His immediate thought after losing this week was to remind the Party that ‘we’re all Conservatives’.

     

    This was gracious in the same way that Sunak’s concession to Sir Keir Starmer was gracious. It might seem a small thing, but this sort of generosity in defeat is the mark of true leadership.

     

    There was no hubris involved incidentally in Cleverly’s defeat, contrary to bogus media speculation. Speaking to members of his team, the instructions were quite clear on Wednesday: all the MPs who wanted Cleverly as leader were instructed in no uncertain terms to vote for him.

     

    With surreptitious stupidity, a handful of MPs took the matter into their own hands, with the consequence that the membership will now not have a centrist candidate to vote for.

     

    In the pub afterwards, Cleverly was reportedly somewhat subdued following the defeat – as who wouldn’t be. But campaign members said he gave each a big hug – as is his style – and thanked them meaningfully for their work.

     

    Another campaign staff member recalled: “He is always like this. He always knows what to do – and power never changed him.” To rise so high, and to retain this core decency is a rare achievement – it is, in fact, worth more than the Conservative leadership, since it is to do with the inner being.

     

    Another recalled starting out as a young political operative. She wrote hundreds of emails to MPs and politicians. Only one replied: James Cleverly.

     

    I once asked the wonderful former Skills minister Rob Halfon which members of the then Cabinet were nice to their staff. He didn’t miss a beat in naming Cleverly and Mel Stride. It is unfortunate that the Conservative MPs, shark-like as always, failed to represent these two bastions of civility in the last two.

     

    Sharks, of course, are unable to swim backwards, and I think there is now something of this trait about the Conservatives. They are rushing forwards on one-dimensional momentum, supposedly for a brilliant kill.

     

    Will they hit the rocks? It seems more than possible. If they do, there seems a real possibility they’ll turn to Cleverly, just as they turned back to Sunak after the Truss fiasco. A list of history’s victors is also a list of those who were at one time or another good losers.

     

    Either way, my suspicion is that Cleverly’s stature has risen irreversibly as a result of the past few weeks.

     

    It was Theresa May who spoke of the Conservatives as the Nasty Party, and eventually became Prime Minister. If the British public were to decide that this new Conservative Party is a trifle abnormal, might not even knuckle-headed Conservative MPs revert to the man who told them so memorably to be normal all along?

     

    Similar articles:

     

    Last Chance Saloon: Can Rishi Sunak win the next election?

  • Last Chance Saloon: Can Rishi Sunak win the next election?

    Christopher Jackson

     

    I am not especially tall but as Rishi Sunak shakes my hand he has to peer up at me. Saul Bellow once wrote of a particular quality of modern celebrity: ‘TV brightness’. Sunak has it, though it is perhaps a rather dubious thing to possess. He is one of those politicians, immaculately turned out, whose slick appearance calls into question his sincerity. In this he is distinct from those politicians whom the public really takes to their heart: one thinks of the former Chancellor of the Exchequer Kenneth Clarke with his jazz and Hush Puppies, and of course, Sunak’s predecessor bar one, Boris Johnson.

    Every Prime Minister has a context in which their premiership plays out – and this inevitably has to do with their immediate predecessor.

    In Sunak’s case, because of the short duration of the Truss administration, it is truer to say that Sunak’s administration faces a sort of double context: he is always being considered in relation to Liz Truss, and in relation to Boris Johnson. With regard to Truss, he comes out well – the image is of the sure hand at the tiller. Secretary of State for Education Gillian Keegan tells us: “Theory and practice are very different. Rishi Sunak understands that and it’s one of the things which makes him a fantastic prime minister. He has the most extraordinary talent; he’s very detailed and strategic and kind. I look at him and think that he’s got that stardust, and a lot of space to grow: I think he will be a world statesman.” The first sentence feels partly aimed at Truss, whose short-lived premiership unravelled when it transpired that unfettered ideology doesn’t necessarily meld with the pragmatic decision-makers who govern markets.

    As one might expect from a serving Cabinet minister, Keegan’s is a reasonably sunny assessment of Sunak and his predicament – especially given that he must call a General Election next year and is behind in the polls. Even so, these positive sentiments are echoed here and there in the Conservative Party. One seasoned political observer who recently had breakfast with Sunak’s wife Akshata Murthy says that the single most revealing fact about Sunak is that once he had achieved financial success at Goldman Sachs he paid his parents back for his education (Sunak famously attended the expensive Winchester College).

    The impression is usually of someone kind and admirable – a hard man to dislike. But in the current febrile environment, there are naysayers – as there always are. In respect of the contrast drawn between Sunak and his former boss Boris Johnson, things become a little more complicated. Considered alongside Johnson, Sunak seems organised, on top of his brief – the man with the tidy desk. But for others, he will seem bland and technocratic – the former Goldman Sachs alumnus and hedge fund relationship manager raised too high, to a position where he cannot inspire.

    Some insiders note that he can seem detached in meetings, like he wishes to get away. Johnson, it is said, always enjoyed human interaction, and was always genuinely interested in the family situations of staff. Others note that Sunak is simply busy, keen to get on with the job.

    He gives me a brief, transactional nod then marches on to the bestowal of other transactional nods. One of his predecessors as Prime Minister David Lloyd George is sometimes considered the archetypal “young man in a hurry”. Sunak’s busy shuffle off into the next encounter suggests the rush you have to be in to stand a chance of making it to Downing Street, but it also seems like someone who must brush off entanglements. The obverse of being in a hurry is not wishing others to hold you up.

     

    Hotel Power

     

    I first met Sunak at the Two Cities lunch when he was Chancellor of the Exchequer. This occasion is held annually at a central London hotel – usually the Intercontinental. These affairs are hush-hush beforehand both for security reasons and to ward off journalistic interest. They are usually attended by the Prime Minister and the Cabinet of the day, and can therefore be vivid exhibitions of that particular politician’s predicament.

    In 2019, I recall the then Prime Minister Theresa May, standing at the lectern a few metres away from me, her hands visibly shaking: the office which she would depart that week had begun to overwhelm her. I remember wondering if David Cameron had ever felt nervous speaking before the party faithful. She sat down to a respectful silence, her fate all but sealed.

    After the pandemic, it was Boris Johnson’s turn to swagger in an hour late, and then find himself the object of cult-like attention, trying to eat his lunch while being encircled by a phalanx of business people photographing and videoing him. Eventually, a Two Cities official panicked over the speaker system: “Let the Prime Minister eat his lunch!”.

    At the time one realised that Boris had so charmed a segment of the Conservative Party that it had been futile to keep the paparazzi out: we’re all paparazzi now.

    Sunak’s demeanour when I first met him, and again in 2023, is more methodical – lacking the nerviness of May, but also the bombastic charisma of Johnson. He moves around the room shaking hands, meticulous in the discharging of prime ministerial duties. Here, you think, is the tidy desk prime minister in action, slick and at ease in his own competence – and since none of this is particularly exciting, he also gets to eat his lunch more or less undisturbed. This year, too, the lunch takes place just before the parliamentary summer recess and so the hall is bereft of Cabinet ministers, giving Sunak a somewhat lonely look, although of course one wouldn’t want to overdo the symbolism of an impression arising out of a scheduling issue.

    Former MP and minister Brooks Newmark once recalled to me what it was like to campaign in the North alongside Johnson: “They come out of their houses to greet him; he doesn’t need to knock on doors”. While it is remarkable to consider how swiftly the intense energy which surrounded Johnson has now disappeared into the rearview mirror after Partygate, there remains the suspicion – buttressed by iffy opinion polls – that Sunak could do with a bit of that stardust.

    We must add to this the question of legitimacy which usually attaches itself to any prime minister who hasn’t fought a general election: think Gordon Brown and Theresa May. In Sunak’s case, there is the spectre of a well-financed pro-Boris wing which sometimes seems to be willing Sunak to fail. In particular, the legendary businessman Lord Cruddas has come out as saying the leadership vote for Truss’s replacement should all along have been put to the membership – a decision which would have led, as night follows day, to a second Johnson administration, albeit one Boris would have found prohibitively difficult to staff.

    Cruddas tells me: “We have to look at the situation as a whole. The fact of the matter is that Boris was elected by 43 per cent of the popular vote in the country – an 80-seat majority – on a mandate of Getting Brexit Done. Effectively what happened is that Boris was removed from office by a small group of MPs who decided that he had to go. But Boris got the same fine as Rishi and the membership didn’t vote for Rishi. But this isn’t anti-Rishi.”

    And yet it can’t really avoid being a bit anti-Rishi, since no two people can be prime minister at the same time and Cruddas would obviously prefer Boris. He continues: “At the end of the day, it’s bad for democracy – we need to let the country decide who the Prime Minister is. It’s all about democracy and it’s appalling what’s happened to Boris.”

    Wondering what Sunak might have to fear if Boris were to attempt a comeback at some point once the dust has settled, I ask Cruddas if he’s seen Boris recently? “I think he’s in good spirits. He’s a successful guy. He can work, he’s making money and he doesn’t need politics. He feels an obligation to the electorate. He was elected by 14 million people and he doesn’t want to let them down and he feels that opportunity has been taken away from him. Ultimately, Boris has been removed over really mundane stuff.”

    But in truth, as 2023 has limped along, these emotions now hang over Sunak less and less – especially after a series of policy achievements, including the Windsor Framework, the Illegal Boats Bill, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP), the incremental slowing down of inflation, and the eventual settling of some of the strikes.

    Watching Sunak mingle with the business community, one senses his easefulness in that environment. This is the Sunak who has married wealth (his father-in-law is N. R. Narayana Murthy,

    the billionaire founder of Infosys) and who has an instinctive understanding of the economy due to his career in financial services, and of course in government both as Chief Secretary to the Treasury when Sajid Javid was Chancellor of the Exchequer, and then as Javid’s successor in that role.

    This is also the same man who can appear too technocratic for popular taste, and who could, for instance, ask somebody he was serving at a homeless kitchen whether he was in business (‘No, I’m homeless,’ came the viral reply).

    Likewise, it isn’t too much of a leap to see why such a man might frame his education policy around the importance of mathematics. It was the former Chancellor Philip Hammond who became known as Spreadsheet Phil, and perhaps if that moniker hadn’t been used so recently we might be discussing Spreadsheet Rishi.

    Interviewed on stage at Two Cities, Sunak began in light touch mode, recalling his early weeks as Chancellor of the Exchequer. “When I first got the job, I had to deliver a budget in about three and a half weeks – and I really thought at that moment that it would be the hardest professional thing I had ever had to do in my life. It turned out to be the easiest.”

    This gains laughs in the hall – and probably down the line, this sort of anecdote will win a few votes. Politicians like to remind us how difficult the job is, since it acquires our empathy – the quality we usually most withhold from them.

    Sunak continues, explaining the intractable nature of crises which seemed considerable in 2022, and now seem gigantic in 2023: “I recently got back from Washington from meetings with all the finance ministers from around the world and I discovered that we’re all facing similar challenges. Inflation is very much a global phenomenon and my colleagues are all talking about the same things.”

    This sort of talk, as true as it might be, can only get a politician so far: the contemporary experience is still sufficiently national that voters tend not to think, ‘Well, at least things are just as bad in Germany”. They vote on their own lives and not on the lives of others. Besides, inflation has fallen somewhat swifter in other economies – especially in the US – than it has done here, which means this argument will run out of road if the figures don’t improve by the end of the winter.

    Sunak continues, recalling the strange early days of 2020, in whose wake we still live: “We were staring into the abyss at the start of the pandemic – but we have got through that and we have done so pretty successfully. I am confident that we can embrace the challenges ahead but also deliver all the other things people expect us to do which is to invest in public services and deliver a growth agenda UK. We have got to crack on with these challenges but also not be diverted from the task at hand that people actually need us to get on with as well.”

    There is, of course, a step change in expectation and difficulty when an individual moves from Chancellor to Prime Minister, but he goes on to make remarks which afford an insight as to how Rishi Sunak thinks about the issues likely to be at the front of voters’ minds when we go to the polls next year. It feels like a flier for Sunak v. Starmer in 2024. Sunak will say: “Stick with me, it could have been so much worse.” Starmer will say: “Surely, it’s time for a change and you’re a bit sick of this lot.”

    In the usual scheme of things, Starmer will win. But these aren’t ordinary times – and the government is looking for a compelling story to tell. For this article, I spoke to a range of opinion formers and colleagues from those who have followed the PM’s career, Cabinet ministers past and present, party donors and those who have insight into the legislative process under the Sunak administration to ask what story Sunak will tell at the next election.

     

    Drawing the Battle Lines

     

    On 30th July 2023, Sunak’s X (formerly known as Twitter) account, tweeted a picture of himself sitting in – but not driving – Margaret Thatcher’s old Rover. The tweet read: “Earlier I spoke to @Telegraph about how important cars are for families to live their lives. It’s something anti-motorist Labour just don’t seem to get. And it’s why I’m reviewing anti-car schemes across the country”.

    The photo op generated a bit of ridicule, but was designed to draw a deeper lesson about the similarities between Britain’s greatest post-war prime minister and the current incumbent. This isn’t an old ruse: even Gordon Brown invited Thatcher to Downing Street once he assumed office.

    But it feels relevant for another reason. Having steadied the ship post-Truss, Sunak is beginning to show that he understands the need to be bolder to appeal to a middle England exhausted by Brexit, Covid and experiencing their own version of the cost of living crisis.

    These people who read The Telegraph, to whom Sunak gave that interview, will probably always be able to make their mortgage payments, but are nevertheless capable of being quite annoyed when every Sainsbury’s (or perhaps Waitrose) shop costs more than they feel it should; when value is wiped off their houses; and when everywhere you turn there’s a tax to put you off investing in a better life. We can’t feel the same sympathy towards such people as we do towards those who are genuinely struggling, but the fact remains that Rishi needs their support to win.

    The car tweet shows Sunak also distancing himself from Johnson’s embrace of the green lobby (Truss didn’t hang around long enough for us to find out what she thought on that issue). Sunak is intuiting that while most people accept the science on climate change, there is also a growing consensus that green policies are beginning to hurt their personal finances. As Caxton CEO Andrew Law tells me: “We’re in the early stages of an energy transition where we’re going to have to invest enormous amounts of money on green energies, as we decrease our dependence on gas and oil. This will undoubtedly put upward pressure on interest rates.” Voters are beginning to sense the pain attached to that.

    But for Sunak there’s also a pragmatic business streak in play: “What we can’t have is a situation where private capital can’t invest in the transition of fuels, particularly natural gas,” he says. “Where that happens it’s not good for people, as it hits their gas prices and people’s bills. We need to recognise that but also in the long term be really committed to transitioning to renewable energy. We also have to do things like nuclear which we haven’t done for a long time in this country – all this is a change people will really welcome.”
    It is unthinkable for the Conservatives to enter the General Election without some compelling sops of this nature to the middle classes. A review of anti-car legislation might win some votes, as it did in Uxbridge, thanks to the unpopular ULEZ policies of London mayor Sadiq Khan.
    But really, Sunak needs to do something on tax – and unlike Liz Truss, to do something in a way which markets will stomach. This is especially the case if the Bank of England keeps interest raises roughly where they are deep into 2024.
    Despite all this, Sunak faces an additional problem – that the damage was likely already done during the Johnson and Truss administrations. Haven’t most people made up their minds, however unobjectionable they might find Sunak personally to be? When I speak to Sir Terry Waite, he issues a stark condemnation of the current climate in Westminster: “In recent years we’ve had a very poor deal in our political life and if you read the latest book on former prime minister Johnson, which I’m reading not because I’m an admirer, but because I wanted the inside story…[Waite is referring to Finito advisory board member Sir Anthony Seldon’s Johnson at No. 10].”  Waite trails off, plainly disgusted by the status quo. Then he continues: “The inside story is frankly dreadful. The fact of people vying for power and position, rather than saying: ‘My first obligation is wanting to serve the people of this country’. On a much broader scale, a sense of vocation has gone out of life for many people. At one time teaching and nursing were considered definite vocations.”
    Why has it gone out? “It’s because we live in a society where money is the God. We can’t seek for bigger or better all the time. We need people to be content with what they have.” This feels true, and I wonder how it might apply to Sunak. On the one hand, he certainly does have money, and is more guilty than many of seeking it. On the other hand, he plainly has an admirable sense of duty. He didn’t need to go into political life, but he did. He didn’t have to submit himself to that miserable summer electioneering against Truss, but felt obliged to do so. On a day to day basis, he works hard.
    Of course, there’s a policy element to the misery Waite describes too, and this now intertwines with the overall sense of fatigue. An atmosphere of rising interest rates has hurt homeowners – and this has obvious ramifications for Sunak’s electability next year. It was Churchill who in his tired second administration articulated his vision of Britain as a ‘property-owning democracy’ and to a remarkable extent – partly thanks to Sunak’s hero Margaret Thatcher – that is what we became. But there’s a corollary to this which Liz Truss would have done well to remember: don’t mess with people’s houses.
    A house is an unusually emotional asset. ‘How we live measures our own nature,’ as Philip Larkin put it. Sunak faces the problem that voters’ memories are likely to be long even if the situation dramatically improves, and inflation, as he has promised, is indeed halved by the end of the year. When even pledges you can’t keep feel insufficient, you have a problem.
    Added to this is the sense of what 2023 has been: some strikes have been settled – but likely settled too late if settlement was always to be the policy. In addition to all this, while Sir Keir Starmer isn’t by any stretch of the imagination Tony Blair circa 1997, the Labour Party has done a reasonable job rowing back its more extreme policies, especially on climate change, and making a sort of uninspired saunter for the centre ground where elections tend to be won.
    Even so, despite these negative indicators for Rishi, there is still a sense in the Party that there is much to play for. The memory of Sir John Major’s victory in 1992 can still occasionally swerve in to calm Party nerves. When I bump into Sir John at the Oval in July, I am reminded that it was here that Major came after the 1997 defeat. But there was a 1992 victory too. His acolytes confirm that he’s supportive of Sunak and will be voting for him. But the economy in 1992 was on the up – and it’s not now.

     

    Four Pillars of Wisdom

     

    So what does Sunak think on the economy? Having watched him steward the public finances for three years, we feel we should know more about what he thinks than perhaps most of us do. At the Two Cities lunch, Sunak gives his ‘four pillars’ of the economy, and they continue to be relevant today – both in terms of policy, and in terms of how Sunak’s mind works. Like many politicians, the tidy drawers of his mind contain easy-to-reel-off lists.
    “The first pillar is openness,” he says. “We are trying to make progress on that, and I think we’ve been very successful so far. The UK’s particular strength in financial services is something I know well.” In this, he presumably means that he believes in free trade – except, of course, when it comes to the crucial question of Brexit where he doesn’t. But it’s a reminder of how, when Sunak is in the room with financial types, it is natural for him to remind them that he’s one of them.

    He continues: “Secondly, we have to make sure that London is home to innovation, and concept trading and so forth. Thirdly is technology. Again, in a fast-changing environment we need to be sure that this is a competitive place to do business and we need to lead the way in fintech and payments technology and other aspects. The fourth pillar is competitiveness, whether that be capital markets reform, or on tax too.”

    Of course, there is a sense in which innovation and technology arguably amount to the same thing – but few would deny that Sunak has given all this serious thought.
    Sunak speaks as the former Goldman Sachs employee, the firm which he went to work for straight out of Oxford. He also speaks as a former hedge funder. I am curious to know how these two kinds of experience – government and business – stack up when you move from one to another. When I speak to Lord O’Neill of Gateley, who was Chief Economist at Goldman Sachs before himself moving to the Treasury in the George Osborne days, he draws comparisons which may apply to Sunak: “When I worked in government, to my pleasant surprise I found the quality of the staff in the Treasury to be just as good as at Goldman Sachs – but with greater public spirit. The hard thing for me was that I wasn’t a member of the Conservative Party; I was there to execute a technical role. But I was surrounded by ministers who were obsessed with where they were in terms of political horse-trading.”
    This, says O’Neill, is a problem which he found difficult to overcome.  “I found their motives troubling. They would decide what to support based on how it would help them in their next job which is extremely different to Goldman Sachs. Even within the same party, competing ideologies were different – often irreconcilably so. In that sense, I witnessed first-hand the ridiculous developments within the Conservative Party: I was shocked as to how crazy it was.”
    In understanding how Sunak might have reacted to this identical predicament, it’s important to realise what Sunak’s role really was within the financial services industries. As a general rule, there are two kinds of people at banks and hedge funds: there are the so-called relationship managers, who don’t need to be handsome and immaculate like Sunak, though it certainly helps. Usually, unlike Sunak, they enjoy a drink or two with their prospective clients. But they have to be trusted – good at what Westminster is calls retail politics.

    Then there’s the second group: the investment officers, or in more derisory language, the quants. In the popular imagination these are basementy folk, hidden away from human interaction for the compelling reason that they can’t manage human interaction. They choose the allocation of funds, and have great power but had the cards fallen slightly differently they might have been gamers. Sources from his time at Goldman, and his subsequent hedge fund roles say that Sunak was far more the former than the latter. But by Westminster standards where hardly anyone understands economics, especially the people writing about it, Sunak probably qualifies as a policy geek. His success in Westminster, you feel, is partly down to this ability to touch both bases.
    But Sunak is still someone you can send into the room. This skillset is the link between Sunak’s two lives in business and in politics. Back at the Two Cities lunch, Sunak zooms out, detailing the broader picture: “I am seeing job confidence not just in London but in the South East. Two thirds of employment for this fantastic industry is actually outside London and the South East and that fills me with confidence.”
    Of course, the great question is whether Sunak’s innate support of the financial services sector is good for social mobility or not. For one thing, it certainly generates its rags to riches success stories, a little like Sunak himself, whose upbringing was relatively humble and not exactly typical of someone about to go into the stratosphere both financially and politically. Lord Cruddas would be another – a milkman who ended up in Mayfair.

    On the other hand, the statistics seem to suggest that these extraordinary stories of achievement are exceptions. For instance, a 2019 study by KPMG found that 41 per cent of people working in finance in the UK had relatives in the same sector, far above the national average of 12 per cent. The study also showed that students from some backgrounds were less likely than others to get City roles following graduation.

    Few who read the FCA’s discussion paper on diversity will feel that the financial services sector is a vital force for equality at this precise moment. By its own admission: “A deep dive study of eight financial firms (including regulators) found that 89 per cent of senior roles are held by people from higher socio‐economic backgrounds.”

    Even so, this isn’t to say there isn’t potential for improvement. And Sunak has much to say about what the Treasury can do to improve the levelling up situation in the country. “The best example I have of [levelling up potential] is Teesside next to my North Yorkshire constituency. Teesside is a place which I have championed as an example of what this Government is about: it’s not a big city. It’s in the North but it’s not Leeds, it’s not Manchester and it’s not Newcastle,” he explains.

    And what about particular examples? “I just celebrated the fact that in the new Treasury campus there we hired our hundredth person: it’s already transformed the region.” [In 2023, that number is now around 130]. “The combination of the new Freeport, the Treasury Office, the investment in high streets and town centres, all of that is bringing jobs and investment into that area. There is new vaccine manufacturing; there’s offshore wind turbines. You name it, it’s happening there now. There is a sense of optimism and positivity in an area which just five years ago lost 5,000 jobs. That turnaround is quite frankly extraordinary and that is as a result of the policies of this Government.”

    These are stories that Sunak will need to tell to stand a chance of a hung Parliament, or a victory at the next election. He also points to a few things begun when he was Chancellor which now continue with him as Prime Minister: “There’s lots of other things we are doing in Government to take advantage of Brexit. Turbo-charged free enterprise zones with trade in customs benefits in places like Humber and Teesside, for example. We’re doing trade deals, taking advantage of these new-found freedoms and signing trade deals in fast-growing economies around the world. Then of course on things like tax and regulation, we can start to do things differently – for instance, we were able to cut VAT on energy saving materials earlier in the Spring Budget.”

    Since then, there have been small wins on calming the economy post-Truss, and gradually bringing inflation down. But if you want optimism, you still need to talk to a Cabinet minister – which is why I go to meet Trade Secretary Kemi Badenoch.

     

    Optimistic Kemi

     

    I sometimes try to imagine Westminster village as an organism made up of exits and entrances. Ministers troop up to Downing Street and swagger out again; flights depart for Washington, the return flight lands; meetings disband, are cancelled, rescheduled, or they’re suddenly back on again. All this feels like it has its inevitability but also a degree of flexibility. But this is also a place with its iron laws. No matter what, every day at around 6pm, a handful of rotating ministers trudge towards the clubs of Mayfair to raise money for the Party.

    On a day in June, the minister in question was Kemi Badenoch, currently Secretary of State for Trade and Equalities, who headed down to the Travellers Club to sing for the Party’s supper and to say a few words about the state of play under Rishi Sunak.

    “One of the toughest things about being in government is the relentless bad news,” she concedes. “If you were reading what’s going on on Twitter, you’d think the UK was in a state of permanent decline, performing worse than all our peer countries, and that everybody hated each other. But it’s really not the case. Through these once-in-a-generation events – Russia-Ukraine, Covid and the financial crisis – or even leaving the European Union – we have held people together. Business, in particular, has had a tough time – but we’re doing better than Germany, which hasn’t left the EU.”

    Badenoch doesn’t mention that this is because Angela Merkel made a nearly incredible series of foolish decisions during her long tenure as Chancellor, cosying up to Putin (and Russian energy) at every turn.

    Even so, how can the government push back against this prevailing narrative of a Dilapidated Britain? “We need to not just prove them wrong but to communicate what we’re doing. It’s not enough to do well – you have to show and tell what you’re doing well,” Badenoch says.

    And how seriously have the Johnson and Truss administrations harmed the Party’s chances in 2024? “The biggest challenge we have is showing people that we’re still a united Party and have common goals. This is a challenge. After 14 years in power there will be things people wanted to do but didn’t quite get done. It’s natural. Of the 14 years, the first five were spent in Coalition, then we had a small majority, then we had Brexit. After Johnson’s victory, we had only three months before we were all locked up in our homes. People have had a really tough time.”

    And Sunak? “He’s doing a very good job. He is doing one of the most difficult things a prime minister has had to do in a very long time. The only way we’ll see another Conservative government is to back him.”

    But is it going to be enough? “What we don’t see is all the things we stop happening. We’re the only party which is still able to stay grounded and rooted in reality and tell people how tough things are. It’s important to base an economy on sound money – you can’t spend your way to prosperity. We’re only able to take the decisions we did during Covid because of those years of austerity under David Cameron which everybody hated at the time.”

    In Badenoch’s view, there can be no true society – and therefore no viable social mobility – without truth-telling. For her, wokeness has created a distorted reality – but it’s also a sideshow from the things which matter. If we want a better and more socially fluid country, we must better focus on our priorities.

    Badenoch also explains that this country is more broadly admired under the Sunak administration that we might realise, immersed as most of us are in the 24-hour news cycle. “Things are different as soon as you step outside the UK. People love our country. We’ve just joined the biggest trading bloc which we have done since leaving the EU. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) is not just Commonwealth countries – it’s also Japan, Malaysia and Singapore. They really wanted us in not just because of the trade but because of our values. Some of them are worried about China being on their doorstep and we’re the antidote to that.”

    Of course, there are those who would point out that if you really want social mobility in this country to come through trade then you’d be far better off doing a deal with India, which carries the mouthwatering possibility of 240,000 jobs over three years. This statistic comes from the founder of eBookers, and author of The Indian Century Dinesh Dhamija. In our exclusive interview in this issue, he makes the argument that Johnson could have done a deal which has so far eluded Sunak.

    In Dhamija’s opinion, sometimes Sunak’s essential slickness means that he can’t create those close relationships with his opposite numbers which are vital for getting things done. Likewise, Sunak’s deal with Biden – the s0-called Atlantic Declaration – was dismissed by some commentators as small beer, even though it does contain some important provisions, including a data bridge to help small companies in both countries export their services and products.

     

    After Tigger

     

    When you listen back to Sunak as Chancellor, the approach feels like it has something of the Johnsonian energy, where the boosterish PM drove things through Parliament at a tremendous rate.

    If you go to the House of Lords, and ask about a bit, you soon find that under Sunak the tempo is different – more considered, though not necessarily less ambitious. “It’s not going to be a slam-dunk,” says Baroness Frances D’Souza, the former Leader of the House of Lords, referring to the next election. “I’m not sure if Keir Starmer is a leader, but then neither am I sure about Rishi. But they’re not going to do anything about Rishi – the ruthless Tories – until after the election, if it’s a bad result which I suspect it will be.”

    What does D’Souza think of Sunak? “I met him recently. He came across as a nice bloke, a bloke who listens. He’s smart – no doubt about that. He said one thing which I think is tremendously revealing in terms of how he plans to run the government: ‘I believe in doing less and doing it well’. That led to a conversation about the load of legislation which is tumbling down on us. He said: ‘It was on the books when I came in.’ He was basically saying: ‘Not my fault, mate’. So I think if he does continue, that there will be less coming our way.” From D’Souza’s point of view, given the tremendous moral complexity of the Illegal Boats Bill, and the technical maze of The Online Safety Bill (“That’s before you’ve even broached the massive implications of the Retained EU Law Bill!”) this can only be a good thing.

    Of course, once the pandemic struck, the Johnson years were always going to be about government intervention – on a scale one would normally associate with a Labour and not a Conservative administration. But for Sunak the paradigm has shifted now the pandemic has ended. He says: “All that expenditure was fair enough while we were in a crisis and had to shut down the economy. We all know that’s not how you create long term wealth and prosperity in a country by relying on the government to do it.”

    So what’s the alternative? “It is better that the private sector and business try and come forward and there are three areas that we need to focus on: capital, people and ideas.  It is probably worth spending a second on each of those and what we mean by them.”

    Sunak is embarking on another list. “If you look at our productivity gap, half of that gap is explained by the lack of capital investment. It has been a longstanding UK problem. Are businesses investing 10 per cent of GDP? If you look at France and Germany or the EEC in general, it’s more like 14 per cent, which is a significant difference. So we will be cutting taxes on capital investment where our regime is not as generous as it could or should be and hopefully that will stimulate investment going forward.”

    This measure turned out to be the so-called superdeduction on capital allowances, but for mysterious reasons, the Sunak administration let it expire on March 31st 2023. We approached Downing Street for comment , but received no reply.

    Sunak continues: “On people, the issue is technical education. Innovation has historically driven half of our productivity growth. It is considerably slower in the last few years so we need to reinvigorate that. In my opinion, the single biggest explanation for that weakness is lack of investment. Again our private companies just do not invest in research and development at the same rate that most of our competitor countries do by quite a significant difference.”

    Gillian Keegan explains that, as PM, Sunak is particularly motivated by education and skills which, she says, he often talks about getting on to do “once he’s sorted out all the things he’s been left to sort”.

    She continues: “His big passion is maths to 18, and we spend a lot of time talking about what that would look like. There should be an entrepreneurial element, and a jobs element, and knowing how to buy a house – a lot of this is very attractive to young people. Many of our universities and colleges have set up entrepreneurial centres, and one thing we need to figure out is how to support them in that. We’re not talking about maths being compulsory at A-Level – everyone needs it to be something they want to do.”

    Of course, it was Macmillan who spoke of ‘Events, dear boy, events’ as being the reality of the prime minister. It may be that Sunak simply doesn’t have enough time to really place his personal mark on the office he holds.

     

    Thoughts in Number 10

     

    But I wonder how often a prime minister really does hold the reins of government in any meaningful sense. As I head up to 10 Downing Street for a meeting with the MS Society, and say hello to Ian and Ben the security guards, who very kindly mug me of my phone, I never feel I am entering Rishi Sunak’s house. I am entering government – or perhaps, one should say Government.

    The process of getting approved to come in has become harder than it was in the Johnson era: a legacy of Cakegate. But inside, nothing really changes. You are lambasted straightaway with tradition – and the sort of traditions you immediately want to assent to if you believe in democracy. It is told in a sort of venerable solemnity. Often here, it’s eerily quiet.

    It doesn’t feel like it has anything much to do with individuals; outside on Whitehall, the traffic passes as a reminder that there’s a country out there which demands a better life. Sometimes, one feels there is an obligation to enact a role, and to submit to a series of protocols. These might be reassuring, but they may also be hampering and dissuade people from taking initiative.

    To be prime minister is to be temporarily atop all that. I doubt it ever feels like a particularly comfortable existence. As Liz Truss knows, one is never far from hearing the footsteps of obsequious aides very swiftly become the funereal tread of removal men.

    And how near the removal men are for Sunak will likely depend on inflation and where it goes in the spring of 2024. So what does Sunak have to say about inflation? “We have to understand that this is a global problem. We have the shutdowns in China, global supply chains, post-Covid prices, Ukraine and the labour market more generally. But we have been very much committed to helping people over the last years in very different types of situations – whether that be helping with the cost of energy bills, cutting fuel duty, raising the minimum wage – or by making Universal Credit more generous for those who move into work, so that we’re rewarding hard work. We stand ready to do more as the situation evolves.”

    Then he pauses and adds a crucial caveat: “But we are always going to do it in a way which accords with our values and that means supporting those in work, and making sure that work pays. That’s the most sustainable way of helping people.”

    Sustainable – it’s one of the buzzwords of the era, and it’s interesting that Rishi uses it in a different context altogether. In some ways, he’s always been an independent thinker – he saw a way out of Southampton to Oxford and beyond. He was teetotal at school and university. He went into politics when he had enough money not to put himself through the stress of it. His antennae twitched at the opportune moment to move against Boris Johnson, and then he campaigned powerfully against Truss for the leadership though he must have known defeat was inevitable. But his commitment stuck in the mind and was rewarded when Truss unravelled.

    But he’s also collegiate. Keegan says: “Rishi is very encouraging but also gets things done. Look at the Windsor Framework: when you consider the column inches which were devoted to this, and the question of whether it was any good or not, and whether it was practicable: he got it through. Look at the way he’s handled the health unions and the teaching unions.”

    One might not agree with all this, but it seems pointless to deny that Sunak will have some strong arguments to make to the electorate to continue as prime minister. The question is whether these arguments will prove to be as strong as the forces ranged against him. The costs; the regulation; the strikes; a semi-resurgent Labour. Above all, there is the malaise which whispers to you sometimes that the country has become a sort of unfair parking ticket.

    We are shown upstairs. Downing Street is a warren – an unconvincing townhouse which admirably fulfils its purpose of keeping the politicians out of the palaces. I walk through it and we put our pitches to the brilliant special advisor for a neuro taskforce to help combat a whole range of illnesses, including multiple sclerosis. We hope our ideas will drift magically upwards into the brain of the PM. It feels a long shot: we hope for that rare game of Chinese whispers where the last person to speak gets the answer right. But we know that a few words in one of Sunak’s speeches could mean less suffering for some people somewhere down the line. Most of us have personal connections to people with neurological conditions that mean we know the magnitude of that. There’s always a touch of hope attached to any meeting in Downing Street. People bring their best thoughts.

    We don’t expect to be heard, but it occurs to me as we make our arguments anyway that I’d rather be making my representations to Rishi Sunak than to many of his predecessors. You know that if our ideas get into his red box, he’ll get to them in a fair-minded and essentially kind and thorough way. That may not be enough to get him re-elected, but I think it’s worth more than we sometimes give him credit for.

     

    Education timeline

     

    12 May 1980 – Born in Southampton to parents of Asian descent

    1993-98 – Misses scholarship to Winchester, but his parents scrape together the fees

    1998-2001 – Attends Lincoln, College Oxford, reading PPE, graduating with First Class Honours.

    2001-2004 – Works as an analyst at Goldman Sachs

    2006 – Makes partner at The Children’s Investment Fund Management

    2009 – Joins Theleme Partners, a new firm with $700 million under management

    August 2009 – Marries Akshata Murty, daughter of N.R. Naryana Murthy, the founder of Infosys

    2015 – Enters Parliament as MP for Richmond, William Hague’s former seat.

    2019 – Appointed Chief Secretary to the Treasury by Boris Johnson

    2020 – Succeeds Sajid Javid as Chancellor of the Exchequer, following Javid’s

    2022 – Following defeat to Liz Truss in the leadership election, Sunak succeeds her as Prime Minister, becoming the first UK PM of Asian descent.

     

     

     

     

     

  • Opinion: 2024 will be the year of the jobs elections

    Finito World

    Around election time, everybody always quotes Jimmy Carville’s dictum: “It’s the economy, stupid.” This is fine insofar as it goes, but it still begs the question of what makes a winning economy.

    The answer isn’t as clear-cut as one thinks. Both Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and US President Joe Biden face re-election in 2024 and both can point to certain improvements in their respective economies, with inflation significantly reduced from its peak: nearing five per cent in the UK, and three per cent in the US.

    So far so good. But voters can be forgiven for looking at these statistics and refusing to cast automatic votes for the incumbents. That’s because the price rises we experienced along the way are now embedded in the economy. Everything from your weekly shop to your Netflix subscription is more expensive – and ongoingly so.

    On a day-to-day level, what the consumer wants isn’t so much lowering inflation as deflation. Only deflation makes an individual cheer as they leave the supermarket, but few economists think it’s the solution: it makes CFOs squint sceptically at their spreadsheets, mulling what to do about the niggling fact they’re now making less money. Their only recourse is to spend less, which lowers growth.

    That’s why 2024 is likely to be the year of the jobs elections. If falling inflation is actually the optimal position but doesn’t feel great for consumers, then more will depend on psychological factors in the economy related to people’s experience of the workplace.

     

    For a start, how painful all the price rises really are will depend on whether your employer was kind enough to meet your financial anxieties with a salary rise. To their credit many have, but workers usually attribute salary rises to their own brilliance and in 2023 many regarded these as a necessity: besides, a salary rise is meant to put you in a better economic position – not to be a symptom of treading water.

    Secondly, your overall mood will depend on how you feel psychologically about your work and career. Ronald Reagan famously asked during the 1980 Presidential election which he would go on to win handsomely against the then incumbent Jimmy Carter: “Are you better off?” We tend to answer this in the affirmative if we’re fulfilled at work.

    When the likely challengers Sir Keir Starmer or Donald Trump ask this question in 2024 what will the response be? In the UK, it’s unlikely that the demons of the Truss interregnum will have been laid to rest.

    Between now and election day, homeowners will all the time be coming off fixed rate mortgages into a higher interest rate environment, and they are unlikely to blame their own failure to secure a better paid job for the pain they will be feeling. They’re more likely to blame Truss and her successors.

    The Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has done a good job of steadying the ship, but people don’t vote in droves on that score: they might tacitly respect a degree of competence, but they’re unlikely to be in a celebratory mood.

    Besides, unless you had a very large salary rise, or secured a better job than the one you had before, it’s unlikely that you’re going to have much spare change out of the rise in the cost of living (including mortgage costs), and the likelihood you will have been caught up in some sort of ‘fiscal drag’ – that’s to say, you’re probably in a higher tax bracket than you feel you should be. If you are, then you’re part of a £45 billion problem, which the government is hoping you won’t notice. What they’re hoping is that you will notice the £15 billion cut from National Insurance.

    This is why Sunak and Hunt – and to a lesser extent Biden – are in such an electoral pickle. There simply isn’t enough good news in the economy to offset the bad. Most economists agree that the situation is solveable only with better growth, but both economies are lower on productivity than they should be – in the UK, it is a miserable 0.3 per cent less than what it was during 2022.

    Of course, the dip in productivity has its own story to tell about the pandemic and its aftermath. With hybrid working now the norm, many workers are less productive and happy to be so if it leads to a superior work-life balance. As much as this might be very lovely, there remains the deeper question as to whether it’s a financially sustainable happiness.

    To look at the slow growth figures is to suppose that it isn’t: it might be that the strain we all feel in relation to prices is intimately related to the sense of relief many feel at not having to commute so often.

    There is a sense, then, that something has to give. Liz Truss has shown that we can’t cut taxes in an unfunded way without the bond markets intervening. Sir Keir Starmer and the Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves may find that with the tax burden at a historic post-War high they have less wiggle-room than they to raise taxes and increase spending. The bond markets are not in a good mood.

    We can already see signs that Reeves understands all this: her much-touted £25 billion Green commitment has now mysteriously vanished, in acknowledgement of the fact that the cost of it injures the very people Labour need in order to win a handsome majority, which is clearly in reach.

    That has its own story to tell in terms of sustainability jobs: if even Labour has come to believe that there is no way to afford a Corbynesque injection of money into the renewables sector, then either the green agenda is gone by consensus for the time being, or Labour is more exposed on its left flank that it realises.

    Even when it comes to immigration – traditionally considered a separate subject to the economy – the apparent failure of Sunak’s Rwanda policy means that the conversation has moved onto jobs. Specifically, anyone who is trying to tackle the problem at all is now looking at what constitutes viable skilled labour entering the country and what doesn’t. Former prime minister Boris Johnson is already arguing that an annual salary of £40,000 is a sensible threshold at which to secure a visa, though he doesn’t say why he failed to introduce such a policy while he had the chance to do so as prime minister.

    This opens up onto broader questions about what jobs UK nationals are prepared to do and what they won’t. This in turn opens up onto the gigantic question of welfare reform, so far left largely alone by Conservative governments since the streamlining exercise of Universal Credit.

    Whether we like it or not, this election year is an opportunity to look in the mirror. It is as if the old challenge which JFK uttered in his Inaugural Address 60 years ago is about to be laid down all over again: “Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” Perhaps the world is always raising that question, for the simple reason that the global economy is competitive and we can’t afford not to answer it. But in 2024, it is being raised with particular urgency – and especially with regard to our working lives.

     

  • Suella Braverman and the Art of Ministerial Sacking: Part II

    Christopher Jackson

    Sometimes it’s your privilege as a journalist to call events precisely wrong. Yesterday, some minutes before Suella Braverman was fired by Rishi Sunak, I published a blog here explaining why Sunak wouldn’t do exactly that.

    Humbling though it is to be faced with a political reality diametrically opposed to the one you thought you were living in, I would still argue that Sunak has made a mistake. He seemed relieved at the Lord Mayor’s banquet last night, but it was the look of someone who has asserted himself when he’s not used to doing so, and finds belatedly that he’s enjoying it. Sunak is now dangerously exposed on his right flank, and faces an immediate potential trigger of that situation tomorrow should the government lose its appeal on the Rwanda issue.

    His reasoning also seems petty. The main logic for the firing is that “the Prime Minister was sick and tired of it”. Suella Braverman has obviously stretched the bounds of Cabinet responsibility and been an irritant. But Sunak must also be aware that everybody around that table, with the possible – but not definite – exception of the newly returned Lord Cameron, would like to be in his job this afternoon if at all possible. To suddenly break out in anger about this looks like an immature reaction to an unchanging fact of high politics.

    One sympathises to an extent. The far right of the Tory Party can indeed be very annoying: their mode of expressing themselves is frequently hyperbolic; they often act as though the British people would rise up en masse behind them if only Boris Johnson were made the absolute monarch of the nation; and they sometimes seem to have forgotten that reality is complex and admits of no easy fixes. But to hope to nudge them to one side is wishful thinking.

    When I’m playing chess I might very well be slightly annoyed to have a group of pawns in a poor position, or a knight underdeveloped – but they are my pawns and my knight, and I need to take them under proper consideration as part of my strategy. They are an aspect of the only thing which matters: the facts of the board.

    There are signs that the Chief Whip was charged with assessing the power of Braverman to cause problems in the event of her sacking. According to The Mail, only six MPs were prepared to defend her to the hilt. We shall soon see whether the Chief Whip Simon Hart got his maths right or not – but a lot would seem to depend on his having done so. Sunak has taken the view that the prospect of better government without Braverman is sufficiently appetising to risk a noisy revolt.

    When we say a politician is gambling, we don’t usually say it in admiration: what we usually mean is that they had no good options but at least managed to make this series of things happen. In this case, we will have – as night follows day – a series of letters going into the 1922 Committee, and it is only a question of how many. When the only certain outcome of a gamble is an upping in the process designed to bring about your own removal, it might be argued you’re not in a great place.

    Secondly, it is all too late to change what Americans call ‘the electoral math’. Very often, politicians today seek to rearrange the furniture and even do some light dusting on the proverbial sinking ship. Sometimes, feeling particularly brazen, they might fire a sous-chef, or switch around the boatswain. But its impact has to be minimal when the course of the ship is misguided, and the ship itself defective.

    The photograph of Cameron shaking hands with Sunak yesterday was interesting. Whatever one thinks about Cameron, he held the job Sunak is currently doing for six years, and if one takes away the way in which it ended, it was a time of competent party management. His longevity in that role seems to come out of a different geological era compared to what we’ve had since. He undeniably brings stature just from this fact alone. Next to Sunak, he looks like he has come to visit the current occupant from a race of giants.

    One wouldn’t wish to say, however, given Libya and Brexit, that the Cameron years marked some heyday in British foreign policy. I seem to recall, when growing up, that teachers would make you go back and do again the parts of your homework you didn’t get right the first time, and this appointment smacks a little of the desire to make good what was done poorly initially. This opportunity for revisiting is good for Lord Cameron, but arguably not so good for us if the earlier set of calamities was so considerable.

    But how good will all this be really for Cameron? Even the rosiest of estimates makes it unlikely that he will be Foreign Secretary for more than a year, and it’s more than likely that having run the country for six years, he will now enjoy a period of six months as Foreign Secretary. It can likely never amount to more than a curious footnote to his career.

    But while there are elements of foolhardiness in Sunak’s reshuffle – as there are in all gambles – it wasn’t entirely unpleasant to see him making it. There is still the sense that Sunak could be a good prime minister if a few more things were to go right, and if he were to grow in stature within the job. The country isn’t in love with Labour; the Lib Dems still hardly exist; and the SNP is increasingly a basket case.

    What would actually change the situation? There probably never has been a prime minister in such dire need of a new speechwriter. Theresa May wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination a good orator but she at least came up with ‘just about managing’ and ‘citizen of nowhere’.

    Boris Johnson could always rely on words to connect with people, and when people talk of his charisma, I think they really mean that he could be quite funny. Leaving Truss aside as too short a premiership to discuss here, Sunak has been in position for a year without uttering a memorable syllable and it is this which has meant that he hasn’t entered the public imagination in any shape or form.

    Only if this reshuffle were to be accompanied by a new voice could it be the basis on which to build towards a respectable showing in 2024. Sunak has never really told us a story about his premiership; he has to do that now, regardless of who’s sitting round the Cabinet table.

     

  • Suella Braverman and the art of ministerial sacking

    Christopher Jackson

    To sack or not to sack. That is the question for Rishi Sunak this week and the newspapers are presenting it as a difficult decision. I’m not so sure it is, for reasons I will explain, but there are few who would want to be in his shoes.

    But then that’s also the case in relation to the financial, electoral and geopolitical state of things: essentially all aspects of his job. Given its obvious undesirability, one sometimes wonders why top-tier politicians fight so hard for the premiership: it’s like watching seagulls tussling for mouldy bread.

    Sackings can often be pivotal for prime ministers. They are tests of strength and only a problem if you’re weak in the House of Commons. Braverman has some following in the Commons but she is hardly Michael Heseltine; it must also be said that it is useful to keep one’s Home Secretary if you can, since one tends to lose them anyway. It’s probably the only job in government less enjoyable than being prime minister since it involves handling immigration and crime. Sunak therefore probably approaches this problem thinking it would be better on the face of it if Braverman were to remain either in position, or in the Cabinet more broadly.

    Sackings are also a question of timing. When in 1940, Churchill got rid of Lord Halifax as Foreign Secretary and replaced him with Sir Anthony Eden, it came on the back of six months of expert internal manoeuvres. The famous May 1940 Cabinet showdown about whether to fight on against the Nazis – Halifax had wanted to sue for peace – had already shown Churchill to be in control, and uniquely capable of wielding power. The eventual sacking of Halfiax, just before Christmas and after Halifax’s ally Neville Chamberlain’s death, was the coup de grace.

    If Sunak were to sack Braverman now, it would exhibit no such mastery of timing, but give the impression of a prime minister responding to events moving out of his control on too many fronts. Braverman by necessity is at the core of the government agenda on immigration and crime, and more or less by accident is now also a touchpaper on the Israel-Palestine question.
    I’m not sure Sunak is strong enough to remove Braverman without it weakening his position still further: he lacks a General Election mandate of his own and faces dire opinion polls. In 1940, Churchill was plainly in the ascendant; Sunak isn’t.

    Cohesion at the top matters. We cannot know at this proximity to events what has and hasn’t been said around the Cabinet table, but it goes to show that a sacking should only take place if you can be sure of Cabinet and parliamentary unity afterwards. Early in Margaret Thatcher’s administration during the ‘clash of the wets’ in1981-2, Thatcher had Geoffrey Howe present the case for spending and tax cuts but was confronted in Cabinet by those ministers from high-spending departments who wished to increase their own expenditure.

    These ministers, known to history as the ‘wets’ (and they are very much history), argued that Howe’s proposals didn’t show “a sufficiently imaginative and practicable response to the acute social and political problems now confronting the government”. This is the waffly parlance of the soon-to-be-defeated. Thatcher noted their disagreement and in time, sacked the lot of them.

    Here we can see Thatcher’s peculiar genius for leadership at work: it is inconceivable that she would have undertaken such a culling without an important policy at stake. Sunak, by contrast, doesn’t disagree with Braverman in any meaningful sense about the reaction of the police to the marches. Both would likely prefer the marches not to have gone ahead, both accept that there is a right to march provided there is no incitement to violence (which in all too many cases there has been), and they want the police to do their jobs (and would each give the police a decidedly mixed review on their recent performance).

    Where they disagree is in linguistic tone and also the procedure leading up to the publication of Braverman’s original article. While Braverman has arguably shown some disrespect to Number 10 in ignoring edits they may have had about the original article, it isn’t clear that the matter is sufficiently serious to meet the Thatcher threshold. A dismissal would therefore seem petty to those who admire Braverman – and wouldn’t have the upside of demonstrating particularly forceful leadership by Sunak.

    Sunak is usually good at stepping back from media-driven speculation and considering the facts of a situation. One of his main strengths is that he doesn’t panic. His tendency to seek further information before he makes a big decision, also makes it seem likely that he will wish to see how the cards fall on Wednesday, when the Rwanda ruling, the release of inflation figures, and a debate in the Commons on the SNP’s call for a ceasefire in Gaza, are all taking place.

    Temperamentally, one would expect Sunak to wait for Wednesday than to risk all by going for the jugular on Tuesday and firing her beforehand. If the government wins the ruling the following day – he has essentially a 50-50 chance of doing so – it might look odd to those outside the Westminster bubble for him to have fired his Home Secretary the previous day.

    The former Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osborne has said that prime ministers tend to win this sort of confrontation. He is a politician-turned-newspaperman who is egging Sunak on to fire Braverman, and it is not for us to say that he is craving drama for the sake of it. It’s true that prime ministers are often in a stronger position than they realise in these matters – until one day they aren’t. Howe, removed by Thatcher eventually, was the one to wield the knife when she did eventually resign. But she achieved an enormous amount before that point because she always knew where she was going.

    Sunak is temperamentally more similar to Tony Blair who brought Peter Mandelson back into the Cabinet after sacking him. He also to some extent resembles David Cameron, who preferred not to rock the boat, and rarely got into unnecessary spats with ministers. Well-dressed, well-mannered, I sense that order is important to Sunak. With the electoral position somewhat perilous, it might be that he has far more to lose than to gain by removing his Home Secretary.

    And if he does? It’s impossible to know what chain of events that may spark, the extent of support for Braverman and the flimsiness of Sunak’s own position. But it would herald a change in Sunak’s approach to government and be somewhat out of character for him to do so. This is the unique pressure of high office, and this is the week where we will see how this particular occupant handles it.

     

    Update: this article was published at 7.03am, about an hour before Braverman was sacked.

     

  • Stop Rishi-bashing over India trade deal

    Dinesh Dhamija

    Reports that Rishi Sunak ‘faces a new conflict of interest row’ ahead of the G20 summit on the grounds that his wife could benefit from a UK-India trade deal are fuelled – I would say – by the realisation that a major trade win for the Conservative government could dent Labour’s election prospects.

    Much of the noise is coming from the Labour benches, who ostensibly support a trade deal, but would much rather not have Sunak claiming the glory and making an economically struggling nation feel better about itself.

    To me, the issue is too similar to some other ‘rows’ over India, including the BBC documentary on Narendra Modi and Suella Braverman’s remark about Indians outstaying their visas. They ignore Britain’s greater self-interest in reaching a historic deal in favour of petty point-scoring, with a vaguely xenophobic undertone.

    A UK-India trade deal would be absolutely fantastic news for the UK economy, for the Indian economy and for all those of us who have worked tirelessly to promote such a deal for many years.

    As a Member of the European Parliament in 2019 and 2020, closer links with India was one of my principal objectives: I chaired the EU India committee. In this role, I had to counter various MEPs asserting that Europe should not do business with India, on grounds of its supposed intolerance or anti-democratic bias. By marshalling the facts and winning over allies, I managed to convince my fellow MEPs that we should pursue deals rather than shun the world’s largest democracy and fastest-growing major economy.

    Rishi Sunak must now do the same, and not be cowed by those who seek to destabilise negotiations. If Akshata Murthy (aka Mrs Sunak) stands to benefit from a trade deal, good for her! So will hundreds of thousands of British workers, whose jobs will be funded by the additional economic activity.

    If Rishi gains politically, well good for him too! His predecessor but one, Boris Johnson, went out on several limbs to achieve a deal and couldn’t get it over the line. If Rishi succeeds where Boris failed, we should applaud his careful diplomacy, his personable style and wise analysis, rather than nit-picking over his wife’s share portfolio.

    Much as I opposed Brexit and all it stood for, I am equally determined to see Britain thrive in the fast-evolving post-Brexit world, where global powers including US and China have become more isolationist in a backlash against the globalisation of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. An India-UK trade deal would be a welcome signal that new partnerships and trade alliances are still possible, especially between countries with such close historic ties.

    I’m sure Rishi Sunak needs no advice from me, but just in case: stick to your guns, Rishi. There’s no need to ‘recuse’ yourself from the negotiations, as papers such as the Observer ridiculously suggest. Go out and sign the deal. We’ll all thank you in the end.

    Dinesh Dhamija founded, built and sold online travel agency ebookers, before serving as a Member of the European Parliament. His latest book, The Indian Century, will be published in the Autumn.

     

  • The Baroness: Frances D’Souza on Sir Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak and the current deluge of legislation in the House of Lords

    The former Speaker of the House of Lords explains the current deluge of legislation facing a somewhat recalcitrant House of Lords

     

    I don’t think the next election will be a slam dunk for Sir Keir Starmer. The main reason for that is that I don’t think Starmer is a leader. Of course, Rishi isn’t either, but the Tories won’t do anything about that until the next election, after which they’ll likely get rid of him.

    Having said that, I met Sunak recently, and I found him very nice: he comes across as someone who listens, and he is very smart. He said something which I thought was wonderful: “I believe in doing less but doing it well.” This led onto another conversation about the sheer volume of legislation tumbling down on us. He said: “It was on the books when I came into position.” He was basically saying, “Not my fault, mate.” But it does mean that if Sunak continues – which I doubt he will – he’ll bring in less legislation, which would be a very good thing.

    All in all, it’s been this cataract of legislation. There have been three bills. The Online Safety Legislation Bill has been in the making for about six years, and deals with the uncontroversial idea that there should be some online protection regarding content harmful for children. Molly Russell’s father has been campaigning on this; and Beeban Kidron, a fantastic cross-bencher, has been leading on that, and done a fantastic job.

    I’m always in principle opposed to any legislation which interferes with free speech, because once it’s on the statute books it’s a hostage for fortune. You never know, we might have a fascist government one day; it’s not impossible. It’s a very technical bill, which only a very few people understand. Ultimately, the large companies are going to have to abide by advertising standards, but to get them to do that may require legislation.

    The second bill is the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Bill whereby the government is seeking to wipe off the statute books around 6000 executive orders which have come from the EU. The minister dealing with that happens to be dealing with that Martin Callanan is quite abrupt and there have been some testy exchanges. That makes life quite interesting – people at least wake up!

    But I’m particularly concerned about the third bill, the Illegal Immigration Bill. This goes against our treaty obligations – as was pointed out in the second reading in the House of Lords.

    As the Bill stands, we have the government-sanctioned entry points, which have special status – essentially if you’re an Afghan or Ukrainian refugee, or if you’re from Hong Kong. But let’s say, for example, that you come from Eritrea: if an asylum application is refused, then you can never return in your lifetime. Furthermore, if you’re an unaccompanied child, you can stay until you’re 18, then you’re sent to Rwanda. It rides roughshod over 1951 Refugee Convention.

    The point the government makes – and it’s clever of them to make it – is that nobody is coming up with an alternate system. What we argue is that if the UK is serious about immigrants and asylum seekers in genuine fear of persecution, then they’ve got to create more safe routes into this country.

    In actual fact, the numbers that comes here are quite low pro rata as compared with Germany, France, Italy, Greece and other European countries. Of course, there is undoubtedly a problem with economic migrants who come here, but there is a mechanism in place to determine people’s claims.

    The question is why does the government not go after the criminal gangs? They’ll never succeed in starving them of revenue with the current proposed legislation. Really they need to infiltrate the criminal gangs. Intelligence ought to know who they are – and if they don’t, they should. It’s certainly worthy of a question in the House. Are the intelligence services on this?

    Incidentally, the current processing of the special programmes is a shambles. The Ukrainian situation has more or less obliterated the work on Afghanistan, due to the melancholy fact that the Foreign Office can’t do two things at the same time. To be registered as a genuine asylum seeker, the offices which issue refugee passes are few and far between, and hugely overburdened with around 350,000 people currently awaiting recognition that their application is bona fide.

    All of which, as Sunak knows, is a lot for the Houe to process. The trouble is we only have about 50 or 60 hard-working peers; they do a fantastic job, but that number is very small – but the question of House of Lords reform is a topic for another article altogether.

     

  • Diary: Longest-serving foreign secretary of Australia Alexander Downer on Rishi Sunak, Gary Lineker and the hilarity of George W. Bush

    Alexander Downer

     

    Illegal immigration is an important issue for me. I think there’s a lot of misreporting about Rwanda, and it’s outrageous. How would I describe Kigali, the capital? It’s very tidy – extraordinarily clean city. It has high rates of economic growth, and gives the impression of being a well-run country. In my life, as the longest-serving foreign secretary of Australia, I must have been to over a 100 countries.

     

    I also like to point out that these asylum seekers are also coming from a country called France, so there’s a choice of France or Rwanda. That’s not inhumane. Gary Lineker is a football ex-player and pundit. I don’t regard him as an expert on immigration issues; he’s reading about people scoring goals and being offside. Of course, it would be inhumane if the policy were to send genuine refugees back to their country, but that’s not the policy. The reality is that people smugglers have found a way to make huge amounts of money, and it’s a racket. It’s also hugely expensive for the government to pick these people up, process and house them.

     

    Difficult interviews never bothered me. The media’s job is to hold you to account. If you’re powerful and decided on a particular path, you’ve got to be prepared to defend it. The Andrew Neil Show wasn’t a problem for me. I did an interview with Kay Burley on Sky, and she was incredibly against the government’s policy, but that was okay. If you’re so worried about being attacked by journalists, why not put them in charge of the country and see how it goes? Usually, whatever you do is sub-optimal.

     

    I remember the day I was sworn in in Australia by the Governor-General as a Cabinet Minister. One of my colleagues who’d previously been premier of New South Wales, he was being sworn in as finance minister, and I remember him turning him to me: “This is the best day you’ll have as a minister. I said:  Why’s that? And he said because nobody I left politics in 2008, and still on social media I get attacked for things we did in government and that’s fine.

     

    Over the years, I’ve met many world leaders. The more conviction they have the better. When John Howard was Prime Minister, we were subject to endless attacks. We used to describe ourselves as the Howard Fascist Dictatorship because they hated us so much. But we knew what we were doing, and felt that what we were doing was for the best. It hurts more when you’re attacked for a slip of the tongue or a gaffe. If you want to be popular, it’s not the job for you. You become famous in your country but at the same time for many people become infamous.


    T
    wenty years on from Iraq, I wonder whether we were right, and I think we were. We didn’t make a huge contribution to the invasion of Iraq, but getting rid of Saddam Hussein was a good thing. However, the Americans handled the post-invasion incredibly badly. We argued with the Americans about that, but it wouldn’t have made any difference if we’d refused to participate. You can’t ask the Americans to underwrite the security of the Indo-Pacific region at huge expense to the American taxpayer, and be a fairweather ally.

     

    Both Blair and Bush were leaders of conviction. You’d have to say you were impressed by the forcefulness of each. They’re different sorts of people – both very personable. Bush was very funny, full of jokes. The funniest moment relates to my wife, Nicky. It was September 2007, were at the Australian PM’s Sydney residence and at this time he was incredibly unpopular worldwide. Condi Rice was there, and she said to my wife: “Would you like to meet the President?” My wife said: “He’s a bit out of my league. Condi insisted and I don’t know what came over my wife nut my wife said: “Mr. President, what’s it like being the most popular person in the world.” I’m Australia’s leading diplomat and he just laughed and said: “That’s politics. You have to do what you think I’d right. She spoke to him for 15 minutes and came away thinking he was delightful, much underrated by people. He made politically incorrect jokes and at one which I won’t repeat I said: “You mustn’t say that publicly. “No,” he said. “I never would.”

     

     

  • Secretary of State Gillian Keegan on Sir Keir Starmer, Rishi Sunak and how Shirley Williams wrecked the education system

    Gillian Keegan

     

    I spent most of my career in business and am a bit of a Johnny-come-Lately to politics; I got elected at the age 49. I am the first former apprentice to be Education Secretary – and I’m also the only degree level apprentice in the House of Commons.

    25 years ago, growing up on the outskirts of Liverpool in Knowsley, there weren’t that many opportunities. For me, an apprenticeship was a golden ticket; I was so delighted at the time. But it’s been quite a shock at the Department for Education when everyone looks down on you as if you’ve come up with soot on your face.

    I’m sometimes asked who was the person who most destroyed the education system and I’d say Shirley Williams. I was on a trip with a Lib Dem MP, going to St Mungos to visit a homeless shelter; we were on a Public Accounts Committee together. She spent the entire train ride telling me how fantastic Shirley Williams was, and all about the comprehensive system. Having been a beneficiary of this system, where 92 per cent of students were without any qualifications, I was confused by her enthusiasm. Then I found out on the return journey that her education consisted of the International School of Brussels and Roedean; she’d never been anywhere near a comprehensive school.

    That’s the whole point: theory and practice are very different. Rishi Sunak understands that and it’s one of things which makes him a fantastic prime minister. He has the most extraordinary talent; he’s very detailed and strategic and kind. I look at him and think that he’s got that stardust, and a lot of space to grow: I think he will be a world statesman.

    Rishi is very encouraging but also gets things done. Look at the Windsor Framework: when you consider the column inches which were devoted to this, and the question of whether it was any good or not, and whether it was practicable: he got it through. Look at the way he’s handled the health unions and the teaching unions.

    Education will be a big part of the story we tell to the electorate next year, when it comes to our achievements over 13 years. In 2010, we inherited a lot of problems in our education system. The attainment of children wasn’t up compared with other countries; for instance, in the PISA rankings the country had fallen back nine points over the 13 years of the Labour government. That’s quite a lot. We had fewer schools deemed ‘Outstanding’.

    We also did a lot in childcare in our budget earlier this year. In 13 years of Labour government, all Labour introduced was 12 and a half hours for three and four year olds. That was it. Since then we’ve introduced 30 free hours, and now we’re doing nine months to five years, which leaves Labour nowhere to go.

    You’ve also got to look at what Michael Gove and Nick Gibb did in setting up academies; they’ve transformed academic outcomes and opportunities for kids. Having grown up in Knowsley, I know there are large numbers of very bright children who don’t get the chance to go to an outstanding school or to university. Social mobility is not a slogan with me.

    We’ve also done a lot to be proud of when it comes to universities, and in relation to skills. That’s a nice thing about my current role: it’s where I started as a skills and apprenticeships minister. I can now get stuff through which I wanted to do then and which everyone overruled me on at the time.

    One such thing is medical apprenticeships. I started to think: “How do we get parents to want their children to do apprenticeships?” I thought about what parents want for their children: they want their kids to have a good profession and a stellar career. When it comes to medical apprenticeships for 18 year olds, the courses are five years long. That means you can come at 18 and be a doctor in five years. It’s the sort of thing which shows you that this is a government focused on delivery.

    From my seat on the front bench I have a good view of the Leader of the Opposition. The only time Sir Keir Starmer has ever energised a room is by leaving it. It’s quite a good vantage point on the front bench. I think: “You’re making a massive miscalculation. What are you going to say when we deliver all this!” Margaret Thatcher always used to say, if you’re not ten points behind then you’re not doing enough. This is going to be a historic fifth term.

     

    Gillian Keegan was talking at the In and Out Club 

     

  • Opinion: Why Rishi Sunak needs to think beyond STEM

    Finito World

     

    We know that Rishi Sunak thinks about mathematics a lot because he has told us this is the case. This is a prime minister who, as the almost clicheic saying goes, ‘inherited a mess’, and is now beginning to think about what his priorities going forward might be.

    He has sorted out that mess to some extent. Certainly, he has shown he can handle the work – a low bar perhaps, but one which his predecessor Liz Truss never managed to clear. He also has some victories to his name: the Windsor Accords should in time spark a return to power-sharing in Northern Ireland; the AUKUS submarine deal shows he is capable of operating on the world stage; and most importantly, he has begun to get control of the public finances, though inflation remains stubbornly high and his decision to promise to cut it in half was an own goal: in politics, never promise something which isn’t in your control to deliver.

    None of his achievement are showy, and all of his progress is incremental. All is not lost: due to a low energy opponent in the shape of Sir Keir Starmer it may enough to put the Conservatives in touching distance of a 1992-style election victory in next year’s General Election, though that remains a long shot. What’s needed to pull off victory is leadership, and direction. So far, we have the ‘maths to 18’ policy, stipulating that all students should have some maths education right up until the end of secondary school.

    It is well-intentioned, and the prime minister has a point. Many young people do indeed, as the prime minister said in his speech at the start of the year, leave university without a basic understanding of finances, and experience difficulty when it comes to negotiating their mortgage deals.

    But in framing the question of mathematics in such limited terms he has made the matter seem dull, thereby making it hard to bring people along, and earning derision in some quarters for a ‘cookie cutter’ approach. A tax return is a good thing to have sent in on time, but it doesn’t speak to the human heart. It was Albert Einstein who said: “Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world.”

    In politics it is best never to express an intention aloud without having fleshed out the consequences of choosing to pursue it. In rushing into the debate without a full appreciation of how more maths teachers will be delivered – and doing so during such a febrile atmosphere of teachers’ strikes – Sunak has raised more questions than he has answered, leading to a series of jokes about not having done his sums.

    This isn’t to say the policy is dead. It simply needs to be recalibrated and, of great importance to this magazine, tethered properly to the realities of the jobs market. Sunak would do well to read the Institute of Engineering and Technology’s report Engineering Kids Futures. This highlights a shortfall of 173,000 workers in the so-called STEM (science, technology, engineering and mathematics) sectors. The cost to the UK economy of this shortfall is projected at £1.5 billion.

    It might be that the economic cost is the least of it. Children need wonderment and inspiration; they need to feel early in life the joy of creating things – and also to learn from the experience of wrestling with the difficulty of making things work.

    Of course, mathematics isn’t separate from the importance of engineering; an engineer who can’t count won’t get very far. But maths isn’t a siloed subject – quite the opposite. Sunak now has an opportunity to reimagine ‘Maths to 18’, by tethering it to employability. How might it transform our children’s careers outlook?

    While he’s about that he might go further. A glance at the sector output of the UK economy, ought to persuade the prime minister to think not just in terms of STEM but also STEAM.

    The ‘A’ stands for art, of course, a word which can still seem wishy-washy to the conservative mentality – so perhaps we might be thinking in terms of STEMCI – where the CI stands for Creative Industries.

    That ought to get recalcitrant Conservative minds to pay attention: the creative sector is big business. Year on year, the sector continues to boom – and that’s in spite of the restrictions placed on many businesses during the Covid-19 pandemic. For instance, according to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, the creative industries grew by 6.9 per cent in September 2022 compared with the same month in 2021. Growth across the UK economy as a whole was 1.2% over the same period.

    Perhaps we need to think not just of Einstein’s contributions to maths and science, but to remember his violin-playing. A new generation of renaissance men and women is possible if Sunak gets this right.

    It also happens to tally with what he needs to do politically. He has made a good start and is probably the best-suited to the role of any of the occupants of 10 Downing Street since David Cameron. But he is yet to make anything approaching a powerful speech. And if he can’t make one about maths, he needs to think again.