Cakeism is Boris Johnson’s true legacy

The smirk on the faces of politicians and journalists when they talk about ‘cakeism’ shows how Boris Johnson degraded public life, and will carry on degrading it long after his overdue departure from Downing Street. The Munchkin civil war we call the Conservative leadership contest shows that ‘cakeism’ is the one part of Johnson’s legacy that will survive him. 

‘My policy on cake is pro having it and pro eating it,’ he said in 2016. Instead of laughing at Johnson and saying his desire to have it all ways was one of many reasons to ignore him, they laughed with him as if he were Billy Bunter at the tuck shop. And they’re still going along with it now.

To pick the most egregious of dozens of examples from the leadership contest, Sajid Javid, who was Secretary of State for Health until five minutes ago, promised to scrap the National Insurance rise he voted for only last year (along with nearly all the other leadership candidates, incidentally). You might say that it is outrageous that employers and workers are taxed when one in four pensioners is now a millionaire and capable of bearing larger burdens. But as Javid knows better than anyone else the tax rise is not currently being spent on social care, despite what Johnson promised. It provides emergency funding for an NHS that has a waiting list of 6.5 million, 100,000 vacancies and a tough winter ahead.

How does he propose to fund the tax cut? There is £32 billion of headroom in the public finances, Javid says. But inflation is eating that up and we have huge debts. Like every politician in a corner, he continues with airy mutterings about the deus ex machina of ‘efficiency savings’ doing the job. He then calls for public sector job cuts, when staff shortages are already hobbling the NHS and much of the rest of the public sector. Nor does Javid stop with National Insurance. The Financial Times puts the total cost of all his proposed tax cuts at £49.4 billion. How will that work?

He doesn’t seem to know or care. Worse, Conservative MPs and members do not want to know or care either. They want to be pro-tax cuts and pro-having a working NHS too.

It feels harsh to pick on Javid when every one of Rishi Sunak’s rivals is pounding him for saying that the party should not believe in ‘comforting fairy tales that might make us feel better in the moment, but will leave our children worse off tomorrow’. 

I confess to sitting up with a jolt when I heard that too. For God’s sake Rishi, I thought, if you want to win, don’t trample on their dreams. Don’t tell the Conservative party, of all parties, that Father Christmas isn’t real and the Magic Money Tree doesn’t exist. Sunak has to pay for the pandemic, whose cost his colleagues have already forgotten. When Johnson wanted to add increased health and social care spending he behaved as a true fiscal conservative would and insisted on tax rises rather than deficit spending to pay for it. Such is the delirium gripping his party, Sunak’s traditionalist insistence on sound public finances led Jacob Rees-Mogg to call him a ‘socialist’.

Javid, like Truss, Zahawi, and all the others whose names no one can remember, are now in a race to cut, whatever the consequences. After ratting, re-ratting and ratting again, Nadhim Zahawi says he wants 20 per cent cuts in every government department. Kwasi Kwarteng, a supporter of Liz Truss, said tax cuts would require reductions in public spending, but was unable to say what the consequences for the public would be.

Far from dying with the prime minister, Cakesim is running like a virus through the post-Johnson Tory party.

What is missing from the debate is not just hard choices but any connection to reality. Inflation is about to hit 11 per cent. There could be fuel shortages this winter. Even if there are not, there will be hunger and cold. Not one of the candidates has led on addressing a cost-of-living crisis that will hit them as soon as they enter Downing Street. Tax cuts would give people more money (but not those who need help most). But so would wage rises. Why is the Conservative party in favour of the former and not the latter?

The candidates have barely spoken about Ukraine. I assume that they would continue supporting Kyiv, but would like to hear them say so. Even if they do, how will they strengthen and reequip our armed forces? What measures will they take to protect fuel supplies in the winter? And how can they provide additional help to the poorest?

As for the standards in public life Johnson and his gang so comprehensively trashed. I have yet to hear a single proposal to restore them.

Compare the candidates’ fantasies with the justifiably self- confident speech Sir Keir Starmer gave this morning, in which he talked about embracing the technologies of the future. Nowhere in the Conservative leadership campaign has there been discussion about how to help pharmaceuticals, financial services, the university sector, the creative arts – the businesses and institutions where Britain retains a competitive advantage. They cannot be mentioned because this government’s hard Brexit hurt them all, and the EU is a Tory taboo. No senior Conservative can propose easing the economy’s troubles by advancing better relations with the EU without destroying their career.

Cakeism, older readers will recall, began when Johnson claimed we could have the benefits of the European single market, while leaving the European single market. We should have realised it is a lie by now. Indeed we should have known it at the time.

Instead, the British public can only gaze on the Conservative party in wonder. There comes a point in every government’s life when it can no longer handle the challenges of the world as it is. If readers doubt that the Conservatives have reached and gone way past that point, I would urge them to look at its leadership contest.

My plan to give Britain a better future

Rishi Sunak launched his Tory leadership bid today. Here’s the full text of his speech:

We need to have a grown up conversation about where we are, how we got here and what we intend to do about it. It is a conversation for those of us gathered here in this room today and the Conservative party more widely.

But, above all, it’s a conversation we need to have with the British people. And it starts with being honest with each other. That matters because the decisions we make in the coming days and weeks will set a course that will determine whether the next generation of British people inherent a stronger and more confident nation.

The Conservative party was elected with a large majority so it falls to us to decide who carries the flag forward in this parliament. But it is not a decision that should be made behind closed doors with no input from the public.

From the beginning I wanted this campaign to be more than just my case for the leadership. I also wanted it to be a moment where the party and country came together. Before I talk more about the campaign, I want to say something about how we got here.

I want to talk about Boris Johnson. As candidates to replace him, we owe it to the British people who elected Boris as Prime Minister in 2019 to explain why he is leaving office. There is something profoundly wrong about a process that sees a sitting Prime Minister replaced while the people doing the replacing pull the curtains and act like it’s nobody’s business but theirs. It’s everybody’s business. 

So let me tell you how I see it. Boris Johnson is one of the most remarkable people I’ve ever met. And, whatever some commentators may say, he has a good heart.

Did I disagree with him? Frequently. Is he flawed? Yes – and so are the rest of us. Was it no longer working? Yes and that’s why I resigned.

But let me be clear. I will have no part in a rewriting of history that seeks to demonise Boris, exaggerate his faults or deny his efforts. We know his achievements: breaking the Brexit deadlock, winning a stunning election victory, rolling out a world-class vaccination programme and standing up for a free Ukraine when other leaders were still wringing their hands.

Some people might advise that I should avoid saying all this in case it alienates people. But that wouldn’t be honest. If telling you what I think – positive and negative – costs me the leadership, so be it.

People deserve to know what I really think before they decide, not afterwards. Since I declared a few short days ago the response has been…well…overwhelming, beyond my imagination. Thousands of volunteers have reached out to join our campaign because they have heard a message of change.

I am running a positive campaign focused on what my leadership can offer our party and our country. I will not engage in the negativity that some of you may have seen and read in the media. If others wish to do that, then let them – that’s not who we are. We can be better.

Because, I look across the field of candidates and I see colleagues and friends. I see people who I admire and respect. People with exceptional qualities. I want to say to all of them: we are still part of the same Conservative family and when this election is over we’re going to work together for the British people.

But before that, we have to resolve some disagreements. Incredibly important disagreements about the nature and depth of the challenges this country faces and the right response to them.

A pandemic that all but broke the world economy. A war in mainland Europe. And most visibly at home now, a global spike in inflation that has risen to levels not seen since the 1970s and 80s.

When confronted with challenges so fundamental the right place to start is with your values. And my values, traditional Conservative values, are clear.

Hard work, fairness, patriotism, a love of family, pragmatism, but also an unshakeable belief that a better future is something that we can create. 

Values that compel me to say it is completely unacceptable in this country that too many women and girls do not enjoy the same freedom most men take for granted in feeling safe from assault and abuse. That our natural environment is an inheritance we preserve and protect for future generations and that our role as a global leader in keeping our oceans and air clean is critical. And that at a time of rising global instability, we have a responsibility to the world to provide leadership. That is why, as Chancellor, I prioritised record funding for the armed services who represent the best of our country and do heroic work.

But as vital as values are, they are not enough. We need to have a grown up conversation about the central policy question that all candidates have to answer in this election. Do you have a credible plan to protect our economy and get it growing?

My message to the party and the country is simple. I have a plan to steer our economy through these headwinds. We need a return to traditional Conservative economic values. And that’s means honesty and responsibility, not fairy tales.

It is not credible to promise lots more spending and lower taxes. I had to make some of the most difficult choices in my life as Chancellor, in particular how to deal with our debt and borrowing after Covid. I have never hidden away from those. I certainly won’t pretend now the choices I made and things I voted for were somehow not necessary.

And whilst that maybe politically inconvenient for me, it is the truth. As is the fact that once we’ve gripped inflation, I will get the tax burden down. It is a question of ‘when’ not ‘if’.

And I will achieve this because I have a clear plan to get our economy growing quickly. We need to implement the radical reforms I set out as Chancellor to the way businesses are taxed, to make our country the best place in the world to invest more, train more and innovate more. 

We need to use the new freedoms Brexit has given us, and the new mentality it can give us, to reform the mass of regulations, bureaucracy, and constraints that too often get in the way. We need to build a new consensus on people coming to our country: yes to hard working, talented, innovators, but crucially control of our borders.

And we need to transform the performance and productivity of our public services by integrating technology, empowering good leaders and caring much more about what actually works than what sounds good. I believe we can build a better, smaller, 21st century government that helps to support growth and countries around the world seek to emulate.

If we do all of this, we will get our economy growing quickly again. Not just for a short burst, but sustainably for generations to come. This is the surest path to tax cuts that work, to keeping our schools and NHS strong, to properly funding our armed forces and keeping our country safe.

So, that is my plan: tackle inflation, grow the economy and cut taxes. It is a long-term approach that will deliver long-term gains for families and businesses across the United Kingdom.

I am prepared to give everything I have in service to our nation, to restore trust, to rebuild our economy and reunite the country.

I want to have a grown up conversation where I can tell you the truth: a better future is not given, but earned.

That is why I am standing to be the next leader of the Conservative party and your Prime Minister.

Thank you.

End of quote. Repeat the line. Joe Biden can’t go on

How much longer can the global disaster that is Joe Biden’s presidency go on? Surely there comes a point when the Democrats do what the Tory party did to Boris Johnson last week – declare enough is enough and force him out? The odds of Biden running for a second term are shrinking dramatically – no matter how many times he insists he will go on. The more pressing question is whether he can even hold on for the remaining two years of his first four.

A miserable poll just published in the New York Times shows that only 13 per cent of Americans think their nation is on the ‘right track’. Among Democrats, 64 per cent said they wanted a new candidate for Democratic candidate in 2024  – and a staggering 94 per cent of Democrats under the age of 30 feel the same way. It’s hard to see how any leader can go on with such horrendous numbers. Biden’s approval rating is now 33 per cent – with more than two-thirds of independent voters disapproving. Forty seven per cent of African Americans want a different Democratic candidate in 2024 and 63 per cent of Hispanics. Among whites, the figure is 70 per cent.

The reasons for Biden’s collapse are manifold, but they start with a near-total loss of faith in the man himself. He’s just too old and it’s too painfully obvious. Two years ago, to suggest Biden was past it was to invite accusations of spreading Trump propaganda. Now, 33 per cent of Democrats cite the President’s ‘age’ as their reason for wanting someone else to stand (for 34 per cent, it’s ‘job performance’).

Only 3 per cent are blunt enough to say ‘mental acuity’ – but the normally lapdog loyal Democratic press now openly discuss his mental unfitness for high office. The Atlantic recently published a simple but effective essay explaining to readers just how old Biden will be by the end of his second term. Last weekend, the New York Times revealed that aides are concerned that Biden will ‘trip on a wire’ because he’s so doddery. His energy level is ‘not what it was’ and aides ‘hold their breath’ nervously when he talks. He works a five day week and rests up as much as he can.

As if to prove the point, on Friday Biden gave the world another viral proof-of-senility clip when he began reading out the instructions from his teleprompter: ‘End of quote. Repeat the line.’

‘As Mr. Biden insists he plans to run for a second term, his age has increasingly become an uncomfortable issue for him, his team and his party,’ declared the Gray Lady’s White House correspondent, Peter Baker.

In other words, the Biden show can’t go on.

End of quote. Repeat the line.

The Biden show can’t go on.

If the American economy was singing, it’s possible to see how Biden might be propped up in office. But the economy is a top concern for more than 75 per cent of American voters – and only 1 per cent rate America’s current financial health ‘excellent’. Team Biden was eager to boast about the healthy US employment figures which came out last week. But this sliver of good news must be set against the continuing cost-of-living crisis, or ‘Bidenflation’ as some Americans call it, which is impoverishing everyone.

Moreover, Team Biden is falling apart as exasperated aides continue to quit. Last week, the White House communications director Kate Bedingfield announced she would stand down after the summer. That just weeks after Jen Psaki, the White House press secretary, stood down, and a number of other more junior press aides have gone. Clearly, it’s tough work trying to spin the idea that Joe Biden is working.

Other senior staff have bailed, too – Cedric Richmond, once a key adviser, left in May. And Jeffrey D. Zients, the White House Covid czar, sloped off in April. Biden, already the oldest US President, may or may not be able to stagger on until 2024. Yet with the mid-term elections coming up in November, and Democrats facing heavy losses, his deteriorating presidency will become more and more untenable.

How Love Island killed sex

Love Island’s annual ‘heart race challenge’ – where contestants perform jokily seductive dances on the opposite sex – took place last week, an eternity in villa time. The girls and boys who raise heart rates the most win. It is always divisive, since the women in particular – dressed in nearly nothing and manoeuvring with everything they have – understandably get touchy when their man’s heart rate rises more for a rival.

Usually the challenge is extremely sexy, but not outright pornographic. This year that changed. We watched the women put their bare bums – most wore only thong-style garments – up in the men’s faces and waggle them before turning around and straddling them, mimicking full sex as well as oral sex and other sexual moves, like full-body licking. Shirtless, tight mini short-sporting lads then picked the women up, monster-style, and put them face down on the ground before mounting them and commencing, with professional pornographic technique, rhythmic thrusting that showed off their toned athleticism. The inroads made by BDSM were extra clear in this year’s heart rate challenge: more than one contestant came out in leathers wielding a whip. The riding crop brandished by Gemma Owen, footballer Michael Owen’s 19-year-old dressage champion daughter, was almost fetching.

As far as a heart rate challenge goes, it’s effective. Even as a relatively prim viewer I found myself grinning and adrenalised, staring with arrested fascination. Love Island contestants are often criticised for being too plastic and too surgically enhanced. But there is no doubt whatsoever that, surgery or no, they have burstingly brilliant bodies, and bar the odd comedy man, the contestants seem to be quasi-professionally trained in sexualised dancing. In other words they have scaled the heights of contemporary, endlessly digitally-refracted sexiness. They are masters at looking hot, having nailed the shortest route to the dopamine rush. Their metier is the shimmering depthlessness of young bodies who spend their lives taking selfies in no clothes, pouring their souls and sense of self into the tiny tripartite orbs of the iPhone lens.

The contestants ­­seem more recognisable as people this year (sometimes they actually say things you could imagine a real person saying), but still seem utterly stumped when it comes to what lies beyond thongs and corner boob and pornographic dancing. Thus we have the anguished and perplexed tears of Tasha, a model and dancer of picture perfect looks, after the heart rate of Andrew, the man she was coupled up with, goes higher for Danica, single and unfancied at the time but later to pair up with a model at the explosive Casa Amor, where the men and women are sequestered with a new battery of the opposite sex. Tasha couldn’t accept that having got dressed in her tiny neon pink swimsuit, spent lots of time on looking perfect and unleashed her sexiest moves, Andrew’s machinery hadn’t processed the input correctly. Tasha correctly feared that in this world, if the body fails, you have nothing: all the warm words and bedtime cuddles count for nothing. Andrew’s romps only days later with new girl Coco in Casa Amor while Tasha’s back was turned turned those fears into reality.

Love Island is not everyone’s cup of tea, and for good reason. But the programme is important because its contestants are at the bleeding edge of media culture. This means they set and reflect trends in fashion, dating, sexual ethics and modern relational sensibilities. They are creatures of Instagram and TikTok, where sexuality is kaleidoscopically disseminated and refracted.

The result is that sexiness has become a technique you can master and deploy so long as you do – and possess – the right things. Girls must wear thongs, have big boobs and a wobbly bum and put on hair extensions; the men must have a tan, a six pack, tattoos and white teeth.

But in this rubric, sexiness kills sex. Eros has long departed these shores; lust and desire remain and can be profound and raw forces even now. But for the islanders, and for Gen-Z more widely, they seem to have drifted further out of reach. It becomes harder and thornier to instigate and enjoy sex, because there are so many psychological and political landmines. There is most definitely a right and a wrong way to do sex now, a world of feelings and power dynamics to which all must be hyper-attuned. Self-consciousness has been heightened by three-lens smartphone cameras that constantly show bodies as they should be and amplify the gap between them and reality.

And so, the two former functions of sex: sheer naughty fun, or an act of love (sometimes even baby-making) have essentially evaporated. No wonder sex rates have plummeted among the younger generation: 15 per cent of 20 to 24 year olds say they’re sexually inactive, compared to six per cent of Gen X at the same age. A recent study by the charity Humen found that half of university students feel their experience has been marred by mental health issues: feeling perpetually anxious isn’t good for sex either.

In the absence of fun or love or babies, the conservative flank of Gen-Z are searching for meaning. They have decided sex comes up short on that front too. This, at any rate, was my observation at a recent conference for 18-30 year olds interested in freedom. One young man of about 24 advocated a return to chastity outside marriage and baby-making. Watching the bulging-bodied Love Islanders gyrate and thrust, and then feel worthless and hurt, you can understand how for some, the enforced meaning – and danger – of a Handmaid’s-Tale style regime of sex could begin to seem, well, sexy.

The problem with euro-dollar parity

The euro is nearly level with the dollar. It should not matter in theory, because of the relatively low share of the US in EU trade. But it does in practice.

Some predict that the euro will fall below parity. There is a straightforward explanation for this: the war in Ukraine and unpredictable Russian gas supplies to Europe make the dollar a safe haven for investors. On top of this, US interest rates offer a higher return on investment. But it is not only the dollar. Looking at the broader picture, the European Central Bank’s measure of the euro’s real effective exchange rate against 42 partner countries confirms this trend towards a new historic low:

really bad news comes from the combination of the euro’s falling value, the energy crisis, and the return of inflation. Global energy commodities are denominated in dollars. Energy prices thus not only rise due to supply shortages but also due to exchange rate movements between the dollar and the euro. The price of Brent crude oil in June, for instance, was down 19 per cent compared to its 2008 peak in dollars, but 20 per cent up on the same peak in euros.

European inflation reached 8.1 per cent in May, with the trend still pointing upwards. A couple of years ago, when the main concern for the ECB was deflation, a depreciation of the euro towards the dollar and other currencies would have been more than welcome. But now, in this inflationary environment it is a totally different matter. Allianz estimated that a 7 per cent depreciation of the euro against the dollar would increase inflation by 0.8 percentage points at the end of the year. Since the beginning of this year, the euro already depreciated by 12 per cent.

In theory, a falling exchange rate would boost Europe’s export industry just when the home economy is about to slow down. But this is not happening in real life because industry is supply-constrained. Germany has experienced a big drop in exports, so much so that it recorded its first monthly trade deficit in a generation. A slowing economy, rising inflation, ongoing supply constraints and geopolitical uncertainty are the current parameters for the ECB’s decision making. The dollar appreciation adds another unhappy ingredient to the mix.

Is the Tory right being split?

Today’s the day in the Tory leadership race where it starts to look less like a fun run with anyone and everyone taking part. By this evening, candidates need to have the backing of at least 20 of their MP colleagues. Rishi Sunak, Penny Mordaunt and Tom Tugendhat are the only candidates out of a field of 11 (and possibly still growing) to reach the threshold. It means today will be a frenzied round of conversations in the corridors of power, with half of Conservative MPs still to give their endorsements (read the full list here).

One of the big tussles is over who gets the backing of the right of the party. Liz Truss isn’t far off reaching the threshold, but she is competing with Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch and potentially also Priti Patel, who still hasn’t ruled herself out. The worry among MPs on this wing is that the three or maybe even four candidates end up splitting the vote to the extent that none of them makes it into the final two. There isn’t much evidence that a deal could be struck between the camps, either: the right of the Tory party isn’t homogenous and there are significant ideological differences between the candidates. Truss has secured the backing of Nadine Dorries and Jacob Rees-Mogg, which has its benefits in certain parts of the party. But it also adds grist to the mill of the not inconsiderable group of Tories who want Anyone But Truss and are prepared to game things so that she isn’t in the final two.

Then again, the pitch from the Truss camp is that she’s the only one who can stop Sunak, who has gone from being the golden boy to being someone who really, really winds up a lot of Tory MPs with his refusal to go for tax cuts when he was chancellor and his description of such promises as fairytales in this campaign. The Anyone Buts are going to be very busy in the early stages of this campaign to try to get their most dreaded candidates out of that final two.

How I’d deliver a clean start for the UK

Good morning and welcome. 

Families in the United Kingdom face a moment of crisis. It is becoming harder for people to simply get by. For so many of them, there is more month than there is pay. We face danger abroad, division in our politics, an economy saddled with debt, and a creeping sense of despair about our collective future.

This is a defining moment for us. It is a defining moment for our country. It is a defining moment for our party, and it is going to test the values for which we stand. I am going to talk about economic policy today: but for me — for Conservatives — leading on the economy is not only a question of policy.

It is a question of values — it is a question of mission — a question of our task and purpose. We have been charged with the mission of advancing the interests of the British economy and the British people. They have asked us to hold ground for them: to secure the possibility of prosperity for each and every one of them.

They have asked us to not only hold the line, but to advance their aspirations: to move them and their children more confidently into the future. To hear them and to respond to them. And, most importantly, to serve them, advancing all of us towards a future with a stronger, fairer, and more resilient economy

They have asked us to advance; and, yet we have retreated. In a moment that is so desperate for so many — and when our service is most needed — we have retreated. We have retreated into the pettiness of a politics that is more about personality than principle.

We have retreated into division when we desperately need unity. When our nation needed our party to function, we retreated into faction. When the moment demanded service, we delivered scandal.

This is a crisis of purpose, of leadership, and of trust. We have been divided and distracted when we need to be united, responsive, and committed to the future of our people.

I am sorry, but I cannot accept retreat. We should not accept retreat. We must return to service. We need leadership with a renewed sense of mission. Leadership that sees beyond divisive politics and delivers results. Leadership that will return government to the service of our economy, our people, and our country.

We need a clean start. For me, that is more than a slogan or a catchphrase. It is a mission statement. It describes our path forward together. It summarises our advance orders for next decade – it allows us to move forward together afresh, optimistic, enthusiastic, confident, post-Brexit and ready to seize the moment anew.

That is why I am introducing my ten year plan for growth. It will return our government to the service of the British people and the British economy. It will make our economy stronger, our society fairer, and make our country more resilient. And it will do it by returning to the core values that unite us as Conservatives.

I believe in liberty and the low taxes necessary to defend it. I believe in responsibility and the honesty essential to delivering it. And I believe that with a clean start — and with a return to service — we can ensure the prosperity of homes and families in every part of the country. Stronger, fairer and more resilient.

I believe that a clean start that returns us to the service of the people will produce a brighter future. Our economy should be advancing, not retreating. Yet millions of people are opening bills with dread – not knowing what they’ll have to cut to pay for what they need. They’re filling up their car wondering what it will cost to get to work the next day or next month. Every day, families are seeing their savings being steadily eroded and wondering will this be over by Christmas?

This just isn’t sustainable. It’s not fair. It’s not right. We must act. Like all Conservatives, I want people to keep more of their own money. I believe we should cut the cost of government wherever we can. This isn’t an auction. I’m not here to bid for the highest or the lowest on every tax policy. I am here to make the case that our economy can only prosper if we believe that people — and not Westminster — know best how to spend their money …

I know the pain families are feeling now. That is why my first pledge is to take fuel duty down by 10p a litre. My second is to reverse the national insurance rise. This isn’t about percentages. It’s about jobs. That’s why I didn’t vote for the increase then, and I wouldn’t now. It about jobs and workers.

But that’s not enough. We need to go further I want to ensure that we cut the right taxes to get the right results. Our investment incentives are amongst the worst in the OECD. That means it’s less attractive to invest in the UK than anywhere else. That fewer businesses buy machinery, train their staff and plan for the long term.

Economists talk about ‘productivity’ – and Britain’s lack of it. What that really means is we don’t create enough; we don’t create fast enough; and we don’t sell well enough. That means every hour British workers are losing out. 

We can fix it. Businesses can invest more in technology and training, to drive up real pay, not inflation. But they can only do it if we change the incentives. That means making it cheaper for companies to invest in their future.

That’s why I am committing to ensuring businesses have the certainty they need to invest, by introducing a programme of permanent full expensing, giving firms the confidence they need to plan for future growth. The United Kingdom under my leadership will have the most investment friendly tax system in the OECD within five years.

But let me be clear – tax cuts cannot be the only round in the magazine. My 10 year strategy for growth goes beyond taxes. What we need is deregulation to allow companies to thrive. Not because all regulation is bad – a market needs rules and a way to enforce them. But technology moves fast and often outpaces the regulators, and so even well-intended rules can become stifling.

We need regulations that serve the best interests of our people and our economy, and those written for a different time and a different order need particular attention. I want to seize one of the biggest economic benefits of Brexit that we haven’t yet grasped.

I am talking about the EU’s Solvency II regulations, EU rules that forced British insurers to sit on dead money that they are not allowed to invest. I will urgently reform these rules, to bring these savings to life. Employing people, starting businesses, building homes and giving families a chance.

To be clear: that will mean that around £100 billion of British savers’ money can be put to work regenerating our communities and building homes. That is dead money breathing new life into our communities.

The truth is that the last Government hasn’t moved far enough or fast enough. We need a clean start to bring new energy and determination, and on this we need to escape the EU’s regulatory orbit. Now Brexit has given Britain the chance to do better. I will deliver.

That’s how we will harness this country’s full potential. Because talent isn’t exclusive to Telford. Brainpower is not greater in Brighton and I can tell you from the green benches that the IQ isn’t higher in Islington than in Inverness.

What that means is that an economy which neglects places doesn’t just neglect people. It neglects an opportunity for prosperity for us all. The Northern Research Group talk about spanning the divide, and about ensuring that opportunity is spread across the country. 

I entirely agree. That is why I will equalise funding across all our regions – making sure that spending on innovation, infrastructure and transport is spread fairly, so that growth can follow.

A clean start requires serving all of Britain. My friend Jake Berry speaks about wanting a vocational Oxbridge in the North.

I want one in every region. That is why I will commit to creating new Institutes of Technology across every major town and city of the UK, so that every child has the chance for a world class technical education.

Levelling up isn’t about an us v.s. them, a North v.s. South, or an East v.s. West. It’s about harnessing the energy of the entire country to build a better future for everyone. I have talked about how to make our economy stronger.

I now want to turn to how to a clean start can serve the goal of a fairer economy. To a family in Newport, GDP isn’t what they’re worried about – it’s GPs. When a family gets ill, when we need help, when we need support we all turn to our public services. We know how important they are. But we also know they are struggling.

And that means we are too. Too many of us are struggling to access the services we need, to see the doctors we want, struggling to feel safe and secure in our homes.

Take the NHS. We’re putting record investment in without seeing the outcomes we need. I know that even the most dedicated teams need targets. Take a simple measure – the four hour A&E pledge was last met in 2015. People deserve better. We expect better. I will deliver better.

As a first and immediate step I would reintroduce a binding A&E and referrals target and hold NHS leaders accountable for it. But we won’t just focus on the symptoms. On my first day as Prime Minister I will bring together experts from the NHS, the wider public sector, the military, the private sector and the voluntary sector to bust through the NHS backlog, copying the success of the vaccine taskforce that delivered the first vaccine in the UK before anywhere else

Focus matters. Delivery matters. Competence matters.

Finally, we need the kind of clean start that will make our economy and society more resilient. From Covid to the energy crisis, we have learnt that even if we get everything right, our country and our economy is exposed to threats at home and abroad.

A responsible government is one that plans ahead – that thinks about the future, not just the present. One that takes steps to ensure that we are not vulnerable, and that those who try to harm us fail. I have warned about this many times before – about the vulnerability we face in our supply chains, and our energy.

We all remember the desperate times as we rushed to secure protective equipment on far away runways and still found ourselves short … and we all feel the pain of higher oil and gas prices now. That is why I will introduce an energy resilience plan to ensure that the UK has dependable power produced at home or sourced from trusted allies.

That’s the only way we can truly protect our sovereignty. It’s the only way we can keep household bills low. It’s the only way we can keep our businesses competitive. That means more clean energy. It means more nuclear energy … and the capture and storage capability to help reduce carbon.

It means creating a strategy to ensure that we aren’t dependent on China to process our critical minerals, or on hostile states for our gas, and it means working with our allies to ensure that where we do import energy we do not compromise our values, or our alliances.

That is the only way that we can tackle the weaponisation of our energy markets by hostile states. Let me say now – if we do not grasp this issue – we are giving ground to our enemies, who will ruthlessly exploit it.

Ladies and gentlemen, this great country of ours is at a crossroads. We are faced with some daunting challenges at home and abroad.

We need serious leadership. We need to tackle the cost of living crisis. We need a ten year plan for growth. We need bold leadership to deliver a return to service. 

I am ready to serve. I am ready to lead. We need a clean start.

Thank you.

Enlarging Nato will ostracise Russia (1997)

It’s 25 years this month since Poland, the Czech Republic and Hungary were invited to join Nato. The Spectator’s cover story that week was this essay by Susanne Eisenhower, president of the Eisenhower Group and granddaughter of President Eisenhower. Explore The Spectator’s archive here.

When historians, decades from now,  consider the 20th century they will probably be struck by how the major conflicts of the century were ultimately resolved. At the century’s end, Germany, the country that wreaked more destruction on the world than any other power, is economically prosperous, unified and firmly locked within Nato — all due to the magnanimity of its victors. The Russians, on the other hand, enter the new millennium ‘defeated’ and excluded from the two most important European institutions the EU and Nato. Worse still, Russia is adrift without the benefit of any comprehensive Western plan for its integration, even though it has courageously expelled the communists from power and voluntarily brought an end to the Soviet empire.

In contrast to Germany’s postwar treatment, Russia has received not much more than the expansion of its Cold War nemesis, Nato, even though the country lost more citizens in its fight against fascism than all the other nations of the world put together, and historically liberated itself and its satellites, thus ending the Cold War. Russia now finds itself facing an alliance which includes its enemy in both the first and second world wars, its Cold War adversary and soon some, possibly all, of its former allies.

Our current generation of leaders seems to have learned little from the past. The first world war made outcasts of Germany and Russia, which sowed the seeds for another war with Germany and brought about a siege mentality in Russia which was used to justify decades of bloody repressions. Lloyd George understood that Russia’s isolation posed a threat then and in the future. Of Russia’s treatment at the Versailles peace talks, he later said, ‘World peace was unattainable as long as that immense country was left outside of the Covenant of Nations.’

Woodrow Wilson also noted Russia’s ‘defeat’ in the sixth of his famous Fourteen Points: 

The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

Determined not to make the same vindictive mistakes, the victors of the second world war succeeded, at least with Germany, by employing Winston Churchill’s maxim, ‘In war: resolution. In defeat: defiance. In victory: magnanimity. In peace: goodwill.’

Unfortunately today, some five years after the end of the Cold War, there seems to be little magnanimity and a shortage of genuine good will. The Nato-Russian Founding Act, which Moscow was coerced into signing, has done nothing to avoid the humiliation and isolation Russia feels as a result of the planned expansion of Nato.

The Russians have reason for complaint. Mikhail Gorbachev, who sought to build a ‘common European home’, noted in his memoirs that he had been given assurances in February 1990 that ‘the zone of Nato’ would not extend beyond Germany. Evgeny Primakov, the Russian foreign minister, also said that during the period 1990-91 several high-level Soviet officials received repeated verbal assurances from Western leaders that if Soviet troops withdrew from the German Democratic Republic and the Warsaw Pact was dissolved, ‘Nato would not move to the east by one single inch, and not a single Warsaw Pact country would be admitted to Nato’. The Russian archives apparently contain this information. The Russians also say they received similar pledges from Warsaw Pact members.

Gorbachev has admitted that he did not get these assurances in writing and that they were part of a ‘gentleman’s agreement’. Critics have called this ‘a major strategic error’, but Stanley Kober, an American foreign policy analyst, recently asked, ‘What was [Gorbachev’s] error? Instead of being grateful for a peaceful end to the Cold War, are we now to mock Gorbachev for erring in trusting us too much? Is this the basis on which to build the post-Cold War world? If so, what reaction can we expect from the Russians other than a feeling of betrayal and suspicion?’

The Nato-Russia Founding Act has already exacerbated the resentment Russia feels. Critics across the Russian political spectrum have derided the agreement, and some have called Boris Yeltsin a ‘traitor’ for signing it. With the question of the Baltic republics still outstanding, and differences in interpretation regarding the de facto veto Yeltsin thinks he gained over Nato decisions, significant tensions could lie ahead, and Russian bitterness could grow worse if the economy doesn’t dramatically improve or the erosion of institutional power stop.

Nato expansion could bring a number of other unintended consequences. By virtue of its Article Five guarantee, Nato is first and foremost a military alliance. As such, its expansion is about the military configuration of forces in Europe, not about providing a club for democratic nations. Though Russia does not now feel threatened, it will nonetheless be compelled to take steps to provide for its own security through deterrence which, in the current circumstances, will inevitably entail a greater reliance on nuclear weapons. For that and other reasons, expansion could serve to undermine arms reduction accords and stymie efforts to promote nuclear safety.

Nato expansion could also prompt Russia to form its own bloc of allies. Moscow has already begun flirting with China, an emerging power that could, in the future, be at odds with Western policy. Beijing needs Russia’s technical and military know-how, as well as its energy resources. It might also include, in addition to Belarus, other countries of the former Soviet territories, pressured by Russian energy leverage. By virtue of its resource-rich terrain, Russia is certain to recover from its current troubles. Further erosion of co-operation between Russia and the West could affect our access to the world’s oil supply for the 21st century, which is contained within and surrounds Russia’s borders.

As we debate ratification of the accession of new members of Nato, brought into the alliance at Russia’s expense and at the cost of her isolation, we should reflect on the lesson learned through the blood of our forebears. Security cannot be built at the expense of another nation. Today, instead of seeking to enlarge an alliance that advances Cold War military assurances, we would be better occupied finding a framework for intensified co-operation.

Given Russia’s nuclear capability, geography, energy and human potential, our failure adequately to engage her could have long-term ramifications. And without a concerted effort to find new, more meaningful interaction, Russia could again absorb us, distract us and divert precious resources from our domestic agendas making the ‘Russian question’ the compelling national security issue well into the 21st century.

The case for Liz Truss

The past six years have been a turbulent and controversial time in British politics. Through them all, one person consistently delivered progress, not deflected by the chaos around her. As others made headlines, Liz Truss made deals.

Having been environment secretary under David Cameron, Truss was justice secretary and lord chancellor then chief secretary to the Treasury under Theresa May, before moving on to become trade secretary, minister for women and foreign secretary under Boris Johnson. Experience at Environment, Justice, the Treasury, Trade, Women and Foreign Affairs provide the perfect background of experience – a suite and breadth that no other candidate in the race comes even close to matching.

That matters for a prime minister. There are good reasons everyone that has taken over mid-term as a prime minister for well over a hundred years has held one of the great offices of state: foreign secretary, chancellor or home secretary. And Truss was not parachuted in from nowhere as someone’s political creature. She worked her way up, proving herself in each position before being promoted and coming back from sideways moves as well as upwards ones.

She first came on to the political scene as a strong supporter of markets, founding the Free Enterprise Group of MPs, advocating social mobility, rigorous education and flexible working. Her instincts are practical but unmistakably centre-right – and will be a healthy and welcome reversion to traditional conservatism in that area after some of the blind alleys of the Johnson era. Her liberal instincts, honed by many years on the justice select committee and as justice secretary, are also exemplified by her being one of only two ministers to vote against plain packaging of cigarettes and her being one of the leaders of the cabinet revolt against the proposed December 2021 Covid restrictions.

As minister for women and equalities, she has opposed the woke agenda with clarity and without ambiguity (for example by abolishing ‘unconscious bias’ training in the civil service), but also with sensitivity and without unnecessary rancour.

As international trade secretary, she embraced the opportunities of Brexit with an enthusiasm no other politician that supported Remain in the referendum has come close to matching. She is the ultimate Brexiteers’ Remainer – the Brexiteers’ St Paul. She has carried that through into her period as foreign secretary, continuing to advance Britain’s post-Brexit global cause while enraging the Russians so much that they have adapted an abusive (and sadly unprintable) proverb to apply specifically to her.

A Truss administration will be a conservative administration. It will seek to trust markets once again, to keep spending and taxes low and get the debt down. It will be an anti-woke administration but will not be so distracted by anti-woke actions that it will forget to deliver material improvements in Britons’ lives. It will exhibit liberal instincts on civil liberties issues but not be afraid to be tough when required on immigration. It will favour social mobility and the grounded education people need to achieve it.

It will involve a Britain that stands up for itself unapologetically on the international stage and is not afraid to be patronised and insulted by its enemies. It will seek to move forward from Brexit – not always looking back, for good or ill. It will support the Union, first over the Northern Ireland -protocol and, as the SNP presses yet again for another referendum, over Scotland. We will look to new relationships with Canada, Australia, Japan and other medium-sized global partners like ourselves.

As others lost their heads and forgot what they were trying to achieve, Truss has delivered. As prime minister, she will do so again. And that, ultimately, is what will decide the fate of the Conservative party at the next general election. Truss’s proven track record shows she will govern as a conservative and can win as a conservative. No other candidate can even remotely say the same.

The desperate drive to be the next Tory leader

There’s a scent in the air around the Tory leadership contest. It is the whiff of desperation. The aroma of provincial ballrooms when the lights go up at midnight; or of the last few seconds before a firing on The Apprentice when a contestant butts in with ‘Can I just say…’ and Lord Sugar snaps: ‘I’ve heard enough from you.’

First to set the tone was Rishi Sunak, coached not to blink or move his eyes, which some PR adviser obviously still thinks makes a person look agreeable and approachable, and not like a double glazing salesman who must get this commission from a confused elderly lady or starve. He used this little film to assure us he is the man to stop telling us comforting fairytales, which is surprising for someone who loves chucking billions of pounds about like a tipsy auntie with a box of confetti.

Penny Mordaunt’s video was even worse, incorporating a statement of gossamer vapidity that informs us she is a pragmatist and an optimist, and what’s more – hold on, this is heady stuff – she has a vision. Forgive me, but isn’t that the bare minimum requirement? I suppose a contender could try: ‘I’m a panicky flake and we’re all doomed, doomed’? It would be distinctive but I wouldn’t advise it.

Mordaunt had earlier tried jumping the gun on her critics with a slippery Twitter thread that succeeded not in closing a can of worms but exploding it, with wormy fragments rebounding in her face. It can be summed up as: ‘I never said the thing I’ve been saying for years, and even if I did say it I didn’t really mean it, and I think you’ll find that it was actually me, Penny Mordaunt, who fought against the appalling behaviour of that bloody awful Penny Mordaunt’. It also incorporated the hilarious neologism ‘biological woman’ to mean ‘woman’, an adjective formerly reserved for laundry detergents.

Sweet Grant Shapps would like to teach the world to sing. He’s just a daydreamer, walking in the rain, chasing after rainbows that he never found again. He is there to appeal to the section of the electorate that thinks everyone should just put down that stick and play nicely, which may not work on Vladimir Putin. His astonishing turn on Sky News on Sunday, where he managed to frame the gender hot potato as ‘let people live their lives’, displayed an incredible lack of information, as if he’d only just heard about the thing. Perhaps he had.

His campaign video, mercifully short, climaxes with a pose in a big garden presumably intended to look dynamic and far-seeing, but which actually comes over as Grant pondering if he should waterproof the decking. If that was the best take, what the hell were the others like?

Jeremy Hunt picked Esther McVey as his deputy – another anxious wheeze. Posh and common, chalk and cheese, north and south, Dempsey and Makepeace. Like Keir Starmer, Hunt always looks like there’s something on his mind, but it is something agreeable, looking forward to a nice glass of wine maybe, while Starmer seems worried in a ‘I did lock the car, didn’t I?’ way. But I can’t see anyone thinking the answer to a bluff old Etonian is a bland old Carthusian. Flashman remains an enduring archetype, but ‘anyone for tennis?’ has long gone.

Day two of a long contest, and Suella Braverman whipped out ‘let’s leave the EHCR!’, and Nadhim Zahawi promised to publish his tax returns. Again, too keen, too soon. These people are meant to be conservative – why can’t they conserve some ammunition! By day 43, what the hell will this pair be suggesting to outdo each other? Invading France? A 24 hour access-all-areas live stream of No. 10 on ITV2?

It’s all so one-note sweaty and hungry. So far nothing compares in eccentricity to my all-time favourite leadership launch, Angela Eagle for Labour in 2016 – a pink Union Jack and a signature logo like a pair of Miss Selfridge jeans. But I have high hopes for Liz Truss on this score.

There’s something to be said for the ‘take me or leave me’ approach of Kemi Badenoch, who has the unshowy assurance of an intelligent person, even if the sudden enthusiasm for her in Tory media circles suggests that her supporter Michael Gove is frantically pulling strings. Tom Tugendhat has stayed almost gaffe-free for 72 hours, a new record, but then he always looks pretty desperate, as anybody who has followed his Twitter handle knows.

It was Ben Wallace who had the most beguiling characteristic in a leader. He didn’t want to do it, unlike the ‘Pick me!’ pygmies. Would he really rather be Nato secretary general, as some are saying? Or was he afraid of being exposed in some sordid scandal, as the newspapers heavily suggested?

What’s certain is that all the contenders need to calm down. At the moment it feels like we are making a selection at a canine rescue centre, all moist eyes pleading, tongues panting, angsty tails wagging. Somebody, please, give them all a biscuit and a belly rub.

Is Sunak really a big state believer?

There’s something strange happening in Tory politics. It’s not surprising to see leadership candidates taking special aim at the current frontrunner Rishi Sunak. But the attacks being used are redefining the economic philosophy of the Tory party in a way that could soon backfire, regardless of who wins the top job.
Take, for example, Liz Truss’s most recent pitch to MPs: get behind one Tory right candidate or risk sending Sunak into No. 10. Allies of Suella Braverman are reported to be making a similar pitch. The vast number of candidates in this race has indeed caused a lot of uncertainty and increases the likelihood of surprise results – something leadership hopefuls are desperate to avoid. But to the main point: since when is Sunak on the Tory left?
The headline tax burden makes being on the left an easy accusation to throw Sunak’s way – but it’s a deliberately simplistic narrative. Sunak spent the majority of his time as chancellor reminding his fellow MPs – not to mention the Prime Minister – that all the new day-to-day spending they wanted needed to be accounted for: with spending cuts, growth policies, or as the least desirable option, tax rises. Boris Johnson consistently ruled the first two options out, terrified to be labelled with the badge of austerity and also terrified to rock the boat within his own party when it came to policy reform, especially around housing and planning.
So we got tax rises, not because they were desired, but because more spending was demanded from the PM and Sunak refused to borrow to deliver it.
Sounds like a fairly Tory stance, at least in normal times. Sunak’s philosophy is about as Thatcherite as it gets. As chancellor he tried to follow Nigel Lawson’s playbook to a tee: raise taxes to deal with the threat of inflation and rising rates, then propose trimming the state to allow for serious tax cuts.
That latter bit was not an option so long as Johnson remained in No. 10. And the battle for Sunak now will be convincing his fellow MPs and Tory voters that the PM was the real barrier to responsible tax cuts, not Sunak himself. This will be an uphill battle, as it will involve not simply presenting a credible plan for cutting taxes soon, but also building up trust in parliament and across the country that he is the MP who can deliver it.
But it’s strange that to cost your tax policies now falls into the category of being on the left, while promises to slash major taxes without saying how it will be funded is a characteristic of the right.
It suggests Johnson has put a much bigger stamp on the party than many MPs will want to admit: his economic policy of having it all has proved rather appealing to a lot of Tories who were quietly ecstatic about the discovery of the magic money tree during the pandemic.

Plenty of MPs want to keep picking from it. You can understand why: it allows for far more lofty promises around tax cuts and giveaways. But it doesn’t make it right.

Why TikTok reels are reshaping comedy

Bella Hull started standup six years ago. Back then, she lived in fear of a bad set being uploaded to YouTube, where a shaky camera and lacklustre crowd might stain any Google search of her forever. Now, due to the rise of video ‘reels’, popularised by TikTok, Instagram and YouTube during the pandemic, for Bella and other digital savvy comedians, creating online video is a necessity for reaching fresh, young, and more global audiences.

Bella has been publishing funny short-form videos in portrait (AKA TikTok reels) for one year and has amassed over 888k likes on the platform.

For a lot of circuit comedians, lockdown forced them to put down the microphone and pick up their smartphone. Tatty Macleod (now 113k followers on Instagram) has been doing standup since 2018 and began creating online sketches in December 2020.

‘Being a successful online sketch comedian doesn’t mean you’re a great standup comedian and vice versa. Both mediums stretch different muscles, and a live audience is a different beast,’ she says. ‘Yes, you can definitely adapt material for a live audience but it’s like adapting a book to screen. You have to change the script and think about how you bring it to life in a space without the lens of a camera to help punctuate the punchlines.’

Comedians are finding they’re not just adapting for an audience when producing online content, they’re adapting for an algorithm. ‘You watch enough content and then realise there’s a certain formula for getting your videos to go viral’ explains comedian Finlay Christie (8.6m likes on TikTok) who found himself going viral after creating a David Mitchell parody reel. Forgetting subtitles, omitting an on-screen descriptive caption and sloppy editing – especially of standup clips – are novice mistakes. ‘You think that Gen Z’s attention span is long enough to watch you walk onto stage before you get into your joke? No way.’

Finlay reckons American-style humour performs well on TikTok. If the premise of the joke can be explained in one line, this provides an immediate draw that might make scrolling audiences stop and watch. ‘In standup, the punchline usually comes at the end. On TikTok, most people aren’t watching until the end,’ he warns.

For this new breed of ‘reel’ comedians, online followers convert to live audiences. Tatty admits, ‘I’ve sold out shows in a way I don’t think I would have if I didn’t have an online following.’ For the most part, these are new audiences to live comedy too. People who have never been to the Soho Theatre before are going for the first time – to see an act who they follow online. Bella saysshe’s even messaged after gigs by people wanting particular jokes and bits to be uploaded so they can share it with their friends.

As with any new medium, there are naysayers who condemn ‘reel’ comedy as just more self-indulgence from the me me me generation. Bella says, “When I was a teenager, even the most seasoned vloggers were subject to accusations of narcissism and vanity for uploading front-facing camera content.” But she’s hasten to add that due to its immense popularity,“TikTok has made this ridicule a thing of the past.”

Despite the public becoming less judgemental towards self-promotional and self-produced content, within the old guard of the comedy circuit, a level of snobbery still exists. Bella’s seencomics rub their hands with glee at famous TikTokers struggling in front of crowds where ‘real’ standups know what they’re doing.

The sneering won’t last though as comedy has never been an industry prone to complacency. Comedian Jacob Hawley says, ‘If you split the circuit in half, you’ll find younger acts can all be found online doing podcasts and front-facing camera videos. Whereas older acts are looking at shows like Britain’s Got Talent. There are always different paths comedians can take.’

While these comedians are heading to Edinburgh this summer, they’re not dead set on the Edinburgh-to-tour-to-TV-panel-show career path that has been forged by the funniest names of the past twenty years.

Television viewing figures are often dwarfed by the reach amassed by comedy reels on social media. TV also requires acts to succumb to a particular show format as well as sacrifice control over their own material – something they are never forced to do online. ‘My set can get edited and what I say can get edited on TV,’ says Finlay. ‘And whereas on a podcast, you’re on with your friends. On TV, you’re on with an Olympic bronze medallist from three years ago and you’re trying to riff with them.’

And Finlay is onto something. Since lockdown, larger, arena-filling comedians and TV personalities have created hugely successful podcasts. ‘All the shows that are in the top 10 podcast charts now, would have been TV programmes five years ago,’ Jacob Hawley points out. ‘Now it’s easier and more profitable for those names to do a podcast.’

Perhaps too, it’s only a matter of time until established comedians find themselves indulging in ‘reel’ comedy – if they haven’t already.

You can follow The Spectator on TikTok here.

The problem with being anti-woke

I’m going to do something that will likely annoy you, dear reader: I am going to make an argument about a certain class of people without naming names.

If I do name names, any response will devolve into a debate over whether I am unfairly tarring the individuals in question. That’s beside the point, because the phenomenon in question is undoubtedly real.

That phenomenon is anti-wokeness curdling into reactionary crankery. Don’t get me wrong: as I’ve previously written, I think there’s a moral panic afoot in many liberal institutions. Whether you want to call it ‘wokeness’ or something else, it seems undeniably the case that a culture of illiberalism has corroded these spaces. I still think the Harper’s letter I signed in 2020 accurately captures things:

Editors are fired for running controversial pieces; books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity; journalists are barred from writing on certain topics; professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class; a researcher is fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study; and the heads of organisations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes.

Some on the left still deny this, but they’re wrong. It’s undeniably real and harmful to liberal institutions.

Whether to speak out is one question; whether to make this fight central to one’s identity is another. And there’s a group of individuals who have gone full anti-woke, much to the detriment of their thinking.

What usually happens is this: some academic or other thinker or creative type is cheerfully chugging along in their career, living and working in progressive spaces. Maybe he is a professor, maybe he is a TV writer. Then, he commits some offence, or is perceived as having done so, and suddenly faces an onslaught of censure. Sometimes the opprobrium is wildly disproportionate to the offence. And there’s a very real walls-closing-in feeling, because the hate is coming from people he viewed as members of his ‘tribe,’ sometimes friends or close colleagues.

These campaigns, I know from first- and second-hand experience, almost always involve sociopathic backchannel efforts to cut the victims off from their social and professional networks; anyone who is seen as ‘defending’ them (by questioning the charges or the punishment at all) risks getting subsequently un-personed themselves. So, many people denounce or ignore their friends, rather than sticking up for them.

The person at the centre of all this, suddenly finding themselves diminished in status, as well as friendless or close to it, becomes understandably resentful of certain contemporary left-of-centre beliefs and mores. At the same time, he is flooded with support from conservatives and woke-sceptical liberals. The pull must be irresistible – if during this dark moment, one group despises you and tries to destroy you, and another group defends you, who are you going to want to interact with?

This can lead people down a dark path, though. It’s not a good idea to make anti-anything the centre of your identity. Among the most ardent anti-wokesters I’ve noticed an obsessive fixation that causes the rest of the world to fade into an indistinct background fuzz. For example: radical lefty professors are annoying. Sometimes they do bad things, such as leading campaigns to get their colleagues fired or calling everything – everything – ‘fascist.’ But they are not, in fact, one of America’s hundred most pressing problems. Yet if you followed the most brain-melted anti-wokesters, you would think that professors have more power than any other group in America.

Elsewhere there are anti-wokesters who in one breath decry the illiberal nature of ‘wokeness,’ and who in the next declare their support for… Donald Trump. This is a crazy position! If liberalism is an important part of your identity, it should be impossible to support Trump, full stop. That doesn’t require you to embrace the frequently dislikable Democratic party with every fibre of your being or anything, but please: a little common sense.

I’d also be remiss if I didn’t point out that many anti-woke types develop an exaggerated suspicion of mainstream authority that leads them to weird places, such as scepticism of Covid vaccines and the embrace of ‘alternative’ (read: bunk) treatments.

It’s important to recognise that this illiberal moral panic isn’t even particularly popular among Democrats themselves. The Democratic tent is much bigger than the Republican one – it is a much more politically diverse coalition, ranging from exurban centrist ‘security moms’ who aren’t averse to voting for moderate GOP members to genuine socialists who hold their noses to vote for Biden and Hillary centre-left types.

If you despise wokeness, you should realise your beef is not with the median Democrat. Pro-wokeness is a deeply unpopular movement (if you can call it that), and a very contentious one even on the left, where a range of thinkers, from neoliberals to Marxists, have published thoughtful critiques of it.

I understand why some might believe otherwise. This illiberal belief system is disproportionately influential in many media, academic and nonprofit settings. But even there, there are often silent majorities whose mouths are agape at how weird things are getting – I know because they often email me. So if you’re sceptical of the moral panic roiling many parts of the left, I’m sympathetic. But I don’t think you should make that fight central to your identity, or abandon all belief in American liberalism. The people most responsible for making progressive spaces toxic are too-online weirdos. Don’t become one yourself.

The bliss of second-hand shopping

I know of few greater pleasures than a Saturday morning spent moseying around one of my local second-hand shops in Pimlico. These charity and vintage stores attract a varied crowd. Old-timers, but youngsters too, for whom vintage shopping is hip: not just for its ethical and sustainable credentials but thanks to the current clothing fashion trend for oversized and baggy. Preloved clothing is most definitely having a moment; this year’s Love Islanders are even dressing in second hand outfits.

Indeed, second-hand shops are perhaps one of the few places that attract both geriatrics and Gen Z. What’s more, vintage shopping is not just for the hard-pressed and hipsters, but for traditionalists too. They are often a refuge of quality British-made products and heritage brands. Where else can you now get an Aquascutum coat or an Austin Reed suit? Soon Gieves & Hawkes is likely to go the same way – that is, to the wall. And even when heritage British brands haven’t folded completely, some have in recent years sadly gone downmarket or compromised on quality.

Second-hand shops here provide a lifeline: I have a bigger selection of impeccably-made Aquascutum pieces from the 90s and 2000s now in my wardrobe than I did when they still graced Regent Street. And new Barbours bought today have nothing on my second-hand version (which hasn’t even yet needed a re-wax). Previously unattainable sartorial options enter the realm of thepossible: I managed to pick up one of Burberry’s iconic trench coats – which now retail for almost two thousand pounds – for£40. My local vintage shop has priced all its real fur coats at £10 each, given the declining market.

And, more than anything else, I come back from the Saturday morning ritualistic rummage with silverware, glassware, cutlery and crockery – find a good charity shop and almost every plate will be emblazoned with a reassuring mark indicating its Staffordshire production, and almost every bit of silverware herald from Sheffield and bear a trusty EPNS marking. All this usually for less than a few quid. I doubt you could find anything of comparable quality on Oxford Street.

I imagine serious antique hunters might spurn the local Sue Ryder, Cancer Research UK or Salvation Army for more highbrow auctions and fairs. I myself do the occasional browse at the salvaged antiques dealer, LASSCO (from where I was very happy to have bagged some Verde Antico marble bookends recovered from a damaged door frame at the Tate Britain right opposite my flat). But shopping in second-hand shops is entry-level sport, and doesn’t carry the risk of you re-mortgaging the house on the mistaken conviction that you’ve unearthed an Old Master. There is a unique excitement to knowing you might find an antique in the local Barnardo’s hidden in plain sight next to the incomplete jigsaw and unloved Scrabble set. It is the thrilling potential of finding a diamond in the rough; of getting something for nothing, or almost nothing.

Clothes and tableware provide the chance to bag a great deal and source British-made quality. But it is books that often keep me in the windowless Pimlico shop basements until my coffee has long gone cold. There are limitless treasures. When I unearthed Cabinet Puddings – a Conservative Party fundraising publication from 1996 – it ended up in The Times diary column where readers were delighted to learn that John Major favoured a good whip (preferably laced with chocolate and brandy). The weekend just gone, I came back with prized haul: a book on the US Ambassador’s Residence, Winfield House (destined for a friend who works at the US embassy); a pocket-sized Queen Elizabeth II prayer book; and a Dictionary of Symptoms from the Royal Society of Medicine so, you know, if the internet goes down during a nuclear Armageddon I can still check whether I have scurvy.

Yes, these things are probably all technically available on the internet but that rather misses the point, for would you really stumble across them online? Best of all, physical stores provide glimpses into the books’ previous lives: my recently-purchased The Blunders of our Governments bore a personal message at the start to ‘Dom’ dated June 2014: ‘With many congratulations on being officially “poached”. You have a glittering career ahead of you… Love, Mum and Dad’. Who knows where ‘Dom’ ended up.

On a recent trip I chanced upon a set of eleven Thomas Goode crystal port glasses (never mind that my dining table only allows me to entertain six). When a fellow shopper complimented my find I sensed danger and sharpened my elbows, readying myself for a tussle. I needn’t have worried; the gentleman had donated them himself. On another glorious excursion I returned with a Wedgwood teapot, a couple of 19th century Staffordshire plates and a handsomely-bound complete works of Shakespeare.

And where to keep it all I hear you ask? On current trajectory, I will soon need to turf out my flatmate from the second bedroom to accommodate the growing treasure. But when the tipping point is reached I’ll just bag it all up and take the donation down to the local Oxfam and the whole process will start again. It’s the circle of life.

Seven second-hand shops for great finds

Retromania (6 Upper Tachbrook Street, Pimlico)

The perfect place to kit yourself out for your next murder mystery night (I recently bought a wonderful Inverness cape) or just to find quality, often designer clothes. There is everything from retro hoodies to dinner jackets and often a very good selection of ties (including the occasional Hermes).

Cave (81 Tachbrook Street, Pimlico)

Stumbling across this wonderful Aladdin’s cave of upcycled bric a brac, it’s hard to believe you’re in Zone 1 London. The favourite haunt of many a Pimlico eccentric (your columnist included), it is particularly good for furniture and items made by local artists. It also hosts weekly life drawing classes, and has a pop-up art gallery at the back.

Boutique (19 Churton Street, Pimlico)

This little shop has chic window displays and is located on one of Pimlico’s prettiest streets. There is a small but well-chosen selection including both clothes and household items.

Oxfam Bookshop (45 Heath Street, Hampstead)

One of the best places in London for second-hand books, including academic books and well-priced first editions. With all the money you save you can treat yourself afterwards at Hampstead’s famous La Creperie.

Barnardo’s (7 George Street, Marylebone)

While a little pricey, Barnardo’s has no shortage of customers given its prime position around the corner from The Wallace Collection. Moseying around Marylebone’s charity shops followed by a local lunch makes for a rather pleasant Saturday afternoon.

British Red Cross shop (164 Portobello Road, Notting Hill)

One of the many good second-hand shops on Portobello Road, the Red Cross shop focuses mainly on clothes though there are good furniture finds to be had too. Particularly busy on weekends.

Fara (674 Fulham Road, Fulham)

Fara has a number of excellent shops across London and the Fulham outpost (its first shop) is no exception. It is especially good for women’s fashion, handbags and trinkets.

Can Truss unite the Tory right?

The news that Jacob Rees-Mogg and Nadine Dorries are backing Liz Truss is significant. That Boris’s two most dedicated Cabinet supporters are backing Truss is a clear sign to other Johnsonites to follow them. It is also, given Rees-Mogg’s ERG pedigree, an attempt to get the party’s right to swing behind Truss. This effort by the Truss campaign has been complicated by the fact that in the referendum she backed Remain.

Also on the right, Suella Braverman’s supporters are confident that she has the numbers to make the 20 threshold to be on the first ballot, and is most likely to secure the 30 votes needed to progress into the next round. The same goes for Kemi Badenoch, who is having a very good contest having won several impressive endorsements and grabbing the attention of the grassroots. Whether Priti Patel will stand or not is still not clear. This will complicate any Truss effort to unite the right—and there are some who will be reluctant to ever back someone who supported Remain, as Steve Baker told LBC’s Andrew Marr tonight.  

But with the endorsement of Rees-Mogg and Dorries, Truss has an opportunity to begin to pull away from the other candidates on the right.  

Can Sajid Javid’s leadership bid stand out from the crowd?

What did Sajid Javid pitch himself as this afternoon? Well, the candidate of tax cuts, along with all the others apart from Rishi Sunak. But given everyone is engaged in an arms race on how big and how soon their tax cuts will be, there is largely Conservative consensus now that these are going to happen. So what does the former Health Secretary think will make him stand out from the (very big) crowd?

Javid had an extremely sweaty launch today as the temperature in London rose and the heat in the contest got worse. He can’t really claim to be an outsider, even though he has a hobby of resigning from governments, and even though he was the first of the cabinet to quit on Boris Johnson last week. Indeed, he accepted at his launch that ‘perhaps’ he could have stepped down sooner, saying: ‘Perhaps I should have left earlier. But I didn’t see anyone else leave any earlier than me.’ He doesn’t have a ‘slick video’ ready to go – which was a dig at Rishi Sunak and perhaps also Penny Mordaunt, though her video wasn’t very slick.

The central message of his campaign launch was that the Conservatives are facing an existential threat if they don’t change – and that the cause of them losing the plot is sleaze and a loss of integrity. ‘Over the last couple of years, our reputation on most values and policies has slid away. Too many people now believe that Labour are fit to govern. Some say Labour are more competent and even more likely to cut taxes. This isn’t because they are putting their faith in Labour itself. The truth is: they’ve lost faith in us.’

He is one of the candidates to pledge no negative campaigning or opposition dark arts. So integrity, and experience: ‘I don’t think any of the other Conservative party candidates has had such broad experience in the number of departments I’ve ran.’ The question that he still hasn’t really managed to answer, though, is what has made him stand out in those departments. And on integrity, he is mired in questions about his tax status over the years, refusing to answer questions on where he held an offshore trust. Now, many Tory members might see quite a distinction between lowering your tax bill and the Boris Johnson problems of presiding over a building seething with lockdown parties or appointing someone known to behave inappropriately as deputy chief whip and then not telling the truth about that. But has Javid really stood out today, or just been part of the crowd?

Now Steve Baker goes for Penny

It’s all getting a bit heated in the Tory leadership wars. Fresh from the sweltering heat of the Churchill War Rooms, Steve Baker has marched into the LBC studios with his blood clearly boiling. The ‘Brexit hardman’ went on Andrew Marr’s show tonight and launched a howitzer at fellow Brexiteer Penny Mordaunt. Baker, who is backing Suella Braverman of the European Research Group, was asked to assess Mordaunt’s credentials. He replied:

I’m sorry Penny but where were you when I needed you? She was supposed to be a Brexiteer. And when I was a bruised, you know, beaten captain in the trenches, Penny was staying in the Cabinet along with others. They could have resigned, they could have made a difference and they chose to stay in the cabinet and vote for a deal that would have destroyed the Conservative party… in the end, she just wasn’t there when I needed her. And actually, it’s not that I needed her. She made the wrong grand strategic call. And she didn’t fight for what she said she believed in. And now she wants my support? Well, I’m afraid she can’t have it.

Ouch. Baker was also asked about the likelihood of a stitch up between the leading candidates to stop the final round from going to the membership. The Wycombe MP replied that ‘It would be contemptuous of the membership to try to do that’ and suggested that the 1922 committee was thinking of changing the rules to ensure that if one of the final two candidates drops out then the third placed candidate would take their place. The Covid Recovery Group frontman also took aim at Michael Gove, claiming that:

‘I understand and I could be wrong but I am given to understand quite authoritatively from a candidate that Michael Gove started with Rishi Sunak and Michael Gove is now backing Kemi Badenoch. And I understand that Michael Gove has left behind in the Rishi camp two of his strong supporters so it’s very clear to mewhat they’re trying to do as you suggest and that would be quite wrong and I hope that sunlight can be shone on that plan and I hope it’s not likely to happen.’

Looks like we’re about to find out just how nasty the nasty party can get.

Tory leadership race tightens as MP threshold raised

The 1922 Committee has this evening agreed to change the Tory leadership rules so as to raise the threshold of the number of MP nominations required to enter the race. Each candidate will need 20 supporters, including a proposer and seconder, in order to enter. They will then need to secure 30 votes in the first round to progress.

As for the timetable, Sir Graham Brady – chair of the 1922 committee – said a new leader would be announced by 5th September. In terms of the parliamentary round, things could move very quickly indeed. The first ballot will take place on Wednesday then likely the second on Thursday. Brady suggested the final two could have been agreed as soon as next Monday.

So, who does this benefit? This is a significant increase to the threshold which in 2019 was at just eight nominations. It could disadvantage those with a lower profile or who are in the early stages of their campaign. The desire here is to make sure there is plenty of time for hustings over the summer. As for those who face an uphill task now to secure those numbers, the only candidate out with over 30 nominations is Rishi Sunak. In second place is Penny Mordaunt, who this evening topped a ConHome poll for next leader, on 23 nominations. The other camps say they have more supporters to come out – but some could really struggle such as Grant Shapps who is on eight nominations and Rehman Chishti who is on zero. What’s more, the announcement could be the trigger required to get the right of the party to rally round a candidate – right now the vote is divided.

Jamie Wallis fled car crash in heels and leather mini skirt

Just because Boris Johnson has gone, don’t expect the legal fines for Tories to go away. Jamie Wallis, the Member of Parliament for Bridgend has been ordered to pay £2,500 and banned from driving for six months after he smashed into a lamp post in November, failed to report the collision and then left his vehicle in a dangerous position.

Wallis told the judge that: ‘I am sorry that is appears I ran away but this is not how it happened in the moment.’ The court, it seems, saw matters differently.  The MP was dressed in a leather mini skirt, tights and high heels at the time of the crash, according to testimony. Some Mr S readers might remember the statement Wallis put out in the days following his accident, in which he came out as trans and explained his reasons for leaving the scene. Cynics may have wondered if Wallis was using the spectacular confessional tell-all to get himself off the hook for driving around recklessly, then not facing the consequences.

But in Westminster, and among the Conservative top ranks, Wallis was instantly lauded as a courageous truth teller. Here’s what a couple of the now leadership hopefuls said about the hit-and-run MP:

Such charity warms Mr S’s heart. Who says Tory politics is all vile, nasty ambition?

Of course Rishi Sunak doesn’t have any working-class friends

I see there’s much chortling over the fact that Rishi Sunak once said he had no working-class friends.

It was in 2001, for a BBC series called Middle Classes: Their Rise and Sprawl. In a resurfaced clip, Sunak, who would have been 21 at the time, says: ‘I have friends who are aristocrats, I have friends who are upper class, I have friends who are working class… well, not working class.’

It’s the way he swiftly corrects himself when he says he has working-class mates that has got people going. It’s the speediest of self-corrections. It’s like he suddenly thinks to himself: ‘Oh God, no — I don’t associate with those people.’

‘Gotcha!’, the social-media set is saying. The clip has gone insanely viral. It’s even been covered in some of the papers. Tory-bashing online lefties are all saying the same thing: that this 21-year-old seven-second clip is hard proof that the Tories are out-of-touch poshos who’ve never met normal people.

Get a grip. Is it really surprising that Sunak wasn’t knocking back pints with working-class folk? His dad was a GP and his mother was a pharmacist. He went to Winchester College, for heaven’s sake. What was he meant to do — strike up a friendship with the blokes who mowed the lawns of his school?

We all grow up in fairly limited circles. I didn’t have a middle-class friend until I was in my very late teens. I didn’t know any Protestants when I was a kid. Were my family unforgivable sectarians? Nope, we just lived in a heavily Irish part of London. It was fine.

Our social circles sometimes broaden as we get older, thanks to work and travel and love. And sometimes they don’t. I have no idea if, after his 21st year, Sunak became buddies with a builder or a waiter or whatever, but I don’t really care either way.

I want politicians to come up with policies that will benefit the nation, not to larp as men or women of the people. Let’s not go back to the days of Blair doing glottal stops and Cameron claiming he supports West Ham (or is it Aston Villa?). We know you guys are middle and upper class — just get on with your jobs!

It is certainly true that there aren’t enough working-class voices in politics. But that problem won’t be solved by Sunak doing a photo shoot with his arm around some unfortunate roadsweeper. (I really won’t be surprised if we see something like that in the coming weeks.)

Anyway, there’s a bigger issue here, something the Rishi-bashers will never be able to face up to — which is that classism is now a more powerful force on the so-called left than it is on the right. This is the unspoken political truth of our times: a lot of what passes for leftism today isn’t class agitation, it’s class hatred.

Sure, you will occasionally hear a Tory type moan about chavs or single mums on benefits. But in my experience you are far more likely to hear a leftie rage against ‘gammon’ (non-middle-class blokes who back Brexit) and those apparently brainwashed northerners who vote Tory even though to do so goes against their own interests (allegedly).

I’ve witnessed supposed leftists and liberals having conversations about ordinary people that positively drip with contempt. They speak of ‘gammon’ (let’s just say it: pigs) being led astray by the tabloids and by Brexity demagogues as if these people are dumb, wide-eyed children.

I’ve talked to people who canvassed for the Labour Party in 2019 who have said the most awful things about the people whose doors they knocked on. They view these folk as fat, feckless borderline fascists who propelled the nation into mayhem with their vote for Leave. If only these plebs were better educated, am I right?

As for working-class communities that fly the UK flag or the flag of England — shudder. Emily Thornberry spoke for many a middle-class leftist with her tweet sneering at that house in Rochester that had three England flags in its windows and a white van in the driveway.

The dirty secret of the modern left is that they view the working classes as a grave disappointment at best — why wouldn’t you vote for Jeremy Corbyn?! — and as a racist, phobic throng at worst. They try to hide these prejudices, or doll them up in pseudo-academic language about the political suggestibility of under-educated communities, etc etc; but every now and then the prejudices burst forth.

So get off your very high horse over that Rishi clip. I have more time for politicians who have never met working-class people than I do for political activists who have and who thought they were trash.