Johnson’s government is performing a high wire act. As supply chain problems have mounted from petrol to Christmas turkeys, ministers are staying relaxed, at least in public. They blame a pre-Brexit model of low paid immigrants filling key jobs, from HGV drivers to fruit pickers and broader support services.

The brighter future is based on higher paid British workers meeting all our supply needs. If there are problems today, it is a price worth paying for this post-Brexit nirvana. Oh, and there is ‘levelling up’ to come too.

The impressive Chancellor, Rishi Sunak, was full of optimism in his Conservative Party Conference speech this week. Listing a range of measures to encourage technological investment and training initiatives, he also pledged post pandemic fiscal rectitude as he put his faith in the individual not the State and also his faith in his own leadership credentials… It was all action through free market capitalism, mitigated by carefully targeted government support. Good stuff for those who worry about the size of the State, particularly post Covid, and with a positive view of the post-Brexit sunny uplands. It provides a level of optimism which will resonate for the time being.

Then you have Johnson’s bravura speech today. His premiership has always been a risky, unTory venture, one that has paid handsome dividends to date through robbing Labour of its heartlands. Whatever his Chancellor preaches, it has been based on big spending and high taxes. Now his government is attacking business and one can at least sympathise with some of his analysis. Rescuing the British economy from itself is about greater productivity through more investment and this doesn’t all have to be about government. Companies have benefitted for years from low taxes, cheap labour and growing profits. They have to be a key part of the solution too.

The problem is that this isn’t the whole picture. Brexit is causing huge disruption, and this is Johnson’s government’s fault. Correcting its impact will take years if it can be accomplished at all and reversing Covid induced rises in universal credit benefits, for example, to encourage people to stay or get back to work is a short-term solution to the long-term issues outlined above. And continental Europe has shown government intervention needs to be substantial (with high taxes well spent) to make an impact, whatever the role of business.

The timing is poor for Johnson’s current narrative. Against the backdrop of sharp rises in the cost of living, there will be a huge squeeze on incomes for those less well off. Will this finally translate into some deep Tory unpopularity? Well, two things have to happen; a developing belief that the future does not look as optimistic as Johnson alleges and that Labour offers a credible alternative.

On the latter, the Labour Party Conference was quite a contrast. Ridden with personal animosity and pessimism about where the country is today and where it is heading, Labour for decades hasn’t delivered in its heartlands and since 2010 has mostly seemed incapable of governing competently. Why should people believe Keir Starmer’s tepid leadership approach now? Things will have to get worse, much worse, and quickly, for a significant shift in sentiment.

About the former, Johnson is a good times Prime Minister, loose with the truth as he reiterates his ‘boosterism’ approach to politics. Whilst he struggled in the depths of the pandemic he has mostly got away with his significant defects. It is ‘priced-in’ as they say and if his optimism and that of his senior ministers on current economic headwinds holds in the minds of voters, at least through to the next election, Labour won’t be able to lay a glove on them.

There have been several requests from readers about how they can access this blog directly. Please go to http://www.insiderightpolitics.com and sign up. It only takes a few seconds to ensure content is delivered to you in an instant! You can also follow me on Twitter: @insiderightblog.

Oh dear, this week’s annual Labour conference was meant to be the relaunch of Keir Starmer’s leadership. The fact he needs a relaunch in the first place so early in his role speaks volumes.

It has not worked and the voting public, much shrewder than many commentators give them credit for, have noticed. An opinion poll in yesterday’s (London) Evening Standard made bleak reading. Only 25% of respondents say Labour is ready to form a government and even fewer, at 20%, say the Party has a good team of leaders.

Starmer, one guesses, is a good man but not a political one. Botched shadow cabinet reshuffles, few defining policy initiatives and sub-standard, clumsy Blairite manoeuvres on his own party have all backfired.

Consequently, coverage of Labour’s activities in Brighton this week has not been kind to Starmer. Forced to dilute his amendments to leadership rules, he finally got through a requirement that you need 20% of Labour MPs to support a leadership bid, abolished the ability (incredible it existed in the first place!) to join the Labour Party on a one-off basis for a fee of £25 simply to vote in a leadership ballot and achieved tougher deselection thresholds for Labour MPs. All good stuff but executed without Blair’s finesse. It simply reminded voters this is a Party that talks to itself in a way the Tories would never do.

Then the awful Deputy Leader, Angela Rayner, calls the Tories ‘scum’ and the last Corbynite in the Shadow Cabinet, Andy McDonald, Shadow Employment Secretary, resigns mid-conference protesting at a lack of support for a £15 minimum wage which he possibly forgets would bankrupt many small businesses. It stole the thunder from an impressive speech by the Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves. Just hopeless.

And why does all this matter? Because the state of British politics has never been weaker. Allegations of corruption and gross incompetence swirl around Johnson and many of his team. The country is now finding out just how damaging Brexit is as labour restrictions cause supply shortages from fresh food to petrol. We are only just struggling out of an often poorly managed pandemic response and the government has yet to be held to account for its actions. Only a nimble, effective Opposition can provide the scrutiny required to improve political discourse and this week the Labour Party has been found wanting…, yet again.

A new party, as argued before, is badly needed. In the meantime, we are left with Keir Starmer having to give a conference ‘speech of his life’ tomorrow to rescue his leadership and Labour’s already weak election chances. It shouldn’t be like this.

The forces driving globalisation have not gone away. They are just in abeyance as populist politicians have used nationalism to seek election success, whipping up the frustrations of voters who felt partly disenfranchised by the impact of cross-border decision-taking.

But the world is a small place, continuing to shrink, and there are two issues driving home the need for globalisation: climate change and the pandemic. Neither can be addressed solely by individual nations and the public increasingly recognises this.

As we approach COP26, even the most nationalist of governments and their supporters understand there is no way out but to cooperate in order to head off catastrophic temperature change. It is no good the UK setting CO2 reduction targets, for example, if China has approved the opening of 24 new coal fired stations in the first half of 2021 alone. Cross-border diplomacy to implement global restrictions on emissions is essential to bring to a halt, let alone reverse, heat damage to the planet.

And such cooperation applies equally to individual companies and investment managers who invest in them as they wrestle with Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policies. Under pressure to minimise and then eradicate their carbon footprint, it is far more than just a brand issue for executives. Businesses have to demonstrate responsible investment decision-taking and, to avoid accusations of greenwashing, show they are making a real difference. In particular, investors allocating capital must exert influence by pooling resources globally to force companies and even governments, via exposure to sovereign debt, to change their ways. (Incidentally, forming alliances needn’t undermine competition in the asset management sector. There is a myriad of ways to undertake proprietary research and construct portfolios to deliver a spread of investment returns despite evidently overlapping exposures).

Robert Armstrong in the Financial Times makes some good points in his recent article for the publication, stating his belief that financial markets do not have a meaningful part to play in solving ESG related problems until citizens and governments act first and decisively. But fundamentally, business is as much a part of society as the institutions that have a formal constitutional role in governing us. They should set an example in tandem with governments and citizens on climate change, let alone on diversity, and use global cooperation where relevant to make a difference. Government regulation alone is not enough, certainly from the perspective of creating a consensus on the need to act.

Second, the pandemic. This is no one country’s problem and not in the gift of any one country to provide a solution. Mask wearing globally has spread faster than the brand of coca cola as mankind grapples with the devastating impact of Covid-19. The solution lies in globalisation; a globally based approach to vaccine creation and delivery, travel restrictions, regulation of laboratories playing with viruses and broader healthcare initiatives.

Which takes us neatly to the final point. How do we ensure the net benefits of globalisation are understood and accepted by voters, investors, and the media alike? It is by shrewd communications, explaining how each aspect of cooperation between nations, each global solution, impacts individuals for the better in their everyday lives; how each country cannot shield itself on its own from malign forces so easily able to spread from one border to the next. Globalisation should be presented as a force of liberation supported by practical examples, not a way to stifle accountability.

When the xenophobia of nationalist politicians no longer wins elections, globalisation will be back in vogue. A pandemic and climate change are providing a powerful helping hand.

There have been several requests from readers about how they can access this blog directly. Please go to http://www.insiderightpolitics.com and sign up. It only takes a few seconds to ensure content is delivered to you in an instant! You can also follow me on Twitter: @insiderightblog.

This most unTory of governments has done it again. In proposing a solution to financing social care reforms and cutting record post-Covid NHS waiting lists, tax rises of c£12 billion per annum over the next three years will increase the total tax take to 35.5% of GDP, almost the highest post-war level and certainly the highest since 1950. Fiscal conservatives must be proverbially turning in their graves.

What Johnson’s Conservative Party really stands for remains unanswered, and its populist stance is certainly confusing to traditional Tories; but this is a subject for another blog.

Labour flails as the Tories prove the power of incumbency…

What is clear about these social care reforms is that they confirm the power of incumbency. The Government can boast it is finally providing a comprehensive solution to an intractable problem, which has either been avoided by past administrations or attracted proposed solutions which have caused huge electoral unpopularity. This is a powerful message and who could oppose initiatives which now seemingly provide an in-depth answer to our deepest fears: health, and care in old age? Breaking manifesto pledges on tax is hardly going to resonate with the public. Nobody believes politicians’ promises anyway and it is a legitimate argument to say that exceptional Covid times require an exceptional response.

These reforms are unlikely to unravel, and a mooted Tory backbench revolt has not materialised. Indeed, it is fair to say there is something to recommend them. The tax increases, whilst regressive, are well spread. The inclusion of the value of housing will only kick in as part of the asset equation if you actually move into a care home. Combined with the capping of the majority of care costs at £86,000 will ensure many (Tory) voters living in modest homes for which they have saved most of their lives will not have to sacrifice the planned inheritance for their children. It was this that did for Theresa May’s proposed reforms. Of course, wealthy individuals sat on expensive properties are largely untouched and it is surprising more is not being made of this.

Which takes me to the Labour Party. Where is it? What are its plans? It has had two years to formulate a clear response on social care but the only thing one has heard so far is carping from the side-lines followed by initiatives, as yet undefined, to be presented before the General Election. It will be too late for Labour by then. The Tories will have implemented their reforms and, in doing so, will have been seen to have done something. That is enough.

There is a legitimate debate to be had about an alternative solution to revenue raising from wealth, inheritance and/or extra property taxes. In addressing asset inflation, it would be far more progressive and help narrow disparities of wealth, but one doubts Labour will ever be brave enough to moot these. For the Official Opposition, this is a lost opportunity. One of many which will consign it to electoral oblivion.

The Tories have taken the initiative by wearing Labour’s tax raising clothes. Labour in response is flat footed and ill-prepared. By the time the consequences of this largely incompetent government across a range of policies become clear, Johnson will have won yet another General Election and be on a lucrative public speaking tour, safe in the knowledge that his future social care costs will be picked up by the State.

There have been several requests from readers about how they can access this blog directly. Please go to http://www.insiderightpolitics.com and sign up. It only takes a few seconds to ensure content is delivered to you in an instant! You can also follow me on Twitter: @insiderightblog.

Another chapter in this UK government’s incompetence as it is blindsided by its ‘closest’ ally.

The benefits of the UK’s special relationship with the US are at the best of times often exaggerated. Now under ‘the US is back on the international stage, cooperating with allies’ Biden, they seem as valueless as they were under Trump. How depressing. Biden was a post Trump, much needed breath of fresh air. An emboldened, far-right Republican opposition, (despite being the original author of this foreign policy disaster), to the Biden inspired Afghan chaos is quite frankly scary. We await the US domestic political fallout with trepidation.

But on this side of the Atlantic the UK government’s response to this latest debacle can only be described as complacency blended with ignorance and a seeming inability to influence any aspect of US foreign policy. The Prime Minister was on holiday as 20 years of Western efforts to stabilise and democratise Afghanistan collapsed. The Foreign Secretary was also on holiday, too busy to make calls to his Afghan counterpart. Add a further three Whitehall departmental chiefs absent on vacation and the failure of government foreign policy was complete.

Last Wednesday’s Commons debate was noticeable for Tory backbench criticism of its frontbench. Former Prime Minister May was scathing. Former soldier, Tom Tugendhat, gave a moving and devastating critique of the West’s actions generally and the US and UK in particular. This was not the post Covid packed House of Commons reception Johnson was hoping for. He looked as isolated there as his country is internationally.

Where does this leave global Britain? Having turned its back on Europe it has been knifed in the front by its staunch US ally. It seems a Democrat or Republican president makes little difference at such crucial moments. Britain is impotent on the world stage and such declining status is hastened by the lack of action from this third-rate government. Good, prominent former Tories like Rory Stewart, an expert on this unfolding crisis, are no longer members of the Conservative Party, and today’s Tories should be ashamed of themselves for this reason alone.

As for poor Afghanistan, abandoned to its Taliban fate by the West, the future looks grim. There is little to add to everything written, except one point only just surfacing. Whilst the frustration of Biden et al at such little ‘nation building’ progress is to some extent understandable, you cannot comprehend their belief that there aren’t sufficient geopolitical strategic interests to stay the course. China and Russia rub their hands with glee with China already eyeing up apparently US$3 trillion of rare earths there to be mined. On top of the Taliban’s control of the opium trade, it all spells further major troubles ahead.

And post Brexit, isolated Britain? Under Johnson, perhaps under any leader now, the Afghan debacle is further proof that this country continues to shrink on the world stage.

This represents a change of mind. I have always been wary of State funding of political parties. It feels too cosy, too unaccountable and may cause further alienation of the public from Westminster. No longer.

The FT and The Sunday Times have just undertaken an admirable investigation into the funding of the Conservative Party. It makes grim reading. Huge donations from a myriad of often obscure businesses require more scrutiny. Suggested links with Russian oligarchs, a ‘Tory Advisory Board’ for those who donate more than £250k, allegations of overly close relationships between property developers and ministers leading to favourable planning decisions, all interwoven with alleged conflicts of interest between the current Tory co-chairman and his business activities do not smell good, particularly when overseen by a Prime Minister who hardly makes financial probity a priority…

Then the Labour Party has its own issues. Struggling to get donations from business, it relies far too unhealthily on trade union funding which represented more than 90% of donations for the 2019 General election. This gives trade unions too much influence. The last blog referenced the importance of the Unite leadership election on the Party’s future direction in part due to it being Labour’s largest donor. It shouldn’t be like this particularly when only a minority of its members vote Labour in the first place. It simply hard wires the inability of the Labour Party to undertake the much-needed reforms required to modernise its offering to voters.

Finally, to the Liberal Democrats. Donations at the last General Election were a fraction of the other two parties (£1.2m for the LibDems versus £19.4m for the Conservatives and £5.4m for Labour). It neither has a firm base of business or trade union support. Tough you might say. It is a small party which has never governed on its own for over 100 years. But its parliamentary presence never reflects its share of votes fairly and many would argue we need to move away from the often-stale Hobson’s choice of the two major parties.

This country needs a better political system than we have currently. It has already been seen as not fit for purpose in managing the pandemic. The quality of politicians is falling and the choice of how we are governed is too limited. Voting reform and a written constitution seem huge hurdles to overcome but perhaps implementing an independent review of party funding is reachable.

There have been attempts to introduce reforms in 2006 and 2011. These involved a cap on individual donations supplemented by more state funding, but unsurprisingly self-interest meant such initiatives went nowhere.

Workable solutions are not complicated. A greater element of state funding which to some extent can replace corrosive uncapped external donations might at least breathe fresh air into our politics. It would, of course, have to be overseen and periodically adjusted in a truly independent way by a standalone body free from party political influence.

Certainly, maintenance of the status quo should no longer be an option. Something has to change and embracing reform would be a relatively easy win and positive for the body politic.

Last weekend was a minor revelation. Attending a BBQ for my Godson’s 18th, conversation amongst the younger guests turned briefly to politics, at their instigation…

Bright and articulate, their views on politics and politicians were excoriating. The LibDems were a ‘dead party’ they said. As for Keir Starmer…., he and the Labour Party stood for nothing, comparing him unfavourably even to Corbyn who ‘at least had convictons’. No Starmer policies could be named, just an irritation with Labour abstaining on Covid related regulations in Parliament rather than having definitive views. Johnson came out the best albeit without the bar being set very high. He at least ‘stood for something’, notably Brexit, and had more character. There was a feeling however that he was probably fairly unfit to be Prime Minister.

Oh dear. I suggested a solution was that they go into politics to raise its standards. You must be joking was the reply. Careers in the civil service, engineering and the armed forces beckoned. Umm…Politics is rapidly becoming a profession that fails to attract the brightest and best.

But turning to the Government’s Opposition, what is the problem with Labour? Having survived the Batley and Spen by-election, Starmer is on a mission to rejuvenate the Labour Party. He has a job on his hands, admittedly made more difficult in a political environment dominated by a pandemic. Last week, he travelled to Blackpool to gain the views of former Labour voters in now Tory held seats. Their response was as bad as the young, soon to be voters, above. Views varied from irritation at opposing Brexit, a focus on Labour’s history of building up debt, failing to turn round run-down areas and simply letting down core voters with a London-centric view of life. Starmer, as a leader, scored poorly.

Under Starmer, Labour recently announced a purging of hard left factions and has been tough with disloyal Corbynites. Moderates may win the leadership of Labour’s largest backer, the trade union Unite, helping his cause. But this is the Party speaking to itself without any resonance with ordinary voters. It is simply a reminder that a new centre-left party is required in the long run.

But, today, if the Labour Party is to make progress against Johnson’s often chaotic Tories, Starmer’s team needs to produce a stream of ideas to get voters thinking. How are public services going to be paid for? What is Labour’s alternative social care plans to be ready when the government announces theirs? How do they rejuvenate inner cities in cooperation with the best of their regional/City mayors? What does life-long learning really mean in practice and how should it be organised and funded? How can we have a better relationship with the EU which makes the casualties of Brexit (including many who voted for it) feel Labour has constructively moved on. Finally, just ignore the culture wars, and start opposing the Government on aspects of managing the pandemic. Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary this morning attacked the ‘pingdemic’ but couldn’t provide an alternative solution. Pathetic.

It may be that Starmer is just too cautious and not political enough. But if he and his Labour Party don’t stand for something and soon, the Tories will romp to victory at the next election however poorly Johnson’s team governs.

The Tories are standing on their heads. Their raison d’etre and bedrock of support was always via an appeal to the wealthier parts of the UK, predominantly the South. They had a very clear offering to the centre-right of the political spectrum; support for institutions, lower taxes, controlled budget deficits, smaller government, mostly constructive nationalism, a United Kingdom, a tough but largely constructive approach to the EU. All with a sub-text that collectively such an approach allowed for a stronger economy to support the less well off.

No longer.

Admittedly, the pandemic has driven much of the recent political agenda, but the Tories have been busy adjusting their political stance ever since Johnson was voted leader and this will continue after the pandemic recedes.

In a successful swing at Labour’s heartlands, the Tories have stood for the opposite of the usual. Anti-EU, this debate was partly framed by giving power to the government to aggressively intervene in the economy, whether it is initiating huge infrastructure projects or propping up ailing industries such as steel (Margaret Thatcher must be turning in her grave). And to hell with Brexit’s overall impact on the economy… They have also been cavalier with the Union, have a new sub-text of spending money like water, pandemic notwithstanding, and tax rises will almost certainly be focused on the better off. They have to date successfully engaged in culture wars that the ‘old’ Tories used to largely and politely side-step, except for the odd red-faced backbencher.

No wonder Labour, even under Keir Starmer, has not been able to lay a glove on them.

Lucky with his Opposition led by Corbyn in 2019, Johnson won in the South through fear and won spectacularly in the Midlands/North through great tactics as Labour’s traditional seats turned blue.

But will this alliance of voters hold? A few straws in the wind, including the by-election defeat in Chesham and Amersham, may make the Tories a little uneasy:

• Attacks on the Green Belt which is upsetting traditional supporters in the South
• Higher taxes in the face of a more moderate Labour Party which may just allow voters in the South to think it is safe to vote elsewhere
• Culture wars going too far. Snide comments from ministers on the Black Lives Matter bending of the knee will strike a note of widespread irritation, particularly now some national footballers are involved, with one openly calling the Home Secretary racist
• Brexit. Whilst done, if not the impact of its longer-term fall-out, not caring about the Union and continuing with initiatives to gently or not so gently undermine institutions generally may start to resonate with voters, particularly in the South
• Scrutiny on general competence as we emerge from the pandemic. This may attract the attention of all voters. It is interesting that in the recent Batley and Spen by-election, if it wasn’t for George Galloway’s divisive campaign aimed at the Asian community, which split the Labour vote, Labour would have won handsomely in this Northern seat
• Then lastly, cuts in foreign aid. The Tories are being attacked from many sides, including by all their living former Prime Ministers, although probably not by their new target base of voters

As this blog has written before, Tory hegemony seems strong, and it is difficult to see anything but a Tory victory at the next election.

However, Labour is under new, moderate if, to date, ineffective leadership and the LibDems came second to the Tories in well over 70 seats mostly in the South. The new Tory ‘Red Wall’ in the North had better hold as some traditional Tory voters may be getting restless and with good cause.

Sometimes it feels that the famous Churchillian phrase about democracy could be applied equally to free markets; ‘democracy is the worst form of government – except for all the others that have been tried.’ It is an analogy that can cross boundaries to economics!

Western capitalism as we know it is under threat. The disparities of wealth in many countries have grown; injudicious tax cuts in the US for the better off, global asset price inflation due to quantitative easing, elements of corruption and elitism, now the pandemic. The list is long. Much of it has fuelled populism which, of course, is a poor solution to inequality. Just think Trump, Bolsonaro and Modi for a start. They may not intentionally have set out to undermine capitalism/free markets but their sense of entitlement, acceptance of corrupt practices, particularly when supporters are involved, and a disastrous handling of the pandemic have all contributed to greater inequalities and capitalism’s malaise.

So, it is a huge relief and very welcome that the world’s leading economies yesterday signed up to a plan to force multinational companies to pay a global minimum corporate tax rate of at least 15 per cent. It is a recognition that things have to change. Many multinationals, notably technology companies, have reached a size where they face little competition and accountability, moving money around the globe to dodge legitimate taxation. No longer. A fair treatment of companies, large and small, global and local is crucial to the survival of Western capitalism. The ‘little person’ should have an equal voice and this initiative could raise at least an extra $100bn in taxation potentially for public investment. No mean feat.

Future initiatives to strengthen capitalism should involve more active corporate governance to curb senior executive pay. For example, according to the latest Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) report on executive remuneration, the average FTSE 100 Chief Executive gets 119x the remuneration of the average full-time employee. This multiple has risen pretty much consistently over the years and apparently there is no tangible evidence as we emerge from the pandemic that companies have begun to address the fundamental flaws in the executive pay-setting process.

Incredibly, one might not even be averse to considering some form of wealth tax which seems the only solution to dealing with the inequality of wealth caused by excessive asset price inflation since the 2008 crash and the advent of quantitative easing.

The world faces multiple crises as it tries to escape the pandemic. In the West, in particular, there are huge challenges facing economies including infrastructure investment, lifetime education to reskill the workforce and access to comprehensive health and social care. Populism and threats to democracy will only be defeated in the longer term if disparities of wealth are narrowed to pay for much needed improvements in how society operates.

Agreeing a global minimum corporate tax rate, whilst seeming a little dry to grab many headlines, is a huge step forward for capitalism and another visible benefit of President Biden’s victory over Trump. There is still much work to do, however, to convince all voters that Churchill’s comments on democracy apply equally to free markets as we know them.

A week after a by-election hammering, it may seem odd to talk about Tory electoral dominance but there it is. Chesham and Amersham was not a game changer whatever many pundits may say. And neither will the Batley and Spen by-election be unless Labour lose it which will only confirm Tory hegemony anyway.

The Tories dominate the North and dominate the South. They can upset/please one constituency of voters or the other, or perhaps none or both but what a choice! Labour are nowhere and whilst congratulations are due to the LibDems for last week’s shock win, they currently remain a home mainly for protest votes. Ever thus…

The next General Election is for the Tories to lose and with an abundance of electoral riches, they must resolve some dilemmas. But there have been harder choices in British politics…

In the North, the Government must spend, spend, spend, and build, build, build. In the South, it should save, save, save, and protect, protect, protect. What to do?

Major infrastructure projects are set to continue and there will be further moves to centre government on the North. For the South, planning reforms will be watered down to protect the Green Belt. It is not logical to encourage building in areas most people want to live in anyway when trying to ‘level up’ with the North at the same time.

And on the economy, whilst it is clearly time to save, it can be at the expense of the better off, usually older voters. Interestingly, after a trip to the North, even there you could detect nervousness in conversations about how spending can’t continue at the current rate, and who will pay for the Covid bills. Raising taxes and cuts to pension contribution tax reliefs will hardly cause howls of protest anywhere. This is where the Tories have plenty of room for manoeuvre. Particularly as Labour and the LibDems are hardly going to outflank them on tax to win over Tory core voters in the South.

There are some slightly ominous straws in the wind; the damage from the Brexit deal and deteriorating relations with the EU are mounting. Boris Johnson is also not as electorally invulnerable as people thought amid growing concerns about what today’s Tories really stand for.

But that is for another day. The Tories have fewer difficult dilemmas than one imagines and, presently, however frustrating for some, they appear to be able to have their electoral cake and eat it.