CSM EDITORIAL
The Squires chose to ‘do a Cummings’ this week and, out of a deep sense of public service, visited a series of public houses to survey public opinion. (Conveniently for the Deputy Editor, this exercise amounted to working from home).
Today, Chancellor Rachel Reeves will claim that the Sunak government left no money and an economy on the brink, telling Parliament that the Conservatives handed over a £20bn black hole in the public finances, including making ‘significant funding commitments’ this year with no plan for how they would be paid. The previous Chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, has already dismissed Reeves’ claims, and the Mail has labelled her comments as either dishonest or incompetent, arguing that any capable shadow chancellor would have been aware of the numbers over recent months and years.
So, what do the people in the pubs think?
(What follows is a series of unvarnished, verbatim responses, so please look away now if you happen to be wet or squeamish aka a Liberal Democrat).
In short, few believe Reeves. More than one commented on how boxing in the urinal in the Chancellor’s bathroom was a premature move. To be frank, there seemed to be more interest in whether Reeves would produce one of those infamously overlooked Labour todgers than in what guff she’d announce in Parliament. It is taken as read that there will be tax rises over the coming years, as ‘that’s what you get when a Labour government gets in,’ and generally, ‘sooner rather than later they get voted out.’ ‘She is a droid,’ declared one punter downing snakebites, ‘and whatever lies she comes up with she has been programmed to say.’ Reeves will squeeze the rich, allocate hard-earned tax revenues to wasteful net zero policies, fund yet more quangos for friends of Labour, and leave less than nothing for the next government when people realise that ‘this lot’ are far worse than ‘the last lot.’ ‘Apparently Reeves is a chess player, but what Number 11 needs is a boxer,’ one thoughtful old dear remarked while downing a double vodka.
To summarise, Reeves is seen as Starmer’s ‘plastic chancellor’ – the chancellor who openly juggles British finances on a credit card that she knows, like all ‘terminal’ politicians, she will not survive long enough to settle in the future.
Not many people had a kind word to say about Reeves, but then again, not many had a kind word to say about the political class in general. Welcome, new intake – you are the crockery to replace the previous smashed lot at one of those smash-the-crockery stands one finds at country fêtes.
Changing the subject to avoid prematurely maddening our newfound drinking partners or facing a pub ban, the Squires took a sneaky straw poll on the next Tory leader, and there were some useful titbits that will likely be censored by CCHQ but should perhaps be taken seriously by those holding the party reins.
In one London watering hole, which resembles the party more than almost all others, this patchwork quote summarises the general mood of members:
‘No more diversity hires. Sunak was a disaster while Braverman and Badenoch are divisive and too outspoken. We want a white, straight male now that Penny has lost her seat. Someone who does what they say on the tin. We are angry as hell that the Tories were so splintered and backbiting and so unconservative. There are far too many gays in the party set-up. Someone needs to come in, bring back hierarchy and order, or the Tories will just evaporate. Anyone who was a core player in previous governments, like Patel or Hunt, is out of the question. Starmer hiring ministers from outside of the Commons is a clever move.’
So, that would leave Jenrick, Tugendhat, and Mel Stride.
The latter was described as ‘Churchillian’ and a ‘uniter’ by one fellow, who happened to come from Stride’s Devon constituency. Still, Stride was the least popular of the three white men, with Tugendhat coming across as dull and Starmer-like, while Jenrick was called ‘underwhelming’ by many and as ‘having a nasty streak’ by others but still seemed to win the pub poll by a country mile. Many thought that whoever was chosen would be the equivalent of a William Hague and not become Prime Minister in 2029.
One recurring comment concerned CCHQ’s ‘appalling recruitment processes’ and how the party had ‘attracted dross’ over recent years. ‘Go woke, go broke’ came up a few times, as did ‘a need to return to Thatcherite conservatism now the country, Europe and the USA are all heading rightwards.’
Some attributed the recruitment aberration to ‘the bright boys and gals choosing to work in the City,’ while others were angry that the likes of Rupert Lowe, who personifies many mainstream Tories, could only get a seat in Parliament via a new party, Reform. Clearly, a CCHQ rebuild would have to occur, openly and quickly, as the current party machinery was no longer ‘fit for purpose’ or ‘reflecting realities on the ground.’ ‘Make sure that all MPs have at least a decade working in the real world in proper jobs, not as SPADs or in think tanks,’ one sound fellow in a pub in the Surrey Hills remarked.
Did the punters think Keir Starmer would try to turn around Brexit? This question was met with a glare in the Southwest where the Editor was drinking for the second part of his crawl survey. ‘If that happens, bring back Cromwell,’ was one retort. Another fellow just bared his knuckles. ‘They are deluded but not that deluded,’ another drinker declared, referring to ‘pitchforks’ and ‘cocktails’ (of the Molotov variety) should Starmer dare bring back the 2019 shitshow of denying democracy.
Last word to Kelvin in the William IV pub in Truro: ‘You know what’s the difference between an MP and a snail, mate? One is slimy, a pest, and leaves a trail everywhere. The other is a snail.’
Ah, to be an MP after recent calamities…
*Someone please let the Deputy Editor know that the survey is now over and that a fresh week has begun. Last seen on Great Windmill Street looking like a dishevelled Quentin Crisp tribute act, with a Negroni still in hand, humping a bollard, and getting snapped by a gaggle of Japanese tourists.