Time to make your mind up
Where I’m at when it comes to casting my vote on July 4, plus the betting scandal explained.
There is just one week to go until the general election and barring any kind of bizarre turn of events (and to be honest it’s not beyond the realms of possibility given how crazy this campaign has been) Sir Keir Starmer will be prime minister next Friday.
This election result has been a foregone conclusion since 2022, when Liz Truss had a calamitous 50 days as PM, coming in the wake of the Partygate and Chris Pincher scandals that wrecked Boris Johnson’s tenure. The soggy election announcement, betting scandal and D-Day snub were just the final nails in the coffin.
Assuming all goes as the polls suggest, Starmer will be driven to Buckingham Palace, news helicopters chasing aerial shots as he goes, to meet with King Charles where the monarch will give permission for him to form a government.
After a round of photographs outside the big black door, it will be on to the business of running the country. Americans may find the rapidity of the turnaround surprising - in the US the outgoing president gets a few weeks to pack up and leave the White House. In the UK, the removal vans arrive to evict the ousted PM from Number 10 almost immediately.
His first moves are obvious - he will axe the Rwanda scheme, likely put a call in to a few world leaders (Joe Biden first?) and set to work on putting his manifesto into action. That includes imposing VAT on private schools fees “straight away” (although he will need time to get this through Parliament) and launching a new border security task force to tackle illegal small boat crossings.
What comes once he’s settled at Number 10 is less clear. The Conservatives’ tactic in this election has been to make people not necessarily like them again, but to be worried enough about the prospect of a Labour government.
They have warned that the far-left elements of Starmer’s party are dormant now, but will run riot if Starmer wins a “super-majority”.
The reality is that a “super-majority” is irrelevant in UK politics, only a majority is required to get legislation through Parliament. It’s relevant in the sense that it would be harder to beat a “super-majority” at the next election, but of course not impossible given this election is expected to see a historic swing away from the Conservatives.
Starmer’s buzzword during this election campaign has been “change”. He promises the Labour Party has undergone a transformation in the wake of Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership.
However Starmer remains elusive on certain issues. Take the gender debate, which has been hitting the headlines this week after author JK Rowling wrote that Labour had “abandoned” women who are concerned about transgender rights.
She accused Starmer of being “dismissive and often offensive” in his approach to feminist concerns. One of his own Labour candidates, Rosie Duffield, has made similar accusations.
In the past Starmer has said it is wrong to suggest only women have a cervix.
This month he appears to have changed his views, and has said that men have a penis and women have a vagina. The party has vowed to protect single sex spaces. But that appears to be contradicted by shadow education secretary Bridge Phillipson, who this week said trans women, who have not undergone reassignment surgery but do have a gender recognition certificate, would use a female toilet.
And so it is still quite hard to picture exactly how Labour plans to handle this and other issues.
On tax, I would not be surprised if a “things are worse than the Conservatives led us to believe” signal went up within a few weeks, leading to some difficult decisions on taxes. They have ruled out income tax, National Insurance and VAT for tax increase, but could collect in other ways. We simply do not know what they would do if the Labour plans for growth aren’t as simple as they hope.
I know that many of you are undecided on how to vote.
It may be useful for you to know that I too am struggling with how to vote in this election, more so than I ever have.
I will absolutely exercise my right to vote, but I have issues, of varying degrees of severity, with all of the parties standing in my constituency. I am left wondering whether to cast a vote based on the party I find most tolerable, the one I want to win or the one I would least like to win. I won’t tell you the specifics of where I am at. I will not endorse a specific political party. That’s not what my account on Instagram or this Substack have ever been about. They are about giving you solid information and facts, highlighting the sometimes hilarious aspects of media coverage and hopefully leaving you better informed.
There’s a week left for you to make up your mind. I plan to vote not only based on the party whose manifesto I feel is as close to good enough as possible on the issues that matter to me, but also the actions of all parties over the last five+ years. These manifestos tell us a little of their story, but not all of it. Much of voting is about taking a leap of faith, because no one can see the events and challenges that may present themselves over the next five years.
In the end, all we can do is try to pick the party our brain, heart and gut tells us may have the best chance of pulling us through whatever we may face.
A reminder that if you are stuck on what party to choose then my summary of the manifestos may be useful (I realise this guide doesn’t include every single party - remember that all parties have published their manifestos online so for SNP, Plaid Cymru etc go check them out on their websites).
The News List is your weekly briefing the week’s biggest stories. My writing here and on Instagram is entirely reader-supported and I am so grateful to each and every one of you for supporting my work. If you can upgrade to paid then it helps keep my journalism going.
BBC debate verdict
Last night’s BBC debate was Rishi Sunak and Sir Keir Starmer’s last chances to convince the electorate they are the man for the job.
Sunak is the underdog in this race, and that feeling of having nothing left to lose is perhaps why his performance was so punchy.
He frequently interrupted Starmer and the BBC’s Mishal Husain.
That may not play well with many in the electorate, but a YouGov snap poll put the two leaders each at 50% when people were asked who performed best. Given how low his approval rating has been, that can be considered a victory for Sunak.
I think this was the most productive of the TV debates we have seen, despite the combative nature of Sunak here.
We were still subjected to the same old lines: change, 14 years of Conservative rule, higher taxes, secure our borders, a tax on pensions, fully funded, my father was a toolmaker, etc.
But we got to see more of what these two are about and I think they were both challenged on a couple of key issues far more than they have been previously. That perhaps gives us more of a glimpse at the truth, not so much in terms of specifics, but in terms of what they are not telling us in their manifestos.
The most lively exchange was on illegal migration and small boats. Starmer was challenged on whether he would return arrivals or process them and allow them to stay. Sunak was challenged on whether he could deport every illegal arrival, with Starmer saying it would take 300 years to fly them all out on planes to Rwanda.
Taxes were also a fiery topic. Starmer was clearly furious when Sunak again referenced the £2,000 tax rise under Labour claim, saying the PM had been told not to repeat it.
On pensions the Conservatives have promised a triple lock plus, that protects the state pension from being taxed. Sunak attacked Starmer for not making the same promise, saying pensioners would pay tax for the first time under a Labour government. This is true, although many pensioners already pay tax if their total income exceeds the personal allowance.
When Starmer challenged Sunak on his support for Boris Johnson, Husain pointed out that Starmer had done the same for Corbyn.
The most brutal question of the night was: "Are you two really the best we've got to be the next prime minister of our great country?"
After the debate was over, Robert, who asked the question, told the BBC he was still unconvinced.
I think the question was reflective of the feeling of disenchantment with politics around the country. But it was an unproductive question - both parties and candidates have flaws, of course. Sunak dithers over enforcement and makes horrendous own goal decisions (D-Day being one). Starmer is a bit dull, even if he is a Swiftie, and his election slogan “Change” is certainly appropriate, because he’s changed his mind a lot.
The question was never going to reveal anything particularly interesting and time perhaps would have been better spent on another topic.
Sunak fought for his political life in this debate. He won’t win this election. The question is how badly he will lose it, and whether this performance was enough to bring some Conservative voters back into the fold.
Want a fact check of the claims in the debate? See this from Full Fact.
Betting saga explained
What’s happened? The Gambling Commission is investigating bets placed on the general election date. Several Conservative candidates and officials, a Labour candidate, Rishi Sunak’s close protection officer and five other Met officers are being looked at as part of the probe.
What next? Labour suspended its candidate for Central Suffolk and Norwich, Kevin Craig, and returned a £100,000 donation after it emerged he bet against himself winning. The Conservatives have withdrawn support for two candidates, Laura Saunders and Craig Williams. Russell George, a Welsh Conservative, said he placed two unsuccessful bets in March for a May or June election. Then he bet on a July to September election in April. He says he had no knowledge of the day Sunak would call the election. Yesterday it was revealed Tory Sir Philip Davies is said to have wagered £8,000 on himself not winning his Shipley constituency. There is no suggestion he has broken the law.
Why is it important? Placing a bet on when the election would be or whether an individual may win their seat isn’t in itself a problem for an MP or adviser to do, although it looks ill-advised. We all knew it was coming in 2024, we just didn’t know exactly when. What’s unethical, and corrupt, is whether members of the PM’s inner circle who knew it was coming then sought to profit from that insider knowledge. Those who may have placed a bet without that prior knowledge will be tarred with the same angry brush as people who had an actual inside scoop on the date, but we should keep the varying degrees of wrongdoing in perspective here.
Has a crime been committed? The Gambling Act 2005 makes it an offence for an individual to cheat when gambling. Penalties involve jail terms of up to two years and/or a fine. Cheating can constitute inside information or an unfair advantage. The Metropolitan Police is to take over “a small number” of investigations into the scandal, raising the possibility of political figures facing charges of misconduct in public office.
Can politicians gamble on politics? Betting among Westminster politicians and advisers is not uncommon. Ed Davey, the Lib Dem leader, says he bet on the outcome of the 2010 election. Wes Streeting says he has also gambled on political outcomes. Some are calling for betting to be banned for politicians, although critics say that would be tricky to enforce.
What’s the problem for Sunak? The PM claims to have acted decisively but the truth is he has dithered over the scandal, taking two weeks to act. He initially said he wouldn’t kick anyone out of the party until after the Gambling Commission completed its work. Then he reneged on that and kicked them out. He has condemned anyone who did seek to profit from a bet on the election date, but he looks like he’s taken the slow lane again. And yet another sleaze scandal on his watch is the last thing he needed during the election race.
What don’t we know? We do not know whether the individuals named in the press were doing something stupid or doing something corrupt and potentially illegal. We also do not know just how many more people may be revealed to have placed a bet on the election. Remember, some may well have placed a bet for a bit of fun, rather than because they knew the actual outcome. What’s key here is who knew what and when. Which of the people who placed those bets on July 4 being the date Britain goes to the polls did so knowing with certainty that they would win?
Also in the news
Reform UK’s Nigel Farage says he would cut off funding to the French if they continue to escort small boats carrying migrants across the Channel. He also said any migrants who arrive in British waters should be escorted back to France by the Royal Marines.
Former Olympic rower and Conservative candidate James Cracknell has called the Tories a “shower of shit”. In a video posted to Facebook, he said: “Two weeks out from the Olympics, if we are competing against the Conservative party my teammates and I would be saying they are a shower of shit.”
In the best vox pop of voters in the entire campaign, the Guardian spoke to a voter who had decided he couldn’t support Labour. When asked why, he said it was because of a tax on condoms. It transpired he had misinterpreted the plan to tax people with non-dom status.
Rishi Sunak said actor David Tennant “is the problem” after the Doctor Who star said he wished equalities minister Kemi Badenoch would “shut up”. Tennant also said he wished Badenoch “did not exist any more” because of her views on women’s rights. Badenoch, who has said she wants to defend single sex spaces, accused him of being a “rich, lefty, white male celebrity” who had attacked her even though she was the only black woman in government. Tennant’s remarks were supported by Labour candidate Dawn Butler in a social media post on X, which has drawn criticism from the Tories. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer said there should be “respectful” debate on the issue of gender.
A Labour Party member has been identified as the man arrested over the Westminster honeytrap scandal. The man, who is in his mid-20s, has been suspended by Labour. The member is believed to have been active within the party and has been pictured helping several candidates on the campaign trail. In April, it was revealed that dozens of men, including MPs, had received messages from someone calling themselves Charlie or Abi.
Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has landed in Australia a free man after a legal battle lasting nearly 14 years. Assange reached a plea deal with the US that saw him admit one charge under the Espionage Act. He had spent five years in Belmarsh Prison in the UK, having previously sought asylum at the Ecuadorean embassy in London from 2012 to 2019. He initially did so in order to avoid extradition to Sweden after sex assault allegations, which have since been dropped. His supporters say his actions in revealing leaked US military documents have exposed corruption, while his critics say he released information without thought regarding the consequences.
A security guard plotted to break into Holly Willoughby's family home and knock her out with chloroform so he could kidnap, rape and murder her, a court has heard. Gavin Plumb, 37, allegedly hatched the "graphic" and "sexually motivated" plans over more than two years as he tried to recruit accomplices online. Plumb, from Harlow, Essex, disclosed his plans to an undercover US police officer, who alerted the authorities in the UK. He denies charges of soliciting murder, incitement to kidnap and incitement to rape. Willoughby has waived her automatic right to anonymity, which all alleged victims of sexual offences or related charges are entitled to. As a result the trial is receiving widespread coverage, which it would not have done were journalists unable to report anything that may lead to Willoughby’s identity.
Former nurse Lucy Letby has denied tampering with a premature baby’s breathing tube twice to cover her tracks after a court heard she had been “caught cold” attempting to murder the infant. Letby, 34, was convicted last year of murdering seven babies and attempting to kill six others on the neonatal unit of the Countess of Chester hospital in north-west England. She is on trial accused of attempting to kill another infant, known as Baby K, by displacing her endotracheal tube less than two hours after she was born in 2016. Letby denies the charge.
The search continues for missing British teenager Jay Slater, who vanished while holidaying with friends in Tenerife. As we’ve seen in other recent missing persons cases, social media is flooded with speculation about Jay’s whereabouts and personal life. TikTok detectives along with actual detective-turned-documentary-maker Mark Williams-Thomas have descended on Tenerife, much as they did when Nicola Bulley vanished while walking her dog in Lancashire last year. Jay’s mother Debbie Duncan has described the speculation as “horrible”. There are fears online conspiracy theories may hamper the investigation as they contribute to the “noise” around the case.
Comedian John Oliver’s tirade about the Conservative party in his Last Week Tonight show was not broadcast on UK TV as usual this week. Strict impartiality rules around broadcasting during the election prevent Sky from airing the US show, but it is available to stream online, where video-on-demand content is not as tightly regulated.
What I’m Watching
The End We Start From (Netflix). The apocalypse has never been so dull. The best thing about this movie is Jodie Comer, and her performance is reason enough to watch it. She plays a new mother struggling to survive after a natural disaster causes mass flooding, panic and food shortages. There are flashes of great tension and drama, but it just kept falling flat with me, with the peril and human suffering of such a shattering event hinted at but not fully explored. This is no big budget disaster movie - it’s kept simple and focuses very much on the individual human experiences of a world-changing event.