Yes, I think this was why he was a bit unlucky. Politics was dominated for much of his tenure by something he was ambivalent about but just couldn’t escape.

Another irony that occurs to me - Corbyn has been Labour leader since September 2015. One could make a strong case that, in that time, Johnson has done a lot more to thwart the ambitions of Conservative Prime Ministers than Corbyn.

Yes Johnson basically did for both Cameron and May.

But also Corbyn must have a private chuckle at the way the terms of debate have shifted since he's been Labour leader.

Just think back in 2015 when Corbyn came in if you could have a crystal ball and said this is what the government will be doing in 2020:

- Raising the minimum wage by 6.2% despite business groups condemning it as a crazy rise in the current unstable economic climate

- Promising to use taxpayers' money to subsidise ailing manufacturing industries

- Talking about a huge swathe of public investment to reinvigorate the north

- Stripping Northern Rail of their franchise and putting the government on standby to take the line back into public ownership

- Using price-capping in energy markets

....what would the Tories have been saying? They would have seen this as the kind of apocalyptic vision of what a Corbyn-led government would inflict on the UK and destroy the economy.

Now I bet Sal Paradise will be able to make a good argument in favour of each one of those. In 2015....not so sure. He'll have been on an ideological journey like the rest of the Tories and ended up in some spaces that Corbyn has occupied for a long time.

What's really been killed off dramatically in a short space of time, by both Johnson and Corbyn, is the 'Cameron agenda' of small-state, free-market austerity-focused economics mixed with Blairite social liberalism. Given Cameron wasn't going to run again in 2020, I think 2019 was supposed to be the year he handed over to his heir Osborne to carry the torch in to the 2020s.

I disagree I think it is simply of the mind is mightier than the sword - a contributory reason as to why these people are so successful is their intelligence being out thought by a faster more precise mind is the one thing that is difficult to counter. They are very good at networking but first and foremost it is the mental agility that gives these people an edge. This comes across as arrogant because most simply cannot keep up - I see it even on this board. They are the SAS of young talent in this country - they are not the only source of talent - my son went to Durham and there are some clever people there but there is a distinct gap between Oxbridge and the rest.

Cummins' views on the civil service make a lot of sense - too many generalists - too wishy/washy - very too arrogant. Kerslake was on Today this morning - his it can change but it takes decades is the root of the problem its jobs for the boys!!

Corbyn/McDonald - were so far off the mark intellectually and it showed - McDonald invited John Cauldwell to discuss Labour's policies and he was so far off the mark it was embarrassing - Caudwell was three steps ahead of him all the time. McDonald spent all his time thinking about what he could and couldn't say he sounded ponderous and incoherent most of the time - simply not joined up.

Some really good points - I agree I would not have envisaged such a move to the left for the Tories. I would not have expected Hammond to be as mean as he was for as long as he did - this has forced the Tories in to catch up mode.

I never thought we would get a vote on Brexit never mind an actual leave majority - Brexit has strangled parliament for years - another reason for this catch up

Osborne was talking about increased investment in the north in 2014 - so this move is nothing new and something that is much needed - there are some big cities outside of London and the Tories know London is Labour territory and if they want to stay in power then they need to hold on to seats they won. Not even you would have predicted in 2015 what has happened to the Labour heartlands in 2019.

Boris knows something has to be done about wealth re-distribution so I expected that and I expect the same for the next two years - warming people up for the next election 2023. Its painful for business - £100k approx. annual impact - on my business. Its not the people on living wage its the domino effect on everyone else. I have two choices - pass it on or swallow it - the latter is most likely so the question for the government is does the reduction in welfare benefits offset the reduction in CT?

Chill out brother.


I detest the mindset of grubs like IR80 and Sal more than you could ever imagine.

Must be on the right track if my thoughts are the polar opposite of yours

Just out of curiosity, are you suggesting that I (for example) find Boris Johnson (for example) arrogant because I can’t keep up with the agility and precision of his thinking? This could be a rich seam of trolling for you.



Does your intellectual-SAS metaphor apply to all Oxbridge graduates or just the Bullingdon-types? If the former, I have some friends who I think will rather enjoy it on a couple of levels. Or maybe more than a couple, as they’re no doubt thinking in more dimensions than me.

No and also wouldn't have predicted in 2010 what would have happened in Scotland from 2015 onwards. In both cases there was a game changer in terms of a referendum.

But also when you look at politics over time, you see how unpredictable it is and how foolish many of the prevailing political predictions are:

1992 - "If Labour can't win now they can NEVER win"

Major wins against the odds after the Tories had already been in power 13 years, coming off the debacle of the Poll Tax, a recession and with many of the 1980s homebuyers stuck in negative equity. The general take was that Labour couldn't win in those conditions, their only hope was an alliance with the Lib Dems to try and get a coalition in 1997 and establish proportional representation.

Result: Within 3 years it became clear that Labour were on course for an enormous landslide.

2003 - "The Conservative party is dead"

Everyone talks about how bad this Labour defeat in 2019 was - 202 seats, lowest since before the war, worse than 1983. The Conservatives went sub-200 seats for three consecutive elections, 1997, 2001 and 2005!

Blair at this time - before the lies of Iraq had really sunk in - was unusually successful as a PM, at least in political terms. Even Thatcher went through periods of deep unpopularity between her election wins. Blair had sky high satisfaction ratings, Labour had huge leads in the polls for basically 10 straight years from when he took over as leader. The business community was pro-Blair, the tabloids were pro-Blair, the Tories really had nowhere to go. This was the time when we had Ian Duncan Smith saying "the quiet man is turning up the volume" and all that crap. He got deposed as leader and out of desperation the party went to Michael Howard - who epitomised the 'nasty Tory' image the 'modernisers' said they had to shed, but at least seemed like he could be credible across the despatch box against Blair. But at this point it looked like the Tories' demise was terminal.

Result: 2004 was when it started to turn against Blair. Trouble over tuition fees and the exposure of the reality of Iraq took away his golden sheen with the public, and he was weakened in his party by the growing rise of Brown and the factionalism and briefing against him from Brownite Ministers. The Conservatives went through their 'rebrand' under Cameron but when Brown took over it seemed like he'd rejuvenated Labour for a while like Major did for the Tories and there were some rumours of discontent with Cameron, until the financial crisis hit and finished Brown.


2010 - "Cleggmania - end of the two-party monopoly"

After the first ever leaders' debate, the Lib Dems shot to the top of the polls for the first time since the brief SDP-Liberal Alliance lead in the early 80s. But this was about 2 weeks out from an election! Although the Clegg bounce had dipped a bit before polling day, there was talk of the Lib Dems pushing 100 seats and rewriting the two-party system

Result: The Lib Dems actually lost seats compared to 2005, they propped up the Tories in an unhappy coalition and got butchered in 2010 and have never really recovered.

2017 - "Theresa May's coronation":

When the Conservatives swept the board in the local elections (during the 2017 General Election campaign) people were forecasting a 200 seat majority for Theresa May.

Result: The Conservatives lost their majority and had to get the DUP to prop them up, which later checkmated her over the Ireland issue in Brexit. If she'd got her big majority, she'd have been completely in her element - running government in a dominant, authoritarian fashion through her Spads Nick Timothy and Fiona Hill. Up to 2017 people were making comparisons with the 'Iron Lady' and I think those would have carried on if she'd had her expected majority. The result meant you needed someone with skills as a compromiser, which she was unsuited to - but then Thatcher would have also been unsuited to that role as well.
Although the general narrative is that May had a disastrous manifesto and fought a terrible campaign, she boosted the Tories' share of the vote by nearly 6 percentage points compared to Cameron, and got a similar share to what Johnson did in 2019. What really did for May was an unexpected surge for Corbyn's Labour.

later in 2017 - "Jeremy Corbyn will be the next Prime Minister":

With May weakened, JC enjoyed a golden period, being hailed at Glastonbury, huge crowds turning out to see him and chanting Oh Jeremy Corbyn. His internal dissenters in Labour went quiet for a while, stunned by the 2017 result. Labour were ahead in the polls and it looked like Brexit would scupper the Conservatives and open the door to JC in 2022.

Result: Two things really screwed Corbyn. His inability to deal with antisemitism, and his prevarication on Brexit. The first exposed a lot of nasty things within the Labour party, and made him toxic to a lot of the liberal-minded centre left, who decided they couldn't vote Labour again while he was leader. The second separated him from his big youth base, who switched towards campaigning for a second referendum instead of turning up to his Oh Jeremy Corbyn rallies. In the end, Corbyn led Labour to the kind of defeat in 2019, that most people predicted would happen in 2020, when Corbyn first took over the leadership in 2015!

I think the confidence that some Oxbridge graduates have is seen by some as arrogance - Boris is anything but arrogant - arrogant to me are people like Ash Sakar/Grace Blakely/Tony Blair/Alistair Campbell who think they know better than the rest of us. It is a problem with the educated left - they have non-jobs and they try and ram down your throat their superiority. Boris is nothing like that. There is something about these young Oxbridge types that riles you - only you know what that is?

The SAS metaphor applies to Oxbridge graduates i.e. they are the elite of the elite - these two universities are seen by many as amongst the finest educational institutions in the world - they attract the very best. We might mock but the truth is they turn out a high percentage of well educated, well rounded and very talented individuals with a confidence that goes with it.

The world is an ever changing place - anyone who thinks the Tories will be in for 10 is not looking at past history. Boris has to deliver if he doesn't he wont last - as you have shown in the above.

It is an interesting thought that Corbyn has shifted the Overton window.

Perhaps we’ll end up with a fourth way of leftist economic policy and social conservatism. There’s a Godwin’s Law trigger!

I’m unsure which way Johnson will jump as we partially emerge from the political morass of Brexit. To be fair, I imagine he is too. Will it be a Cummings-inspired agenda (challenging because it is radical), will he lean towards the tooth and claw Thatcherite deregulatory capitalism and conservatism of the ERG, Raab and Patel (would require a lot of media lube), or will he try to be more of a traditional Tory Patrician ‘Brexity Heseltine’ PM (despite his cull of what would then be his natural parliamentary base)?

Corbyn has definitely shifted the dial - the idea that it is everyman for himself is dead - I wouldn't be surprised to see a rise in income tax and a lowering of VAT before the end of this Tory government. This way the poor really benefit, they will be out of the tax system and the goods they buy will be cheaper - win win wealth redistribution

You do know that Blair and Campbell went to Oxford and Cambridge, respectively? Blakely went to Oxford, as well.

What saddens me about ‘young’ Oxbridge types like Johnson and Cameron, who are both about a decade older than me, is that they’ve somehow convinced people like you that they are better than you.

Every so often we agree.

Nope, they never said it, how is LORD Prescott, Mrs and Mrs Kinnock, cuckoo Scargill, Paddy Pantsdown?

you hail them, and they where no different.

When it comes to politics, you bring a water balloon to a gun fight.

Completely against the thinking of the Thatcher-Howe-Lawson reforms of the 1980s. They believed that 'pay as you spend' was more fair than 'pay as you earn'. Those who work hard should keep more of their income; those who consume more should be the ones who pay more.

Have you quoted the wrong post? Because, otherwise, i think you have brought a jar of ashphalt to a fondue party.

Who never said what?

For the hailing, do you mean me individually, or entities like me of whom you see me as being representative? Y’know i’m a bot sent back in time by an [iin silico[/i construct of Greta Thunberg’s consciousness, yeah?

wow, you have taken 84t541t lunacy to a new level.

meamwhile I am sure Jeremy has an invite to pay his condolansces...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50986185

meamwhile I am sure Jeremy has an invite to pay his condolansces...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50986185

You started it!

Quote ="IR80"meamwhile I am sure Jeremy has an invite to pay his condolansces...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50986185'" What are you talking about even the Americans are questioning the validity of his actions. The problem is that just saying we had information with Trump, who does not have a track record of telling the truth. He even said that Soleimani was responsible for millions of deaths. He did not even have the decency to tell his mate Johnson what he was going to do and we have troops out there. This is the same President who threw the Kurds to the Turkish government despite their losses in fighting with the Americans.

Quote ="IR80"meamwhile I am sure Jeremy has an invite to pay his condolansces...https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-50986185'" What are you talking about even the Americans are questioning the validity of his actions. The problem is that just saying we had information with Trump, who does not have a track record of telling the truth. He even said that Soleimani was responsible for millions of deaths. He did not even have the decency to tell his mate Johnson what he was going to do and we have troops out there. This is the same President who threw the Kurds to the Turkish government despite their losses in fighting with the Americans.

I never said they were better than me - I said they are better educated, more intelligent and more confident - my kids are far better educated than I am - they all went to university I didn't. One thing I do have is I have never worked for anybody else I plough my own furrow - I live and die by the decision I make and I like it that way just fine.

I do, which shows that arrogance has nothing to do being from the Bullingdon set - quite the opposite - perhaps we are getting to the root your dislike for these types.

That they were part of the Bullingdon set? Aye, I got to the bottom of that a while ago, and thought i’d left some pretty obvious clues.

While arrogance isn’t unique to members of the Bullingdon club, it’s a big leap to them being unrelated.

I agree with the chap who described it as ‘shameful’ and an example of ‘arrogance’. Although, of course, he is not renowned for his authenticity or honesty anymore than he is for his decency or humility in later life.

Arrogance is an interesting trait, I think, in that it can come from opposite ends of the confidence spectrum. Cameron’s is the natural arrogance of the privileged insider, who has never needed to question the order of things. Johnson’s is defensive, built as protective shell. The extremity of his adopted establishment Englishness is a shield and reaction against his status as a relative outsider. One of the great mysteries is the extent to which the original person still exists and has control within the created persona. It’s performance art at its most extreme, in a way, but with real-world consequences now. Is there something compelling and relatable about it, in a way that there isn’t for Cameron or Blair? Or is it repellently empty?

I have no problem with elite academic institutions, they should be encouraged and given proper funding by government. The fact that the UK has some of the best academic institutions in the world is one thing we should be building on and tapping in to their expertise.

However, there is a massive difference between being intelligent and being an expert in a field. Having an undergraduate degree from Oxbridge is a marker of intelligence but not expertise. To get one you need to be bright enough to get straight As at A-level, then cope with a system of tutorials and one essay/assignment per week, per subject (instead of one per term at other places) which is then picked apart by an academic. Then at the end there's an assessment system heavily weighted towards final exams so you'd need to be good at revising huge volumes of material and performing in an intense window of exams. Anyone who comes out of Oxbridge with a good standard degree has to have a high-functioning intellect, be able to cope under pressure, and be able to defend their ideas to an expert in a debate. So employers use an Oxbridge degree as a signal of being the kind of person suited to the demands of training to be a lawyer or working in investment banking etc.

BUT....having an undergraduate degree, even from Oxbridge, is no where near being an expert on a subject. Their curriculum might cover greater breadth than other places but still, an undergrad degree just scratches the surface of any field. People who go on to Masters degrees, PhDs, publish research, face a brutal world of knock-backs in peer review that gives them a humility that they realise just how vast their subject is and how little even the best professors know about it.

There's a problem regarding Oxbridge grads which I think is specific to government/public policy. Typically an Oxbridge grad has been a high flier through their school/sixth form/uni career, they've had parents and teachers telling them how good they are, always getting the top marks etc. They know they are bright and they have learned certain ways to deal with the challenges they have faced - late night essay crisis, take coffee and red bull, get a load of books out of the library, and they will be able to put together something credible and they're quick thinkers in a debate so can defend it in their tutorial. They have always been better than the majority of their peers, and they think they can solve any problem.

Then they are going to enter the 'real world' and be dealing with people with decades of experience, some of whom were the equivalent bright young Oxbridge grads in the 1980s, and have to deal with issues of more complexity than they have met before. It's the equivalent of being the young rugby player who has been the star at his school and junior club, gets signed on an Academy scholarship young, has a social media presence pimping himself out as the big star then makes his Super League debut and gets smashed about by the old pros.

In most of the high-paying professions that Oxbridge grads go in to: banking, financial services, law, there is a long path of professional training and working their way up the ranks, so they take their lumps as relative juniors early on and by the time they reach positions of influence they have become experts themselves. But in the 'government/public policy' circle: Whitehall, the world of Special Advisers and policy 'wonks', and think tankers, a bright Oxbridge grad that gets in will rapidly be put in a position of influence. Hence these fields are full of highly intelligent grads in their early to mid 20s who have done well in their school and university careers but are completely green to the real world, but think they know everything.

Sal P has mentioned a few times on here how Grace Blakeley irritates him. Well if you work in this field, you meet people like her all the time, in positions where they are the ones 'driving activity' or 'directing the ideas'. They'll be the super confident, sharply dressed 25 year old in the Treasury or DExEU who chairs a workshop that has been assembled of various experts to try and solve a super complex problem. This whizzkid will have spent 20 minutes before the session whipping together a set of powerpoint slides with some 'policy options' they've pulled together from the top of their head (most of which will betray absolutely no understanding of the real issues but will be 'blue sky thinking'). They'll spend most of the time allocated for the workshop talking themselves, giving a superficial run through of the background, then babble on about their own ideas, and once the actual experts start critiquing it and trying to talk about the real issues, that 25 year old will say 'sorry, I'm aware of the time here, we really must wrap up, so lets allocate out actions for who is going to work up the detail on each of my ideas....' and they will walk out of the meeting feeling super-satisfied with themselves (taking a selfie to upload to instagram in the process) while the actual experts walk out thinking, well the country is totally fecked if this is how decisions are made...