politics

Reviewing my 2025 predictions

by

Back in January, I made six predictions about events that would take place in 2025. So, seeing as there’s just a few days left in 2025, let’s see how I did:

Twitter/X won’t become an ‘everything app’

This was a 2024 prediction as well. And it’s been accurate again – X has basically stagnated under Musk. Whilst I no longer use X, I’m not really aware of any new features; just a continuing decline as more extreme voices are amplified. I hope that, in time, X will just become irrelevant.

Donald Trump will be terrible in ways we haven’t foreseen

I mean, this is an easy one, but I think one of the worst things he did this year was his comments about Rob Reiner. Reiner and his wife were tragically killed, probably by their son, and yet Trump decided to criticise him. I try very much not to speak ill of the dead (or at least, not the recently deceased).

Trump and Musk will have a public fall-out

Yes, this happened. They seemed like best buddies at the start of the year, but their respective massive egos got the best of them. It hasn’t ended as badly for Musk as it could have done though.

Labour will do poorly in local elections

Yes, although this was an easy prediction. I was still surprised (and saddened) that Reform managed to take control of several local authorities. That being said, their general mismanagement of Kent County Council shows that they may not be a long-term political force.

There won’t be a General Election in 2025

Again, I was phoning it in a bit here. With Labour not doing so well in national polls but still having a parliamentary majority, I expect they’ll stay for as long as they can.

The overall situation in the Middle East will improve

We finally got a ceasefire (of sorts) in Gaza, although I think it’s a case of things not getting any worse rather than necessarily improving. We’ll see what happens in the medium-term but there’s a lot of rebuilding to do.

I think that’s a reasonable success rate, although frankly some of these predictions were highly likely anyway. I’ve now got a few days to think up some predictions for 2026.

How many British Prime Ministers have you lived through?

by

I had an idle though recently about the number of people who have been British Prime Minister in my lifetime, and how that compares to people older or younger than me.

I was born in 1984, when Margaret Thatcher (urgh) was Prime Minister. She was first elected in 1979, and was around until 1990, when John Major took over. Then in 1997, Tony Blair came to power for 10 years, followed by Gordon Brown, until the general election in 2010 which saw David Cameron take over.

Following the Brexit referendum, Cameron stepped aside to allow Theresa May to take over for 3 years, and then we had 3 years of Boris Johnson. In 2022, we had Liz Truss for all of six weeks before Rishi Sunak took over, and then when Labour won last year’s General Election, Kier Starmer took over. And that’s where we are now.

So, in my 40 years of being alive, I’ve known 10 British Prime Ministers. A simple mean average of a new Prime Minister every four years then.

However, let’s compare that to our nine-year-old, born whilst David Cameron was Prime Minister. In their lifetime, there have been six Prime Ministers so far, for an average term of 18 months.

What about my Dad, who is in his 80s? He’s known 19 Prime Ministers (I’m counting Winston Churchill’s non-consecutive terms as one here), so an average of four and a bit years.

The point I’m trying to make, I suppose, is that historically Prime Ministers have lasted around four years on average, until very recently. Sure, Liz Truss only having been in power for six weeks has skewed things quite a bit. But Rishi Sunak also had a comparatively short term, and Gordon Brown, Theresa May and Boris Johnsons’ terms were all around the three year mark. The political upheaval we’ve seen in Britain in recent years is therefore unusual.

As for how long Keir Starmer will remain in power? I would be surprised if he’s not still Prime Minister in 2029, which is when the next election is due. That would make five years, and so would push the average up a bit. Whilst last summer, I was confident that Labour would win the 2029 general election, I’m not so confident now.

Some 2029 election predictions

by
An AI-generated image of a fortune teller looking into a crystal ball which says 2029

Okay, so I appreciate that we’ve only just got the 2024 general election out of the way. It’s likely that the next general election will be in 2029, and so I’m going to make some predictions. Mainly because it’ll be interesting to look back on them in five years time, to see if I was right. So, here’s what I predict:

The Tories won’t win a majority

I suspect that the Conservative party will be out of power for at least the next two parliamentary terms, and so will lose the next election in 2029. We know that Rishi Sunak will step aside as leader, once a successor is found, and so there will be a leadership election soon. We also know that, to be eligible to stand, you have to be an elected MP – and there aren’t many left now. Penny Mordaunt, for example, was seen as a potential candidate, but she lost her seat. Jeremy Hunt has also ruled himself out, despite having narrowly retained his seat in the House of Commons. He has stood twice before for leader and lost both times.

The names that are being discussed are:

  • Suella Braverman
  • Priti Patel
  • Kemi Badenoch
  • James Cleverly
  • Robert Jenrick
  • Victoria Atkins

As we saw last time, the Conservative party membership, when faced with a choice between Rishi Sunak and Liz Truss, went for Truss and triggered the Truss-Kwarteng Budget Crisis. Rishi was then brought in as leader after the economy crashed and Truss was forced out. I mention this, because Rishi was arguably the better choice (though not much better) and yet the mostly white, mostly older party membership voted for Truss. This wouldn’t be good news for Patel, Braverman and Badenoch.

The 1922 Committee

There’s also the issue of the rules of the 1922 Committee of backbench Tory MPs. I don’t have a better source other than this thread on Bluesky, but to be a candidate in a Conservative Party leadership contest, you need the support of 100 MPs. This is regardless of how many Conservatives MPs there are – which is currently 121. Therefore, any potential candidates are going to have to get the support of more than 80% of sitting MPs, and MPs will be asked to back multiple candidates – assuming that’s even allowed. Oh, and once a leader is elected, if 15% of sitting MPs send a letter to the chair of the 1922 Committee, a vote of no confidence can be instigated. That’s only 19 MPs in the current Parliament, as opposed to over 60 before.

Of course, I wouldn’t be surprised if the 1922 Committee and/or the Conservative Party itself changes its constitution, to adapt to having a historically low number of MPs.

After the 2029 election, there will potentially be a new crop of MPs who have better leadership qualities, and who can’t as easily be blamed for the mess that the Tories have made until now.

Labour will win again in 2029, but with a smaller majority

Labour have a lot of work to do. Even though yesterday was a Saturday, the first cabinet meeting took place, as a sign that the new government wants to hit the ground running. Of course, it could have been mostly performative, but most government roles have already been filled.

Interestingly, there’s a couple of appointments to ministerial roles outside of the House of Commons:

  • James Timpson, boss of the Timpsons business, is Minister for Prisons, Parole and Probation. Timpsons employs many ex-prisoners to help their rehabilitation and reduce re-offending
  • Sir Patrick Vallance is the new Science Minister – you may remember him as Britain’s chief medical officer during the Covid pandemic and his regular appearances alongside Prof Sir Chris Whitty.

I’m guessing both will need to be appointed as members of the House of Lords, but it’s refreshing to see people with relevant knowledge and experience being appointed to suitable roles. It gives me hope that this will be a government that actually gets things done, and I hope that, by 2029, they’ll have done enough to warrant re-election.

Not all of Reform’s MPs will last

I suspect that Nigel Farage is the dog that caught the car. He’s succeeded at being elected as an MP on his eighth attempt, but when faced with the day-to-day reality of being an MP of a small party, I suspect he’ll get bored soon enough and quit, triggering a by-election. Depending on who wins the Tory leadership contest, they may end up joining the Conservative party, although that will prove controversial and may see others quit in protest.

The same may happen with the handful of independents who were elected; either they’ll quit, or join one of the major parties.

There may be another coalition government

If Labour doesn’t do so well next time and we end up with a hung parliament, then I can see Labour potentially going into coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The SNP and/or Green Party may join too, depending on how many MPs they have and how many are needed to get a majority. Turnout was low this time and Labour managed to get elected with a thumping majority despite winning fewer votes overall than in 2019. So, Labour will need to get more people out to vote for them next time, rather than rely on a combination of apathy and split votes among the opposition.

Before the election, Labour talked about automatic voter registration, which would ensure many more people are registered to vote. Whilst they haven’t committed themselves to completely abolishing voter ID (which stopped 14,000 people from voting in 2023’s local council elections), there are likely to be changes to what ID will be accepted. I’m against voter ID personally – it tries to fix a practically non-existent problem – but accepting a wider variety of ID would be an improvement. The Electoral Reform Society shows an example of two almost identical Oyster cards, one issued to a young person and one to someone over 60, but only the latter is accepted under the current rules.

I think that’ll do for predictions. They say that a week is a long time in politics, so five years is almost an epoch.

When Jeremy Corbyn came to Bradford

by

Yesterday, the Labour Party launched its General Election manifesto. And it chose to do so in the building where I work.

We were treated to Jeremy Corbyn and his shadow cabinet, who delivered a presentation and answered questions for around 90 minutes. All in front of the nation’s media, with live TV and internet broadcasts. Naturally, security was tight, and access was limited. Only university staff and students, Labour Party members, and invited members of the media where permitted. This included heavyweight political correspondents such as ITV’s Robert Peston, the BBC’s Laura Kuenssberg and Sky’s Adam Boulton.

I was unable to get a seat, so I had to watch from one of the balconies above with no view of the stage. Corbyn got a really warm reception, particularly as the majority of people there were university staff. The biggest cheers were in response to Labour’s policies regarding ending hospital car parking charges, renationalising the railways, and, predictably, ending university tuition fees.

From the university’s perspective, it was great to see a high profile event run so well. This was despite it having been planned at such short notice. But we have form here: seven years ago, then Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown came to us to make a speech the day before the 2010 General Election. And the university’s first chancellor, back in 1966, was Labour prime minister Harold Wilson; this was something that Corbyn referenced in his speech.

I’m a Labour Party member, so I’ll be voting for Labour next month anyway. Brexit aside, I was very impressed with what Jeremy Corbyn promised us yesterday if elected. Sadly, that’s a big ‘if’; despite recent improvements, Labour are still trailing significantly in the polls. We’ll see what happens come June 9th, when the results will be clear.

All of the above is my own opinion, and not necessarily that of my employer.

PPE – the degree that runs Britain

by
A photo of George Osborne, a PPE graduate, wearing PPE in a factory

If I mentioned the abbreviation ‘PPE’, you may think that I’m talking about ‘personal protective equipment’ – equipment that you wear when working in environments with potential health and safety risks.

But PPE can also mean ‘Philosophy, Politics and Economics‘, and specifically a Bachelor of Arts degree at the University of Oxford. Oxford’s PPE course is notable because a significant number of British politicians, journalists and experts studied the course. Prospective students see it as a major stepping stone into a career in politics.

Last month, The Guardian’s Long Read featured PPE. It starts by naming many of its alumni, which included the then leaders of Britain’s two largest political parties along with MPs from others. The course has strong heritage, having run at Oxford for almost 100 years, and with a glittering list of well-known graduates. As well as British politicians, it has attracted those from other countries and former US president Bill Clinton, former Pakistani president Benazir Bhutto, and Burmese political campaigner Aung San Suu Kyi are among its many international graduates.

Getting into the course, like any degree at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge, is an achievement in itself. (Note: I work in admissions at a rival UK university). Applicants are expected to achieve at least three straight A grades in their A-levels, though this can be from any three subjects and doesn’t need to include Philosophy, Economics or Politics. There’s also an admissions test called the Thinking Skills Assessment, and an interview, so academic ability alone is not enough to get admitted.

With so many of our politicians having graduated from a single course at a single university – and one that is attended by a large proportion of privately-educated students – it’s easy to see why there are accusations that Britain is ruled by an ‘elite’. I agree that it attracts those who plan to be career politicians, although I’m conflicted about whether that’s necessarily a bad thing. Certainly, you have to be intelligent and articulate to pass an interview and get a place on the course. Michael Gove claimed last year that we’ve had enough of experts; Gove is not a PPE graduate but studied English at Oxford. But personally, I’d rather have experts running the country, in the same way that you wouldn’t want your mate Dave from down the pub performing your keyhole surgery. Unless Dave was a qualified surgeon.

Which brings me to the point I’m trying to make. PPE at Oxford has become a de facto qualification for a high-level political qualification in Britain. We don’t have a kind-of ‘General Political Council’ to regulate politicians and ensure that our MPs and councillors are sufficiently qualified to stand for office. Nor do we have a ‘Chartered Institute’ that accredits degree courses. Whether we should is another matter – there have been many perfectly good MPs who are not career politicians, and who have switched to politics following careers in other industries. But it’s an interesting idea, and perhaps the reason why there are so many successful politicians who are PPE graduates, is because it’s such a good preparation for a political career.

Finally, you may enjoy the PPE in PPE Twitter account, which combines both definitions and shows PPE graduates posing for photographs whilst wearing PPE.

People’s History Museum

by
People's History Museum

Today we took the time to visit the People’s History Museum in Manchester. I actually hadn’t heard of it until yesterday, when we were looking for something to do as a couple having spent all of yesterday playing games (me, World of Warcraft; Christine, Guild Wars) and not really spending much quality time together.

The museum has been around since 1990, and was originally called the National Museum of Labour History. Indeed, there is a large focus on the history of workers’ rights, the rise of trade unions and the foundations of the Parliamentary Labour Party. That being said, it covers a wide range of subjects, especially the history of democracy in the UK. And Manchester is an ideal place for it, as it was the scene of the 1819 Peterloo Massacre, and the historic home of the Co-operative movement is nearby in Rochdale.

It sits in two buildings: the first is a modern extension, opened in 2010 and housing the main body of the museum. The other is the older Pump House building which was one of the three pump houses for Manchester’s Hydraulic Power system, for which there is an exhibition at MOSI about it. The Pump House holds the two temporary exhibition spaces, and when we visited there was a photography exhibition about the Oldham Road, and a special exhibition about the Temperance movement – again, a political ideology with strong northern roots. Pleasingly, the museum’s café stocks a range of temperance drinks, albeit alongside beer.

I found it really interesting, although it does have a rather left-wing political agenda. To me that’s not a bad thing but I could imagine some Tories feeling uncomfortable there. I actually learned a surprising amount of things that I wish I’d been taught at school, about this country’s history.

The museum is free to enter (donations welcomed) and is open most days of the year, although I’d advise against visiting next week as one of the permanent galleries is closed to rotate some of the exhibits. For once, I’ve already uploaded the photos to Flickr, as well as others that I took elsewhere in Manchester today.

I’m backing the Liberal Democrats

by

A note: this was written in 2010. As of 2017, I became a paid-up member of the Labour Party, and remain so as of the beginning of 2025.

I was intending to delay this announcement until closer to the election on May 5th, but recent events have inspired me to post this entry much earlier than planned.

It probably comes as only a minor surprise that I will be voting LibDem two weeks on Thursday. Thus far I have voted LibDem in every election since I reached 18, bar the previous general election when I voted for the Green Party due to dissatisfaction with the local LibDem parliamentary candidate. This time I have no such issue, and believe more than ever that voting for the LibDems is worth it.

There are several reasons why I will vote this way:

1. Policies

The party is the one I agree with the most (or, disagree with the least). As someone who works in higher education, I get to see first-hand some of the financial hardship that students have to go through to get a degree. Years ago, university was free for UK students; now, most students will borrow an average of over £20,000 to fund their education. It’s meant more students staying at home with their parents, rather than getting their first taste of independence at age 18. Further limits have meant that those with degrees already, who want to do a second degree in a new subject, have to pay eye-watering fees of at least £6,000 per year with many charging over £10,000 per year – and that just covers tuition; books, accommodation, printing, food etc. all have to be paid for as well, and you can’t get a student loan to cover it. This has stopped many people with degrees in less employable subjects going back to University to be tomorrow’s doctors, pharmacists, civil engineers, researchers and other professions where a relevant degree is necessary. This country needs graduates, yet only the LibDems are committed to abolishing tuition fees.

Not one Liberal Democrat MP voted in favour of the Digital Economy Act, which has now been passed into law and puts in place a number of potentially draconian new rules for dealing with illegal file sharing, and the party stated that it will repeal it if elected. As it happens, the act was passed due to support from the other two parties. It may just be one act, but for me this was a deciding issue for this election. While some high-profile Labour MPs did oppose it, such as Tom Watson, it was clear that the Labour whip was in favour of it.

The Liberal Democrats opposed the war in Iraq, which, admittedly, did free the country of the tyranny of Saddam Hussain but also lead to a war which was started without a United Nations mandate, probably illegal under UK law, has caused a significant amount of destabilisation in the country and the wider middle-east region and resulted in the deaths of a large number of our serving armed forces. The LibDems are also against the renewal of our Trident nuclear missile arsenal, which would be incredibly expensive and would come at a time when both the USA and Russia have agreed to reduce their stockpiles of nuclear weapons.
Vince Cable warned before the global economic meltdown started that the economy was in trouble and that banks were taking too much risk. While we’ll never know what could have happened if the LibDems were in power at the time, I trust Cable to manage the economy better than it has been.

I also respect Dr Evan Harris, the LibDem’s science spokesperson, who backs evidence-based approaches to science (i.e. what every other scientist does) rather than be guided by the media and public opinion. The recent spats between the government and its drugs advisory committee show that scientific evidence should drive policy, not political witch-hunts and media pressure.

2. People

The first leaders’ debate showed that Nick Clegg can stand above his rivals and not to stoop to their levels of back-biting. It was telling that ‘I agree with Nick’ was used by both other candidates several times during the debate, and Clegg was a much more confident speaker. There are also some people in Labour and the Conservatives that I really don’t like – Lord Mandleson, who just needs a black helmet and cape to complete the transformation into Darth Vader; and Chris Grayling, the shadow home secretary who recently said that discriminating against gay couples was fine in some circumstances. There’s Philip Davies, previously MP for Shipley and seeking re-election, who won’t be opposed by UKIP because he’s sufficiently far-right for them – this is an MP who voted against legislation to combat climate change and gay rights. And there’s the 3 Labour MPs who are claiming legal aid to defend themselves against allegations that they claimed illegitimate expenses using taxpayers’ money. And my local Labour MP hasn’t exactly done much to win my vote of late, having neither acknowledged nor responded to my communications regarding the Digital Economy Act. I could go on, but I trust the people in the Liberal Democrat party more than their opposition.
Oh, and they have an MP called Lembit Opik, who dated one of the Cheeky Girls. That’s awesome.

3. Profile

I would bet a small amount of money that there are a number of people who would have voted for the Liberal Democrats previously had they had a realistic chance of being elected, but have instead voted tactically. After Thursday’s debate, the Liberal Democrats shot up in the polls due to Clegg’s admirable performance and have stayed equal or above Labour for a few days now, and so are in with a chance of winning the election (or at least putting up a very good showing). For too long, they have been seen as the ‘other’ party, or an ‘also-ran’, covered in the news and satire programmes purely for balance. Thursday’s Have I Got News For You, which was broadcast at the same time as the debates, was a prime example of this. Suddenly the election has become a definite three-horse race, and I think people will be surprised at the level of support the Liberal Democrats actually have.

4. The third way

The political systems in many countries has become polarised and the United States is a good example – there’s the Republicans, the Democrats, and then a handful of minor parties that very few people know or care about. In the UK we’re lucky that we have 3 viable parties, giving a wider spectrum of policies and views, and this needs to be preserved.

5. Socking it to Murdoch

This is a personal thing but the power that media barons, like Rupert Murdoch, have over public opinion is sometimes quite frightening. Murdoch owns two of our largest newspapers – The Sun and The Times – and has a large stake in the Sky News TV channel (and his son is Sky’s chief executive). I understand that Labour and the Conservatives have often tried hard to lobby Murdoch and his cronies to back their candidates and it seems that he’s backing the Tories this time around, based on The Sun’s absolutely fair and reasoned support for the party (yeah right…). If the Liberal Democrats do well, it would show Murdoch and the media elite that their powers over the electorate aren’t as strong as they’d like to think (see also this comment piece).

6. Real change

The Conservative campaign has all been about change, but personally I don’t think they have changed a huge amount since they were ousted in 1997. I also hold things like Section 28, the disastrous privatisation of the railways and subsequent Hatfield rail crash and lack of public service investment against them from their previous time in power. While I do concede that Britain has been better off under Labour (minimum wage, human rights act, economic growth, equal opportunities), there’s so much more that could be done and I don’t think Labour are capable of doing it. The Liberal Democrats have not been in power at a national level before, so they’re the only major party that, in my mind, can bring real change.

May 6th is 16 days away and a lot could change, but unless something horrific and unexpected happens, I’ll be voting for the Liberal Democrats. And I hope many of you will join me.