Organizers of a campaign to repeal Oregon’s recently approved gas tax and vehicle fee increases arrived at the state capitol in Salem on Friday to deliver signatures for a proposed gas tax referendum. MGN image.
SALEM, OR – Organizers of a campaign to repeal Oregon’s recently approved gas tax and vehicle fee increases arrived at the state capitol in Salem on Friday in unmistakable fashion: a horse-drawn carriage carrying Santa Claus and festively-wrapped boxes of signatures.
The group, calling itself “No Tax Oregon,” says nearly 200,000 voter signatures have been gathered in less than a month—more than double the 78,116 valid signatures needed to qualify their referendum for the November 2026 ballot.
The Secretary of State must now verify the signatures, a standard process that often disqualifies a portion of submissions. Petition campaigns typically aim far above the requirement to ensure they still meet the threshold after invalid signatures are removed.
The referendum effort targets a bill passed during a special legislative session last summer. Governor Tina Kotek called lawmakers into session to address a major transportation funding shortfall, and they approved a package expected to raise $4.3 billion over the next decade to support Oregon Department of Transportation projects and prevent large-scale layoffs at the agency.
The bill increases Oregon’s gas tax from 40 cents to 46 cents per gallon starting in January. It also increases several fees, including:
Title fees, up by $139 for most vehicles.
Base registration fees, up by $42 per year for passenger vehicles, motorcycles, mopeds, light trailers, and low- and medium-speed vehicles.
An additional surcharge for high-efficiency (40+ MPG) and electric vehicles, up by $30 per year.
Petition leaders argue that the state had alternative options to fund transportation needs and say voters should have been allowed to decide on the increases directly.
The deadline to gather the minimum number signatures was the December 30, just 90 days after the bill’s passage in late September. However, organizers were unable to get started until Gov. Kotek signed the legislation — something that didn’t happen until the end of the 30 business days window allowed by law. Despite that delay, petitioners say they gathered their signatures with 18 days to spare.
The governor has slammed the referendum effort, suggesting it is misguided.
“Frankly, I would urge Oregonians to think about signing on to a referral that will take away our basic ability as Oregonians to keep our roads operating,” said Kotek. “Let’s all come together as a state to make sure we have the roads we need.”
“With so many people settling in Mecklenburg County, now is the time to make the critical infrastructure investments to keep the county a great place to live, work, and raise a family,” Stein said in a Tuesday statement. “This referendum will enhance safety, reduce congestion, and keep the region moving and thriving.”
NC Gov. Josh Stein, flanked by Charlotte-area leaders, signs a bill allowing Mecklenburg County to put a sales tax referendum on the ballot to pay for transportation projects. Behind Stein is Charlotte Mayor Vi Lyles (in red dress) and State Rep. Tricia Cotham (in green dress). Screenshot YouTube
And on Friday, the influential Black Political Caucus announced its endorsement. Chair Jocelyn Jones-Nolley said in a statement the group’s “overwhelming vote of support demonstrates the unity of our members in recognizing the importance of this referendum to Mecklenburg County’s future.”
“We look forward to partnering with the Metropolitan Public Transportation Authority and other stakeholders to ensure community concerns are prioritized and addressed, and that the benefits of this investment are shared broadly across all neighborhoods,” she said. “This is about ensuring growth that works for everyone.”
Mecklenburg County voters will decide whether to approve a 1% sales tax increase to fund road, rail and bus projects. Plans include, among other initiatives, the construction of the Red Line commuter rail to the Lake Norman area and an overhaul of the region’s bus system.
The revamped public transit system would be led by a new regional authority.
Supporters say the plan will relieve traffic congestion and improve the region’s infrastructure. Opponents say a sales tax is regressive and question the decision to shorten the long-planned Silver Line light rail from the airport to eastern Mecklenburg County due to funding constraints.
Safety became part of the conversation about the referendum in recent weeks following the killing of Iryna Zarutska on the LYNX Blue Line in South End. Zarutska’s death also attracted national attention and a congressional hearing on crime in Charlotte on Monday.
CLT Alliance CEO Robert McCutcheon said in a statement Stein’s endorsement “reinforces the urgency of this moment.”
“With the Governor’s support, we are sending a clear message: this referendum is essential for the future of Mecklenburg County, and now is the time to act,” McCutcheon said.
The “Yes For Meck” campaign said in a statement the BPC’s endorsement “adds significant momentum to the referendum campaign.”
Election Day is Nov. 4, and early voting begins Oct. 16.
This story was originally published September 30, 2025 at 2:18 PM.
Mary Ramsey is the local government accountability reporter for The Charlotte Observer. A native of the Carolinas, she studied journalism at the University of South Carolina and has also worked in Phoenix, Arizona and Louisville, Kentucky. Support my work with a digital subscription
Americans are famous for our creative dissents against taxes — just take the Boston Tea Party. Last week, a New Jersey man carried on the tradition at a town meeting by dancing to express his response to a property tax hike.In a video livestreamed on Cranford TV-35, Will Thilly, a candidate for the Cranford township committee, gets out of his seat and dances his way up to the podium. An official tells him, “I started your time,” and Thilly holds up his finger as he continues dancing.He pauses to grab a bottle of water and pieces of paper before asking the audience about their weekends. “Did you know I could do the backspin? Anybody?” he says. “Wanna see me do the backspin? No? I’m gonna do the backspin.”After proceeding to do so and unsuccessfully motioning for the audience to applaud, Thilly jumps into his remarks.”Well, why did our taxes go up so much? We were told the referendum was going to bring it up for an average household about $400,” he says. “And mine went up, like, 900 bucks. I think we were told, like, that was from the schools or something? But the school referendum said it would only go up, like I said, 400 bucks on an average assessed home.””So I wanted to know why it went up, if it did much more than that,” he goes on. “And what extra expenses were incurred by the schools that weren’t told to the public when we voted on that referendum?”Thilly then moonwalks back to his seat.”Thank you, Mr. Thilly,” Cranford Mayor Terrence Curran then says, according to NBC. “I like the interpretative dance.”Cranford is a town of less than 25,000 people as of the 2020 census, located 18 miles southwest of Manhattan. Thilly’s campaign website says he is running to “tell you the truth, to fight for what you need, and to defend our Town and schools,” explaining that he opposes “$150 million in 30-year tax exemptions to billionaire developers” for a development in his town.
Americans are famous for our creative dissents against taxes — just take the Boston Tea Party. Last week, a New Jersey man carried on the tradition at a town meeting by dancing to express his response to a property tax hike.
In a video livestreamed on Cranford TV-35, Will Thilly, a candidate for the Cranford township committee, gets out of his seat and dances his way up to the podium. An official tells him, “I started your time,” and Thilly holds up his finger as he continues dancing.
He pauses to grab a bottle of water and pieces of paper before asking the audience about their weekends.
“Did you know I could do the backspin? Anybody?” he says. “Wanna see me do the backspin? No? I’m gonna do the backspin.”
After proceeding to do so and unsuccessfully motioning for the audience to applaud, Thilly jumps into his remarks.
“Well, why did our taxes go up so much? We were told the referendum was going to bring it up for an average household about $400,” he says. “And mine went up, like, 900 bucks. I think we were told, like, that was from the schools or something? But the school referendum said it would only go up, like I said, 400 bucks on an average assessed home.”
“So I wanted to know why it went up, if it did much more than that,” he goes on. “And what extra expenses were incurred by the schools that weren’t told to the public when we voted on that referendum?”
Thilly then moonwalks back to his seat.
“Thank you, Mr. Thilly,” Cranford Mayor Terrence Curran then says, according to NBC. “I like the interpretative dance.”
Cranford is a town of less than 25,000 people as of the 2020 census, located 18 miles southwest of Manhattan. Thilly’s campaign website says he is running to “tell you the truth, to fight for what you need, and to defend our Town and schools,” explaining that he opposes “$150 million in 30-year tax exemptions to billionaire developers” for a development in his town.
BOSTON — Plans to bring back rent control to Massachusetts, roll back the state’s personal income tax, repeal the MBTA Communities Act, ditch the state’s gas tax and require voters to show ID to cast ballots are among a record number of proposed referendums inching toward the 2026 ballot.
On Wednesday, Attorney General Andrea Campbell certified 44 proposed initiatives filed by individuals and groups seeking voter approval for changes in state law.
This page requires Javascript.
Javascript is required for you to be able to read premium content. Please enable it in your browser settings.
The referendum to overturn Ordinance No. 987, the Summit County Council’s 4 to 1 approval of the Dakota Pacific Real Estate project in Kimball Junction, will not be up for a vote in November.
Third District Court Judge Richard Mrazik on Tuesday afternoon denied a motion challenging Summit County Clerk Eve Furse’s declaration that the referendum signature-gathering effort was insufficient. Mrazik determined that neither the court’s decision nor the referendum “will have any practical effect on the mixed-use development authorized” by Senate Bill 26, and the lawsuit was deemed moot.
“… Petitioners have failed to show how granting their motion will have a meaningful impact on the practical positions of the parties,” the ruling states.
Five residents — Angela Moschetta, Reed Galen, Dana Williams, Ruby Diaz and Brendan Weinstein — sued the Clerk’s Office in July over the insufficient declaration, which stems from the rejection of 30 signature packets, and asked the judge to reverse the decision to allow the referendum to appear on the general election ballot.
Diaz and Weinstein are two of the seven original community members who sponsored the referendum application, organizing under the name Protect Summit County. The group said it disagrees with the mootness argument, but found the ruling to be “the second best outcome.”
The Utah Legislature passed S.B. 26 during the general session earlier this year. The law took effect in the spring and provided the same use and zoning changes as the ordinance approving the mixed-use development. Summit County was also restricted to taking an administrative role and was limited in its ability to stop the project’s approval under S.B. 26.
Summit County Manager Shayne Scott approved an administrative development agreement with Dakota Pacific on July 28, which closely mirrors what the County Council approved in December.
Former Park City Mayor Dana Williams collects signatures in January for a petition for a referendum to put the Dakota Pacific decision on the November ballot. He is one of five residents suing the Summit County Clerk over its decision to disqualify 30 signature packets. Credit: Park Record file photo by Clayton Steward
Mrazik’s ruling states that even if the petitioners show the County Clerk was incorrect and that the referendum was legally sufficient, “the practical reality of the parties, and the citizens of Summit County at large, will not be changed.”
“The argument is unavailing because Petitioners have not identified any legislative act within Ordinance 987 that is not also granted by S.B. 26. Similarly, Petitioners have not shown how S.B. 26 fails to completely supersede Summit County’s legislative authority regarding the land that is the subject of Ordinance 987,” the ruling states.
In other words, Mrazik argued he would not be able to provide meaningful relief even if he ruled in favor of the petitioners and declared the referendum sufficient because S.B. 26 supersedes the court’s authority. The ruling asserts there was a change in circumstances with the passage of S.B. 26, essentially eliminating the “legal controversy between the two parties.”
A court hearing was originally scheduled for Tuesday afternoon, but it was subsequently cancelled. Mrazik did not hear oral arguments from the two parties. He determined the mootness of the motion upon studying the briefs in preparation for the hearing, according to the ruling. Then, the hearing was nixed to prevent unnecessary costs.
“Put simply, the Utah Legislature, when it passed SB26, determined what will happen at the DPRE property, not my office, the referendum, or the referendum lawsuit,” Summit County Clerk Eve Furse said in a prepared statement. “Ultimately, my office’s responsibility is to uphold the law, which I’ve remained committed to throughout this entire process.”
Mrazik did not rule on the signature collection issue because the referendum was deemed moot.
One of the requirements for putting the referendum on the November ballot was receiving 4,554 verified signatures, the total number of which needed to make up 16% of voters countywide, plus 16% from three of the four voter precincts.
Earlier this year, Furse said the sponsors missed the minimum signature count and failed to meet the minimum percentages in the voter areas.
Furse invalidated 30 of the 77 packets because they allegedly did not comply with the statutory packet requirements that include ensuring the signature packages are bound as part of a packet. The packets contained about 2,500 signatures, enough to meet the ballot threshold if they had been deemed countable.
Meanwhile, the petitioners said only a few packets were separated after preparation and alleged the Clerk’s Office universally rejected packets with three-hole punches without verifying if the pages had been removed. The group argues Furse erred in her judgment and that the referendum sponsors followed state law.
Dakota Pacific Real Estate has been approved for an 885-unit, mixed-use development near the Park City Tech Center in Kimball Junction. Credit: Park Record file photo by David Jackson
However, the Utah Rules Review and General Oversight Committee voted to begin drafting reforms to the state referendum statute following the dispute in Summit County.
Furse said she looks forward to seeing how the Legislature helps clarify the process for both voters and local governments across the state.
The County Council last week declined to repeal Ordinance No. 987, instead waiting for the Third District Court ruling to interpret the state’s referendum rules. Officials will likely do so at a future meeting.
If officials leave the ordinance in place, Protect Summit County said it will appeal the mootness ruling and “fight to get Ordinance 987 on the ballot as quickly as possible.”
“Summit County could have resolved this matter weeks ago when we asked them to stipulate Ordinance 987 has no force and effect. This would’ve saved both sides over $150K,” the group said in a statement.
The county’s chief civil deputy, Dave Thomas, said during the County Council meeting last week that Dakota Pacific could technically come back and submit an application if the ordinance remains intact.
However, the development firm also requested the County Council repeal Ordinance 987. It’s unclear how a new or revived application could differ from what was approved under S.B. 26, which legislatively changed the zoning of the Park City Tech Center.
Dakota Pacific plans to build 385 market-rate units and 275 affordable housing units on the back half of its property. A proposed public-private partnership would also create 225 workforce housing units and a senior living facility near a public plaza surrounded by mixed uses. Dakota Pacific representatives reaffirmed their commitment to building options for local seniors.
There would also be a new transit center, structured parking and a pedestrian bridge connection to the east side of S.R. 224. The existing Kimball Junction Transit Center and the Richins Building would be demolished, too.
BOSTON — Millions of dollars in contributions are continuing to flow to ballot committees behind five statewide referendums ahead of the election Nov. 5.
Sunday was the deadline for groups raising money for and against the ballot questions to report their hauls from the latest reporting period.
Fundraising on Question 2 saw the most activity in the most recent period, with groups backing the proposal to scrap the decades-old mandate requiring high school students to pass the MCAS exams to graduate spending more than $9.6 million to date, according to filings with the state Office of Campaign and Political Finance.
A sizable chunk of funding reported by the Committee for High Standards Not High Stakes has been provided by the Massachusetts Teachers Association, the main proponent of the referendum.
Much of the funding has come from in-kind contributions for signature gathering, research and other campaign related activities.
Opponents of Question 2, organized under the Committee to Protect Our Kids’ Future, reported raising more than $2.1 million in the most recent fundraising period.
Backers of Question 3, which would authorize Uber, Lyft and other ride-hailing drivers to unionize and bargain collectively for better wages and benefits, had raised more than $5.7 million for the campaign as of Sunday, according to the OCPF filings.
Supporters of Question 1, which asks voters to approve a performance and financial audit of the state Legislature, reported collecting nearly $500,000 as of Sunday, according to the filings.
The referendum was proposed by Auditor Diana DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat and former state lawmaker whose efforts to audit the House and Senate have been blocked by legislative leaders who argue the move is unconstitutional. DiZoglio has chipped in more than $100,000 of her own money for the campaign, filings show.
Meanwhile, backers of Question 5, which calls for paying tipped workers the state’s minimum wage of $15 per hour, raised more than $200,000, not including in-kind contributions from labor unions and others backing the effort, the filings show.
Unlike contributions to individual candidates, donations to referendum campaigns are unrestricted and corporations often get involved, as do special interests, labor unions and others.
The money is being mostly spent on campaign advertising, mailers and outreach in an attempt to sway voters ahead of the election.
Overall figures for this election cycle are expected to rise with committees submitting other rounds of fundraising totals in coming months, and their final, year-end reports after the election.
Ahead of the 2022 elections, committees behind ballot questions to set the “millionaires tax”, dental benefits, expand retail beer and wine sales, and repeal a state law authorizing state driver’s licenses for undocumented immigrants raked in more than $67 million – the most expensive election cycles in recent years.
In 2020, ballot questions to update the state’s “right to repair” law and authorize ranked-choice voting poured more than $60.7 million into their campaigns.
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.
BOSTON — The state Legislature lacks transparency and accountability in its dealings, according to a new state audit, which blasts legislative leaders for refusing to open up their books for the performance review.
The audit, released Monday by Auditor Diana DiZoglio, faults the state House of Representatives and Senate for failing to conduct timely financial reviews of its spending, a lack of transparency in its procurement policies and a website that makes it difficult for the public to navigate, among other criticisms.
But DiZoglio also leaned into House and Senate leaders for refusing to provide information her office requested for the audit, including tracking year-end budget spending, how they decide which major bills are brought up for a vote and whether the two chambers are following their own rules regarding non-disclosure agreements.
“It is deeply concerning that legislative leaders have refused to cooperate with our office to help promote transparency and identify ways to improve service to the people of Massachusetts,” the Democrat said in a statement. “Transparency and accountability are cornerstones of our democracy and enable the people to participate in government as intended in our Constitution, in a system of checks and balances.”
The audit comes as DiZoglio urges voters to approve Question 1, which if approved would force legislative leaders to open up their books for an independent review.
Under current laws, the auditor has the power to examine “all departments, offices, commissions, institutions and activities of the commonwealth” but the ballot question would expand those powers to specifically include the Legislature.
The referendum was proposed by DiZoglio, a Methuen Democrat and former state lawmaker, whose high-profile efforts to audit the House and Senate have been blocked by legislative leaders who argue the move is unconstitutional.
The partial audit released on Monday found that the Senate and House didn’t ensure annual financial audits were completed, filed with required recipients, or made available to the public in a timely way, in an apparent violation of their own rules.
The review also found that the Legislature’s procurement policies lack transparency, which auditors said limit the public’s ability to hold the Legislature accountable.
The Massachusetts Legislature’s website also lacks content and is hard to navigate, compared to other state’s legislative bodies, which auditors said “hinders the public’s ability to understand and engage in the legislative process and hold the Legislature accountable for ensuring an equitable mode of making laws.”
Other concerns flagged by auditors included a lack of details about how legislative leaders appoint committee chairpersons and other posts that bump up lawmaker’s prestige and compensation.
Legislative leaders were asked to respond to the findings of the audit, but DiZoglio’s office said they declined.
“The purported audit of the Legislature released by the Auditor today confirms only one thing: the Auditor has abandoned all pretext of faithfully performing her statutory responsibilities in favor of using her office for pure political self-promotion and electioneering,” House Speaker Ron Mariano said in a statement on Monday in response to the report.
“The Auditor should instead be focusing on her statutorily mandated reviews, as she continues to underperform her predecessors in the completion of that important work,” he added.
DiZoglio launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she hasn’t been able to get access to individuals and records her office needs for a forensic investigation.
Mariano, a Quincy Democrat, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation into the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.
DiZoglio has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in Legislature, which is continuously ranked as one of the least effective and least transparent legislative bodies in the country. It is also one of only four state Legislatures that exempts itself from public records laws, DiZoglio points out.
The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record, suggests she doesn’t have standing to file the legal challenge.
A panel of six lawmakers who reviewed the proposal issued a report concluding that passage of Question 1 would “undermine the separation of powers between the branches of government.” The report included testimony from constitutional scholars and civics educators who oppose the move.
Despite that, recent polls have shown voters strongly support Question 1 — one of five referendums on the Nov. 5 ballot — which hasn’t drawn any organized opposition.
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.
BOSTON — State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is hitting the road to rally voter support for her ballot campaign to open up the state Legislature’s financial books.
DiZoglio said she plans to begin a 141-mile trek across Massachusetts to raise awareness of Question 1, which asks voters in the election Nov. 5 to approve a performance and financial audit of the state Legislature.
She argues that the audit would ensure the Legislature is operating in accordance with government rules and regulations.
The Methuen Democrat’s “Walking for Sunshine” sojourn was to get underway Friday night in Great Barrington, where she was to meet supporters at a local bar before hitting the long road to Boston.
DiZoglio said she will meet with voters at nightly events along the way and urge them to “demand greater transparency for the state Legislature” by approving the referendum.
DiZoglio, a former state lawmaker, launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she has not been able to receive access to the people and records her office needs for a forensic investigation. She has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in state government.
House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation of the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.
The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record suggests she does not have standing to file the legal challenge.
But DiZoglio and other supporters gathered enough signatures from voters to put the question on the November ballot.
“We believe taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and they deserve transparency, accessibility and accountability from elected officials,” the Yes on 1 campaign said in a statement.
“But instead of taking meaningful action that makes life better in the Commonwealth, they continue to be characterized as one of the least efficient, least productive legislatures in the country, plagued by late-night horse trading and closed-door discussions, with constituencies cut out of the process.”
The state’s restrictive records law consistently earns Massachusetts failing grades from First Amendment groups.
In 2016, the state overhauled its public records law for the first time in decades, limiting how much state and local governments and police departments may charge for public records and setting deadlines for agencies to respond to requests for information, among other changes.
But lawmakers left in place many of the exemptions shielding the Legislature, courts and law enforcement agencies from disclosing certain records.
Recent polls have shown voters strongly support for Question 1 – one of five referendums on the November ballot – which so far has not drawn any organized opposition.
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com.
BOSTON — State Auditor Diana DiZoglio is hitting the road to rally voter support for her ballot campaign to open up the state Legislature’s financial books.
DiZoglio said she plans to begin a 141-mile trek across Massachusetts to raise awareness for Question 1, which asks voters in the Nov. 5 elections to approve a performance and financial audit of the state Legislature, which she argues will ensure that it is operating in accordance with government rules and regulations.
The Methuen Democrat’s “Walking for Sunshine” sojourn gets underway Friday night in Great Barrington, where she will meet supporters at a local bar before hitting the long road to Boston.
DiZoglio said she will meet with voters at nightly events along the way and urge them to “demand greater transparency for the state Legislature” by approving the referendum.
A former state lawmaker, DiZoglio launched her review of the Legislature more than a year ago but said she hasn’t been able to get access to individuals and records her office needs for a forensic investigation. She has framed the plan as part of a broader effort to improve transparency and accountability in state government.
House Speaker Ron Mariano, D-Quincy, and Senate President Karen Spilka, D-Ashland, have so far blocked her efforts to conduct the investigation into the House and Senate’s inner workings, calling the proposed audit “unconstitutional” and claiming it would violate the separation of powers.
The effort was dealt a blow last year when Attorney General Andrea Campbell’s office rejected DiZoglio’s request to file a lawsuit to force the audit, saying a review of state laws, judicial rulings and the historical record, suggests she doesn’t have standing to file the legal challenge.
But DiZoglio and other supporters gathered enough signatures from voters to put the question on the November ballot.
“We believe taxpayers deserve to know how their tax dollars are being spent, and they deserve transparency, accessibility and accountability from elected officials,” the Yes on 1 campaign said in a statement. “But instead of taking meaningful action that makes life better in the Commonwealth, they continue to be characterized as one of the least efficient, least productive legislatures in the country, plagued by late-night horse trading and closed-door discussions, with constituencies cut out of the process.”
The state’s restrictive records law consistently earns Massachusetts failing grades from First Amendment groups.
In 2016, the state overhauled its public records law for the first time in decades, limiting how much state and local governments and police departments may charge for public records and setting deadlines for agencies to respond to requests for information, among other changes.
But lawmakers left in place many of the exemptions shielding the Legislature, courts and law enforcement agencies from disclosing certain records.
Recent polls have shown voters strongly support for Question 1 — one of five referendums on the November ballot — which so far hasn’t drawn any organized opposition.
Christian M. Wade covers the Massachusetts Statehouse for North of Boston Media Group’s newspapers and websites. Email him at cwade@cnhinews.com
LONDON — As David Cameron heads to Washington this week for his first big speech back on the world stage, his bête noire Boris Johnson will be sat in a dingy room in west London.
Johnson is to give two days of televised testimony before Britain’s COVID-19 inquiry, answering a barrage of questions under oath about decisions he took while prime minister in 2020 and 2021 which — many believe — cost thousands of people their lives.
As Johnson battles to salvage his battered reputation, Cameron will be strutting through America in a ministerial motorcade, glad-handing Washington’s power players and preparing to address the Aspen Security Forum as U.K. foreign secretary.
It’s a stark symbol of just how quickly the political sands can shift.
Cameron had long been written out of the British political scene, famously retreating to a hut in his garden to write his memoirs after calling — and losing — the divisive Brexit referendum in 2016. Johnson — an old acquaintance from his school days — had fought on the opposite side, and his star rose rapidly after the referendum victory. As Cameron licked his wounds, Johnson became foreign secretary in 2016 and then prime minister — with the landslide majority Cameron also craved — three years later.
But with Johnson now long gone and Cameron handed a dramatic ministerial comeback — along with a seat in the House of Lords — in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet reshuffle last month, the two men’s fate has come full circle.
And former colleagues say Cameron is making no secret of his delight at the turn of events, frequently texting associates to say how much he is enjoying the new gig.
Despite now having the run of the palatial Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office — known as the grandest building on Whitehall — Cameron has also been awarded two large private rooms in the House of Lords, displacing Conservative colleagues in the process.
Some friends believe he’s having more fun than when he was actually running the country.
“He has got the bits of the job he enjoyed, he has shed the bits he didn’t. It is the perfect semi-retirement job for him,” a former No. 10 adviser who worked for Cameron said. (The adviser was granted anonymity, like others in this article, to speak candidly about private interactions with the foreign secretary)
“All prime ministers like being on the world stage. It allows them to grapple with big issues,” a second former No. 10 adviser who worked closely with Cameron said.
Cameron’s closest political ally, his ex-Chancellor George Osborne, says his friend’s return will have fulfilled the “strong element of public service” in the ex-prime minister, which he claimed has “always been part of his DNA.”
Cameron’s closest political ally, his ex-Chancellor George Osborne (left), says his friend’s return will have fulfilled the “strong element of public service” in the ex-PM | Pool photo by Petar Kujundzic via Getty Images
“It’s like the sound of the trumpet. Back on … the political playing field, and serving your country. He’s doing it because above all he thinks he can make a difference,” Osborne said on a recent podcast.
Others are less impressed.
One Whitehall official, while acknowledging the diplomatic advantages of having a former PM in post, described Cameron’s appointment as “failing upward, writ large.”
Cameron’s peerage means MPs cannot quiz him in the House of Commons like other ministers, another fact which rankles with opponents.
“Once again Cameron is jetsetting around the globe with seemingly no accountability to the British public,” Liberal Democrat foreign affairs spokesperson Layla Moran said.
“We have very little idea whom this unelected foreign secretary is meeting and what he is saying. Maybe if he spent as much time — or indeed any time at all — making himself available for scrutiny from MPs, we would understand exactly what his foreign policy priorities are.”
Back onthe world stage
On his first visit to the U.S. since becoming foreign secretary on Wednesday, Cameron will meet key members of the Biden administration, including U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, as well as Republican and Democratic Congressional figures in an effort to shore up support for Ukraine.
Cameron’s appointment has certainly made diplomats in foreign capitals sit up and take notice, if only because his is a familiar name in the hard-to-follow soap opera of British politics.
Even in the U.S., his appointment triggered some excitement. As one U.K. official put it, “Americans have a sort of respect for former office-bearers in a way that Brits don’t.”
An EU diplomat said that despite having “gambled” on the Brexit referendum, Cameron is still well thought of in Brussels.
Cameron will certainly feel at home, having relished life on the world stage as prime minister, according to multiple advisers who worked with him at the time.
“You get the idiosyncrasies of different leaders and he enjoyed that. He has a good sense of humor,” the second former adviser quoted above said. The aide recounted how a Nigerian president had once left a soap opera playing on TV throughout his meeting with the British prime minister. “[Cameron] came out laughing. He could roll with the weird and wonderful.”
With Johnson now long gone and Cameron handed a dramatic ministerial comeback in Prime Minister Rishi Sunak’s Cabinet reshuffle last month, the two men’s fate has come full circle | Peter Macdiarmid/Getty Images
Predictably, Cameron has slipped back easily into government — perhaps a little too easily, according to the Whitehall official quoted above who said he had to be reminded he needed clearance before texting friendly hellos to former acquaintances from foreign powers.
The same person said he was demanding fast, detailed briefings at a rate more associated with No. 10, and has sometimes sent papers back asking for a more creative approach. They pointed out his only previous job in government had been as prime minister, which influences his way of working.
Green with envy
The notoriously competitive Cameron also won’t be displeased by the reaction to his appointment by his political peers.
Arch-rival and former school frenemy Johnson, who was ousted from office in 2022 over his handling of various personal scandals, couldn’t help but mock Cameron’s return, describing it as “great news for retreads everywhere.”
Osborne, Cameron’s closest political friend, admitted to being “a little bit jealous, but in a good way,” after he returned.
“There’s a little bit of me that goes ‘I’d fancy being foreign secretary,’” Osborne admitted, before insisting: “But I’m very happy with what I’m doing with the rest of my life, and I think it probably keeps me sane.”
Even the man who appointed Cameron — Sunak — may start to envy Cameron’s ability to detach from the day-to-day management of a fractious Conservative Party, something he endured throughout his own premiership from 2010-2016.
Two government officials said Cameron was essentially “prime minister of foreign affairs,” leaving Sunak to fix his attention on a raft of nightmarish domestic problems in the run-up to the next election, which he is expected to lose.
“[Cameron] can really dedicate himself in a way he never could as PM, because you’re on the plane back and you’ve got to deal with Mark Pritchard and circus tent animals, or whatever else there is when you are prime minister,” a third former adviser said, referencing a furor over a Tory backbench rebellion on banning circus animals.
Adrenaline rush
Life will certainly be different from the past seven years. Shortly after his appointment last month, Cameron told peers the Chippy Larder food project — where he volunteered for two years during his political retirement — would have to manage without him for a while.
“There’s an element of it being quite hard to replay that adrenaline rush [of being PM], the pace of what you do,” the second former adviser quoted above said, noting Cameron had quit before he was 50 and had been “at the peak of his abilities.”
“It’s a shot of redemption,” the third former adviser added. “He’s got another chance at it — and this one probably isn’t going to end in his failure.”
One is a king who has spent most of his adult life campaigning for bold action on global warming — but is now bound by ancient convention to stick to his government’s skeptical script.
The second is a prime minister who just scaled back Britain’s net zero ambitions and wants to “max out” fossil fuel production at home — and stands accused by former colleagues of being “uninterested” in environmental policies.
And the third? A former prime minister — now the U.K. foreign secretary — who once pledged to lead the “greenest government ever,” but then grew tired of what he called “the green crap” … and is already showing signs of overshadowing his new boss.
All three — King Charles III, Rishi Sunak, and David Cameron — are due to descend on the United Nations climate conference, COP28, which starts in Dubai next week, rounding off a year set to be the hottest ever recorded. (Sunak and the king are already confirmed to attend, while Cameron is due to do so in the coming days.)
The unlikely trio, each jostling for their place on the world stage, are symbolic of a wider identity crisis for the U.K. heading into the summit.
The country staked a claim as a world leader on climate when it hosted COP26 just two years ago. But it is now viewed with uncertainty by allies pushing for stronger action on global warming, following Sunak’s embrace of North Sea oil and gas and his retreat on some key domestic net zero targets.
“There is a lot of confusion about what the U.K. is going to do this year,” said one European diplomat, granted anonymity to give a candid assessment ahead of the summit.
“It raises the question, which team are they on? I think we’ll need to find out during COP.”
Green king, Blue Prime Minister
One of the key moments for the U.K. will come early in the conference, when Charles delivers an opening speech at the World Climate Action Summit of world leaders, the grand curtain raiser on a fortnight of talks.
Sunak is expected to fly in the same day to deliver his own speech later in the session.
Rishi Sunak speaks at COP26 in Glasgow | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
At least Charles has been allowed to attend the summit this year. In 2022, then Prime Minister Liz Truss advised the king against travelling to Egypt for COP27.
But anyone looking for signs of friction between Sunak and the climate-conscious king will be unlikely to find them in the text of Charles’ address.
Speeches by the monarch are signed off by No. 10 Downing Street and this one will be no different, said one minister, granted anonymity to discuss interactions between the PM’s office and Buckingham Palace.
That’s not to say tensions don’t exist. Just don’t expect the king to overstep the constitutional ground rules, said Charles’ friend and biographer, the broadcaster Jonathan Dimbleby.
“I can only imagine that he must be intensely frustrated that the government has granted licenses in the North Sea,” Dimbleby told POLITICO. “Whatever the actual practical implications of the drilling in terms of combating climate change, it will not send a great message to the world from a nation that claims moral leadership on the issue.”
But Charles finds himself in “a unique position,” Dimbleby added.
“He is the only head of state who has a very long track record on insisting that climate change is a threat to the future of humanity … He speaks with great authority — but of course on terms from which the government will not dissent, because he has an overriding commitment, regardless of his own views, to abide by the constitutional obligations of the head of state in this country.”
Others see the speech as a major test for Charles.
“This is one of the most significant speeches he’ll make as king,” said Craig Prescott, a constitutional expert and lecturer in law at the Royal Holloway university.
Prescott noted the speech will be watched closely for clues as to how Charles maintains “political impartiality while pursuing the environmental issue — striking the right balance.”
“There will be some to-ing and fro-ing between Downing Street and the Palace,” he added. “But fundamentally he has to comply with any advice he gets.”
As is the convention, Downing Street declined to comment on any discussions with Buckingham Palace. The Palace did not respond to a request for comment.
Fossil fuel politics
The king is attending the summit at the invitation of its hosts, the United Arab Emirates — a sign of close ties between the British establishment and the Gulf monarchies presiding over some of the world’s biggest oil and gas-producing countries.
It’s a connection some view as a potential asset for British climate diplomacy.
The then Prince Charles addresses the audience at COP26 | Paul Ellis/AFP via Getty Images
“Trust between these royal families and institutions could provide the chance to have candid conversations” on issues such as fossil fuel reduction and the need to expand renewable energy supply, said Edward Davey, head of the U.K office of the World Resources Institute, where the king is patron.
“One could imagine those issues being discussed in a respectful way, in a way that perhaps other leaders couldn’t achieve.”
“I think it’s perfectly possible for the sovereign and the PM to both attend a COP and for them both to play a complementary role,” Davey added.
Others are much more skeptical. “[The king] has a lot of close friends in the Middle East who are massive producers of oil,” said Graham Smith, boss of the Republic campaign group, which wants to abolish the British monarchy.
“They can use him as a point of access to the British state because he has direct access to the government, and whatever he says to government is entirely secretive.”
Cameron, meanwhile, has his own close ties to the UAE and — before his return to government — took on a teaching post at New York University Abu Dhabi earlier this year.
Negotiation confusion
The U.K.’s big three will be joined in Dubai by Energy Secretary — and Sunak ally — Claire Coutinho. But the head of the British delegation is a junior minister, Graham Stuart, who does not attend Cabinet.
While the country will be officially arguing — alongside the EU — for a “phase-out of unabated fossil fuels,” Stuart sparked confusion earlier this month when he suggested to MPs that he was not troubled by the distinction between a “phase-out” (a total end to production of fossil fuels, where carbon capture is not applied) and a “phase-down,” the softer language preferred by the summit’s president, UAE national oil company boss Sultan Al-Jaber.
Chris Skidmore, an MP and climate activist in Sunak’s Conservative party, and the author of a government-commissioned report on net zero policy, said Stuart was wrong if he thought the distinction was just “semantics.”
“The fate of the world is resting on a distinction between phase-out and phase-down. But the U.K. finds itself now [unable] to argue for phase-out because it’s joined the phase-down club.
“That in itself puts us in an entirely different strategic position to where we were.”
Climate brain drain
London’s climate diplomatic corps are still well-respected around the world, said the same European diplomat quoted above. Even with Sunak’s loosening of net zero policies, the U.K. is seen to be in the group of countries, alongside the EU, leading the push for strong action on cutting emissions.
And there is a chance Cameron’s appointment will see more effort going into the U.K.’s global reputation on climate, according to Skidmore.
Citizen scientist Pat Stirling checks the quality of the River Wye water in Hay-on-Wye | Darren Staples/AFP via Getty Images
“It was under his premiership that the U.K. played a leading role in helping to get the Paris Agreement [to limit global warming] signed through … It will be interesting to see if he comes to COP and wants to play on the opportunities for the U.K. to demonstrate its climate credentials,” he said.
But the team that pulled off a relatively successful COP26 now has significantly less firepower, said one former U.K. climate official, who warned their efforts risk being undermined by No. 10’s approach to fossil fuels.
“There was a brain drain of experts working on climate, [the sort of] officials that could help hold government to account internally and try to maintain the level of ambition that we needed,” the former official said.
This spring, the U.K. scrapped the dedicated role of climate envoy, held by the experienced diplomat Nick Bridge since 2017. The remaining team of climate diplomats have been left frustrated, the former official said, by changes to domestic climate policy driven by a Downing Street operation fixated with next year’s U.K. general election, without consideration for how they might affect Britain’s negotiating position on the world stage.
“When Sunak gave his speech in September [rolling back some interim green targets], his team didn’t even realize that a U.N. climate action summit was happening in New York,” the former official said. “His team aren’t thinking in this way. For them it’s just about votes and the election.”
The risk, said the European diplomat, is that countries at COP28 pushing for softer targets on fossil fuels — likely to include the Gulf states, China and Russia — could point to Sunak’s statements on a “proportionate, pragmatic” approach to net zero as a reason to ignore the U.K. and its allies when they call for higher ambition.
“This will happen,” the European diplomat said. “They can point to the U.K.’s prime minister and say — ‘Look what the U.K. is doing with its own climate ambitions. So why are you being such a hard-ass about ours?’”
As for Cameron’s potential impact at the FCDO, the European diplomat was skeptical.
“It was a big surprise for everybody, but we’re not sure what he can do,” they said. “Maybe he can call a referendum on the climate?”
THE HAGUE — One line in Geert Wilders’ inflammatory pitch to Dutch voters will haunt Brussels more than any other: a referendum on leaving the EU.
Seven years after the British voted for Brexit, a so-called Nexit ballot was a core plank of the far-right leader’s ultimately successful offer in the Netherlands.
And while Wilders softened his anti-Islam rhetoric in recent weeks, there are no signs he wants to water down his Euroskepticism after his shock election victory.
Even if Dutch voters are not persuaded to follow the Brits out of the EU — polling suggests it’s unlikely — there’s every indication that a Wilders-led government in The Hague will still be a nightmare for Brussels.
A seat for Wilders around the EU summit table would transform the dynamic, alongside other far-right and nationalist leaders already in post. Suddenly, policies ranging from climate action, to EU reform and weapons for Ukraine will be up for debate, and even reversal.
Since the exit polls were announced, potential center-right partners have not ruled out forming a coalition with Wilders, who emerged as the clear winner. That’s despite the fact that for the past 10 years, he’s been kept out by centrists.
For his part, the 60-year-old veteran appears to be dead serious about taking power himself this time.
Ever since Mark Rutte’s replacement as VVD leader, Dilan Yeşilgöz, indicated early in the campaign that she could potentially enter coalition talks with Wilders, the far-right leader has worked hard to look more reasonable. He diluted some of his most strident positions, particularly on Islam — such as banning mosques — saying there are bigger priorities to fix.
On Wednesday night, with the results coming in, Wilders was more explicit: “I understand very well that parties do not want to be in a government with a party that wants unconstitutional measures,” he said. “We are not going to talk about mosques, Qurans and Islamic schools.”
Even if Wilders is willing to drop his demand for an EU referendum in exchange for power, his victory will still send a shudder through the EU institutions.
And if centrist parties club together to keep Wilders out — again — there may be a price to pay with angry Dutch voters later on.
Brexit cheerleader Nigel Farage showed in the U.K. that you don’t need to be in power to be powerfully influential.
Winds of change
Migration was a dominant issue in the Dutch election. For EU politicians, it remains a pressing concern. As migrant numbers continue to rise, so too has support for far-right parties in many countries in Europe. In Italy last year, Giorgia Meloni won power for her Brothers of Italy. In France, Marine Le Pen’s National Rally remains a potent force, in second place in the polls. In Germany, the Alternative for Germany has also surged to second place in recent months.
In his victory speech, Wilders vowed to tackle what he called the “asylum tsunami” hitting the Netherlands.
“The main reasons voters have supported Wilders in these elections is his anti-immigration agenda, followed by his stances on the cost of living crisis and his health care position,” said Sarah de Lange, politics professor at the University of Amsterdam. Mainstream parties “legitimized Wilders” by making immigration a key issue, she said. “Voters might have thought that if that is the issue at stake, why not vote for the original rather than the copy?”
For the left, the bright spot in the Netherlands was a strong showing for a well-organized alliance between Labor and the Greens. Frans Timmermans, the former European Commission vice president, galvanized support behind him. But even that joint ticket could not get close to beating Wilders’ tally.
Next June, the 27 countries of the EU hold an election for the European Parliament.
On the same day voters choose their MEPs, Belgium is holding a general election. Far-right Flemish independence leader Tom Van Grieken, who is also eyeing up a major breakthrough, offered his congratulations to Wilders: “Parties like ours are on their way in the whole of Europe,” he said.
Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orbán was celebrating, too: “The winds of change are here!”
Pieter Haeck reported from Amsterdam and Tim Ross reported from London.
Tim Ross, Pieter Haeck, Eline Schaart and Jakob Hanke Vela
ROTTERDAM, Netherlands — As Dutch polling stations open on Wednesday, any one of four rival party leaders could yet win power.
Volatile polls in the final days of the campaign have left the outcome on a knife-edge, with the big surprise a sudden surge in support for the far-right party of Geert Wilders.
His anti-Islam and anti-EU Freedom Party (PVV) appears to be making a dramatic comeback — one poll put him level in first place with outgoing premier Mark Rutte’s group, the People’s Party for Freedom and Democracy (VVD).
The Labour-Green alliance, led by EU veteran Frans Timmermans, and a new party of centrist outsider Pieter Omtzigt are trailing behind in third and fourth place, according to pollster Maurice de Hond. Other polls put Timmermans’ party tied in first position with Wilders, closely followed by the VVD.
However, the differences are small and, most importantly, 63 percent of voters had not yet settled on their final choice one day ahead of the election, according to one report.
A return for Wilders would be a seismic moment for politics in the Netherlands. For the last 10 years, mainstream party leaders have refused to work with him in power-sharing arrangements.
But the new leader of Rutte’s party, Dilan Yeşilgöz, said early in the campaign that she would not exclude Wilders’ PVV from coalition negotiations. Wilders has taken a more moderate tone since.
He told television current affairs show Nieuwsuur that his views on Islam are taking a back seat because “there are more important priorities” to deal with after the election, citing healthcare and social security. The first thing Wilders said during a televised debate on Monday was that “he was available” as a coalition party.
However, his anti-Islam rhetoric is still very much part of the PVV’s election program. Launched 13 years ago, the party has been campaigning to ban mosques and the Koran, as well as Islamic headscarves from government buildings.
Wilders is also openly hostile to the European Union. He wants a so-called “Nexit” referendum and on leaving the bloc has called for all weapon supplies to Ukraine to stop.
Polling frenzy
The unexpected surge of public support for Wilders’ party was first signaled by pollster de Hond – who overestimated Wilders’ share by five seats in the last election. In a survey of almost 7,000 people on 17 November, he found that the PVV and VVD were neck and neck in 26 of the 150 seats, thanks to a five-seat surge for Wilders.
POLITICO’s Poll of Polls showed Yeşilgöz leading with 18 percent as the campaign drew to its finale, closely followed by the parties of Wilders and Timmermans with 16 percent each. Omtzigt’s party has fallen back a little in recent days, to 15 percent in the Poll of Polls. Once the results are in, he could still emerge as kingmaker in coalition talks.
NETHERLANDS NATIONAL PARLIAMENT ELECTION POLL OF POLLS
Even if the poll from de Hond proves to be a reliable prediction, the question is whether, and to what extent, the other parties want to work together with Wilders in government.
With his characteristic peroxide platinum hair, Wilders is the most experienced MP in parliament with 25 years under his belt. But his extreme views have kept him out of power-sharing coalitions, apart from in 2010, when he backed a Rutte minority cabinet for two years.
On Sunday, Yeşilgöz distanced herself from the PVV. “I refuse to shut out a single voter … [but] the PVV has policies like wanting the Netherlands to leave Europe, it wants a Nexit, it ignores climate problems, which would completely destroy this country,” she said.
Omtzigt has firmly ruled out joining forces with Wilders, saying his anti-Islam policies go against freedoms of expression and religion that are enshrined in the Dutch constitution.
Although Wilders emerging from the election as one of the biggest parties would be a nightmare scenario for supporters of the Green-Left alliance. Team Timmermans hopes that prospect might convince undecided and more progressive people to vote tactically for them to exclude the far right.
“It’s clear that Yeşilgöz has opened the door for Wilders in the government. This would mean someone participating in running the country who dismisses a million Dutch [Muslims] as second-class citizens,” Timmermans said.
Beyond the late surge for the far-right, the campaign has been dominated by three core issues: the cost of living, migration and climate change.
Against a backdrop of rising prices and a housing shortage that have left an estimated 830,000 people in poverty, most of the parties agree on the need to build more homes and spend more on welfare measures.
Wilders, Yeşilgöz and Omtzigt want to limit the number of asylum seekers and foreign workers — a plan that might prove difficult with the free movement of people under EU law. Timmermans is against limits but has proposed spreading asylum seekers more fairly across the country and reducing tax incentives for expats.
On climate, all main parties agree that the Netherlands needs to be climate neutral by 2050, except for Wilders who wants to leave the Paris agreement. Parties also agree that there is a need to reduce livestock and fertilizer use. The main disagreement has centered on nuclear energy. More rightwing and center parties are in favor of building new nuclear plants, but Timmermans has opposed this idea, saying it is risky, expensive, and challenging.
LONDON — Rishi Sunak appointed David Cameron as Britain’s new foreign secretary — in a shock comeback for the former prime minister.
Cameron, who resigned as PM in 2016 and later quit as a member of parliament after losing the Brexit referendum, will become a life peer in the House of Lords in order to take on the government role.
The move comes as Sunak carries out a major reshuffle of his government ranks, in a bid to arrest his Conservative Party’s large deficit in opinion polling.
He kicked off the reshuffle Monday by firing Home Secretary Suella Braverman, a key figure on the party’s right. James Cleverly, previously foreign sec, takes over from Braverman at the interior ministry.
Cameron’s return on Monday to one of the highest positions in government sent shockwaves through Westminster and the Conservative Party.
It marks the first post-war example of a former prime minister serving in a successor’s Cabinet since the 1970s, when Conservative Alec Douglas-Home was named foreign secretary in Ted Heath’s government.
Although both are seen as Tory centrists, Sunak and Cameron campaigned on opposite sides of the 2016 Brexit referendum. Cameron — who led a coalition government in 2010 and pulled off a dramatic election victory for the Tories in 2015 — has recently been critical of the prime minister over his decision to axe key parts of the HS2 rail link.
The ex-PM’s reputation took a hit amid a lobbying scandal in 2021. His record on foreign policy is controversial among some Conservatives. As prime minister he heralded a so-called “Golden Era” in U.K. relations with China, and hosted President Xi Jinping for a state visit.
Cameron: I want to help Sunak deliver
In a statement following his appointment, Cameron said the U.K. would “stand by our allies, strengthen our partnerships and make sure our voice is heard.”
And he added: “Though I may have disagreed with some individual decisions, it is clear to me that Rishi Sunak is a strong and capable prime minister, who is showing exemplary leadership at a difficult time.
“I want to help him to deliver the security and prosperity our country needs and be part of the strongest possible team that serves the United Kingdom and that can be presented to the country when the general election is held.”
But Pat McFadden of the opposition Labour Party used the new hire to take a dig at Sunak, who has recently attempted to pitch himself against successive governments of all stripes.
“A few weeks ago, Rishi Sunak said David Cameron was part of a failed status quo, now he’s bringing him back as his life raft,” McFadden quipped.
MADRID — Alberto Núñez Feijóo may not want to admit it but his hope of being Spain’s next prime minister may have to be lowered.
On Monday night, the leader of the center-right Popular Party, which won the most votes in last Sunday’s national election in Spain but fell short of securing a governing majority, was left without options to form a government after two key regional parties rejected his overtures.
To become Spain’s prime minister, a candidate whose party has not secured a governing majority needs to either get the backing of 176 of the total 350 MPs in an initial vote in parliament or wait for a second round of voting to secure a simple majority. MPs can also abstain, which means it can be difficult to determine the exact number of seats needed for a successful bid to form a government.
In a speech after a meeting of the Popular Party’s executive committee, Feijóo reaffirmed his determination to gather the support needed to advance with his candidacy, adding that as the leader of the party that garnered the most votes, it was his “duty.”
But his numbers don’t add up. His Popular Party controls 136 seats in parliament — all of its scenarios for victory require the support of the far-right Vox party’s 33 MPs. But because the combined right-wing forces only account for 169 seats, the conservative leader would also need the support of some regional parties.
While the conservative leader quickly secured the backing of the Navarrese People’s Union — a virtual offshoot of the Popular Party — the rest of his attempts to woo potential allies have gone nowhere, fast.
Vox Secretary-General Ignacio Garriga on Monday stated his party, with whom the Popular Party aspired to form a government,is not interested in supporting a prime minister that is also backed by the Basque Nationalist Party (PNV), one of the groups whose votes Feijóo would need to become prime minster.
“You can’t have a patriotic vote alongside that of a separatist party,” said Garriga, referring to the PNV. “It’s impossible.”
Feijóo was similarly rebuffed by the PNV’s Andoni Ortuzar, to whom he sent a chummy text message proposing they sit down to talk.
Ortuzar ignored Feijóo’s message for most of the day and only responded in the evening, when he called Feijóo to tell him his group was not interested in even meeting to discuss the possibility of a Popular Party-led government, the PNV posted on social media.
Meanwhile, Fernando Clavijo, secretary-general of the insular Canarian Coalition, told the Spanish media that his party’s sole MP would not back any government that included Vox.
Feijóo does “not have any possibility to become prime minister,” the group’s outgoing MP, Ana Oramas, said.
A summer of magical thinking
The combined rejections from Vox and the regional groups leave Feijóo without realistic options.
At this point, the only way his bid could succeed is if Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s 122 Socialist MPs agree to not vote against his hypothetical candidacy — a fantasy scenario that has no chance of happening after a campaign in which the Popular Party’s primary message was that it was time to “repeal Sanchismo.”
Pedro Sánchez — officially in caretaker mode since Sunday’s election — is laying low these days | Pierre-Philippe Marcou/AFP via Getty Images
Feijóo seemed determined to not let reality get in his way on Tuesday, insisting the Socialists needed to deal with him instead of negotiating with the left-wing parties and Basque and Catalan separatists, whose votes could allow Sánchez to remain prime minister.
“Spain holds the rotating presidency of the Council of the EU, we’re negotiating finance rules in Brussels … We need stability, pro-European sentiment and centralism,” he said in Santiago de Compostela.
“It would be a huge mistake for separatists to govern Spain,” he added. “It’s the traditional parties that have won the greatest amount of votes.”
While Popular Party spokesperson Borja Sémper rejected the possibility of a grand coalition with the Socialists, in an interview with Spain’s public radio he floated the idea of a minority government led by Feijóo that could forge some sort of pact with the center left to address some of the nation’s “challenges.”
Deputy Prime Minister María Jesús Montero on Tuesday also rejected any possibility of a deal between the Socialists and the Popular Party, and instead underlined Sánchez’s determination to form a coalition with the left-wing Sumar coalition and secure the support of a hodgepodge of Basque, Catalan and Galician nationalist groups.
The hope is to secure 172 yeas for Sánchez’s candidacy — slightly more than the 170 nays that will come from the right — and convince Catalan separatist group Junts, which has said it will not back the Socialists, to abstain.
“A progressive majority has backed the continuance of the Sánchez government’s progressive policies and rejected the Popular Party and Vox’s Trumpian politics,” Montero told Cadena Ser.
The expat factor
Although Spain’s election was held last Sunday, the definitive results won’t be known until this Saturday, when the votes of Spaniards living abroad are added to the total. Spanish consular offices around the world have registered over 2 million citizens,but the turnout among them is not yet known.
While the foreign vote has never dramatically shifted the outcome of a Spanish election, it can alter the results of one or two seats — and that could make a difference in this particular parliament.
Pablo Simón, a political scientist at Madrid’s Carlos III University, said that while changes could further complicate Sánchez’s plan to remain prime minister, they would almost certainly not improve Feijóo’s chances of taking power.
The nightmare scenario, of course, would be if enough seats changed hands that the left and right-wing blocs were left controlling the exact same numbers. Simón said that while such a “catastrophic blockage” was highly unlikely, lack of information about participation rates or political leanings of expat voters made it difficult to guess what could happen.
Discretion is everything
Sánchez — officially in caretaker mode since Sunday’s election — is laying low these days. It’s a canny strategy that is focusing the public’s attention on Feijóo’s inability to gather support for his candidacy.
On Tuesday, Sánchez’s spokesperson announced that the traditional summer meeting between the Spanish PM and King Felipe VI in the Marivent Palace in Mallorca had been canceled; the two will meet in Madrid after the holidays. Pundits speculate Sánchez did not want to appear to be getting any special access to the monarch, who will decide who gets to try form Spain’s next government.
Meanwhile, Deputy PM Montero confirmed that behind-the-scenes talks between the Socialists and the groups whose support Sánchez needs were underway. “A successful negotiation depends on discretion,” Montero said.
The left-wing Sumar party, Sánchez’s projected coalition partners, has been entrusted with the delicate task of making contact with the Catalan separatist Junts party, whose abstention in a parliamentary vote on Feijóo’s candidacy will be key to the prime minister’s gamble.
Montero said Sánchez is keen to negotiate with them but no blanket amnesties will be granted — including to its founder Carles Puidgemont, who is sought by Spanish authorities for his role in the 2017 Catalan independence referendum. Likewise, holding an official independence referendum in Catalonia is also off the table.
“The Socialist Party is a constitutionalist party, so everything we do has to be contemplated within the framework of the constitution,” she said.
LIVERPOOL, England — On the long picket line outside the gates of Liverpool’s Peel Port, rain-soaked dock workers warm themselves with cups of tea as they listen to 1980s pop.
Dozens of buses, cars and trucks honk in solidarity as they pass.
Dockers’ strikes are not new to Liverpool, nor is depravation. But this latest walk-out at Britain’s fourth-largest port is part of something much bigger, a great wave of public and private sector strikes taking place across the U.K. Railways, postal services, law courts and garbage collections are among the many public services grinding to a halt.
The immediate cause of the discontent, as elsewhere, is the rising cost of living. Inflation in the United Kingdom breached the 10 percent mark this year, with wages failing to keep pace.
But the U.K.’s economic woes long predate the current crisis. For more than a decade, Britain has been beset by weak economic growth, anaemic productivity, and stagnant private and public sector investment. Since 2016, its political leadership has been in a state of Brexit-induced flux.
Half a century after U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger looked at the U.K.’s 1970s economic malaise and declared that “Britain is a tragedy,” the United Kingdom is heading to be the sick man of Europe once again.
The immediate cause of Liverpool dockers’ discontent that brought them to strike is the rising cost of living. | Christopher Furlong/Getty Images
Here in Liverpool, the “scars run very deep,” said Paul Turking, a dock worker in his late 30s. British voters, he added, have “been misled” by politicians’ promises to “level up” the country by investing heavily in regional economies. Conservatives “will promise you the world and then pull the carpet out from under your feet,” he complained.
“There’s no middle class no more,” said John Delij, a Peel Port veteran of 15 years. He sees the cost-of-living crisis and economic stagnation whittling away the middle rung of the economic ladder.
“How many billionaires do we have?” Delij asked, wondering how Britain could be the sixth-largest economy in the world with a record number of billionaires when food bank use is 35 percent above its pre-pandemic level. “The workers put money back into the economy,” he said.
What would they do if they were in charge? “Invest in affordable housing,” said Turking. “Housing and jobs.”
Falling behind
The British economy has been struck by particular turbulence over recent weeks. The cost of government borrowing soared in the wake of former PM Liz Truss’ disastrous mini-budget on September 23, with the U.K.’s central bank forced to step in and steady the bond markets.
But while the swift installation of Rishi Sunak, the former chancellor, as prime minister seems to have restored a modicum of calm, the economic backdrop remains bleak. Spending and welfare cuts are coming. Taxes are certain to rise. And the underlying problems cut deep.
U.K. productivity growth since the financial crisis has trailed that of comparator nations such as the U.S., France and Germany. As such, people’s median incomes also lag behind neighboring countries over the same period. Only Russia is forecast to have worse economic growth among the G20 nations in 2023.
In 1976, the U.K. — facing stagflation, a global energy crisis, a current account deficit and labor unrest — had to be bailed out by the International Monetary Fund. It feels far-fetched, but today some are warning it could happen again.
The U.K. is spluttering its way through an illness brought about in part through a series of self-inflicted wounds that have undermined the basic pillars of any economy: confidence and stability.
The political and economic malaise is such that it has prompted unwanted comparisons with countries whose misfortunes Britain once watched amusedly from afar.
“The existential risk to the U.K. … is not that we’re suddenly going to go off an economic cliff, or that the country’s going to descend into civil war or whatever,” said Jonathan Portes, professor of economics at King’s College London. “It’s that we will become like Italy.”
Portes, of course, does not mean a country blessed with good weather and fine food — but an economy hobbled by persistently low growth, caught in a dysfunctional political loop that lurches between “corrupt and incompetent right-wing populists” and “well-intentioned technocrats who can’t actually seem to turn the ship around.”
“That’s not the future that we want in the U.K,” he said.
Reviving the U.K.’s flatlining economy will not happen overnight. As Italy’s experience demonstrates, it’s one thing to diagnose an illness — another to cure it.
Experts speak of an unbalanced model heavily reliant upon Britain’s services sector and beset with low productivity, a result of years of underinvestment and a flexible labor market which delivers low unemployment but often insecure and low-paid work.
“We’re not investing in skills; businesses aren’t investing,” said Xiaowei Xu, senior research economist at the Institute for Fiscal Studies. “It’s not that surprising that we’re not getting productivity growth.”
But any attempt to address the country’s ailments will require its economic stewards to understand their underlying causes — and those stretch back at least to the first truly global crisis of the 21st century.
Crash and burn
The 2008 financial crisis hammered economies around the world, and the U.K. was no exception. Its economy shrunk by more than 6 percent between the first quarter of 2008 and the second quarter of 2009. Five years passed before it returned to its pre-recession size.
For Britain, the crisis in fact began in September 2007, a year before the collapse of Lehman Brothers, when wobbles in the U.S. subprime mortgage market sparked a run on the British bank Northern Rock.
The U.K. discovered it was particularly vulnerable to such a shock. Over the second half of the 20th century, its manufacturing base had largely eroded as its services sector expanded, with financial and professional services and real estate among the key drivers. As the Bank of England put it: “The interconnectedness of global finance meant that the U.K. financial system had become dangerously exposed to the fall-out from the U.S. sub-prime mortgage market.”
The crisis was a “big shock to the U.K.’s broad economic model,” said John Springford, from the Centre for European Reform. Productivity took an immediate hit as exports of financial services plunged. It never fully recovered.
“Productivity before the crash was basically, ‘Can we create lots and lots of debt and generate lots and lots of income on the back of this? Can we invent collateralized debt obligations and trade them in vast volumes?’” said James Meadway, director of the Progressive Economy Forum and a former adviser to Labour’s left-wing former shadow chancellor, John McDonnell.
A post-crash clampdown on City practises had an obvious impact.
“This is a major part of the British economy, so if it’s suddenly not performing the way it used to — for good reasons — things overall are going to look a bit shaky,” Meadway added.
The shock did not contain itself to the economy. In a pattern that would be repeated, and accentuated, in the coming years, it sent shuddering waves through the country’s political system, too.
The 2010 election was fought on how to best repair Britain’s broken economy. In 2009, the U.K. had the second-highest budget deficit in the G7, trailing only the U.S., according to the U.K. government’s own fiscal watchdog, the Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR).
The Conservative manifesto declared “our economy is overwhelmed by debt,” and promised to close the U.K.’s mounting budget deficit in five years with sharp public sector cuts. The incumbent Labour government responded by pledging to halve the deficit by 2014 with “deeper and tougher” cuts in public spending than the significant reductions overseen by former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s.
The election returned a hung parliament, with the Conservatives entering into a coalition with the Liberal Democrats. The age of austerity was ushered in.
Austerity nation
Defenders of then-Chancellor George Osborne’s austerity program insist it saved Britain from the sort of market-led calamity witnessed this fall, and put the U.K. economy in a condition to weather subsequent global crises such as the COVID-19 pandemic and the fallout from the war in Ukraine.
“That hard work made policies like furlough and the energy price cap possible,” said Rupert Harrison, one of Osborne’s closest Treasury advisers.
Pointing to the brutal market response to Truss’ freewheeling economic plans, Harrison praised the “wisdom” of the coalition in prioritizing tackling the U.K.’s debt-GDP ratio. “You never know when you will be vulnerable to a loss of credibility,” he noted.
But Osborne’s detractors argue austerity — which saw deep cuts to community services such as libraries and adult social care; courts and prisons services; road maintenance; the police and so much more — also stripped away much of the U.K.’s social fabric, causing lasting and profound economic damage. A recent study claimed austerity was responsible for hundreds of thousands of excess deaths.
Under Osborne’s plan, three-quarters of the fiscal consolidation was to be delivered by spending cuts. With the exception of the National Health Service, schools and aid spending, all government budgets were slashed; public sector pay was frozen; taxes (mainly VAT) rose.
But while the government came close to delivering its fiscal tightening target for 2014-15, “the persistent underperformance of productivity and real GDP over that period meant the deficit remained higher than initially expected,” the OBR said. By his own measure, Osborne had failed, and was forced to push back his deficit-elimination target further. Austerity would have to continue into the second half of the 2010s.
Many economists contend that the fiscal belt-tightening sucked demand out of the economy and worsened Britain’s productivity crisis by stifling investment. “That certainly did hit U.K. growth and did some permanent damage,” said King’s College London’s Portes.
“If that investment isn’t there, other people start to find it less attractive to open businesses,” former Labour aide Meadway added. “If your railways aren’t actually very good … it does add up to a problem for businesses.”
A 2015 study found U.K. productivity, as measured by GDP per hour worked, was now lower than in the rest of the G7 by a whopping 18 percentage points.
“Frankly, nobody knows the whole answer,” Osborne said of Britain’s productivity conundrum in May 2015. “But what I do know is that I’d much rather have the productivity challenge than the challenge of mass unemployment.”
‘Jobs miracle’
Rising employment was indeed a signature achievement of the coalition years. Unemployment dropped below 6 percent across the U.K. by the end of the parliament in 2015, with just Germany and Austria achieving a lower rate of joblessness among the then-28 EU states. Real-term wages, however, took nearly a decade to recover to pre-crisis levels.
Economists like Meadway contend that the rise in employment came with a price, courtesy of Britain’s famously flexible labor market. He points to a Sports Direct warehouse in the East Midlands, where a 2015 Guardian investigation revealed the predominantly immigrant workforce was paid illegally low wages, while the working conditions were such that the facility was nicknamed “the gulag.”
The warehouse, it emerged, was built on a former coal mine, and for Meadway the symbolism neatly charts the U.K.’s move away from traditional heavy industry toward more precarious service sector employment. “It’s not a secure job anymore,” he said. “Once you have a very flexible labor market, the pressure on employers to pay more and the capacity for workers to bargain for more is very much reduced.”
Throughout the period, the Bank of England — the U.K.’s central bank — kept interest rates low and pursued a policy of quantitative easing. “That tends to distort what happens in the economy,” argued Meadway. QE, he said, is a “good [way of] getting money into the hands of people who already have quite a lot” and “doesn’t do much for people who depend on wage income.”
Meanwhile — whether necessary or not — the U.K.’s austerity policies undoubtedly worsened a decades-long trend of underinvestment in skills and research and development (Britain lags only Italy in the G7 on R&D spending). At British schools, there was a 9 percent real terms fall in per-pupil spending between 2009 and 2019, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ Xu. “As countries get richer, usually you start spending more on education,” Xu noted.
Two senior ministers in the coalition government — David Gauke, who served in the Treasury throughout Osborne’s tenure, and ex-Lib Dem Business Secretary Vince Cable — have both accepted that the government might have focused more on higher taxation and less on cuts to public spending. But both also insisted the U.K had ultimately been correct to prioritize putting its public finances on a sounder footing.
It was February 2018 before Britain finally achieved Osborne’s goal of eliminating the deficit on its day-to-day budget.
Austerity was coming to an end, at last. But Osborne had already left the Treasury, 18 months earlier — swept away along with Cameron in the wake of a seismic national uprising.
***
David Cameron had won the 2015 election outright, despite — or perhaps because of — the stringent spending cuts his coalition government had overseen, more of which had been pledged in his 2015 manifesto. Also promised, of course, was a public vote on Britain’s EU membership.
The reasons for the leave vote that followed were many and complex — but few doubt that years of underinvestment in poorer parts of the U.K. were among them.
Regardless, the 2016 EU referendum triggered a period of political acrimony and turbulence not seen in Westminster for generations. With no pre-agreed model of what Brexit should actually entail, the U.K.’s future relationship with the EU became the subject of heated and protracted debate. After years of wrangling, Britain finally left the bloc at the end of January 2020, severing ties in a more profound way than many had envisaged.
While the twin crises of COVID and Ukraine have muddled the picture, most economists agree Brexit has already had a significant impact on the U.K. economy. The size of Britain’s trade flows relative to GDP has fallen further than other G7 countries, business investment growth trails the likes of Japan, South Korea and Italy, and the OBR has stuck by its March 2020 prediction that Brexit would reduce productivity and U.K. GDP by 4 percent.
Perhaps more significantly, Brexit has ushered in a period of political instability. As prime ministers come and go (the U.K. is now on its fifth since 2016), economic programs get neglected, or overturned. Overseas investors look on with trepidation.
“The evidence that the referendum outcome, and the kind of uncertainty and change in policy that it created, have led to low investment and low growth in the U.K. is fairly compelling,” said professor Stephen Millard, deputy director at the National Institute of Economic and Social Research.
Beyond the instability, the broader impact of the vote to leave remains contentious.
Portes argued — as many Remain supporters also do — that much harm was done by the decision to leave the EU’s single market. “It’s the facts, not the uncertainty that in my view is responsible for most of the damage,” he said.
Brexit supporters dismiss such claims.
“It’s difficult statistically to find much significant effect of Brexit on anything,” said professor Patrick Minford, founder member of Economists for Brexit. “There’s so much else going on, so much volatility.”
Minford, an economist favored by ex-PM Truss, acknowledged that “Brexit is disruptive in the short run, so it’s perfectly possible that you would get some short-run disruption.” But he added: “It was a long-term policy decision.”
Where next?
Plenty of economists can rattle off possible solutions, although actually delivering them has thus far evaded Britain’s political class. “It’s increasing investment, having more of a focus on the long-term, it’s having economic strategies that you set out and actually commit to over time,” says the IFS’ Xu. “As far as possible, it’s creating more certainty over economic policy.”
But in seeking to bring stability after the brief but chaotic Truss era, new U.K. Chancellor Jeremy Hunt has signaled a fresh period of austerity is on the way to plug the latest hole in the nation’s finances. Leveling Up Secretary Michael Gove told Times Radio that while, ideally, you wouldn’t want to reduce long-term capital investments, he was sure some spending on big projects “will be cut.”
This could be bad news for many of the U.K.’s long-awaited infrastructure schemes such as the HS2 high-speed rail line, which has been in the works for almost 15 years and already faces a familiar mix of local resistance, vested interests, and a sclerotic planning system.
“We have a real problem in the sense that the only way to really durably raise productivity growth for this country is for investments to pick up,” said Springford, from the Centre for European Reform. “And the headwinds to that are quite significant.”
For dock workers at Liverpool’s Peel Port, the prospect of a fresh round of austerity amid a cost-of-living crisis is too much to bear. “Workers all over this country need to stand up for themselves and join a union,” insisted Delij.
For him, it’s all about priorities — and the arguments still echo back to the great crash of 15 years ago. “They bailed the bankers out in 2007,” he said, “and can’t bail hungry people out now.”
LONDON — It was a revolution 11 long years in the making.
For a small but vocal band of right-wing libertarians, Liz Truss’ appointment as U.K. prime minister on September 6 seemed the triumphant end point of an epic and improbable march that led them from the fringes of British politics to Whitehall’s grandest corridors of power.
In the course of just over a decade, a group of little-known politicians, fringe think tanks and outspoken media figures had helped drag the Tory Party, and the nation it led, from David Cameron’s vision of so-called compassionate Conservatism — hugging huskies and all — to a Brexit-backing, free-market embracing, low-tax juggernaut.
It took them four Tory prime ministers, four general elections and an era-defining referendum to do it — but with Truss in charge, they were finally living their dream. The country was to be remade in their image.
It lasted 44 chaotic days, and no more.
“They felt their moment had come at last,” said Tim Bale, professor of politics at Queen Mary University London. “This would prove that Brexit hadn’t been a ghastly mistake, but a fantastic opportunity. But of course, as it was always based on fantasy, it was always bound to collide with reality.”
Truss was elected Conservative leader — and so U.K. prime minister — last month on the votes of just 81,000 party members, a group large enough to defeat her more centrist opponent, Rishi Sunak, but still small enough to fit comfortably inside Wembley stadium, home of the England football team.
This band of true-blue believers had been wooed by her heady promises of a low-tax, low-regulation state that would embrace the opportunities provided by Brexit.
But as soon as PM Truss started to put her promises into action — via a ‘mini-budget’ on September 23 which included tens of billions of pounds in unfunded tax cuts alongside a massive energy subsidy scheme — the markets began sliding into turmoil. Within days it was clear Truss had triggered an economic crisis — and one that sent the Conservative poll ratings tumbling along with the value of the pound.
Her MPs, facing electoral oblivion, were terrified.
In the weeks that followed, Truss was forced to sack her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and U-turn on most of their economic program in a desperate bid to stabilize the markets. This week her home secretary, Suella Braverman, followed Kwarteng out the door. Her MPs became mutinous, some publicly demanding her head. Support rapidly drained away.
Truss was forced to sack her Chancellor Kwasi Kwarteng and U-turn on most of their economic program in a desperate bid to stabilize the markets | Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images
Truss’ disastrous six weeks in power were an abject humiliation for the prime minister herself, of course — but also for the libertarian right of the Conservative movement that had fought its corner for years.
Winners and losers
“I’m pretty distraught about it,” said Mark Littlewood, director general of the Institute for Economic Affairs (IEA), one of the right-wing Westminster think tanks that inspired the Truss agenda. (He, like most of the interviewees for this article, was speaking after the abandonment of Truss’ economic program earlier this week, but before she finally resigned Thursday afternoon.)
“It did actually appear as if we had a new government that, in very broad terms, shared the IEA analysis of the problems with our economy, and it not being market-oriented enough.”
But Truss botched the “political execution” rather than economic thinking, Littlewood insisted, lamenting that “if the execution goes badly wrong, it has a rebound effect on the ideas.”
Indeed, Conservative libertarians explain the Truss debacle in various ways: She was not clear enough about what she was doing and the reasons for it; she made the announcements in the wrong sequence; she refused to match her tax cuts with spending restraint; and she failed to produce independent proof that her plans would work. There is certainly little sign of remorse.
“The position we’re in now is that these reforms basically have not been tried,” Littlewood insisted. “Her attempts to implement change were too hurried; too rushed; not thought through; naïve in some regard.”
Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage was another right-wing libertarian who had been advocating for low-tax, small-state ideals for decades.
“I think the hope was that the Kwarteng budget was going to mark a very significant moment,” Farage said. “That now appears to be dead. And I would have thought dead for a very, very long time. The people in the Conservative Party that I talk to, who think on my wavelength … have pretty much given up.”
But Tories opposed to the libertarian agenda are delighted at its failure — if not the disastrous fallout, for country and party alike. “The mild flirtation with Tea Party libertarianism has been strangled at birth, and I think for the general good fortune of the Tory Party that has to be seen as a good thing,” Tory backbencher Simon Hoare told the BBC.
One serving Cabinet minister added: “[The libertarians] are going to have to adjust to reality like the rest of us. They can’t buck the market.”
Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage was another right-wing libertarian who had been advocating for low-tax, small-state ideals for decades | Peter Summers/Getty Images
Nicky Morgan, a former Cabinet minister who previously co-chaired the centrist ‘One Nation’ caucus of Tory MPs, said her party must now return to its former broad-church approach.
“The task for the ‘One Nation’ wing of the party is almost to ignore the libertarian right and get on with reasserting one-nation politics, and prove to everyone from Liz Truss downward that if we want to stay in power, then being sane and sensible in the middle ground is a much stronger place to be,” she said.
The long march
For some on the conservative right, so-called Trussonomics was the inevitable end point of a march toward deregulation that began with the Brexit movement in the early 2010s. Farage was one of a number of Brexiteer thinkers who wanted the U.K. to leave the EU in a bid to drive up business competitiveness.
Bale said the libertarian strain in the Conservative Party had in fact been present for decades, but that the Brexit cause emboldened it and brought it to the fore.
The turning point came in 2011, when a number of right-wing Conservative MPs — many of them newly-elected the previous year — rebelled against then-Prime Minister David Cameron and voted in support of a referendum on EU membership. “That was the first time they realized their strength,” Bale said.
Across the country, anti-EU sentiment was rising, fueled by the eurozone crisis and soaring levels of immigration.
“There was a ‘push me, pull you’ going on,” Farage said. “The stronger UKIP got, the more emboldened the Tory Brexiteers got. 2011 was the moment when UKIP suddenly started coming second in by-elections. This group in the Tory Party, and this group outside the Tory Party — namely my group — always had very similar policy goals.”
Cameron was spooked, and the pressure from within and without his party forced him to agree a referendum on Britain’s EU membership. It was won by the Leave-supporting side in 2016, cheered on by a highly vocal section of the right-wing U.K. press which also supports low taxes and deregulation.
“The referendum allowed them all to coalesce around a single issue,” said David Yelland, a former editor of the Rupert Murdoch-owned, Brexit-backing Sun newspaper, who now speaks out against the influence of right-wing media.
“The right of the Conservative Party and their supporters in the media and the think tank world knew they had one go at this. They had to win Brexit, otherwise they were finished. And they did. And since then that has emboldened them.”
Keep pushing on
With Cameron forced from office, the group’s next battle was with his successor Theresa May, a euroskeptic Remainer who tried to negotiate a less drastic form of Brexit which would have left Britain tied to many of Brussels’ rules and regulations.
Farage said the “loose relationship” between pro-Brexit libertarians inside and outside the Tory Party maintained its hold over the new Tory leader, ultimately blocking her proposed Brexit deal in Parliament and forcing her resignation.
Theresa May was a euroskeptic Remainer who tried to negotiate a less drastic form of Brexit | WPA pool photo by Henry Nicholls/Getty Images
Boris Johnson then emerged as the next prime minister, a genuine ‘Vote Leave’ campaigner who was able to push through the hard-nosed form of Brexit the group had dreamed of. But his personal brand of domestic politics was less to their taste — a sort of high-spending boosterism which appealed to millions of Tory and pro-Brexit voters, if not to the libertarian right.
“The core Brexiteers were not ultra-libertarians,” explained former Tory MP Stewart Jackson, who lost his job as a ministerial bag carrier to vote with the pro-Brexit rebels in 2011.
“There were a few that wanted [London to become] Singapore-on-Thames … but the bulk of Brexiteer MPs and definitely Brexiteer voters were much more what I would call communitarian.”
But Jackson said the vacuum of ideas about how best to respond to Brexit, even among many Brexiteers, left space for the libertarians to fill. “They were the only game in town in terms of a new intellectual concept that the U.K. could consolidate on, being outside the European Union,” he said.
With Johnson’s departure in July following a series of personal scandals, the likes of Littlewood — as well as his brothers in arms at neighboring think tanks the Taxpayers Alliance and the Adam Smith Institute — found themselves in the ascendance.
Their ideas found favor with Truss — who despite not being a Brexiteer at the referendum, was a follower of the libertarian cause — and her Chancellor-to-be Kwarteng. The ambitious pair were among colleagues who wrote a now infamous 2012 pamphlet named “Britannia Unchained” offering radical right-wing solutions to Britain’s economic problems.
Less than two months after Johnson’s departure, their economic prospectus was finally put to the test — and exploded on impact.
The arc of history
As Truss and Kwarteng look back at the ashes of their brief Downing Street careers, the pro-Brexit right is licking its wounds and wondering where it goes next.
Shanker Singham, another libertarian thinker who is close to Truss and the IEA, insisted it was too soon to tell whether the low-tax, ultra-competition agenda is too damaged by the Trussonomics experiment to resurface in the near future.
Brexit supporters march in Fulham in the final leg of the March To Leave Rally on March 29, 2019 | Dan Kitwood/Getty Images
“It’s a very febrile atmosphere, and things have to settle down,” he said. “There’s a big arc of history here, and Liz Truss’ mini-budget does not suddenly transform the arc of history.”
Littlewood insists there will be another chance to implement libertarian policies in less than a decade, given the structural economic problems Britain faces.
“Had this [mini-budget] gone as smoothly as I had imagined it in my dreams, rather than as badly as it has gone in my living nightmare, I think we could have got quite a lot of this done now,” he said. “Unfortunately, a large amount of it is off the table now, but I think it will have to be returned to.”
Brexiteers of a different persuasion — of which there are many — are hoping for an urgent change of direction, however.
“The vision of Brexit as ‘Davos on Thames’, only ever held by 10 percent of the Conservative electorate, is dead,” wrote Matthew Goodwin, an academic who has charted the rise of the populist right. “The only way forward for the Conservative Party now is to get back to what Brexit was really about for the 90 percent, and to reconnect with their 2019 electorate.”
But Bale, of Queen Mary University, believes the libertarian strain among Conservatives will forever lurk just beneath the surface, insisting their radical solutions to the nation’s ills have still not been properly tried.
“When the spaceship doesn’t arrive,” he said, “the cultists simply say ‘we got the date wrong’, and that it will be coming in two years’ time.”
Additional reporting by Annabelle Dickson.
Discover the London Playbook newsletter
What’s driving the day in Westminster. Politics and policymaking in the UK capital.
