Nigel Farage is clearly unfit to govern Britain
For a party which, rightly in my opinion, calls out the failures of multiculturalism, Reform UK should have had a view on the burqa. Whether that garb represents a rejection of British culture and the repression of women, or whether it is simply a matter of personal choice, Reform should have had a settled position on it. It did not. Sarah Pochin, one of its MPs, is seemingly against it and Zia Yusuf, its now erstwhile chairman, is not.
The party's failure to have a line on a subject, raised no less by Pochin at PMQs, is symptomatic of a greater problem within Reform. It has no settled political philosophy.
This is evident from manifold self-contradictory statements made by Farage himself. He is on the record saying he is not concerned about the rate of demographic change in the country, though he is worried about the cultural damage being done to our country. They are two sides of the same coin.
On that same point, he would be prepared to consider a return of Shamima Begum to the country. He is against illegal migration but has no intention of deporting all illegal migrants.
He claims to stand up for the United Kingdom but readily accepts that Northern Ireland will inevitably be united with Ireland. He recognises the urgent need to cut government spending and reverse the culture of dependency, but would remove the cap on benefits for more than two children.
His lack of a coherent philosophy is also evident in the people he has recruited into the party. Nick Candy, his treasurer, is a Blairite. He offered to put forward Charlie Mullins, an avowed Remainer, as a candidate. Even Pochin, a former Tory, had previously welcomed Syrian and Afghan asylum seekers. He has recruited councillors and members from all parts of the political spectrum – from Labour and Tory to the Liberal Democrats.
There is no heart and soul in Reform. It is merely a campaigning vehicle for Farage to capitalise on the discontent with Labour and the Tories. It is a protest party.
The events of the last few days also reveal, yet again, Reform lacks discipline. How is it that an MP would ask a question in Parliament which would so offend the chairman? And why did the chairman then feel able to publicly denounce her as 'dumb'?
Farage is Reform and Reform is Farage. He likes it that way. He has seemingly failed to establish a proper party structure and constitution. I campaigned hard last year for the party's democratisation. I did so in part so that it would have in-built checks and balances. With due processes established, there would have been no way for an MP to go off-piste in Parliament or for the chairman to then make a fool of himself.
If Reform intends to be the antidote to the nation's woes, Farage needs to honestly reflect on recent events. He must realise the party needs a coherent political philosophy and policies which flow from this. He must establish foundations for the party which allow it to function and grow as a proper organisation.
Reform is doing extremely well in the polls. If sustained, this could propel it into office. The party therefore has an obligation to take itself seriously and do the heavy lifting required to form a successful government. The sort for which we all so yearn.
Farage is a brilliant and cunning campaigner. But he proves, time and again, that he is not fit to create a government or lead it.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
18 minutes ago
- BBC News
Belfast City Hall: What do people think of new plans to charge £4 for exhibition?
Should people be charged to tour a Belfast City Hall exhibition?On Monday, People Before Profit councillor Michael Collins proposed to drop Belfast City Council's plan to charge people £4 to visit the venue's ground floor exhibition, which is usually a vote TUV councillor Ron McDowell was the only politician to second the proposal while the other parties voted against scrapping plans for the new News NI went along to find out what tourists and locals thought about being charged £4 for self-guided tours in the future. What are people being charged for? In May, Belfast City Council agreed plans to charge people a £4 entrance fee to the city hall ground floor exhibition as part of its 'City Hall Income Generation Project'.It was decided that free tours should take place through community visits organised by councillors and that under 18s would be exempt from the new members of the public can turn up for a walk-in booking or book exhibition tickets for up to nine people by email at no cost. Collins said plans to raise revenue by increasing the prices of services was "worrying"."An exhibition that really was free, is now going to be charged. Where does this end? Will we start charging people to access the building itself?", he who seconded the proposal said that he felt Collins had a point, "considering this building is owned by the citizens of Belfast" that it would be charging them for something they "already own". The DUP, SDLP, UUP, Green Party, Sinn Féin, Alliance Party and one Independent councillor voted against the proposal to scrap the new News NI contacted the main parties. A spokesperson for the DUP group on Belfast City Council said that they have a "strategic plan" to deliver more benefit to the ratepayers of the city. "At present tourists to the city, mainly large groups from cruise ships, are accessing the exhibition for free and costs for staffing etc are being absorbed by ratepayers."The £4 charge means visitors can pay £10 to access both the exhibition and a tour of city hall."Provision has been made for residents of the city to still access these for free through civic dignitaries or councillors." What's free and what's not? It is currently free to visit the City Hall visitor exhibition. The exhibition opened in 2017 and is found on the east wing of the ground floor. If offers a self-guided journey from Belfast's past to present across six themed zones, stretching through 16 city hall offers a separate 45 minute guided tour for visitors which costs £6 for adults and is free for tour offers glimpses into areas not usually accessible to the public like the council chamber and some of the upstairs public has full access the toilets, coffee shop, gift shop and stained windows along the north west and north east corridors from the main reception. There are no plans to change this. What do members of the public think? Geraldine and Martin O'Hare, originally from Belfast, came from Melbourne to visit O'Hares have lost neither their accent nor their nostalgia for Belfast."If you come to Belfast, you have to see the City Hall. For Australians or anyone, the City Hall is Belfast. Not the docks. Not the parks."That's what it's all about", Martin told BBC News later, he was reunited with his aunt outside the iconic building that he said is a central part of Belfast for tourists and locals alike. Geraldine told BBC News NI that everything in the city hall should be free for those who live in Northern Ireland, instead of the free tours having to be booked through a councillor."A public building should be available for the public, the people of Northern Ireland and Belfast especially.""It's there for the public to use and even a bonus for the visitors of Belfast", she added. Visiting Belfast from Copenhagen, Henrick thought that £4 "isn't too bad". Fresh from doing the tour, he said it was a "great experience" where you can "read a lot about the history of Belfast and Northern Ireland"."I think you can make tourists pay for it and then the members of the city or community should be free of charge. That's a way you can do it", he added. Sahid Zaman and Zerin Salma weren't as enthusiastic about paying for the tour."It's very good but not worth the money. I think it should be open to all people so they don't need to pay that", Sahid message for councillors was clear: "I think it should be free – keep it as it is". "This is our own history so you shouldn't pay", Zerin added. Fionnuala McCarten and Ted Workman were visiting the city hall to register the birth of their four-week-old daughter Fiadh. Asked if they would pay for the exhibition, Fionnuala said if she was tourist she would but if you live here, "there's no point".Ted agreed: "As someone who lives here I wouldn't pay £4 but maybe as a tourist I actually would because if I was visiting a different country I probably would to go in and check out the history and stuff". Stockport Trefoil members Eva, Ashley and Jean are in Northern Ireland for the Trefoil national meeting in Belfast on Saturday. They popped into the exhibition before heading over to the the Titanic museum. Jean told BBC News NI that in Manchester "a lot of the tours you have to pay but they are free to local residents so maybe that is the way to go".Eva thinks that £4 is a reasonable amount for visitors but said because it was free, it was "more of a tempting offer". She said she felt "rates" that local people pay mean it should be free for them. No date has been set yet for the charges to come into action and the council has already decided they will be reviewed after one year.
The Herald Scotland
36 minutes ago
- The Herald Scotland
So now you know, SNP: indy is not what people care about
There may have been little talk of independence in the campaign but Katy Loudon, the SNP candidate, put out a Facebook video on the morning of the by-election which made clear it's all about separating us from the rest of the UK. The unionist parties' share of the vote at the by-election was just short of 66%. If that doesn't send a clear message to the SNP and the Greens that independence is not what is important at the moment, I don't know what will. Maybe if the SNP improved our NHS, our education system, housing, our infrastructure, managed to build ferries and dual our roads on time and improve our economy, it might get more support. That would be novel, would it not? Jane Lax, Aberlour. Nothing short of humiliation It wasn't only the kitchen sink that the SNP flung at the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election. It threw the washing machine, tumble drier and dishwasher as well. Anyone who saw on social media the gangs of SNP enthusiasts roaming the constituency, saturating it with MSPs including ministers, as well as foot soldiers, with a massive intensity, for weeks and especially in the last two weeks, must have imagined that it was a seat they could not lose. I wondered, in the last days, whether the SNP was not engaging in overkill, that the good folk of the constituency might be saturated with SNP propaganda to the point of apathy. The turnout, at 44 per cent, suggested that as a partial possibility. In this by-election, it was possible to utilise all the party's resources, and it did. That would not be remotely a possibility in any one constituency in a General Election. The result was nothing short of humiliation for the SNP. It is also a personal humiliation for John Swinney, who spent much time in the last week campaigning in the constituency rather than attending to First Minister's business. Nothing much will change at Holyrood, of course, but Mr Swinney's insistence that Scotland does not welcome Reform UK looks a bit hollow after it scooped up 26 per cent of the vote. Perhaps we can have a break from his preaching about Scotland being allegedly more moral than England. Ah well, one can but hope. Jill Stephenson, Edinburgh. Read more letters For many, politics is not working It is alarming that, in Thursday's by-election, Reform UK came third with 7,088 votes, a mere 1,471 behind Labour. The victorious Labour candidate, Davy Russell, is quoted as saying that 'this community has [also] sent a message to Farage and his mob tonight. The poison of Reform isn't us – it isn't Scotland and we don't want your division here.' I suspect Mr Russell was speaking from within the excitement of winning and did not realise the significance of Reform UK winning so many votes. The party of Nigel Farage, that enthusiastic Trump supporter, was understood to hold little attraction for the Scottish voter compared with his standing with the English electorate. The Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse voters have demonstrated otherwise. The UK political establishment, Labour in particular, has one important lesson to learn, that being that politics in our country is not working for a significant element of our population. The vote for a disastrous Brexit was the first warning sign of a significant discontent with the inequalities and injustices in our society and economy. Uncontrolled neoliberalism has done untold damage to our social contract with our politicians accepting unquestionably the words of Mrs Thatcher, 'there is no alternative'. John Milne, Uddingston. Reform will be a Holyrood force The most interesting thing about the Hamilton, Larkhall and Stonehouse by-election for Holyrood is not who won, Labour, nor the fact that the voting was a three-way split between it, the SNP and Reform UK, but where Reform's votes came from. Compared to its vote share in the constituency in the last Holyrood election four years ago, the SNP vote dropped by almost 17% of the votes cast and the Tory vote by 11.5%. Labour's vote share actually went down by 2% as well. This means that Reform UK's 26% of the vote came more from parties of the left than the Tories. Clearly Reform is not just a threat to the Conservatives. In the climate of dissatisfaction with the established parties, Reform is on track to be a force at Holyrood next year. Otto Inglis, Crossgates, Fife. • After all the ballyhoo, the result is in and the real winner is Reform UK. John Swinney talked Reform up too effectively. Labour's candidate was nearly invisible. The result speaks volumes. The SNP lost. Labour just limped home despite being helped a huge amount by the SNP's travails. Reform UK came from a near-zero base to gain over 7,000 votes and run both other parties close. This by-election was a real test of public opinion for the shape of Holyrood in 2026. Reform could still founder given frequent party in-fighting. Equally the Tories could re-assert their desired position as defenders of the Union. John Swinney has made another major SNP blunder and released the genie from the bottle. Is he going to be the architect of the SNP's downfall? Dr Gerald Edwards, Glasgow. Labour far from home and hosed While Labour's victory in the Hamilton by-election seemingly points to the party winning the Scottish Parliament elections next year, if I were Anas Sarwar, I wouldn't be sizing up the curtains of Bute House just yet. The seat was won comfortably by the SNP in the last Scottish Parliament election in 2021 and is just the sort of seat that Labour needs to win if Anas Sarwar is to become Scotland's next First Minister. The SNP has made little progress in restoring its fortunes following its heavy defeat in last summer's Westminster election, with polls suggesting that the party's support across Scotland is still 15 points down on its tally in 2021. In the event, the fall in the party's support in Hamilton was, at 17 points, just a little higher than that. However, Labour's own tally was also down by two points on its vote in 2021, when overall the party came a disappointing third. That drop was very much in line with recent polling, which puts the party at just 19 per cent across Scotland as a whole, while the SNP has around a third of the vote. In addition, Labour is losing somewhere between one in six and one in five of its voters to Reform since last year's election. After nearly two decades in the political wilderness, there is little sign that Labour, as it currently stands, is set to regain the reins of power at Holyrood. Alex Orr, Edinburgh. Now flesh out the policies All the pundits initially claimed the Hamilton by-election would go to Labour, given local circumstances. Now a Labour win is described as a 'shock' after even some in Labour were describing their own candidate as not up to the job. But Labour needs to up its game for the next election. Criticism is easy, but Labour needs more fleshed-out policies for government, beyond centralising health in Scotland. The SNP needs to drop all the 'student politics' stuff; it was embarrassing to see a squabble over £2 million when it should be asking why Scotland does so poorly on defence procurement and jobs. Formulate a proper industrial policy for Scotland, and back any project that would enhance jobs and prosperity for Scotland. Refuse nothing and put the onus on unionists to explain their plans in detail. Trident: are the unionist plans for keeping Trident in Scotland similar to those for Diego Garcia? Nuclear power: why do they think Scotland should have it, given its high-cost electricity and the extensive lags on construction? What of waste disposal and site security? The SNP should be in favour of local pricing for electricity as a draw to attract jobs, and for North Sea oil/gas production (until Scots are empowered to decide its future). A Labour/SNP coalition? It looks like the only feasible outcome. GR Weir, Ochiltree. • For all the fuss about the Hamilton by-election, it should be noted that almost 56% of the electorate really don't care who represents them in the Scottish Parliament. Malcolm Parkin, Kinross. Russia claim is baseless Brian Wilson ("Yes, we should stand firm over Putin, but let's not make Russia our implacable foe", The Herald, June 5) tells us today that the rights of the former Soviet republics to seek security (membership of Nato) should have been balanced against Russian fears of encirclement. This raises two issues. Firstly, the Soviet Union consisted of 15 republics: the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russia itself) and 14 others. Of these, only three (the Baltic states,which were independent between the wars) have joined Nato. I am unclear as to how this constitutes encirclement. Does Mr Wilson envisage the Central Asian former republics (Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan etc) expressing a wish to join the alliance at some point, thus making encirclement a reality rather than a baseless claim? Secondly, does Mr Wilson not wonder why these small countries wished to be under the umbrella of the Nato alliance? To avoid the current fate of Ukraine perhaps? Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Brian Wilson expresses the hope that we should not categorise the Russian people as being inevitably in the enemy camp. He concluded his article by observing that narratives about Russia should have "due regard to past history and also future potential for peaceful co-existence". Such narratives should certainly not fail to take account of the contribution made by Russian armed forces and the civilian population during the Second World War, which is estimated to have resulted in some 25 million Soviet deaths. It is clear that the Russian effort during that war was profoundly influential in assisting toward the eventual defeat of Germany. The Russian people at the time called upon impressive levels of love of country and perseverance in the fight toward victory over a formidable enemy. Once we were allies. While Russia remains in the firm grip of the dictatorial, ambitious and ruthless Vladimir Putin, it is difficult to see to what extent meaningful steps can be taken to pursue the "potential for peaceful co-existence". Ian W Thomson, Lenzie. A Pride rally in Glasgow (Image: PA) Pride needed now as much as ever Gregor McKenzie (Letters, June 6) suggests that LGBT Pride has had its day. In fact, since the end of the pandemic restrictions, more people have been going to more Pride events across Scotland than ever before. Why? I think it's in part because people see how, after several positive changes in the law for LGBT people in the past 25 years, things are now starting to get worse again. Mr McKenzie asks why we can't all just let people be, and I wish we could. But the increased restrictions being introduced on trans people in the UK are quite the opposite of that. Trans people just want to get on with their lives, but the new rules make that much more difficult. And trans people are constantly maligned currently by some parts of the media. So Pride events are needed as much now as ever. They are a celebration of how far we have come in the 30 years since the first Pride Scotland, and they are a protest against the regression we're seeing now. One day perhaps Pride will be solely a celebration, but that day still seems some way off. Meanwhile people join together in the streets to say "Not going back". Tim Hopkins, Edinburgh.
Telegraph
an hour ago
- Telegraph
Jeremy Hunt vs Allister Heath: ‘Starmer's EU sell-out is Gordon Brown's gold scandal on steroids'
I've visited plenty of poky parliamentary offices in my time, some little larger than cubby holes and designed without any interest in ergonomics. Jeremy Hunt's digs are something else. They are palatial, as befits a former holder of two of the greatest offices of state, and a runner-up in the contest to become Tory leader. A Spectator magazine cover takes pride of place on the wall. I can't avoid doing a double take. The cartoon depicts a triumphant Hunt and a defeated Boris Johnson, with the headline marvelling at the political upset of the century. Hunt notes my surprise at this extraordinary historical revisionism. He explains that it was an unpublished draft produced just in case and gifted to him by the Speccie's former editor Fraser Nelson, following his defeat in the 2019 Conservative leadership contest. I like Hunt, even though we have jousted over the years and despite his conviction that I'm an incorrigible purveyor of declinism. A former chancellor, foreign secretary and health secretary, he is now on a mission to convince Britain not only that our country can be great again, but that we retain far more power, wealth and influence than we realise. He believes the world needs us to be successful and engaged, fighting for free trade, defence, the environment and human rights. I wanted to read Hunt's new book to find out which kind of optimist he is. The good news is that he is no Panglossian, convinced, like Candide's glib tutor in Voltaire's masterpiece, that all is already for the best in the best of all possible worlds. Centrist dad types often fall into that delusional category, citing long-run GDP figures or life-expectancy data to lecture us that we have no right to moan about anything. Instead, Hunt can best be described as a rational optimist, to adapt a phrase coined by British writer Matt Ridley, somebody who accepts that the world is in a bad place but who is aware of what is still going right and believes that what has gone wrong can be repaired. His book, Can We Be Great Again? Why a Dangerous World Needs Britain, is extremely readable, and an excellent, nuanced contribution to what the UK's role should be in today's multipolar world. 'Because I put up taxes, there was this view that I was happy for taxes to go up' Given that title, I point out, if Britain isn't great today, that must in part be the fault of his government. 'If I was going to look back over 14 years, were we as transformative as Margaret Thatcher?' Hunt responds. 'No, but in our defence, we had to deal with three global shocks: the financial crisis, Covid and a 1970s-style energy shock. We did the one thing everyone expects from Conservative governments, which is to take the tough decisions to right the economic ship,' he says. As a result, 'There were lots of other things that we didn't do.' He is proud that, during his tenure as Chancellor, inflation fell back dramatically, and that he managed to increase defence spending. He also has regrets: 'My biggest disappointment was that we didn't go further, faster on welfare reform and getting taxes down. My biggest personal failure was not getting a message across that the Conservatives really did want to bring down the tax burden. Because I put up taxes, there was this view that I was happy for taxes to go up.' That is to profoundly misunderstand his belief system, Hunt maintains. He highlights his reductions to National Insurance, and his introduction of full expensing for corporate capital spending. 'I am a small-state conservative for principled reasons to do with the fact that governments should expropriate the minimum possible for its citizens, but also because of the practical reason that the fastest-growing economies are the ones with the lowest tax rates.' The language is noteworthy: many of his colleagues aren't interested in political philosophy, and have become unused to talking about economics, preferring to focus exclusively on culture wars. Unlike many Tories, Hunt isn't scared to argue that the better off should be levied less too. 'I would like to bring down all levels of tax. I'm very worried about the flight of millionaires,' he says. He highlights the absurdity caused by the tapering of the personal allowance on incomes between £100,000 and £125,000 a year, an unfashionable cause but one that is hammering the incentives of professionals. 'There are lots of anomalies in the tax system, such as having [an effective] marginal rate of tax of 62 per cent over £100,000 a year. People on lower incomes also need to see that their tax bill is going down. Nigel Lawson brought down everyone's taxes.' Many on the Right – Tories, as well as, increasingly, Reform – are scared to discuss cutting spending, partly because of the realignment that has sent so many lower-income voters their way. Not so Hunt: 'Welfare reform and lower taxes are the only way that we are going to change this country, culturally, economically and fiscally.' Spending could be cut drastically. 'There were lots of problems in the benefits system in 2019, but even if we just turn the clock back five years for working-age adults, getting the benefits bill to where it was before the pandemic, we would save just under £50 billion a year.' He believes Rachel Reeves should have focused on a comprehensive reform of the benefits system rather than on the now-derailed attempt at removing pensioners' winter fuel allowance. 'The Government has used up all the capital that it might have had on what is, in Treasury terms, a relatively trivial amount of money, [saving] around £1 billion, when they could have taken the same hit for £50 billion, and would have improved work incentives.' 'We need to start trying to be the country that I know we can be' Hunt is a born-again Brexiteer, and embraces an open, Singapore-style future of globally competitive businesses and free trade. 'I didn't vote for Brexit, but I've never had any doubt that we can make a huge success of it. I see no reason why we couldn't be a completely independent, sovereign country like Canada or Australia.' He believes Keir Starmer's 'reset' was a political catastrophe. 'I cannot understand why the Government is agreeing to pay money into the EU. The Government cunningly didn't tell us how much they're going to pay, but it's going to be billions. They're going to have to justify cutting benefits for pensioners at the same time as increasing payments to the EU.' Starmer's sell-out will have cut-through, Hunt believes. 'It is going to be Chagos on steroids, Gordon Brown's gold scandal on steroids. It's a very big political mistake. Why would a sovereign country pay to do a reciprocal trade deal? Canada wouldn't do that. Australia wouldn't do that. The United States wouldn't do that. It betrays a mentality that we are the junior partner.' This is where Hunt's rational optimism shines through. 'We have the top military in Europe, the top universities in Europe, the top tech sector in Europe. We have more hard and more soft power than any other European country. We are an equal partner.' This goes to the heart of Hunt's thesis. 'We need to get back our self-confidence. The world is in an incredibly dangerous state. We've got Ukraine, Taiwan, we've got an unpredictable president in America. We've got a migration crisis. We've got so many things that are going wrong. Countries that have power or influence need to use it. Do we just hold our hands up and say we're screwed and there's nothing we can do about it because we're such a weak and ineffective country, or do we look at the facts, which are that on every single major global issue, we are one of the top 10 most powerful countries on the planet, and if we choose to, we can have a decisive influence in solving problems? We need to start trying to be the country that I know we can be.' Hunt thinks defence spending should increase. 'Three per cent is the minimum. America spends 3.4 per cent, so you probably want something along those lines.' It is usually a cliché to describe somebody as irrepressible, but that is Hunt. Nothing seems to drag him down, even irritating journalists such as myself, who spent 15 years accusing him of being too Left-wing. He always bounces back, and can take almost any criticism. He is energetic, repeatedly running the London marathon. He tries to marshal reason and facts to convince his critics, a counter-cultural approach in an era of social media attack dogs and demagogues. The son of an admiral and a father of three, 58-year-old Hunt attended Charterhouse School and was president of the Oxford University Conservative Association during Thatcherism's heyday. He had a buccaneering streak and, after a couple of years in consultancy, headed to Japan, where he learnt the language and taught English. On his return, he founded several businesses, making millions. His eyes bulge when he makes important points, a trait his enemies have mocked but that, in private, merely underlines his earnestness. Many critics of the historic catastrophe that was Britain's Covid lockdowns point to Sweden or Florida as role models. Hunt looks instead to Korea and Taiwan. 'Korea had a much more effective test and trace scheme, and quarantined people who had the virus quickly. They avoided any lockdowns at all in the first year, all the restaurants stayed open for the whole of the first year, and there was much less economic damage.' He doesn't believe lockdowns reduced the number of deaths and blames them for destroying the work ethic. This is a core Huntian value: he believes in hard work, in self-reliance, in upward mobility and in ensuring tax and red tape don't discourage it. 'The real problem with lockdowns was a cultural one. They got us out of the habit of hard work. Working from home has become a virus which is incredibly damaging to our work ethic,' he argues. He adds of lockdowns, 'They created a mentality that if there's any big problem, the state will always step in, and we are still paying the price, and the worst place of all we're paying that price is the benefits system.' He's a fan of Iain Duncan Smith's welfare reforms. The issue is that at around the same time, 'Britain passed a law saying there had to be parity of esteem between mental and physical health. This was a good thing for the NHS, because it needed to treat mental illness more seriously. But it was a terrible thing for the benefits system, because people realised they could increase their points and therefore their likelihood of qualifying for disability benefits or higher levels of Universal Credit. By drawing attention to mental illness, we create an incentive, not just for people to use mental illness to qualify for benefits, but for people not to get better.' Hunt is passionate about the scandal of Britain's exploding numbers of adults on out-of-work benefits. 'It is not just economically barmy. It is immoral. About half the people who are signed off having to look for work are now done so primarily for mental health reasons. If you are mentally ill, one of the most important things is social contact. The last thing you want is to condemn them to a life of daytime TV. If you have mild depression, it is likely to make it severe depression and far worse. We are doing a massive disservice to these people.' 'Which EU country would dare oppose reforms that give people control of their borders? There is a point in the life of a Tory politician when they undergo a metamorphosis. They go to bed one evening as an ex-Cabinet minister and wake up the next morning as a grandee. Hunt has completed that process, though he may not have realised it yet. Being a grandee confers a number of advantages upon the beholder. They are given a fairer hearing, and that is something Hunt certainly deserves. He was treated abominably when he was health secretary, demonised by imbeciles who should have known better. The NHS will never be well managed – it is impossible for anybody to effectively run a gigantic socialist behemoth – but it was vastly better when Hunt was at its helm than it is today. I ask him whether the NHS can still be saved as a universal, state-owned, taxpayer-funded system that is free at the point of use. 'There are a lot of social insurance systems in Europe that have better outcomes and sometimes for less money than the NHS costs us,' Hunt says. 'But I don't believe that any party will ever persuade the British people to switch to it, because the principle of the social insurance system is that everyone gets bronze-level insurance, and that's paid for by the state. But those who can pay [can opt for] silver- and gold-level insurance.' I put it to him that the NHS is in fact a bronze-level system already. He deflects my trouble-making, offering two suggestions to ensure we 'get as good a result as they get in the Netherlands or Israel on our system'. First of all, 'We've got to get rid of these national targets that have made the NHS the most centralised, micromanaged healthcare system in the world. Stalin would be proud.' His second reform would be to regionalise the NHS, making it report to locally elected mayors. More generally, Hunt's solution for economic rebirth is radical devolution. The current model hands some spending power to local authorities but does not make them responsible for raising funds, creating mismatched incentives. Power must come with accountability. 'It needs to be about local empowerment, civic leadership, giving local mayors and elected authorities the power to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.' Hunt 'favours elected mayors with four-year terms' in place of local authorities. He does not want to spread the 'grievance model' promoted by the SNP in Scotland or Sadiq Khan in London. He describes himself as a 'passionate supporter of free trade'. He says, 'Britain basically invented free trade, and the British Empire laid the foundations of the global free trade system. But we didn't make sure the benefits were spread evenly. The average wage in Manchester is some £10,000 pounds lower than the average wage in London. Boris was absolutely right to champion levelling up. The bit that was missing is that levelling up should not just be about Westminster doling out cash to left-behind regions.' Hunt, whose wife, Lucia, is Chinese-born, has a nuanced grasp of the immigration debate. 'Immigrants living here are among the strongest voices for controlling migration, partly because they are worried about social instability,' he points out. Hunt agrees the Conservatives proved too liberal on immigration. 'We allowed companies to increase their workforce by hiring cheap foreign labour, which allowed them to ignore the six million adults of working age in the UK who are not in work. That is expensive for the state and a morally bankrupt position.' His views on asylum and refugees have shifted. 'The ECHR and the 1951 Refugee Convention were written for a different age and urgently need reform, because they make it too hard to stop people coming here and too hard to get people out who shouldn't be here. Keir Starmer, a human rights lawyer, could do that with extraordinary credibility. Which European country is going to dare to oppose reforms that give people proper control of their borders? It is that kind of energy we need to see when it comes to Britain's place in the world.' In the absence of reform of the ECHR and Refugee Convention, withdrawal is the only solution. 'In the end, if we can't reform them, I would support leaving them. But the trouble with just leaving them is that you don't stop thousands of boats crossing the Mediterranean, let alone the Channel.' Ever the optimist, Hunt isn't one of those who think the Tories are about to be supplanted by Reform: 'I don't believe the Conservative Party is extinct. Our share price is low at the moment, but we'll come back because we are the only party that really understands and cares about wealth creation.' I wonder whether Hunt, who chose to step down from the shadow cabinet, may yet feel the hand of history tapping on his shoulder one more time, especially if the Tory party were to implode after next May's elections. Stranger things have happened, including when Hunt, who was preparing to wind down his career, was contacted out of the blue by Liz Truss. A message from an unrecognised number stated simply, 'Liz Truss here. Please can you give me a call.' He thought it was a trick. 'Was the prime minister really trying to contact me? Surely not. It was mid-October 2022 and she had been in Downing Street for a little over a month,' Hunt recalls. He told Lucia, 'Someone just tried to message me pretending to be Truss. I can't believe how naive people think I am. It's probably a radio show host trying a hoax call.' It was indeed the prime minister, and he was appointed Chancellor the next day. Ultra-experienced politicians who pen policy books are rarely content with becoming pundits shouting from the sidelines. Hunt is highly supportive of Kemi Badenoch and was effusive about her performance at Prime Minister's Questions on the day we met. I don't doubt his sincerity. Yet Hunt wouldn't be human if he didn't think that maybe – just maybe – he could still have something valuable to contribute to his country at the highest level.
