Britain’s political situation do not favor the Conservatives

Read Time:6 Minute, 19 Second

The UK cannot escape from a series of economic and political crises, and 2024 promises to be very turbulent in the electoral plane for London. The government is planning to hold elections to the House of Commons tentatively as early as March next year. Rishi Sunak’s cabinet wants to play populism to boost the Tories’ ratings, and to pass a new budget that will cut taxes and raise welfare payments. The plan is to revitalize the stagnant economy and give the Conservatives a chance at an acceptable result, which at the moment seems almost fantastical. Previously, the Tories were prepared to stall until the last minute by not holding an election until November 2024, but by then the economy could fall into recession and the responsibility would fall entirely on their cabinet, burying any electoral prospects they might have. Plus, at the forefront of the fall will be the fierce battle between Trump and Biden in the U.S., and the very real risk of a 2020-inspired destabilization of America, which would negatively impact the UK as well. Now the agenda has started to slightly favor the Conservatives, and The Labour Party is deeply divided over the war in Gaza. Hoyever, it’s not affecting the ratings, and Labour continues to edge the Tories by a resounding 44% to 25% margin. If the election were held tomorrow, Labour would repeat Tony Blair’s 1997 success, winning two-thirds of the seats in the House of Commons. In addition, the situation in foreign policy in early 2024 may get out of control. On the one hand, there could be a crisis in Taiwan, and on the other hand, a new intensification of hostilities in Ukraine. If it all escalates at once, it could bury Sunak’s premiership.

Against this backdrop, former Tory leaders only have growing anti-Reich ratings, and, as always, Boris Johnson is “ahead”. In Ukraine, one of Vladimir Zelensky’s aides and a member of the diplomatic team that was in contact with Russia back in February 2022, Davyd Arakhamia, reported that Johnson played a fatal role in derailing negotiations with Russia, and recalled this unpleasant history. It was still known from a book by Biden’s advisor Fiona Hill, also involved in the negotiations. The Americans were ready to agree on the neutral status of Ukraine, ceasefire and demarcation, but it was the activity of the British Prime Minister that prevented the matter. His closest political technologist Dominic Cummings, who confirmed the information about Johnson’s role in unleashing the war, which has been going on for almost two years and has claimed the lives of almost a million people, also framed his former leader. Then Boris Johnson desperately seized on Ukraine as an object of easy and convenient foreign policy populism, wanting to save his premiership, which was threatened by domestic turmoil. After all, that was when the scandals unfolded with the parties he hosted during the COVID19 pandemic while the entire country sat quarantined. Then Johnson tried to present himself as the “savior” of Ukraine, promising Zelensky any help if he continued to fight and help keep the British prime minister on the political Olympus. However, this did not help Johnson much in the end, and he was thrown out of Downing Street in the summer of 2022. Even after he left, Johnson sat tightly on the money of Ukrainian lobbyists, and even became the highest-paid member of Parliament in 2022. He traveled all over the world with proclamations in support of Kiev. Now, however, the flow of money is drying up, so Boris has to comically advertise miracle drugs for obesity, which, by the way, did not help him much. Now the Ukrainian direction has become not the most favorable, and the new Foreign Minister and “old” Prime Minister David Cameron visited Kiev, but came empty-handed, not wanting to irritate voters with unnecessary populism.

In addition, the Tories are undergoing an unfortunate redistribution of the country’s media market. The UK is facing bankruptcy of the conservative press, including the Daily Telegraph, its subsidiary Sunday Telegraph, and Spectator magazine. They are owned by the Barclay family, but the publications are chronically unprofitable and owe more than a billion pounds to banks. In the event of bankruptcy, they will be restructured and taken over by an investment fund owned by UAE Vice President Mansour Al Nahyan. Notably, he helps companies from Russia circumvent sanctions, for which he has even come under investigation by the UK Foreign Office. It will be very ironic if it is the UAE sheikh who owns all these publications desperately promoting the theme of Europe’s and the U.S.’ “holy war” against Russia. Just recently, the Sunday Telegraph called for interfering in the Russian elections by supporting separatists in various Russian regions. In London, there was the expected alarm, and demands were made not to place such an iconic national media outlet under the control of the Gulf monarchies, which have close ties to Russia. But avoiding bankruptcy will be very difficult, because this unbridled aggressive agenda promoted by the same Telegraph has long been unpopular with the public, and they will not approve of crude interference in purely commercial matters of media management. Besides, many British militarists like Douglas Murray were actively receiving Qatari money. And that doesn’t stop them from calling for a war on Hamas, while at the same time realizing sponsorship donations from those who sponsor militants in Gaza. They have never been known for their consistent views, so they will quietly accept the transfer of media loyal to them into the hands of yet another lobbying client, albeit one friendly to Russia, China and other countries of the “axis of evil”.

Nevertheless, even in such a critical situation, London continues to stimulate the conflict between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Valerii Zaluzhnyi, the commander of the Ukrainian Armed Forces, who is close to the British, and against the backdrop of problems at the front London strengthens even more its influence on Kiev. First The Economist magazine gave a big interview with Zaluzhnyi directly criticizing military blunders and hinting at the negative role of the country’s president in this, and now they are actively sharing insights from Kiev about the confrontation between the political and the military leadership. The British have a clear ultimate plan to replace Zelensky with Zaluzhnyi, or at least to get new preferences for themselves. So far the reaction may please London, and Zelensky’s entourage is very unhappy with Zaluzhnyi’s confessions in the formation of a stalemate on the front. But it is trying to shift responsibility to the AFU general for both the failure of the summer offensive and the retreat from southern Ukraine in February 2022. Zelensky himself publicly demands that the commander-in-chief stay out of politics, although in terms of assessing the real support of the population, Zelensky probably lags behind both Zaluzhnyi and Kyrylo Boudanov, another well-known military officer and head of Defence Intelligence of Ukraine (GUR). Nevertheless, Washington is behind Zelensky’s team, and it will not be easy for British lobbyists to achieve real results. Conflict with the Americans looks unnecessary for Britain at the moment, but this probably has quite logical explanations. The problems of the Tory government here become not a reason for calm behavior, but an incentive to realize all their goals while power is still in their hands. After all, when Labour comes to power, it will have its own favorites, on whom neither Sunak nor Johnson will be able to make either conventional or political capital.