Starmer has screwed up. Let’s put him on probation
Share this post:
Keir Starmer has spent the first 16 months of his Parliament treading water (badly) and now wants us to give him another 44 months and a general election to put it right. I say no.
But I’m not saying he should be jettisoned just yet, either.
Let’s put him on probation.
Look at it this way: Starmer asked to be judged at the next general election, and that’s a reasonable democratic position — but the evidence in the Institute for Government’s (IfG) performance tracker report – and recent polling – means he should earn that mandate by demonstrating concrete, measurable delivery in a much shorter window.
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Why were voters hoodwinked into supporting Boris Johnson – the wrong choice of prime minister.
Share this post:
How was Boris Johnson allowed to be the most powerful man in the UK when he had no idea how to do the job?
That’s the big question at the heart of last week’s report by the Covid Inquiry, which explicitly stated that his indecision, incompetence and other failures massively increased the death toll of the pandemic that hit the UK in 2020, months after he was voted into office.
Let’s answer it.
What the report exposes — without stating it outright — is a deeper failure of the United Kingdom’s political system.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
The UK’s system allowed an unfit leader to be sold as “the best option”
Boris Johnson did not become prime minister by accident.
He was selected by a tiny fraction of the electorate — Conservative Party members — then packaged and sold to the public by an overwhelmingly sympathetic right-wing press as the only viable choice in 2019.
Fitness for office barely featured. Scrutiny of his temperament, competence, and judgement was kept to the margins.
The democratic structures that should have filtered out an unfit leader instead elevated one.
The 2019 general election produced a manufactured consensus that Johnson was the only plausible prime minister. That consensus rested on:
- A highly centralised party system, where the party leader is effectively chosen by a narrow selectorate, then presented to the public as a fait accompli.
- A media ecosystem dominated by a handful of right-wing outlets that acted less as watchdogs and more as brand managers for Johnson.
- A campaign that reduced national politics to a slogan, enabling a shallow, personality-driven contest.
The result was that fitness for office barely featured — and certainly not the kind of cognitive incompetence exposed in the Covid Inquiry.
The slogan: The Tory message on Brexit was brutally simple — and Labour’s was muddied
“Get Brexit Done” was a reductive, misleading and dishonest slogan – but those three words turned the 2019 general election into a landslide for Johnson. It was devastatingly effective because it:
- Promised closure to a weary electorate
- Framed Johnson as a man who would “cut through” obstacles
- Cast all opposition as obstructionist or indecisive
Meanwhile, Labour’s position became tortured:
- Keir Starmer, as Shadow Brexit Secretary, pushed for a second referendum when much of Labour’s base simply wanted the party to honour the original result with safeguards.
- That muddied the message and enabled the Tory narrative that Labour were “blocking the will of the people”.
This handed Johnson an artificial aura of clarity and decisiveness — qualities the Inquiry shows he did not actually possess.
Establishment hostility to Jeremy Corbyn distorted the electoral field
Then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn — who, in hindsight, would probably have been a far more responsible and scientifically cautious pandemic prime minister — was subjected to the most sustained campaign of hostility in modern UK political memory.
There is no way to discuss 2019 honestly without acknowledging that:
- Then-Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn faced the most sustained, coordinated negative press campaign in modern UK political history
- Institutions hostile to his economic agenda framed him as uniquely dangerous
- Smears, misrepresentations and personal attacks overwhelmed substantive debate
That campaign shaped public perception far more than the content of either party’s manifesto.
This meant that, when voters looked for stability or seriousness, the media had pre-emptively disqualified the candidate who in hindsight would likely have responded to the pandemic:
- earlier
- more cautiously
- with greater respect for scientific advice
- with stronger social protections
- and with more moral seriousness
Nobody needs to claim Corbyn would have been perfect — but we should recognise that his political instincts aligned far more closely with the responses taken by the countries that handled Covid competently.
By the time voters entered polling booths, the Establishment had already determined who was “credible” — and who must never be allowed near Downing Street.
The consequences are now counted in lives.
Intellectual unfitness at the top
The Inquiry’s evidence leaves little room for euphemism: Johnson lacked the intelligence, comprehension skills, and cognitive steadiness required for crisis leadership.
He could not grasp exponential growth.
He could not retain information he had been given.
He could not hold to a course of action.
He could not appreciate the consequences of delay until they were playing out on hospital wards.
The United Kingdom entered its worst peacetime national emergency in a century with a prime minister who simply was not intellectually equipped for the job.
That was a political failure long before it was a personal one.
The deeper question
We are led to ask: What kind of political culture produces a situation where the individual least suited to managing a pandemic was packaged as the safest pair of hands?
The Inquiry’s report is not just a record of past catastrophe; it is a warning.
Unless the United Kingdom confronts the political culture that allowed chaos, incompetence and scientific illiteracy to masquerade as leadership, the next emergency will play out the same way.
A system that rewards slogans over substance, personality over competence, and media manipulation over public service will keep producing the wrong leaders — and the public will keep paying the price.
Look at the current situation, in which Labour leader Keir Starmer – who had four years to prepare a plan for government and used it purging his own party of its socialist backbone instead – is trying to justify 16 months of incompetence with pleas that we should give him another 44, and a general election, before judging him.
That is the real scandal at the heart of the Covid Inquiry.
Share this post:
Government borrowing and increased energy cost will affect you more than inflation drop
Share this post:
You’re still being clobbered by the increased cost of living, even after the fall in inflation announced on November 21, 2025.
Here’s the BBC:
“UK government borrowing was higher than expected last month, according to the latest official figures.
“Borrowing – the difference between public spending and tax income – was £17.4bn in October, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) said, which was above analysts’ forecasts of about £15bn.
“The borrowing figures come less than a week before Chancellor Rachel Reeves unveils her Budget, and she has previously confirmed both tax rises and spending cuts are on the table.”
The £17.4 billion borrowing in October is largely abstract for most people — it’s a number about the national accounts.
But the context — that the government is about to deliver a Budget with tax rises and spending cuts — directly affects households.
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
COP-out climate deal could be a chance to separate fossil fuels from our energy bills
Share this post:
A proposed COP 30 climate deal that omits any mention of phasing out expensive fossil fuels could be a golden opportunity for nations like the UK to remove them from future international energy price agreements.
For the current situation, here’s The Guardian:
“A new draft text on the outcome of the Cop30 climate talks has been published that contains no mention of a phase-out of fossil fuels, despite countries supporting such action having threatened to block any agreement without it.
“The Guardian revealed on Thursday night that at least 29 nations supporting a phase-out of fossil fuels at the climate summit had sent a letter to the Brazilian Cop presidency threatening to block any agreement that did not include such a commitment, in a significant escalation of tensions at the crunch talks.
“The leaked letter demanded that the roadmap be included in the outcome of the talks, which [were] due to end on Friday but are likely to continue into the weekend.”
Many people in the UK don’t want polluting fossil fuels to be used to generate their energy – and they certainly don’t want the inflated price of gas pushing up their energy bills.
It occurs to me that the UK should not accept this treaty unless it comes with the ability for countries like ours to opt out of energy price deals that include the price of fossil fuels – they should be available to be bought separately.
That:
- would bring down bills for people who want to pay less,
- would stop consumers being forced to buy something they don’t want for ideological reasons (they don’t want to contribute to pollution), and
- may contribute to the natural phasing-out of fossil fuels.
My thinking runs along practical, consumer-focused lines, which is often missing from the high-level climate negotiation debate. Let me break this down further.
The current COP 30 situation is deadlock: an agreement without a fossil fuel commitment would be weak, symbolic, and unhelpful in reducing emissions.
My solution could break that deadlock.
There are potential challenges:
Energy markets are highly interconnected. Many countries’ energy pricing depends on global fossil fuel markets and disentangling them is not trivial.
Countries selling fossil fuels might resist letting buyers “pick and choose” because it could affect their revenues and market stability.
And existing treaties may restrict such opt-outs unless explicitly negotiated.
But there are significant advantages:
Politically, it allows countries to pursue domestic priorities without being forced into weak or ideologically driven compromises.
Economically, it could help households and businesses directly see the benefits of moving away from fossil fuels.
And environmentally, creating separate purchasing options could indirectly accelerate fossil fuel phase-out as demand shifts toward clean energy.
My idea combines climate ambition with consumer choice.
Market design, international negotiation, and political pushback from fossil-fuel exporters may present obstacles, it’s true…
But giving countries the ability to “buy clean” could create a soft pressure mechanism for a fossil-fuel transition, even if the treaty itself doesn’t mandate it.
To read the rest, head over to The Whip Line.
A subscription unlocks all my analysis and helps keep independent UK political journalism going.
Share this post:
Covid inquiry condemns ‘toxic and chaotic’ culture of Boris Johnson’s government
Share this post:
The Covid Inquiry has released its findings on the second part of its hearings – and they are damning.
Coverage of the Inquiry’s report in the mass media has been widespread, and it is easy to be confused by it all (I think). Let’s try to break it down simply:
The picture the report draws of the United Kingdom’s pandemic response is almost unfathomably damning.
If there was one conclusion to take from the more than 750 pages published today, it is this:
The UK’s response to Covid-19 was a disaster – and this disaster was not an accident.
It was the result of delay, dysfunction, arrogance, chaos, ignorance and indifference that were baked into the heart of government at precisely the moment the country needed competence and leadership.
That blame runs far further than a single prime minister, a single adviser or a single scientific decision. The failure was systemic.
Never miss a Vox Political post!
Social media algorithms often hide what you want to read. If you’d like to get every article directly, here are your options:
RSS Feed – instant updates, no filters:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/get-every-vox-political-post-no-algorithms-no-blocks/Mailing List – updates delivered to your inbox:
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/join-the-vox-political-mailing-list/Video Mailing List – updates go straight to your inbox:
https://dashboard.mailerlite.com/forms/1503041/155584006128141972/shareDiscord Server – direct updates, discussion and campaigns
https://discord.gg/SMCRE39XGmTelegram Channel – every post, direct to your phone:
https://t.co/be9EMGHXFV
Support Vox Political!
With social media algorithms acting as gatekeepers – allowing users to read only what their owners want them to, sites like Vox Political need the support of our readers like never before.
You can help by making a donation:
https://Ko-fi.com/voxpolitical
“Too little, too late” — everywhere
Across all four countries of the UK – England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland – the Inquiry found the same fatal pattern:
- Threats underestimated.
- Warnings ignored.
- Internal chaos prioritised over public safety.
- Lives lost because government(s) waited, wavered… and simply hoped the problem would go away.
February 2020 – immediately preceding the first lockdown – was described as “a lost month” — it was a time when Covid was already wrecking Italy’s health system and racing across Europe, yet the United Kingdom’s leaders carried on as if nothing were happening.
By March 12, the situation was “little short of calamitous” – and still action was delayed.
The inquiry concluded that imposing lockdown just one week earlier would have saved around 23,000 lives in England in the first wave alone.
In Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the fatal pattern of too late and too weak played out in different forms, but to the same tragic effect.
This was not one government’s failure; it was a failure across all four governments — united only in slowness and denial.
10 Downing Street: chaos as a governing philosophy
The epicentre of the chaos was Downing Street — and what the Inquiry describes there is not mere dysfunction but a deliberate culture of chaos.
The report makes crystal clear:
- Boris Johnson embraced disorder, believing that it somehow generated creativity and competition.
- Dominic Cummings made key decisions that were properly for the prime minister, and Johnson let him.
- Cummings fostered a “toxic”, “macho”, “sexist” environment in which the loudest, most aggressive voices drowned out others — especially women.
- Senior officials described people being “smashed to pieces” by the atmosphere.
- Advice suffered and decisions were slowed because of this internal warfare.
Johnson’s own conduct made everything worse.
His habit of lurching between positions — the “shopping trolley” effect — meant guidance changed, sometimes on an hourly basis.
The report says plainly: his oscillation cost lives.
Time after time in 2020, when earlier action would have saved thousands, Johnson stalled, hesitated, or second-guessed himself.
The “circuit-breaker” lockdown recommended in September 2020 was rejected until forced by events.
Easing of lockdown rules in Christmas 2020 was allowed even as officials warned it would fuel disaster. And so it did.
Scientific illiteracy and wilful misunderstanding
The inquiry also exposes a striking deficiency: senior ministers did not understand the science they claimed to be “following”.
Johnson struggled so badly with basic concepts that, according to Patrick Vallance’s contemporaneous notes, watching him try to grasp the data was “awful”.
Ministers mixed up scenario modelling with forecasts, treating warnings as exaggerations rather than as risk assessments.
The mantra “we are following the science” — repeated endlessly during the pandemic — is shown to have been cover for political indecision.
In other words, it was a lie. It was just a phrase that was deliberately used to mislead the public.
Meanwhile the scientists themselves were worked to exhaustion, often unpaid, often abused, even assaulted in public* — and left without adequate support.
Vulnerable people abandoned
Among the most damning sections:
- Disabled people were not protected.
- People with Down’s syndrome were added to the shielding list months too late.
- People from ethnic minorities, already at higher risk, were left exposed while equalities staff were redeployed elsewhere.
Once again: delay and indifference had fatal consequences.
The devolved governments: not innocent, merely separate
While Johnson’s No 10 is at the centre of the storm, the inquiry does not spare the other governments:
- Wales brought in its firebreak too late and lifted restrictions too early, contributing to high mortality.
- Scotland under Nicola Sturgeon ran “gold command” meetings so centralised and opaque that transparency suffered.
- Northern Ireland saw its response collapse into political factionalism, leaks, and incoherence.
There is no comfort zone anywhere. No nation got it right.
Rule-breaking: hypocrisy that corroded public trust
The inquiry does not retread every story from “Partygate” or Barnard Castle, but it is unequivocal:
When leaders break the rules, the public’s willingness to follow them collapses.
Cummings’ lockdown-breaking trip to Barnard Castle remains emblematic — not just of hypocrisy but of how the government shredded its own authority when it needed compliance most.
Where the blame lands
Taken together, the Inquiry’s story is clear:
- Boris Johnson was responsible for catastrophic indecision, over-optimism, absence of leadership, and tolerance for chaos.
- Dominic Cummings nurtured a poisonous culture, including sexist and abusive behaviour. He had a de-stabilising influence, and made decisions beyond his remit.
- Other ministers had a poor grasp of science, repeatedly failed to act promptly, and there was an over-reliance on flawed concepts such as “behavioural fatigue”.
- Scientific governance structures suffered from understaffing, lack of support, and the funnelling of pressure onto a small number of exhausted individuals.
- The devolved administrations’ responses were slower-than-needed, there was over-centralisation or political division.
- The system as a whole was a political culture that prioritised messaging, reputation, and internal political battles over saving lives.
The common thread is not that they made mistakes — everyone did, everywhere in the world — but that the United Kingdom’s leadership:
- ignored evidence,
- delayed action,
- created chaos,
- misunderstood science,
- miscommunicated to the public, and
- tolerated a culture where expertise was sidelined.
That is why tens of thousands died who might otherwise have lived.
*Chris Whitty, England’s Chief Medical Officer, was physically assaulted in a London park in June 2021; Jonathan Van-Tam, Deputy Chief Medical Officer, reported that his family received threats, including people telling him and his family that their “throats would be cut.”
Many others were subjected to threatening emails, abusive calls, intimidation on social media, and attempts to track down home addresses.
The Inquiry warns that this level of hostility risks deterring scientists from ever serving in public roles again, which would be catastrophic in future emergencies.
Share this post:
- ☕ Support Vox Political on Ko-fi or donate via PayPal
- 📘 Buy our books — political analysis and satire you won’t find elsewhere
- 📨 Join the mailing list for real headlines, direct to your inbox
- 🔗 Follow us on Facebook and Twitter/X
