- Sunday, February 23, 2025
Journalist Andrew Neil said in an interview recently that while the Tories would lose irrespective of the timing of the elections, he hoped that they are not reduced into a ‘rump’.
By: Shubham Ghosh
VETERAN journalist Andrew Neil believes that both prime minister Rishi Sunak and opposition leader Keir Starmer share a common challenge — feeling ill at ease around their constituents. He highlights that during campaigning, politicians cannot escape scrutiny if they lack rapport with the public and that the recent week-and-half have starkly exposed the shortcomings of the party leaders.
Speaking with The Times in an interview, the 75-year-old broadcaster called both the top leaders “second-grade politicians” who have “little appeal to the British people”.
“You can’t avoid meeting people, dealing with people and being spontaneous. Starmer is visibly uncomfortable, and Sunak is overly friendly and bouncy. They each have their attributes, but they are both second-grade politicians, with little appeal to the British people,” the former Sunday Times editor was quoted as saying.
Read: Diane Abbott to run for Labour in July 4 election
Neil, who is the chairman of The Spectator, is gearing up for a fresh venture: analyzing the July 4 election for Times Radio, on a new show starting this week.
Reflecting on this, he noted the burgeoning success of the station amidst a pivotal moment in British media. He emphasized the BBC’s unprecedented competition in talk radio from commercial entities. The veteran to this day remains captivated by the nexus of media and politics, as evidenced by his choice of ringtones: the theme tunes from “Succession” on his UK phone and “House of Cards” on his French one.
Read: Nick Clegg funds Lib Dems in Sheffield Hallam fight
Considered one of the UK’s premier political interviewers, Neil thinks Sunak erred in calling the election on July 4. Favouring a November election more, he said. “It seems barmy”. According to him, the Tories would lose irrespective of the timing but he still felt that they had a better chance in November.
“People need reassurance over a period of time that they have more money in their pockets, particularly in the current environment when the public doesn’t want to give the Tories the time of day,” Neil said, according to the interview.
Friendly with veteran Labour MP Diane Abbott, who found herself at the centre of a storm over her initial claims that she had been barred from contesting the election, Neil said the leader — the UK’s first Black woman parliamentarian — was given a “shoddy” and “unnecessarily cruel” treatment.
“Whatever you think of Diane’s views — and some of them are pretty loopy — she nevertheless deserved to be treated with more dignity than she has been. And what kind of Labour Party has no room for Ms Abbott, but has room for [the former Tory MP] Ms Elphicke? I don’t blame him that he doesn’t want a bunch of mad lefties on his back benches, as he tries to govern the country in a sensible way, but you also have to be compassionate,” said the veteran journalist.
Neil advocates for what he terms a “Goldilocks majority” for the country, one that is neither too large nor too small.
He suggests that if Labour were to win, an optimal outcome would be around 50 or 60 seats. This, he argues, would prevent Starmer from being reliant on parties such as the SNP or the Lib Dems, and would also prevent him from being held captive by Labour’s more left-leaning faction.
Neil further contends that it’s not beneficial for democracy if the Conservatives are reduced to a “rump”, as this could empower the “nutters” within the party. If the Tories were to fall below 100 seats, Neil warns, “You wouldn’t rule out the Reform party taking over; the rump will like Mr Farage”.
Neil is also of the opinion that neither Sunak nor Starmer have the knowledge to deal with forthcoming geopolitical challenges. “The [democratic] world is bereft of leadership, that’s why the autocrats — Mr Putin and Mr Xi — are on the move,” he told the interviewer.
“This is exactly like the 1930s — they see the democracies are weak. The difference being we don’t have a Churchill in the wings. We don’t even have a Chamberlain! And we certainly don’t have an FDR.”
