Pages

Thursday, 3 October 2024

The Conservative Party's Wake

Labour didn't have a great conference. Following a supposed triumph, the mood was hardly upbeat confident. It was best typified by Keir Starmer's speech, which will only be remembered for an unfortunate misspeaking incident. Still, it was much better than the Conservative conference. Labour were subdued, but the Tories attended a catastrophe.

A quick reminder about what happened in July. The collapse of the Tory position, long forecast round these parts and explored in a certain book (as seen on TV), served up the worst Conservative general election defeat ever. And, even worse, despite Labour's best efforts to make themselves as equally loathsome, it's not obvious how the Tories can make a come back. And that's without the long-term decline of the party being taken into account.

There were two reasonable moments at the conference, and both of them came from the mouth of James Cleverly. He began his stump speech with an apology to the country (albeit not for the crimes committed on their watch), and stood out from the rest of the pack as he pleaded with his party. "Let's be more normal", he said. These were words few, if any of his fellow Tories were interested in heeding.

The two front runners, Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick were competing as if the chair of the Federation of Conservative Students was in contention. Jenrick put massive distance between his origin as a soggy Dave/Osborne era briefcase and his latter day manifestation of right wing bat shittery. Before Iranian missile strikes took out Israeli military targets and an oil platform, Jenrick had cringingly paraded around with a 'Hamas are terrorists' hoodie and pledged that the Star of David should be prominently displayed at every point of entry into this country. He would also, following Donald Trump, move the British embassy to East Jerusalem and, for good measure, vote for him if he was able to because "he's a conservative". Not the sharpest knife in the drawer. And it got worse. On Monday night, he accused the SAS of carrying out extra-judicial killings. He did this not to criticise the special forces, but to put across how the European Convention and its protections makes it harder for them to take terrorists into custody. A point that drew criticism from his edgingly less right wing rival, Tom Tugendhat. To top things off, he proposed a dukedom for noted anti-black racist, David Starkey. Tory MP Jesse Norman summed Jenrick's pitch up best: "lazy, mendacious, simplistic tripe".

Kemi Badenoch lived up to her 'Bad Enoch' billing and managed to be somehow worse. Having warmed the cockles of far right hearts over the summer, she went straight into conference with an Telegraph opinion piece arguing "not all cultures are valid". You don't need mega enhanced reading-between-the-lines skills to know what she was getting at. She gave a very tetchy defence of the position on Laura Kuenssberg, demonstrating an inability to cope with the mildest line of questioning. So much for the hard woman bravado about "walking through fire." It didn't end there. Having argued in the morning that "our culture" means valuing women, that afternoon she singled out maternity pay as "excessive" and symptomatic of the "burden of regulation" on British business. She doubled down on this, suggesting the minimum wage is harming employers. More, give us more! Okay. She jokingly said 10% of civil servants should be banged up because of incompetence, leaking, etc. Ha ha. She rubbished migrant care workers, claimed - without a shred of evidence - that conservative-minded students were marked down at university, and we learned her leadership campaign has its (undeclared) base at the home of a wealthy Tory donor. Not that this stopped her criticising Starmer over his fondness for favours offered by Lord Alli.

Among the other conference highlights were the 'Breed for Britain' fringe (also addressed by Badenoch), a long and indulgent conversation between Tim Stanley and Liz Truss, where she was feted like a rock star. Trump endorsement, check. I was right, check. Clash of civilisations, check. Tories lost because they're too woke, check. If the party was serious about clawing back the ground lost, Truss would be dealt a life time ban from conference. And, if this wasn't bad enough, most of the reports from Birmingham suggest the party members are in a chipper mood. Incredible.

Last year, it was obvious that the Tories could go one of two ways. Head right to consolidate their vote after a traumatic wipe out and see off Reform once and for all, or try something different. The answer, even from the "centrist" candidates is that the indulgence of extreme right wing politics and hobby horses is where they want to go. And that's fine. It might solidify their support on that side of the voting spectrum, but it won't make winning back dozens of Labour and Liberal Democrat-held seats any easier. Making the task more difficult if not impossible, it seems few Tories understand their party is on the verge of permanent irrelevance. This was less a conference, more a colourful noisy, unhinged and celebratory wake. And going by the politics offered by the contenders, they're competing not to lead the party but for the honour of lighting its cremation.

8 comments:

  1. Even the Telegraph has run a story saying the Tory game is up:

    https://uk.news.yahoo.com/neither-tory-nor-centre-revive-185220410.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAJYHU7MJoMF--44l6HOkslvcLc-4C5iQ4g9qpMgHrrWPh5tovDybQfBX9FCzM1vjsYVdBDT2L_aqElgHS3bfFAqQG-Q1nC3McPhbPVxxib1WFdM5Pwb9Q2Br1vLPEz-zbkf9W3qApJ50AI59wJpFZpYRAACqp8QSi5PzKV28Mmn3

    ReplyDelete
  2. «The collapse of the Tory position, long forecast round these parts and explored in a certain book (as seen on TV), served up the worst Conservative general election defeat ever. [...] the long-term decline of the party being taken into account»

    The forecast you made was for a slow permanent shrinking of their base (as rising asset inequality would shrink the number of "Middle England" voters), if they did not change their current coalition. It is overselling to turn the recent 1997-style fall in the Conservative vote into a sudden permanent shrinking of their base.

    The Conservative Party vote is in significant part purely transactional and fluctuates a lot more than the number of thatcherite voters and collapsed in 1997 because of the previous years of property prices crash, and did not recover until 2010 after the property crash under the New Labour Party. Compare:

    1997: 71.4% 31.29m/43.78m: 13.52m Lab. 09.60m Con. 5.24m LDP
    2001: 59.4% 26.37m/44.40m: 10.72m Lab. 08.34m Con. 4.81m LDP

    With:

    2024: 59.8% 28.81m/48.21m: 9.73m Lab. 6.83m Con. 3.52m LDP 4.11m RUK

    It is pretty obvious that the Conservative protest vote went to Reform UK (which has a natural constituency of 1-2m votes) only temporarily, and that the number of thacherite voters has not significantly shrunk yet.

    Anyhow what matters to me and many others is how many thatcherite voters there are rather than specifically Conservative Party ones, and whether they put in power a thatcherite party, not whether that party is the Conservatives, New Labour or the LibDems, as they are all thatcherites anyhow.

    The problem people like have is not to replace the thatcherite Conservative Party with the thatcherite globalist New Labour Party or the thatcherite nationalist Reform UK etc., it is how to persuade a large chunk of thatcherite voters that thatcherism is bad for them too (upgraders, owners in "pushed behind" areas, parents who care about their children, barely middle class voters with insecure jobs without final salary pensions).

    ReplyDelete
  3. «a long and indulgent conversation between Tim Stanley and Liz Truss [...] Clash of civilisations, check. Tories lost because they're too woke, check. [...] The answer, even from the "centrist" candidates is that the indulgence of extreme right wing politics»

    Extreme right wing politics is not about culture or identity it is about upwards redistribution with ever "better" property incomes and more "affordable" labor costs, and all three major parties are solidly for that.

    Like in 1997 the Conservative Party seems unable to acknowledsge that it is by far and away the party of upward redistribution, of higher property incomes and lower labor costs, and that identity and cultural issues do not matter much to why their voters vote for them and even less to their sponsors. Even if cultural and identity may matter directly to members when electing the party leader, as actual economic policy is not at stake there, as they are all agreed on higher property and lower wages.

    Note: which is not the case with the Labour Party as the vote for electing Corbyn and the large increase in membership around that were certainly not because "centrists" Andy Burnham or Yvette Cooper or Owen Smith were insufficiently "woke".

    But it is a common "centrist" claim that material interests do matter to voters as much as identity and culture issues, and they seem often to project that on thatcherite voters, and perhaps the Conservative wannabe leaders are more "centrist" than it appears.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Sounds like they're going all in on the wave of far right unity, currently festering in the US and creeping across Europe, reaching us in 2029 and causing Toad to graciously send his zombie minions to them, as in 2019.

    Which implies that they think Toad has far more (and slightly younger) minions than many seem to think.

    No doubt they're looking at Trumpism, Meloniism, etc and reasoning that very similar dynamics must be at play here, and that therefore if they only light a beacon for the "deplorables", the deplorables will come swarming. The deplorables should indeed make a significant and relatively constant fraction of the population, probably within the 30-50% range, because the psychology which drives them does. But exactly how they and their cultural backgrounds are distributed, and how that interacts with the electoral system, makes all the difference.

    And even if the Tories are betting the right way here, their plan still depends utterly upon Toad playing ball. He can name his price... Unless they can somehow neutralise him, between now and then.

    ReplyDelete
  5. What a relief! @Bliss is back with his "one cause to explain it all" schtick. Phil should just replace his Blog with a permanently scrolling header saying "It's all about property prices". No need to involve ourselves in policy detail, or in socio-economic or cultural trends. No need to think about the rising energy cost of energy that is driving the end of prosperity. Nor the impact of climate change on economic fundamentals (like food). Don't worry about rising inequality and the decline of public services. Forget the exploitative model of capitalism that is driving the frustration and alienation of the young. No need to question or analyse the growing disatisfaction of a large slice of society whose anger was reflected in the recent riots. No. Keep those house prices buoyant and you are guaranteed to walk in to No 10. End of.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes and who has a final salary pension these days.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I don't know how you can be so sanguine about the decline of the Conservative bloc when, only a few months ago, 38% of the voting public voted for either Thatcherite Conservatism or outright Powellism, vs 34% voting for whatever Labour are offering these days (McSweeneyism?). If there was an unbreachable firewall betwen Conservatism and Powellism, there might be some grounds for celebration - but with the next Tory leader being either Jenrick or Badenoch, that's clearly not the case any more.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Well, there's the long term decline facing the Blue Thatcherite bloc (I think there's a book about that?)

      Then there's the problem of getting that 38% to all vote for the same party, ever again. There may not be an unbreachable firewall, but has every last Tory voter who would never vote for Powellism already deserted them...? If not, then that 38% combined share is only likely to diminish; and it will still be split between two parties.

      Delete

Comments are under moderation.