How are the Tories coping since crashing to their worst ever defeat? Apart from the Badenoch/Braverman barney, the first inner party dispute of note was about the length of the leadership contest to replace Rishi Sunak (California beckons, after all). Those who argued for a short campaign envisaged a new leader in place before party conference season so they could introduce themselves to the nation, and then start attacking Labour. Those who thought a longer contest was more appropriate argue the party needs time to think about its defeat, why it was defeated so heavily, and where the party goes next. It will also allow the leadership hopefuls to be put through their paces, which apparently wasn't the case in the short contests that returned Boris Johnson and Liz Truss.
From the standpoint of their self-preservation, the Tories have probably made the right decision going long in the abstract. But some will be disappointed. For instance, Oliver Middleton writing on ConHome notes that Labour's long leadership contest in 2010 allowed the Conservatives to set the tone for their programme of cuts. There is a danger history might repeat itself as Labour sets about its legislative programme with the opposition distracted. But this is a rewrite of history. It was not that Labour was absorbed by its own issues, it's that the politics pushed by the frontrunners - the Miliband brothers - capitulated to the Tories' agenda. Ed Miliband won on a softer left platform, but as soon as he became leader the messaging was all about accepting the need for cuts. "Too fast and too far" was the mantra, and the political initiative was duly ceded.
The Tories aren't about to make the same mistake. Okay, not exactly the same one. Labour have scrapped their on-shore wind ban and their attacks on HE institutions via the war-on-woke "free speech" act, and the Tories will oppose this. As Rachel Reeves comes forward with her statement next week to fix the £20bn deficit in state finances, Sunak's caretaker leadership aren't about to accept Labour framing and Labour arguments about the need for wealth taxes, cracking down on tax avoidance, and making sure private schools pay their way. But what they are doing is re-emphasising the issues that played their part in the Tories' catastrophic defeat.
Take Tom Tugendhat, for example. Apparently the "least unpopular candidate that members of the public have heard of, the centrepiece of his leadership campaign is his pledge to withdraw from the European Court of Human Rights. Supposedly on the sensible briefcase wing of the party, there might be method to this particular madness. After all, immigration has become the performative Tory issue par excellence and the ECHR are viewed as an illegitimate obstacle to being beastly to refugees. This will go down well with what's left of the Tory membership, but sets the tone for the rest of the contest. If Tugendhat is taking up this position, how are those to his right - Priti Patel, Kemi Badenoch, Robert Jenrick, and Suella Braverman - going to differentiate themselves? The gutter leads to the drain, and the drain leads to the sewer. The problem is that as the Tory hopefuls scrap over who can be the most right wing, the message is reinforced that the party remains out of touch, has nothing to say about the problems facing this country, and aren't contrite over the damage they've done.
In this regard, a long contest only reinforces these points. The Tories are set on spending the next four months reminding everyone how appalling they are.
Image Credit
5 comments:
«The Tories are set on spending the next four months reminding everyone how appalling they are.»
Our blogger's posts are usually interesting and reflection provoking, but while our blogger keeps repeating that politics is about class interests which seems very reasonable to me, still he keeps making arguments that the personalities of right-wingers are appalling, which is a moralizing approach to politics (which is part of the "student politics" concept). It is as if "whig" right-wing propagandist Corey Robin had been right and right-wing politics were not about material interests but appalling reactionary attitudes against emancipation.
An excuse might be that this blog post is a consequence of "there is no alternative"/"we are all thatcherites now" situation, where the politics of interests are consciously or subconsciously given for granted to be thatcherite of some sort or another, whether it is Starmer or Farage or LibDems or a Conservative leadership candidate, so it is tempting to think that it is meaningful only to discuss the degree to which right-wing personalities are appalling.
But I still think that even if all the major parties are thatcherite there are still meaningful differences in interests as which specific right-wing interests they represent and I would be interested to read some arguments about the one-nation (almost disappeared), thatcherite nationalist, thatcherite globalist factions (and minor ones) and their associations with different vested-interests factions of "sponsors".
«But what they are doing is re-emphasising the issues that played their part in the Tories' catastrophic defeat.»
In the past 40 years an incumbent governing party has been defeated only after an end to property price rises. Perhaps 2024 would have been different, given that it was just (on average) a stall rather than a fall, and given the huge unpopularity of Starmer's party, if Reform UK had not split the Conservative vote, but then it is possible to argue that so many Conservative votes switched to Reform UK was related to their outrage that the Conservatives had not kept property prices redistributing more from the lower classes.
«The Tories are set on spending the next four months reminding everyone how appalling they are.»
Our blogger's posts are usually interesting and reflection provoking, but while our blogger keeps repeating that politics is about class interests which seems very reasonable to me, still he keeps making arguments that the personalities of right-wingers are appalling, which is a moralizing approach to politics (which is part of the "student politics" concept). It is as if "whig" right-wing propagandist Corey Robin had been right and right-wing politics were not about material interests but appalling reactionary attitudes against emancipation.
An excuse might be that this blog post is a consequence of "there is no alternative"/"we are all thatcherites now" situation, where the politics of interests are consciously or subconsciously given for granted to be thatcherite of some sort or another, whether it is Starmer or Farage or LibDems or a Conservative leadership candidate, so it is tempting to think that it is meaningful only to discuss the degree to which right-wing personalities are appalling.
But I still think that even if all the major parties are thatcherite there are still meaningful differences in interests as which specific right-wing interests they represent and I would be interested to read some arguments about the one-nation (almost disappeared), thatcherite nationalist, thatcherite globalist factions (and minor ones) and their associations with different vested-interests factions of "sponsors".
«But what they are doing is re-emphasising the issues that played their part in the Tories' catastrophic defeat.»
In the past 40 years an incumbent governing party has been defeated only after an end to property price rises. Perhaps 2024 would have been different, given that it was just (on average) a stall rather than a fall, and given the huge unpopularity of Starmer's party, if Reform UK had not split the Conservative vote, but then it is possible to argue that so many Conservative votes switched to Reform UK was related to their outrage that the Conservatives had not kept property prices redistributing more from the lower classes.
The problem for the Tories in the Conservative Party is that, as the election shows, there is a more credible Tory Party already in existence, in the form of Farage and Reform. Its only the undemocratic nature of FPTP that didn't result in Reform not getting a similar number of seats as the Liberals, which is unlikely to be repeated next time. There is no reason for Farage to join the Tories, and every reason for the Tories to leave the Conservative Party and join Reform.
If the Tory wing of the Conservatives again win the Leadership, their problem continues. They will simply share that Tory vote with Reform, meaning neither could ever win a majority in future, as they cancel each other out. That only leaves the Tories in the Conservative Party with the choice of joining the real thing, i.e. Reform, in the hope of destroying the Conservative Party.
But, that would, then leave the Conservative Party in the hands of Conservatives, not Tories, i.e. one-nation, conservative social-democrats of the type that existed prior to the late 80's Thatcher era. They by contrast share the same electoral space as the Liberals, and Blair-right Labour, i.e. support for large-scale, multinational capital, the EU etc. The Conservative party that would be left can take over the Liberals given the support from that same big business, as prefigured by the Cameron-Clegg coalition but would also be able to draw to it the Blair-rights as Starmer's Blue Labour reactionary nationalists pull in the opposite direction, as again pre-figured in the abortive lash-up that was Change UK, which was out of time.
The real issue is not who wins the leadership contest, but what happens after that.
«arguments that the personalities of right-wingers are appalling, which is a moralizing approach to politics»
Consider the reverse: let's imagine that all Conservatives, New Labour. LibDem politicians were average or even decent people, without anyone having appalling personalities. Would I still oppose them? Indeed, because of the interests that they represent. Also I am not fond of moralizing about personalities in politics also because it supports the attitude that they are just rotten apples, but the system (thatcherism in the current era) is good.
What would happen if no candidate for Leader of the Conservative Party could find 10 MPs to nominate him, her or it? Suella Braverman, who was so incompetent that even Liz Truss felt obliged to sack her, looks set to defect to Reform UK for want of such support.
Meaning that Braverman would have to challenge for Leader of Reform, or what would be the point? If she had left the Conservatives for not having made her Leader, then she could not very well join another party except to become its Leader.
Nigel Farage may therefore refuse to let her in. Indeed, if she did not now defect, then she has presumably been rebuffed. Such fun, brothers and sisters. Such fun. Let the games begin.
Post a Comment