Tag: conservatives

Bullet: The collapse of the Tory Party should be a warning to Reform

At the end of next week, I think politics will look quite different. We’ll have had another TV debate, and this time one in a format that suits Starmer, and I’m sure his team will have pointed out his flaws. Reform, Nigel Farage’s party, will continue their rise in the polls. And, I think, they’ll overtake the Conservatives. Not once in post-war history has the governing party finished third place. It is unprecedented.

Various political analysts have tried to pinpoint where it all went wrong for the Tories. Was it partygate, or appointing Chris Pincher, or electing Liz Truss, or the direction of Sunak’s government, or the shift to the right? My stance is that this disaster for the Conservative Party has been a decade in the making.

To recap: In January 2013, David Cameron went for another term in office – successfully – and fought off UKIP by pledging a referendum on EU membership. That referendum resulted in a vote to leave the EU in 2016, and David Cameron resigned. Theresa May became leader and attempted to deliver her version of Brexit, and called the 2017 election to strengthen her majority. The Conservatives lost their majority, and Theresa May wasn’t able to unite the party on Brexit. In 2019, she resigned and Boris Johnson took over. Again, Johnson couldn’t persuade Parliament to back his version of Brexit. He called the 2019 election, and this time his leadership was about a single issue: getting Brexit done.

That sounds great for Boris Johnson. He enjoyed a popular couple of years in office, firstly delivering on his main pledge, and then leading a highly-approved (at the time) response to the pandemic. But soon, the unity was over. A party united around Brexit, and a country united around getting through coronavirus, now had nothing to unite behind. Boris Johnson introduced levelling up, but this faced two problems. First of all, it was place based, and Conservative MPs represent two very different types of places – think Jeremy Hunt compared to Jonathan Gullis. Second, this was effectively “improve outcomes”. Surely every MP should be united behind better sociodemographic and economic outcomes anyway?

Thanks to partygate – or rather, Boris Johnson’s lying about partygate – the party found itself with no ideology, no goal, and now no leader to unite behind. Cracks begun to show, with traditional Tory MPs finding themselves at odds with the 2019 intake. MPs who had won (and won, and won, and won) their seats based on centre-right politics were in the same party as those who found themselves in a job thanks to Johnson’s personality.

As the Conservative Party began to slip in the polls, it resorted to more divisive policies, and for two reasons – largely due to the aforementioned divisions, but the long Conservative rule meant the party was stale and out of new ideas despite being desperate for them. Not only bad for the country and liberal democracy, these tactics also further divided MPs. The Rwanda plan (which Rishi Sunak didn’t even agree with), the arguments about trans rights, and now national service are all tactics seen as necessity but which do damage to the Conservative Party.

If the Reform Party ever get into government – which I find unlikely in this election cycle, and probably the next, but not an impossibility in the long term – they are likely to face precisely this challenge. They have both an asset and a threat in their Boris-like campaign coalition. A charismatic leader and an easy soundbite to rally around can win power, but it can also cause the demise of a party if not properly planned.

Let’s say Reform get into power with a flagship aim of net-zero migration. They achieve it within 2 years. What next? It is a deeply right wing party that simultaneously supports British institutions like the NHS which is socialist in its roots. Social conservatism isn’t popular in the UK and may not be uniformly popular in Reform supporters. There is no coherent economic view in the party, with agreement on tax and spending coming secondary to immigration figures. Whilst it may enjoy short term electoral success, the Reform Party is in no position for real, long-term government.

Long read: Brexit, Corbyn, and regicide: Why parliamentary sovereignty is not to be challenged

“The public doesn’t bring down Prime Ministers; Parliament does.”

The sovereignty of Parliament has never been shown to be so obviously so important compared to now. No matter how loud the views are amongst the grassroots of a party or a cause – it must command a majority within Parliament, or at least within the Parliamentary Party. I could talk about my opinions on Parliament and the Lords and the electoral system – in fact, I did in my first draft of this post – but that isn’t relevant here and now. What matters is that every party learns and understands that it runs the risk of repeating the mistakes of the past if it does not begin to quickly listen to the realities of a world-class political system.

Liz Truss is, by every single measure conceivable, the worst Prime Minister we’ve had. Probably ever, certainly in modern history. By time in office, by number of u-turns, by policies delivered, by confidence of her own MPs, by confidence of the Commons, by the value of the pound. She has been so poor. And, this may be controversial, but I do not believe it to be something extraordinary about Liz Truss that has caused this issue. She was no weaker than May, and her policies were no more outlandish than Thatcher. The combination may have been fatal for her, but there is more to it than that.

The results of the (first) 2022 Conservative leadership election give it away. She came third in the first four rounds of MP ballots, and second in the final round. She entered office without a majority of her own Parliamentary party. Her mandate is Parliamentary, and Parliament’s mandate is the public. One of my deepest and most pragmatic beliefs about our democracy is that it is, and should remain, Parliamentary. There should be no constitutional requirement for a general election if a leader changes. Sure, opposition parties are right to call for one and I would like one, but there should not be a constitutional requirement. And so, whilst the governing party had an effective mandate from the public (regardless of your views on FPTP), the leader had no mandate from the governing party’s sovereign body: MPs. The party of regicide was always going to oust her as leader if she did not gain their confidence quickly. She didn’t. They did.

This could be a little different if she started out in opposition and gained MPs. Boris Johnson was so successful on Brexit because he was so ruthless with the MPs that he gained; any MP who ran in the 2019 election had to support his Brexit deal. Therefore, there’s a theoretical argument that opposition parties have a little more leeway with this and can listen to their members more, as they can – if they get into government – force their majorities into having confidence in them. This is only if you get into government, though, which brings me fairly smoothly onto my next point: if you’re an opposition party, it’s harder to get into government if you don’t have the confidence of your party. This shouldn’t be followed quite so stringently as it should be if you are in government; I know if I was still in the Labour Party, I’d want a say on the leader (and did in fact have a say on the leader last time). The 2016 Labour leadership election showed the flaws of this though, with 172 MPs against Corbyn, and 40 supporting him, he won the leadership election. He was never going to be able to unite or govern effectively, no matter how good his campaigning was.

This also applies to policy. The Brexit referendum probably made political sense to Cameron at the time. There was a rising party, UKIP, taking votes from him, threatening his MP’s majorities in swing seats. So, to shut them up and stop them from taking votes, calling a referendum and winning it wasn’t a bad thing to do. The problem was what ensued afterwards, which has only become clear in hindsight. The Tory Party at the time was mostly remain-supporting, including Truss herself, a member of Cameron’s cabinet. Theresa May took over – who supported remain – and tried to deliver Brexit with a Labour Party opposed to her and a Conservative Party opposed to Brexit. The result of the 2017 election made things no clearer, with Labour running a Brexiteer candidate in Corbyn with a policy to remain in the EU, and the Conservatives running remainer May with a policy to leave the EU. How can a parliament have confidence in a policy when it isn’t entirely sure who supports it and who is against it? Boris Johnson seemed to, for all his flaws and corruption, understand the necessity of a clear unambiguous Parliamentary majority to deliver a policy.

In comparison, take the two most successful and influential politicians in modern Britain, Thatcher and Blair. They both had one crucial thing in common, which was the command and confidence of their parliamentary Party. The public doesn’t bring down Prime Ministers; Parliament does. When you realise this, and understand that the public didn’t bring down Thatcher, or Blair, or Cameron, or May, or Johnson, or Truss, this concept becomes significantly more important.

Imagine if Thatcher had been elected without the votes of her Parliamentary party. On the same policies, with the same backing from her party members and the same view from public, but with the Conservative MPs giving their support to a hypothetical alternative candidate. Her character would not have changed, and nor would have her ideology, but she would have found herself in a position that could have very quickly become untenable. She was an effective if disagreeable opposition leader and Prime Minister not because she had the backing of significant grassroots organisations, but because she respected the sovereignty of the House of Commons and its importance in deciding the fate of an Opposition Leader and a Prime Minister. Blair’s mandate did not come from the party members – Corbyn had a bigger backing of party members than Blair did, albeit not by much. But, put two opposition leaders up side by side, one with the backing from their Parliamentary party and another with grassroots support. Nine times out of ten, I believe, the one with backing from Parliament will be more successful than the one with grassroots support. The public can vote for somebody who does not have the support of various grassroots movements – they can’t vote for one who doesn’t have the backing of their own legislators. If they do, it will only be a matter of time before downfall from within.

Bullet: The inevitable end for Liz Truss

I now feel confident enough that the end is coming for Liz Truss that I can write and publish this. I’ve thought for a while about how awful she is at speaking, campaigning, governing, and decision making – all the things that are absolutely essential for a Prime Minister. On top of that, she’s polling at around 20% (with another big result expected at 5pm today from Redfield & Wilton), and there’s rumours that there’s 100 no confidence letters already sent to Sir Graham Brady, the chair of the 19222 Committee. This is not something any Prime Minister has survived.

Prime Ministers very rarely get formally pushed out, so while it’s worth bearing in mind that the letters formally can’t be used to oust her, she is likely to choose resigning with some sort of grace over the alternative option – the 1922 Committee having to change their rules to allow themselves to sack you after less than 2 months probably looks worse than saying “It’s clear my ideology isn’t what was needed at the time I was elected, and so I will be offering my resignation to the King.” And, in that sense, I believe that where there is serious and growing doubt that she will survive, that means the decision has already been made.

Jeremy Hunt is expected to entirely reverse Liz Truss’ mini budget, which comes after she put her confidence in Kwasi Kwarteng only to be forced into sacking him. This will look better for Hunt than it will for Truss – and it is quite something when a Chancellor who has been in the job for 2 days and was one of the most unpopular Health Secretaries in living memory announces tax rises and spending cuts, and comes out of it in a better position than the Prime Minister. He’s fixing somebody else’s mess, but Truss’ constant presence through the two Chancellorships and her endorsement of the mini-budget means for her it’s too late.

She has only a mandate from Conservative members, remember. She wasn’t the first choice for MPs for leader – in fact, she came third behind Penny Morduant for the first four of five MP ballots. And, whilst we do formally have a parliamentary democracy where people vote for individual MPs to make the decision for them, it would be foolish to pretend that Boris Johnson isn’t the man who won the 2019 election for the Conservatives, with Jeremy Corbyn being the man who lost it for Labour. Whilst her government has a public mandate, her Premiership does not, and she tell MPs that she won them their seats in a way that Boris Johnson could.

Hunt is also expected to limit Truss’ energy support package. This is the only place where she has the upper hand on Labour at the moment; in PMQs, you will often find her saying “We’re commiting to support for 2 years – Labour’s plan only lasts six months!” If that commitment of 2 years is no commitment at all and entirely dependent on who went in the metaphorical revolving door at Number 11 in the last month or two, where is her upper hand against Labour? It is not funding public services, nor is it low tax, nor is it honesty, nor is it sound decision making, nor is it fiscal responsibility and a strong economy, nor is it stable leadership, nor is it having a likeable leader.

Hunt may be making better economic decisions than Kwarteng, and might even boost his own ratings if he says he’s making tough decisions to clean up the last guy’s mess. But, in doing so he will deliver a fatal blow to Liz Truss that will show within the next fortnight as her economic policy is dismantled by her own party, making her the shortest serving Prime Minister by some considerable distance in modern history. A Conservative Chancellor cleaning up a Conservative mess (against the fundamental ideology of the Conservative Prime Minister) caused by a Conservative Chancellor appointed by a Conservative Prime Minister is not a good luck for the Conservative Party, and it’s much worse for Liz Truss. Her lack of a Parliamentary mandate is coming for her.

Bullet: What Boris Johnson’s result means for the Conservative Party

In 1989, Thatcher had the confiendence of 314 of 374 Conservative MPs. A year later, she left Downing Street in tears. In 2018, Theresa May had the confidence of 63% of Conservative MPs. Six months later, she resigned outside Downing Street in tears. In 2022, Boris Johnson had the confidence of just 58.7% of Conservative MPs. A year later, what will happen?

In the coming days, expect the airwaves to be littered with Raab, Patel, Dorries, and company explaining how the win shows the country wants the Prime Minister to get on with the people’s priorities. They’ll probably talk about how he still clearly has the priority of the government the people elected, and that Labour’s political gains didn’t work. Above all, it’ll be that now is the time to “move on” and “unite behind the Prime Minister” to “get on with the job”.

None of this will actually mean very much. Whatever happens next, Boris Johnson’s critics are emboldened, and his supporters are weakened. Whilst you’re not going to see many voters remembering that Boris Johnson got 211 votes for and 148 votes against, the Tory party will be quietly remembering. The condition of support for the Prime Minister will slowly but surely go unrealised, and the party will be a party that no longer gets things done. Public calls for unity will be going to the wrong people, with MPs not changing their minds. Those who vote no this evening will likely hold that position for the remainder of his premiership. From public statements, it is clear that the no decision is taken after much more consideration than a yes one. In other words, the Tory Party will be no more unified than it is this evening for the rest of Johnson’s leadership, even if its division is quieter.

It’s hard for me to predict how Johnson will go, as this isn’t a matter of policy but rather a matter of character. With Theresa May, there was a failure in her flagship policy which forced her into stepping down – a clear pinnacle of what had brought about the confidence vote. With Johnson, this might not happen. Sure, he might break the law again, or the ministerial code, but I doubt it. I’ve a feeling it may come down to an election. Where Mrs May had a moment where it was clear her Brexit failures were sticking around, Mr Johnson may have a moment where it’s clear his character flaws are doing the same. Keep an eye on June 23rd, but don’t expect it to be monumental.

That’s why I think the death of the premiership will be a slow one. A slow realisation that Labour’s lead isn’t going anywhere (so, please, don’t fuck it up, Mr Starmer). A slow realisation that 2019 was a one off win for Johnson. A slow realisation that a suit and tie Tory is electorally better than a wine and cheese one. People will begin to realise the government is sad and limp, but there won’t be an event that kills it off. The Johnson government is terminally ill, but won’t be euthanised. Maybe there’ll be a week or a few of hospitalisation before it passes where things are dire, or maybe the party will realise that killing a wounded animal can be more merciful than forcing it to suffer. It could cling on until Labour kills it. But, make no mistake: I believe this to be a diagnosis that this government won’t be healthy again.

And so, with the exact end of Johnson unknown, I turn to post-Johnson and look at his successor. The Tory Party turning from such vocal support of good old Boris to a desperate attempt to rebrand themselves will be interesting at least. This isn’t impossible – look at Starmer’s Labour. But also remember the “Same Old Labour” tweets from the Tories; they know how damaging it is to say that a party hasn’t moved on from its unpopular previous leader. The big names in the Tory Party are the pro-Johnson ones, so the next leader will have to be chosen carefully. Where May’s front bench could be elected as leaders with different Brexit policies, Johnson’s front bench may be unpopular amongst backbenchers and rebels. My guess is Hunt – name recognition, few scandals or baggage, and ministerial experience.

Whatever happens, a random Monday in June has changed British politics for the next few years. Johnson may cling on until the next election or he may be forced out within months, but I can say with a significant degree of confidence that Johnson has no more than half a term left regardless of how his leadership comes to an end. Remember, of 359 Conservative MPs, he only has the support of just over 200.

Bullet: The confidence vote in Boris Johnson

There’s a reason that you hear stories of employers telling people if they don’t resign, they’ll be fired: resigning is a lot more pleasant than being fired. There’s a reason I say this. If Boris Johnson genuinely feared he’d be kicked out of office, he’d probably have resigned by now. I’d be careful about buying into the hype that today is Johnson’s last day.

There’s a few reasons this could shape out to be a little different (and I certainly hope it does), but I think it rings true nonetheless. That means that this vote isn’t one to watch believing it will change much externally. Glue yourself to BBC News, but don’t do so with a genuine belief that his time in office has come to an immediate end. At the end of today, the chances are that Boris Johnson will still be Prime Minister (even though a win today will leave him weaker than he was last week), and most of the public won’t really care that much about the numbers. They’ll see the vote, win or lose, and move on with their lives. That’s why I believe the best way to look at this is from within the Conservative Party, and how this could spell change in politics over the coming months and years.

So, let’s say he wins. This is the most likely outcome in my view. The big bit of news his how comfortably he wins and what this means. A comfortable win not only gives Boris Johnson safety, but also signals something wider: the Conservative Party have no intentions of distancing themselves from Boris Johnson after the Sue Gray report. That’s not to say they won’t ever, and it’s not even to say they won’t before the next general election. But it does make clear that, right now, the Conservatives are the party of Boris Johnson. Labour can use that to their advantage in the future. When Boris Johnson is no longer leader and if the party makes an effort to move away from him, a comfortable win today will be a reminder that they were more comfortable with a lawbreaker than they were with an electoral liability.

If he wins by a narrow majority, things don’t look good either. It gives hope to rebels that they’ll be able to get rid of him. Whilst he’s protected from a VONC for a year, Britain’s only two female Prime Ministers Thatcher and May both resigned well within that yearly time frame. Yes, he’s protected, but divided parties don’t win elections, and Tories get rid of leaders that don’t win elections. If the vote diagnoses the party as one divided, it may spell trouble for the Prime Minister, as he becomes aware that he could be doomed to lose the next election. Remember that a narrow win amongst those who once almost unanimously did not oppose him is no real win at all.

The 2019 intake is a big group to watch, as these are the MPs that are there because of Boris Johnson, and their support or lack of will be at least somewhat reflective of the views in the red wall. This will have its limits, as an MP of any party won’t be completely reflective of their constituency, but a big loss of support from these could send a message to the rest of the party: Boris Johnson won’t win these seats again. The entire vote should be seen as a series of messages from some Conservative MPs to others – some groups and individuals will be announcing that they still believe they keep their seats because of Boris Johnson, whilst others believe they do so despite him.

The timing of this is significant for Conservatives wanting to cling to their seats, too. Boris Johnson had a big success in 2019, but has suffered a big defeat in 2022. His plea to MPs is that things will get better, and that he’ll soon enough return to the 2019 glory days of Conservative support. Winning this can put partygate behind him, he argues. But in just 17 short days, he faces two by elections from very different demographics – the classic Conservative stronghold of Tiverton and Honiton in Devon, and Wakefield which was gained by the Tories in 2019. A bad performance in one of these, let alone both, is bad news for the Conservatives in the future. They may well be aware that if they don’t get rid of him today, they can’t get rid of him post-election. This is made worse by polling in Wakefield suggesting the Tories would get roughly what they got there in 1997 when Blair won a landslide – 28%, which is almost 20 points down compared to 2019. Votes against the Prime Minister may well be “shit, I’m at risk” votes, rather than “I like public standards” votes. Those who support Johnson will also be aware that the Conservatives are behind in the polls, and will be supporting him on the condition that things improve electorally when (if ever) all this party stuff is behind him.

This is why I’d be wary of predictions by Labour optimists that Johnson will call a general election. If Labour supporters are hopeful he’ll do it, it’s all the more reason he won’t. Early general elections are for parties that are doing well in the polls and don’t want to risk a fall, not for those who wish to strengthen their mandate after a period of weak performance. Ask Theresa May how well it went for her. The real thing we should be watching is can Boris Johnson win back support that is shown as lost this evening? If he can’t, that’s when I predict his days as Prime Minister will be behind him. The reason I hesitate to give him a year’s timeframe is that I don’t think his end will be a VONC as it won’t be brought about by something new but rather an old issue lasting, and he’ll be pressured into resignation.

The long and short of this is that Boris Johnson will probably win, and he probably won’t call an election. He’ll be Prime Minister tomorrow and Conservatives will be in power for a while yet. But, the rebellions may be bigger than expected and spell doom for the Prime Minister in the long run, with some Tories realising they’re at risk. The real speculation worth paying attention to is not that there’ll be a general election, but that things will either get better or dramatically worse for Mr Johnson. The coming months are make or break for Johnson’s premiership.

P.S. If he resigns today, he’ll have lasted one day less than Gordon Brown, and I think that’s quite cool.

The beginning of the end for Johnson, and why the Conservatives could be doomed at the next election

If the opposition manages to sustain a good attack line, this will be the end for Johnson. It is significantly more important than the fact that the Prime Minister probably shouldn’t have attended a party. It’s the fact that there were countless mistakes – if you can call them mistakes – caused by a culture of lying, arrogance, and refusal to follow the law. Any decent Prime Minister would have said “I should not have done this and I will step down” for the sake of the country. Any bad Prime Minister would have done the same but for their party, similar to Matt Hancock. Johnson is neither of those, and that’s what makes him so embarrassing.

There are three options for the Conservatives in the next election, likely to be in 2023 or 2024. Boris Johnson could stay leader and there could be too few rebellions to trigger a vote of no confidence within the Conservative Party, which isn’t unlikely given that Labour’s constant infighting over the last couple of years has made them look incredibly weak and divided, and the Conservatives don’t want the same fate. Boris Johnson expelled all MPs that did not agree with him on the issue of Brexit, as unity was so important to the party – so don’t be surprised if the Tories don’t rebel. If Johnson does stay leader, the opposition parties and hopefully the media will have a fantastic opportunity for some good old fashioned character assassination. Is the person who couldn’t follow his own rules and couldn’t be honest about it the person you want leading you through the next crisis, and can you trust them to make good decisions on behalf of the country when they consider themselves exempt?

The second option is that Boris Johnson is replaced as Prime Minister. I consider this the most likely. Potential candidates for his replacement will vote for replacing him but only if they believe it is likely to pass, given their careerist goals but also that they will want to stand on a platform, both internally and nationally, that they’re not like Johnson, whilst seeking to balance this with being supportive of a government which they want to look successful. Their electoral chances will be ruined if the front bench votes against Johnson who survives the vote. If Johnson is replaced as Prime Minsiter, Labour also have a fantastic opportunity for campaigning against the new leader: “In 2015, the country voted Cameron and got May. In 2017, the country voted May and got Johnson. In 2019, the country voted Johnson and got Sunak/Truss/Patel. They can’t trust that a Conservative Prime Minister is up for the job.” They’ll also get the chance to point out that many current Tory MPs will have supported Johnson as a vote of no confidence will force them to pick a side or abstain, and that there’s nothing stopping a party with such a corrupt culture from replacing the new PM two years down the line with someone more corrupt as happened with Johnson replacing May. It’ll be an attack on the party which supported Johnson so much and the risks re-electing that party brings with it, rather than an attack on the new leader.

I believe this will happen before the second half of 2022 due to the process involved. A Parliamentary vote of no confidence (which triggers a general election if no new government is formed within 14 days) won’t pass against Johnson if it didn’t pass against May, and the Tories would struggle to find a coherent leader in time for the 14 day general election leaving Boris Johnson as their candidate. This means it would have to be done through a Conservative Party vote of no confidence, where enough Conservative MPs (15%, currently 55 MPs) must write to the Chairman of the 1922 Committee to ask for such a vote. MPs are only going to write at such a time when they believe the party to be at risk because of the leader, and trailing in polls is not enough to cause this. If Johnson survives the local elections in 2022, it means the scandals have passed without enough outrage from Tory MPs to remove him and they won’t remove him with no new significant scandal. In other words – this set of scandals will end him quickly with the help of the North Shropshire by-election this Thursday and potentially the 2022 local elections, or it won’t end him at all.

The third option probably looks a bit more appealing to a lot of senior Tories – keep the government looking strong as long as possible without ousting Johnson as Prime Minister, but standing a new leadership candidate in the 2023/24 election. On the face of it, this looks good: suppress the scandals as much as possible, say you’re delivering on the people’s priorities instead of playing politics, and dump the liability without making a big deal out of it in the middle of a term. However, this raises problems for the next leader. Any attacks on Johnson can then be carried out on the party as a whole. The leader will be forced into criticising Johnson after standing by him for years, or will appear soft on Johnson’s corruption when it will likely be one of the main talking points of the next election. And this won’t just be a problem that the leader faces – the entire party will be accused of standing by a corrupt leader until it’s elecorally convenient for them, and it will be hard for them to wiggle out of this one.

Whichever of the three options happens, it could spell significant danger for the Conservatives at the next election as Starmer’s blandness turns into his biggest asset. It just relies on Labour running a good campaign against the Tories and knowing that it’s an election which will be won on attack, rather than left wing policy. Once Labour have a term proving themselves as competent governors once again, they can use the following election to stand on popular left-wing platforms such as renationalisation.