Tories at war with reality
This is Iain Martin’s weekly newsletter, exclusively for Reaction subscribers.
After the disaster of the Truss interregnum last year the Tories had one hope of avoiding an electoral drubbing in the looming general election. If they removed Truss and united behind a leader dedicated to restoring order and good government then there was a chance – not much more than a chance – that they would earn the right to get a hearing from enough voters to make the contest with Labour competitive. In this scenario, the poll gap would by now have narrowed sufficiently to introduce doubt and the prospect of panic in Labour ranks.
Early this year there were flickers of life in the opinion polling and it seemed as though the Conservative party under Rishi Sunak was back being sensible (as in less chaotic and more in tune with reality) and in with a chance. It became fashionable in political circles to say the election would be closer than anticipated.
It didn’t last. The Tories are once again mired in factionalism. Everyone is unhappy, everyone in their own way. The so-called Tory right, which is really about three factions rather than one, thinks Rishi Sunak has been insufficiently tough on illegal and legal migration. And taxes are too high. Others are baffled by the Tory leadership’s weird communications strategy.
Tory centrists, and those on the “one nation” wing, think Sunak is pandering too much to the right on migration. They worry, with considerable justification, that if the government breaches international law trying to deal with the migration crisis then that would not only be wrong in and of itself. It would be electorally misguided too, because middle ground voters the party needs to win over would conclude that they are irresponsible and reckless.
This week, the crisis may or may not come to a head. The Prime Minister has staked his premiership on a legislative effort to fix the Rwanda scheme and get round the courts. Several days of high drama at Westminster are in prospect. There is even talk of a leadership challenge.
No wonder that when voters look at this rabble – when they bother, which is not often – they see a squabbling, confusing mess. The result is a 20 point Labour lead.
As Rob Colvile put it in his column in the Sunday Times at the weekend, voters right now simply cannot stand the Tories.
This is not a situation that is going to be improved by holding a leadership contest. If the party attempts this, then most normal people would conclude the party had lost it completely.
The problem for the Tories is not particularly Rishi Sunak. The problem is that the electorate, or 70-75% of it, has arrived at the “get these people, the Tories, off my television set, out of my line of sight, be gone” stage of proceedings.
We discussed this and more on the latest edition of the Reaction Podcast with my guest Paul Goodman, editor of Conservative Home.
This is not to absolve Rishi Sunak. Far from it. The Prime Minister is in the hot seat and has made mistakes, not least in his approach to the autumn and Tory party conference, at which he attempted to relaunch himself as the “change” candidate condemning thirty years of failure. This pitch was not only inherently implausible considering how long the party he leads has been in power. It also means he is distancing himself from several achievements in the last thirteen years.
Tories tend to look blank when asked what, if anything, they have achieved in office. Although it is true the country has a great many problems, it is also true that unemployment is low. Also, standards in English schools have increased. The results of the landmark PISA school study released last week confirmed it.
The Union is also stronger, or less at risk of immediate disintegration. The Conservatives had a hand in that. In 2010 it looked as though Scotland might leave the United Kingdom. The Scottish National Party, in government in Edinburgh and then led by Alex Salmond, was agitating for a referendum. David Cameron granted it, judging correctly that the question had to be put and could not be delayed.
Alistair Darling, the Labour former Chancellor who died ten days ago, deserves the bulk of the credit for the successful campaign in 2014 which defeated the Nationalists. But the UK government – led by a Tory Prime Minister – took the initiative.
Almost ten years later, the SNP is in terrible trouble and the Union is for now and the foreseeable future relatively secure. Salmond the magician was defeated. Nicola Sturgeon, treated like a deity by much of the London media a few years ago, is now out of office in disgrace and awaiting the results of a police investigation.
If the Conservative leadership hardly ever mentions what has gone right, it is hardly surprising the electorate regards every single aspect of the Tory party’s tenure as a disaster.
There will be conservatives reading this – among them friends – who say there is no mitigation. Taxes are too high, government spending is too high and in a host of areas Tory performance is low grade. Sunak is sunk, they say. Reform, the Faragist insurgent party, is polling around 10% with the possibility it will, after the potential return of Nigel Farage, turn a Tory defeat into a historic rout.
Sure, but there is no magic manoeuvre available, no dramatic policy or shift of personnel that will change the dispensation. Instead, they are going to have to dig in, try to stick together, zip it, keep on with the pro-growth and supply-side stuff from the Autumn Statement, hope the economy surprises next year, and then with humility ask a little forgiveness from the voters.
Can they do it?
More and more post-Brexit, post-Boris, the Tories look like a party struggling to reconcile themselves to the complexity of reality.
I voted for Brexit and I’m glad to have done so. It did have a strange effect on the Tory party, though. The party and too many of its MPs became addicted to the lure of the big, simple idea in a complex world. Take back control. Stop the boats.
Brexit turned out to be very complicated. The migration crisis is even more complicated and cross border in its nature. Huge forces are at work, driving migration. A web of outdated international legal and treaty commitments cannot be wished away. Change when it comes is most likely to come from governments cooperating to update the treaties, not from splendid isolation and declamatory statements in the House of Commons adjudicated by endless Tory groups of MPs and self-important factions.
Rishi Sunak could do worse than to start explaining complex reality to his party and the country. Having tried almost everything else, it’s worth a go.
Time short on European rearmament
Sweden’s government signed a defence pact with the United States last week that will have far-reaching implications. The deal gives the US military access to 17 bases in the country and helps build up Sweden’s defences. Neighbouring Finland has already joined NATO, while Sweden is also trying to join. Its application is being held up by Turkey.
Across northern Europe the race is on to strengthen defences and deter Putin and the Russian regime. Poland is rearming fast, spending more than 4% of GDP this year on defence.
It is not premature to be thinking in terms of a direct, looming Russian military threat to the Baltic states and Finland and Sweden, and Poland. Britain is a key military ally of those countries.
Outside northern Europe there is too much complacency on the subject, as though the threat is a very distant, remote notion, perhaps a decade or two away.
If, as seems horrifyingly likely, western support for Ukraine weakens and there is some form of “peace” deal imposed on Ukraine, Putin will be emboldened and in the market for further adventures in the Baltic, the high north or Poland.
At the weekend, the Kremlin released footage of Putin drinking champagne with members of the Russian military, being honoured for their service in his war. The Russian leader boasted that support for Ukraine is running out and that Russia is now outproducing the West on munitions.
Notwithstanding Putin’s capacity for self-delusion, Ukraine faces an extremely difficult situation, Trump is ahead in the polls and Russia has put its economy on a permanent war-footing.
The theme – the need to move quicker, to bolster deterrence – came up several times at a gathering held by the London Defence Conference this week. The LDC is the geopolitical gathering that meets every May at King’s College London.
We held a breakout event last week, the inaugural LDC Investment Forum in the heart of the City of London. In the decades ahead, Britain and its allies are going to have to invest more in defence and security. Government won’t be able to do it all. The private sector is going to be needed and the City of London’s skill at mobilising capital is vital too. Worryingly, investment rules (including ESG policies) mean many large investors won’t touch defence, regarding it as being unethical.
Given the gravity of the situation this is, to put it politely, not sensible.
Anyone who doubts the need for government and the private sector to be mobilising resources and building up defence, to support allies on the front line against potential Russian aggression, needs to start paying attention to what is really going on in the northern European neighbourhood.
The last couple of years – in Ukraine and on 7 October – should be a reminder that the unexpected happens. Better to be ready. Better be in a position to deter.
Good luck Wes Streeting
The shadow health secretary is making some extremely brave comments about Britain’s National Health Service. Brave is the word used in the Whitehall comedy series Yes Minister as code for reckless truth-telling that gets a politician into trouble and even fired. Oh, that’s a very “brave” policy proposal, minister, and so on.
Sometimes, to get something important done, there is no alternative to bravery. That is, identifying the problem and speaking clearly about the solutions.
On the NHS that is exactly what Streeting is doing. And oh my, good luck to him.
Streeting visited Singapore recently and returned recounting how technically advanced and efficient its hospital system is. The NHS needs to modernise and reform, he said. If it doesn’t, it won’t survive. If he becomes health secretary Streeting promises to put patients first rather than producer interests. (Could this idea catch on?)
Predictably, on social media Streeting was attacked by NHS campaigners, those activists who cannot use the term NHS without prefixing it with the word “our” – as in “our NHS.” Streeting is accused by critics of wanting to sell off the sainted health service.
It is very encouraging that Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer is licensing Streeting to make this stand, to offend the health unions by being bold and explaining the system must improve and innovate in the interests of patients.
Saying this in opposition is one thing. Doing it in government is quite a different matter. The test will come, if Labour wins, when Streeting hits inevitable problems in the first year or two, as happens naturally to all governments. The unions will be out to get him and a clamour will build. Starmer will face calls to sack Streeting. At that point, we will all, Wes Streeting included, find out whether Starmer is serious about tackling the country’s biggest challenges, or not.
What I’m watching/reading
Not much, sadly. Last week’s LDC Investment Forum and travel to Stockholm mean I’ve not had time to watch or read much. But Christmas is coming. My plan, in-between seeing family, is to lay around reading and watching films. Before then you’ll hear from me a couple of times more, and then we can all (unless you’re running critical infrastructure) collapse and relax. I’ll write something about the political prospects for 2024, which is shaping up to be something of a wild year.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life