X Close

How the Tories can crush Farage They need a new strategy, not just a new leader

Can anyone save the Tory party? Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images

Can anyone save the Tory party? Justin Tallis/AFP/Getty Images


October 1, 2024   5 mins

After they limped through four failed leaders in quick succession, only to be wiped out in the general election result, it is hard to believe a new leader will solve the Tory existential crisis. For one thing, whoever finds themselves leading the party will still be confronted the same electoral arithmetic.

To stand any chance of survival, they will need to win over three groups of voters. In the South, they lost a whole swathe of seats to the Liberal Democrats. In the Midlands and North, huge numbers defected to Labour and there is stiff competition from Reform which lies second in nearly a hundred seats. And the third group, first-time voters, were never particularly interested in the first place; but if they don’t appeal to the young, demography will doom them. So any new leader must come up with an agenda sufficiently innovative to appeal to young voters, while also attracting back the two groups of defectors.

They’re not going to do this by promising tax cuts, which was the party’s message this summer. Those who defected to the Lib Dems were mostly on decent, middle-class incomes and were morally disgusted by the presumption that appealing to their greed would keep them onboard. They jumped. Conversely, the promise of tax cuts merely confirmed among Red Wall voters tempted by Labour, that although the Tories had talked about restoring jobs, skills and pride to their towns, they had been duped: what the Tories cared about all along, was the rich. As for first-time voters, when Corbyn offered to skin the rich, they attempted to sweep him into power. Few first-time voters pay much tax.

What, then, if not tax cuts? Certainly, the new leader shouldn’t ape Farage and talk about reducing immigration. Voters are unlikely to have forgotten that the party promised this as the main motif of “getting Brexit done”, whereupon immigration sky-rocketed. Hence, there would be what we might politely call a credibility problem. Equally, those defectors to the Lib Dems who were repelled by the base morality of tax cuts are overwhelmingly likely to react similarly to a message that scapegoats immigrants for Britain’s fiscal straight-jacket and associated difficulties. Besides, the killer reason not to copy Farage is because to do so would play directly into his agenda of absorbing the Tory party into his movement. He could not have expressed this any more clearly than he already has: “Kill the Tories.”

Of course, the contenders could do what Labour did in opposition: say as little as possible and watch while the Government stumbles from one fiasco to another. Labour has not had the greatest start to its time in office, and so watching and sniping will indeed be tempting. But it should be resisted. For one thing, all the other opposition parties will be playing that game, and each has a different but highly focused audience more receptive to a fine-tuned message. Youth irritated by some new government decision will be drawn to the Greens who will have pounced on it. Scottish Labour voters angered by factory closures, will be inclined to drift back to the newly led SNP. Those Labour voters whose identity is bound up in the traditional priorities of care and compassion, already irritated by the cancelation of the winter fuel allowance, will be hoovered up by the Lib Dems positioning themselves as Labour’s conscience. Those Labour voters in Red Wall constituencies, already despondent that Keir Starmer has only noticed them in respect of their proclivity to riot, will be prime targets for Reform. In any case, hugely tempting as it is to join the chorus of derision at ministerial acceptance of smart clothing from Labour donors, this risks reviving memories of lavish wallpaper, duck ponds and Covid parties. Better not.

Fortunately, there is an obvious, tried and tested agenda which, astonishingly, the new Government has yet to embrace. Britain is being torn apart by regional inequalities far wider than anywhere else in Europe. We are no longer One Nation, as Wales, Northern Ireland, most of provincial England, and much of Scotland have diverged further and further from London and a few proximate gilded cities. We know it is an attractive policy since it is what Johnson was elected to do alongside Brexit: “levelling up”. The trouble is, he did nothing about it until 2022, when he delegated it to Michael Gove. Aided by Andy Haldane, Gove devised a detailed strategy which sat unimplemented because it was blocked by the Treasury. Like Andy Street, Gove bore the cost of Treasury dogmatism, but loyally refrained from resigning in frustration. Obviously, the new leader will need to apologise for some failure of the past government, but none of the candidates is personally tainted by this one.

This is an agenda which will be most attractive for the Red Wall. It competes with Farage, but will defeat him because, unlike his approach, it is strongly credible. The Farage solution to the woes of broken towns and cities is the wrong-headed scapegoating of immigrants. But what these places need is new futures, triggered by new jobs and new infrastructure. Currently, their future is so bleak that few immigrants other than a handful living on welfare are attracted there. And so the Tories should respond to Farage not by aping him but killing him.

“The Farage solution to the woes of broken towns and cities is the wrong-headed scapegoating of immigrants. But what these places need is new futures.”

Such a move would also appeal to the compassionate defectors to Lib Dems because it can be presented as morally uplifting. It would heal the rifts between those places which are thriving and those which have been left behind. The moral vote would be reinforced by a newly acquired empathy: many of the Southern Lib Dems who defected from the Tories are in towns such as Barnstaple and Portsmouth North that have themselves started to fall behind.

Doubtless it would outrage the imperturbably selfish activist cohort at conference — the Truss fan club who adored the package of tax-cuts for the rich and welfare-cuts for the poor. Luckily, though, it is a small minority: Truss provoked a record level of voter defection in her constituency, proving there just isn’t enough greed around for this sort of party to survive even one further election.

For the many Tories of integrity, the One Nation agenda would be appealing because it calls people to recognise the obligations of fellow-citizenship. Helmut Kohl successfully invoked that concept in his Solidarity Tax on West Germans to finance the reunification of Germany in 1992. At the time, East Germany was pitifully poor and unproductive in comparison with any British region. Today, East Germany has now overtaken many of those same regions. Recognising our fellow-citizenship is a morally compelling cri-de-coeur, long overdue.

Which brings me to that final, most essential and most difficult constituency, the young. We know that British teenagers are anxious: but ours are more anxious than teenagers anywhere else in Europe. They expect their futures to be worse than that of their parents. How, then, can we reawaken that sense of tingling exhilaration at being on the threshold of independent life?

Every cohort since the Fifties has been worse-off, age-for-age, than its predecessor. Those now retired have captured too large a share of past growth, and a new leader must acknowledge that. As the party of enterprise, the Tories could surely craft some scheme for start-ups explicitly aimed at ambitious youngsters who aren’t able to rely on the bank-of-mum-and-dad. Obviously this would require an act of supreme self-sacrifice by the retired — and something similar from the Conservative leader who might not want to risk losing the stalwart support of the elderly. But precisely because the Tories are currently seen as the party of the rich boomer, it might force first-time voters to completely reevaluate their understanding of what they know to be the “nasty party”.

Whether the candidate selected by the loyalist rump of Tories who remain voting members will have the wisdom to transform the party from its recent path to irrelevance, will not be revealed by what they say at this conference. That will merely be pitched to get chosen. The serious business will be to win back the three groups who have abandoned them. And wisdom has not been much in evidence in the party these past few years.


Sir Paul Collier is a Professor of Economics and Public Policy at the Oxford Blavatnik School of Government. His most recent book is Left Behind.


Join the discussion


Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber


To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.

Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

23 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nell Clover
Nell Clover
2 hours ago

Adult social care costs have exploded. They have blown a hole in nearly every local authority budget. And why? Not an aging population. Immigration creating even more workless households.

Real GDP per capita, living standards, is shrinking despite robust economic growth. And why? Immigration is adding dependents – workless households – faster than immigration is growing the economy.

Transport and water infrastructure is being used far beyond design capacity. Any why? Immigration is fuelling the fastest population growth in 75 years without the requisite fastest economic growth in 75 years to pay for more infrastructure.

The pension system is accruing liabilities faster than the economy is growing. And why? Immigrants will need pensions too and the type of immigration we are attracting is low wage, low skill and net dependency.

The author seems utterly ignorant of the economics of immigration and the denominator effect. Even the ONS and OBR have cottoned on to the economically negative outcomes the current wave of immigration is creating.

What the author does inadvertently reveal is young immigrants won’t want to pay our existing pension liabilities. Without realising it, the author destroys his own argument that immigration will fix our demographic problem. Instead it will only escalate generational tensions alongside all the other social tensions it is escalating.

So, who is Paul Collier? He offers us no demonstration of his expertise and isn’t a household name. Collier is of the dismal science and takes his money from an endowment given to Oxford by a Ukrainian oligarch buying his way into respectable circles. He’s moonlighted as a flunky for one Tony Blair (who gave Paul his CBE), and done stints in all of the international organisations that have so disastrously guided Western policy since the mid-90s. This isn’t the biography of a conservative, let alone a man who has his finger on the pulse of ordinary citizens fed up with liberal technocrats breaking everything they touch and lecturing everyone on “solutions” to problems their ideology has helped create.

Last edited 2 hours ago by Nell Clover
Ben Jones
Ben Jones
2 hours ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

I agree. His inane generalisation of voting groups and his stick-your-finger-in-your-ears dismissal of immigration make his proscriptions dodgy, as do his antecedents (I too found myself googling the Blavatnik school at Oxford).

Dustin Needle
Dustin Needle
2 hours ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Well, who could have guessed that from the tone of the essay? But thank you Nell for that research.

Santiago Excilio
Santiago Excilio
2 hours ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

I agree – it’s a very meh! article.

Dee Harris
Dee Harris
1 hour ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Indeed. As soon as I read “To stand any chance of survival, they will need to win over three groups of voters.” I thought – yep, Blair’s Third Way triangulation.

j watson
j watson
1 hour ago
Reply to  Nell Clover

Alot of total rubbish in this with the anti-immigrant scapegoat meme well to the fore.
For example Social care costs – have exploded because we’ve an aging population and a supply shortage thus driving cost inflation. The fact the private market also malfunctions in this area, adding debt, makes it even worse. Yet NC you blame immigrants who are looking after the elderly in these care settings. Beggar’s belief
As regards Pensions, there is an issue about contributions in and out but here’s the thing about migrants – firstly when we had more EU migration they tended to go back to their original country at point of retirement and thus alongside us not paying the cost of their education, the economics for the UK were even more positive. The clowns that supported Brexit messed that advantage up didn’t they. Secondly migrants tend to social networks that provide more family support – if we let them have their family nearby of course. Some of this is cultural. And that reduces long term care costs on the State. You won’t find a disproportionate number of immigrants in the Care sector having care. And of course the poorer die earlier so the actuarial costs less.
It is your ignorance that is most glaring. Immigrants make a net positive economic contribution. Some lower paid perhaps not but then that’s the same for the lower paid Brits.
Whatever you and other think significant immigration is going to continue because our demographics will require it. Much more important is the question of assimilation and the best of British values being a key expectation. It’s this honesty the Tories and the Right needs to grasp.

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
50 minutes ago
Reply to  j watson

Clearly you haven’t read the economic research on this…or won’t accept it…

Dustin Needle
Dustin Needle
2 hours ago

“Those now retired have captured too large a share of past growth, and a new leader must acknowledge that”.
Every single person of my age group knew lockdown was going to create misery for the prospects of our young. We didn’t want it. The academics, journalists, politicians and first ministers did, and revelled in leading the country to self-harm.
If you think any of us want our “large share” of past growth, acquired through 50 years of almost continued employment in the private sector as it happens, handing over to a gang of management consultants dreaming up schemes and slogans for the WFH Civil Service, you can think again.

Last edited 2 hours ago by Dustin Needle
Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
2 hours ago

Five, not just four, failed leaders. Cameron was able to form a coalition government at his first attempt but didn’t win a majority.
He won a majority the next time because the success of UKIP forced him to pledge a referendum on Brexit…and he then didn’t plan for a Leave vote.
In the meantime he had centralised the Tory party and ignored the members.
None of the above can be counted as success.

Nell Clover
Nell Clover
2 hours ago
Reply to  Michael Cazaly

Collier thinks so because Cameron and himself are ideological bedfellows. After all Cameron was the heir to Blair and Collier worked for Blair. Although Collier protests he has no ideology, all he confirms is he is utterly blind to his own biases.

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
1 hour ago

So the renewed Conservative Party should not want tax cuts or restraints on immigration but should intervene in the regions, and ….
This article is nonsense. Absolute rubbish. If that’s what the voters want they are doomed, but offer them shrinking government, rewards for harder work, and economic growth. They might just vote for it; as they always have.
Incidentally “Every cohort since the Fifties has been worse-off, age-for-age, than its predecessor” is an absurd assertation and entirely untrue.

tom j
tom j
1 hour ago

Immigration is the issue. We voted to reduce it in 2016 with Brexit and the Tories then increased it. Each Tory manifesto has promised some sort of control and reduction, and failed to deliver it. Collier says they have a credibility problem, and the do! How they solve that, I don’t know, but until they credibly show how they will stop mass cheap labour immigration, they won’t win again. They have to stop talking tough and acting weak, and start talking nice and lovely and friendly and shut the d*mn door.

Ivan Kinsman
Ivan Kinsman
1 hour ago

The writer has got it into his head that what he is proposing – levelling up – is the be all and end all solution to the Conservative’s woes. But it isn’t.
Mass migration and failed multiculturalism are at the top of the agenda, along with the hugely negative impact on public services and housing – and the Conservatives sre still too afraid to address this, whereas the Reform Party are not. Levelling up is important, but lower down the agenda.

Peter James
Peter James
1 hour ago

I am only sad that my subscription helped pay for this meaningless left wing twaddle.

Alphonse Pfarti
Alphonse Pfarti
1 hour ago

“Currently, their future is so bleak that few immigrants other than a handful living on welfare are attracted there”
Really? Last visit to where I grew up (a northern region severely affected by the loss of industry, which has seen a catastrophic drop in population as anyone with a brain clears off PDQ) and there seemed to be a remarkable number of young males all riding round on electric bikes and women in burkas with push chairs. People I know in nearby towns report large numbers of ‘asylum seekers ‘wandering around all day. Doubt any are, or ever will be, net contributors, even the ones who got here legally. This whole article is a great, steaming pile of New Labour apologist rubbish.

Matt M
Matt M
1 hour ago

If we cut immigration to sub-100k as promised repeatedly since 2010, most of our other problems would be solved. Just get on with it – Two-tier Keir is a dud and is never going to win the next election. Get Kemi in, do a deal with Farage (stand aside in his top target seats) and bob’s yer uncle!

Michael Cazaly
Michael Cazaly
51 minutes ago
Reply to  Matt M

Yes exactly! And it stands eff all chance of actually being done…

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
1 hour ago

A good start would be to take a close look at other countries and their succesful policies? Switzerland, for example- low tax, low immigration, low crime despite every household containing a military weapon, functioning transport and roads.. strong currency, well managed debt, and no one knows or cares who is PM?… and, of course, not in EU!

John Riordan
John Riordan
2 hours ago

I’d have more confidence in this argument if it hadn’t made a couple of clumsy misrepresentations about tax cuts, greed and the nature of the Truss/Kwarteng agenda.

There is almost at this stage a cross-party consensus that the tax burden is too high and is suppressing growth. It is absurd therefore to dismiss a Tory proposition for tax cuts from this historic post-war high as being motivated by a desire to appeal to voters’ greed. (I’ll ignore for now whether the natural desire of taxpayers to keep more of the money made through their own efforts can even be called greed at all – why is this called “greed”, but the desire of others to receive money that’s taken off others by the taxman not called greed?)

As for Truss/Kwarteng, the package of measures they bungled the implementation of amounted to a reversal of the Tory rises in the tax burden since they came to power, and would have recreated the same tax burden as existed for most of the previous New Labour administration under Blair/Brown. Dismissing this as some sort of serve-the-rich fiscal landscape is silly and the author ought to be ashamed of himself for it.

That’s not to say that I don’t accept the need to do something about the UK’s economic hinterlands: it has been grim across much of Britain for over 40 years at this stage and it’s just not fair. Michael Gove, much though I dislike him, does at least have a good track record of coming up with policy that achieves the twin goals of being both effective and breaking through the resistance of the Blob, so if the plan exists, it should be picked up.

Jack Martin Leith
Jack Martin Leith
1 hour ago

Few first-time voters pay much tax.

I suspect that what matters to them is the percentage of income deducted for tax, rather than the actual amount.

Jo Jo
Jo Jo
1 hour ago

I’d have thought improving certain areas would only make them more attractive to immigrants.

Paul pmr
Paul pmr
1 hour ago

Labour is the “nasty party” – always has been, always will be. And they couldn’t wait to get their snouts in the trough.

Jonathan Story
Jonathan Story
41 minutes ago

No. Farage’ policy is not scapegoating of immigrants. its just that the UK government is unwilling to implement its own laws.