Main Edition
US
FR
February 3, 2023 - 2:00pm
According to Katy Balls in The Spectator, Tory MPs are debating whether the outcome of the next election will look more like 1992 (when the Conservatives clung on to power against all odds) or 1997 (when they suffered a landslide defeat).
However, she also reports on a third — and supposedly more likely — scenario: “graceful defeat”. The thinking is that a “soft landing” into opposition would be preferable to limping on in government with a wafer-thin majority.
If this really is what Tory MPs think, then they’re delusional. For a start, debating which electoral outcome would suit them best overlooks the fact that they don’t get to choose. It will be the voters who decide what happens to the Tories — and, right now, the options are somewhere in the range from catastrophic to apocalyptic.
The first thing that the new Conservative Party chairman should do is watch the 1998 film, Deep Impact. Appropriately enough, it’s a disaster story — in which astronomers discover an asteroid heading directly for Earth. Preparing for the worst, the US government excavates an underground complex with enough room for one million citizens. Places are reserved for those judged most essential to the rebuilding of civilisation.
The Conservative Party needs an equally unsentimental survival strategy. In this case, the fast approaching asteroid is the next election. If the result is as bad as 1997 then the party could loose 200 seats — and that’s if they’re lucky. The Tories therefore need a plan that prioritises their best people, i.e. those most capable of mounting an effective opposition to a Labour government with a crushing majority.
In 1997, six cabinet ministers lost their seats — including Michael Portillo, who should have become the new leader. Instead the job fell to 36-year-old William Hague, who was clearly too inexperienced at the time. Further, he had to fill the Tory front benches from a shallow talent pool of just 165 MPs. Some of these considered themselves too grand for opposition; others were just too mad or bad to be trusted with a shadow ministerial role.
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.
SubscribeA wholly irrelevant set of observations.
The supposed ‘big beasts’ of the Tory Party nowadays are almost one and all Blairite-thinking Blob members.
Far from being ‘big beasts’ in fact they, like more than 600 of the 650 MPs in the current House of Commons, are 4th-rate pygmies – little information, little innate talent, little managerial competence AND ABSOLUTELY NO COURAGE to grasp a single nettle that matters.
Unless they go through a most drastic sea-change in their nature and revolution in their mindset they will not appeal to anybody outside North London.
So the real options in front of them are either catastrophe or apocalypse.
Very properly.
A wholly irrelevant set of observations.
The supposed ‘big beasts’ of the Tory Party nowadays are almost one and all Blairite-thinking Blob members.
Far from being ‘big beasts’ in fact they, like more than 600 of the 650 MPs in the current House of Commons, are 4th-rate pygmies – little information, little innate talent, little managerial competence AND ABSOLUTELY NO COURAGE to grasp a single nettle that matters.
Unless they go through a most drastic sea-change in their nature and revolution in their mindset they will not appeal to anybody outside North London.
So the real options in front of them are either catastrophe or apocalypse.
Very properly.
What is the point in preserving the party in any degree, like a severely injured animal they must be put out of their misery. They have betrayed their tradition and the loyalty that clung to it in some inane pursuit of voters who will never vote for them. They are the incubators of wokeism, the ultimate promoters of unilateral economic disarmament (AKA Net Zero without a cost or science ever being discussed), they are they are super chargers of unlimited immigration. Every notion of conservatism has been thrown out of the window, they have given our youth nothing to conserve and laden them with debt for an education in radicalisation, no hope of owning a home and no ambition to start a family. They are the enemy of conservatism, a culturally Marxist wolf in a pin stipe suit.
What is the point in preserving the party in any degree, like a severely injured animal they must be put out of their misery. They have betrayed their tradition and the loyalty that clung to it in some inane pursuit of voters who will never vote for them. They are the incubators of wokeism, the ultimate promoters of unilateral economic disarmament (AKA Net Zero without a cost or science ever being discussed), they are they are super chargers of unlimited immigration. Every notion of conservatism has been thrown out of the window, they have given our youth nothing to conserve and laden them with debt for an education in radicalisation, no hope of owning a home and no ambition to start a family. They are the enemy of conservatism, a culturally Marxist wolf in a pin stipe suit.
What would be the point of preserving the “big beasts and rising stars” of a political party which had just undergone catastrophic defeat after over a decade in office? I can see that THEY would wish to cling to their privileges and sinecures by any possible means, but how does that serve the public interest?
What would be the point of preserving the “big beasts and rising stars” of a political party which had just undergone catastrophic defeat after over a decade in office? I can see that THEY would wish to cling to their privileges and sinecures by any possible means, but how does that serve the public interest?
There’s the Liberal Party defeat in 1922 or the Canadian Conservatives in 1993 as models of what could happen. Great parties cannot take their status for granted for all time. This time around the Tory vote will be split between the defectors, the apathetic and the angry. The new embittered ex-Tory will vote Reform or for anyone else.
Martin, I couldn’t agree more. Those voters with less apathy than most will make it to the polling station in order to vote Reform, the rest will stay away rather than vote Labour. If the mood in this town (Lincoln) is anything to go by, I can see the SNP being the Loyal Opposition as the next largest party, as the Conservatives disappear without trace.
I also expect the left to be more ruthless with tactical voting and Labour and LibDems helping one another.
I also expect the left to be more ruthless with tactical voting and Labour and LibDems helping one another.
Martin, I couldn’t agree more. Those voters with less apathy than most will make it to the polling station in order to vote Reform, the rest will stay away rather than vote Labour. If the mood in this town (Lincoln) is anything to go by, I can see the SNP being the Loyal Opposition as the next largest party, as the Conservatives disappear without trace.
There’s the Liberal Party defeat in 1922 or the Canadian Conservatives in 1993 as models of what could happen. Great parties cannot take their status for granted for all time. This time around the Tory vote will be split between the defectors, the apathetic and the angry. The new embittered ex-Tory will vote Reform or for anyone else.
“…Places are reserved for those judged most essential to the rebuilding of civilisation…The Conservative Party needs an equally unsentimental survival strategy….”
Yes, but none of this is asking the question that precedes this frantic exhortation to survival: exactly what are you, the Conservative Party, surviving for? As in, what will you become when you eventually regrow? Because if you are simply going to become a Mark II version of the same aimless and ineffective entity you have become over the last two decades, with no other purpose in life than that to win power, and then no idea what to do with the power once you win it, then… you may as well not bother.
“…Places are reserved for those judged most essential to the rebuilding of civilisation…The Conservative Party needs an equally unsentimental survival strategy….”
Yes, but none of this is asking the question that precedes this frantic exhortation to survival: exactly what are you, the Conservative Party, surviving for? As in, what will you become when you eventually regrow? Because if you are simply going to become a Mark II version of the same aimless and ineffective entity you have become over the last two decades, with no other purpose in life than that to win power, and then no idea what to do with the power once you win it, then… you may as well not bother.
I’m a long time Conservative voter and former party member. I see nothing and no one worth salvaging.
I’ll vote for Reform UK. And I’ll continue that way, provided they do what they say they’ll do.
If no party will do what it says on the tin, I’ll just stop voting. I have money, medical insurance, arms, and a high wall and a lot of security around my house. Anyone who hasn’t is nuts in my opinion.
We’re on our own. The state is dysfunctional and delinquent and has no interest in anything except self enlargement and self preservation.
I’m a long time Conservative voter and former party member. I see nothing and no one worth salvaging.
I’ll vote for Reform UK. And I’ll continue that way, provided they do what they say they’ll do.
If no party will do what it says on the tin, I’ll just stop voting. I have money, medical insurance, arms, and a high wall and a lot of security around my house. Anyone who hasn’t is nuts in my opinion.
We’re on our own. The state is dysfunctional and delinquent and has no interest in anything except self enlargement and self preservation.
Council of despair. If candidates can’t win on a combination of their party’s manifesto and their own reputations in their own constituencies, they’re not worth having.
Council of despair. If candidates can’t win on a combination of their party’s manifesto and their own reputations in their own constituencies, they’re not worth having.
What would be profoundly ironic would be if Labour were to allow Reform in by means of PR. I can’t see Reform in office under any circumstances, but I COULD see them forcing a meaningful reconstruction of the Conservative Party.
What would be profoundly ironic would be if Labour were to allow Reform in by means of PR. I can’t see Reform in office under any circumstances, but I COULD see them forcing a meaningful reconstruction of the Conservative Party.
“Such a manoeuvre is known as a ‘chicken run”
Well, it is a plan of sorts I suppose.
But why bother? There is simply no point to the modern Conservative Party. It merely parrots what Labour and the Lib/Dem say. You can go to Conservative Home and ask why they are doing this and will get no answer.
“Such a manoeuvre is known as a ‘chicken run”
Well, it is a plan of sorts I suppose.
But why bother? There is simply no point to the modern Conservative Party. It merely parrots what Labour and the Lib/Dem say. You can go to Conservative Home and ask why they are doing this and will get no answer.
Forgive my ignorance but this idea of “changing your constituents” strikes this American as pretty weird. Do British MPs not have to have existing connections to the people they allegedly represent? Do they not have to live in their districts? Do the parties decide internally who’s going to run where?
We have a term in America: “carpetbagger”. In the 19th century, a “carpet bag” was cheap luggage, and opportunistic politicians supposedly dragged their stuff around in them while shopping for a district that might elect them. It remains a potent political insult to this day. Is such behavior more accepted in Britain (or in parliamentary systems generally)?
Constituencies in the UK are often gifted to political party loyalists or important figures who need to remain in government; you cannot be a minister if you aren’t an MP. Newer MPs are too often former special advisors, with only notional consultation with local party committees from HQ. This can cause friction, and occasionally even revolts, but all of the parties do it. A safe seat – one which would vote a certain way if the candidate were a piece of garden furniture – are obviously the most valuable. It’s a ‘job for life’ (or until the MP wants to do something else).
You do get venerable and popular local MPs who’ve done it the hard way and worked the constituency and might even have lived there. These tend to be respected even by voters who don’t support their party. They are also, nowadays, increasingly rare.
So yes, the carpet-bagger is alive and well in the Houses of Parliament.
Wow! I thought I pretty much understood parliamentary systems, but I had a huge hole in my knowledge. Thanks for a great education.
Wow! I thought I pretty much understood parliamentary systems, but I had a huge hole in my knowledge. Thanks for a great education.
Constituencies in the UK are often gifted to political party loyalists or important figures who need to remain in government; you cannot be a minister if you aren’t an MP. Newer MPs are too often former special advisors, with only notional consultation with local party committees from HQ. This can cause friction, and occasionally even revolts, but all of the parties do it. A safe seat – one which would vote a certain way if the candidate were a piece of garden furniture – are obviously the most valuable. It’s a ‘job for life’ (or until the MP wants to do something else).
You do get venerable and popular local MPs who’ve done it the hard way and worked the constituency and might even have lived there. These tend to be respected even by voters who don’t support their party. They are also, nowadays, increasingly rare.
So yes, the carpet-bagger is alive and well in the Houses of Parliament.
Forgive my ignorance but this idea of “changing your constituents” strikes this American as pretty weird. Do British MPs not have to have existing connections to the people they allegedly represent? Do they not have to live in their districts? Do the parties decide internally who’s going to run where?
We have a term in America: “carpetbagger”. In the 19th century, a “carpet bag” was cheap luggage, and opportunistic politicians supposedly dragged their stuff around in them while shopping for a district that might elect them. It remains a potent political insult to this day. Is such behavior more accepted in Britain (or in parliamentary systems generally)?
I agree with this assessment. I think the Tories are facing a worse wipeout than 1997, and the odd thing is that they appear to think they’re in with a chance of actually winning.
They have managed the you’d-think-impossible feat of becoming viewed as the party of the rich while also pissing off the rich and wealthy at the same time. Rishi Sunak’s government may well have reversed every part of the Truss pro-growth agenda that cut taxes and deregulated, but it kept the largest single cost: the energy support package, and despite this incredibly left-wing giveaway that hammers taxpayers and hands out huge wads of cash from central government, the popular consensus is that Rishi Sunak is an out of touch billionaire who doesn’t care about the price of a loaf of bread. People often talk about how poorly Liz Truss communicated her plans to the markets etc, but Sunak’s failure to make political capital out of Hunt’s ridiculously expensive budget plans is at least as bad.
And it’s important to note that Keir Starmer is as despised as he ever was: Labour is still incoherent on many matters including the various idiocies of Wokery, but the Tories are so despised with Sunak in charge that even this is no longer an impediment to gaining a poll lead.
I agree with this assessment. I think the Tories are facing a worse wipeout than 1997, and the odd thing is that they appear to think they’re in with a chance of actually winning.
They have managed the you’d-think-impossible feat of becoming viewed as the party of the rich while also pissing off the rich and wealthy at the same time. Rishi Sunak’s government may well have reversed every part of the Truss pro-growth agenda that cut taxes and deregulated, but it kept the largest single cost: the energy support package, and despite this incredibly left-wing giveaway that hammers taxpayers and hands out huge wads of cash from central government, the popular consensus is that Rishi Sunak is an out of touch billionaire who doesn’t care about the price of a loaf of bread. People often talk about how poorly Liz Truss communicated her plans to the markets etc, but Sunak’s failure to make political capital out of Hunt’s ridiculously expensive budget plans is at least as bad.
And it’s important to note that Keir Starmer is as despised as he ever was: Labour is still incoherent on many matters including the various idiocies of Wokery, but the Tories are so despised with Sunak in charge that even this is no longer an impediment to gaining a poll lead.
Entirely plausible that the Red Wall voters won’t return to the Labour Party – they will probably vote Reform along with dissatisfied Tories.
Ironically, the Reform party could keep the Tories in power ….
Entirely plausible that the Red Wall voters won’t return to the Labour Party – they will probably vote Reform along with dissatisfied Tories.
Ironically, the Reform party could keep the Tories in power ….
As inflation drops so will labour’s lead, which is also based on nothing more than being not the tories, its not as if they have produced some amazing policies to gain the current lead. It will all look very different come the election.
But the Tories will still remain exasperating to all people who would normally vote Conservative.
Exasperating people for 12 successive years has to come at a price.
But the Tories will still remain exasperating to all people who would normally vote Conservative.
Exasperating people for 12 successive years has to come at a price.
As inflation drops so will labour’s lead, which is also based on nothing more than being not the tories, its not as if they have produced some amazing policies to gain the current lead. It will all look very different come the election.
Never mind the Bufton Tuftons, it’s Fotherington-tomas (‘uterly wet and a sissy’) and his mates they need to jettison.
Check the bookies odds. Far from certain the Tories will lose by a huge amount. Things still very volatile and Labour have little positive appeal.
Still, if people start behaving like headless chickens, they’ll certainly lose badly. And deserve too. If they showed a bit of backbone, I think they’d do better.
Check the bookies odds. Far from certain the Tories will lose by a huge amount. Things still very volatile and Labour have little positive appeal.
Still, if people start behaving like headless chickens, they’ll certainly lose badly. And deserve too. If they showed a bit of backbone, I think they’d do better.
I think election will be much closer than Author currently suggests. But I do think a ‘Johnson Chicken run’ attempt quite likely and in keeping with everything we already know about him.
Badenoch in a v safe seat so she’ll be there whatever. I’m no Tory but like Kemi. A few other v decent sorts should be ok whatever.
We do need good calibre and quality. Having seen some of the Reform crackpots inability to engage with reality they’d fall at first hurdle if ever in a position of power and the markets would go into a tailspin that’d make Truss/Kwateng look like a mild bit of drizzle.
Perhaps more insightful is alot of the comments this has drawn continue to demonstrate a lack of insight and intelligent reflection into the inherent contradictions within current right wing thinking. They need to go away and really ponder how do we square Red Wall vs Small State with an aging population and completely messed up industrial policy. How do we solve the housing market properly etc. Simplistic slogans ain’t going to do it. Just a focus on immigration isn’t going to do it. And therein lies the real lesson alot of right wing folks need to grasp.
I agree with your point about Kemi Badenoch – I will return my vote to the Tory Party when Sunak produces the worst loss in modern political history and what’s left of the party puts her in charge.
On the matter of your second paragraph, while you’re right that the Tories operate on self-contradictory policy, this is not true of the right-wing: the Tories are themselves not presently right-wing and that’s why the Party is in such a mess. And your examples in fact reveal what will become a contradiction in left-wing ideology in due course, as an ageing population places more demands on social services at the same time as a shrinking tax-base, which will make it impossible to justify the expensive bureaucracy that left-wing governments always install to solve any problem and which then become dedicated to their own survival in principle. In other words, you can’t have an expensive head office if there’s no money left for the services it’s meant to provide, and that’s where we’re headed presently. 2024-2029 are going to be painful years for Labour, as it discovers the harsh facts of life in a world where the Tories haven’t bothered to fix the economy before letting Labour play with it.
Yes there is no doubt aging population presents major challenges to all points on the political spectrum. And should Lab win next election it’s going to be v tough gig with a v poor inheritance. But could they do worse? Starmer and Reeves seem fairly moderate and competent, with good real working life experience even if not charismatic, but we’ll maybe see.
I do think a more left leaning Govt last 13 years would have done something about social care, and maybe got the Dilnot report into actual delivered Policy. Something similar going to be essential whoever is in Govt next 5-10yrs.
I suspect if Lab get in with a sensible prospectus they’ll be a mini-boost from the markets and in trade, esp if the dynamic alignment strategy, without fear of a major fall out with the EU, satisfies and gives confidence to Business a bit more. But some big industrial policy fundamentals aren’t easily fixed. Debate for another Article I’m sure.
Yes there is no doubt aging population presents major challenges to all points on the political spectrum. And should Lab win next election it’s going to be v tough gig with a v poor inheritance. But could they do worse? Starmer and Reeves seem fairly moderate and competent, with good real working life experience even if not charismatic, but we’ll maybe see.
I do think a more left leaning Govt last 13 years would have done something about social care, and maybe got the Dilnot report into actual delivered Policy. Something similar going to be essential whoever is in Govt next 5-10yrs.
I suspect if Lab get in with a sensible prospectus they’ll be a mini-boost from the markets and in trade, esp if the dynamic alignment strategy, without fear of a major fall out with the EU, satisfies and gives confidence to Business a bit more. But some big industrial policy fundamentals aren’t easily fixed. Debate for another Article I’m sure.
Have you any idea how patronising you come across, or is it all part of your schtick?
When you ‘play the man not the ball’ only person you undermine is yourself BJ
When you ‘play the man not the ball’ only person you undermine is yourself BJ
You get a lot of down votes, for fairly reasonable opinions. I know I don’t agree with them all, but they don’t seem that extreme. All this talk of big state small state stuff leaves me cold. Right size state seems a better idea. Tough to achieve though so we are left with simplistic debates.
I agree with your point about Kemi Badenoch – I will return my vote to the Tory Party when Sunak produces the worst loss in modern political history and what’s left of the party puts her in charge.
On the matter of your second paragraph, while you’re right that the Tories operate on self-contradictory policy, this is not true of the right-wing: the Tories are themselves not presently right-wing and that’s why the Party is in such a mess. And your examples in fact reveal what will become a contradiction in left-wing ideology in due course, as an ageing population places more demands on social services at the same time as a shrinking tax-base, which will make it impossible to justify the expensive bureaucracy that left-wing governments always install to solve any problem and which then become dedicated to their own survival in principle. In other words, you can’t have an expensive head office if there’s no money left for the services it’s meant to provide, and that’s where we’re headed presently. 2024-2029 are going to be painful years for Labour, as it discovers the harsh facts of life in a world where the Tories haven’t bothered to fix the economy before letting Labour play with it.
Have you any idea how patronising you come across, or is it all part of your schtick?
You get a lot of down votes, for fairly reasonable opinions. I know I don’t agree with them all, but they don’t seem that extreme. All this talk of big state small state stuff leaves me cold. Right size state seems a better idea. Tough to achieve though so we are left with simplistic debates.
I think election will be much closer than Author currently suggests. But I do think a ‘Johnson Chicken run’ attempt quite likely and in keeping with everything we already know about him.
Badenoch in a v safe seat so she’ll be there whatever. I’m no Tory but like Kemi. A few other v decent sorts should be ok whatever.
We do need good calibre and quality. Having seen some of the Reform crackpots inability to engage with reality they’d fall at first hurdle if ever in a position of power and the markets would go into a tailspin that’d make Truss/Kwateng look like a mild bit of drizzle.
Perhaps more insightful is alot of the comments this has drawn continue to demonstrate a lack of insight and intelligent reflection into the inherent contradictions within current right wing thinking. They need to go away and really ponder how do we square Red Wall vs Small State with an aging population and completely messed up industrial policy. How do we solve the housing market properly etc. Simplistic slogans ain’t going to do it. Just a focus on immigration isn’t going to do it. And therein lies the real lesson alot of right wing folks need to grasp.