Tory Tantrums in 22

It really was something, wasn’t it? A party enjoying the arrival of a new Prime Minister after twelve years of unchallenged governmental dominance was tearing itself apart. Cabinet ministers abandoning collective responsibility willy-nilly and leaping at the throats of cabinet colleagues; Tory MPs who had never known any colour of government other than blue demanding a general election for a “fresh mandate”; former ministers sneering at the competence of their successors. Quite a debacle! So, where does this leave us electorally?

Let us not go too far back into political history for a useful yardstick to use in determining the likely result of the next UK general election. Come what may, the constitution requires that a general election must be held no later than five years after the date of the last general election. Five years since the date of Boris Johnson’s sensational electoral triumph in December 2019 gives you December 2024 as the last date by which an election must be held. Johnson was brave– and popular - enough to risk a Christmas election, but the smart money has the next one falling in the Spring or Autumn of 2024. So, I suggest we go as far as back as 1997 for useful pointers on how things are likely to turn out in 18 months’ time or so, give or take three or four months.

 

Now consider this, the Tories have only just taken delivery of a new party leader, but she has as new ideas about how to govern the UK as if she had just defeated the opposition in a general election. Never mind that the Conservatives have been in power continuously since 2010 – a spectacularly long time – Ms Truss has only been Prime Minister for a month, but in that time has signalled herself as a party leader who is prepared to sweep aside all that her predecessors stood for. She is presenting herself as the fresh new face of a revitalised government that can do all but walk on water.

 

There are, however, a few problems which stand in the way of Ms Truss’s path to greatness. The first is probably the most obvious. Ms Truss was first elected to parliament in 2010. This means that, although she might have served a reasonable amount of time as a minister, even as Foreign Secretary, she has only ever been in parliament while her party has been in power. I have always believed that a period in opposition is the best preparatory ground for office. It keeps you sharp, on your toes and thirsty for power. Tony Blair became leader of the Labour party in 1994; by the time the election came round in Spring 1997, the electorate knew who he was, what they thought of him and what to expect from him. By 1996, it was hardly a stretch for anyone to describe Blair as the Prime Minister in waiting.

 

David Cameron never quite achieved the popularity of Tony Blair and had to do a fair amount of work in office to prove himself worthy of the description “prime ministerial”, but he nevertheless spent nearly four years and a bit as leader of the opposition from December 2005 until the general election in Spring 2006. He too was thirsty and had been so thoroughly scrutinised by all the usual political commentators that it was no surprise what he stood for or how he would govern when he eventually took office in 2010. This period in opposition is not to be sneezed at: it is where politicians iron out serious flaws which would have been fatal in office. Blair learned that it was not exactly a good idea to cosy up to anyone famous because sometimes it sullies the brand. Cameron learned the folly of pretending to be something that he was not when he was caught pretending to travel by bike from Notting Hill to work while all he did was cycle a couple of miles while his car followed close behind with his suit and shoes. Both Blair and Cameron learned how to land hard punches on the Prime Minister of the day while serving as Leader of the opposition.

 

Ms Truss cannot lay any claim to such important history. She is in her late forties and has no experience of opposition. Whatever policies she is cooking up now are being tried out on a public which has no real knowledge of what she is like. This, as it happens, is also true of her Chancellor, who was also first elected in 2010. This lack of important experience explains why the two of them are falling for two of the biggest mistakes an inexperienced politician can make. The first is assuming that because something seems clever and original to a focus-group of like-minded people, it will be popular with the public (unfunded tax give-aways is a good example). The second is misunderstanding parliamentary arithmetic.

 

This is the root of all of Truss and Kwarteng’s troubles. The conservative party may have a majority of 71, but that is not Truss’s majority. Not by any means. The House of Commons has 650 members; of those, 396 are conservatives. During the party leadership election this year, in the first round of voting Ms truss received the votes of only 50 Tories. Although this number increased as candidates were eliminated round by round, it is worth remembering that Ms Truss was not the first choice of Tory MPs. She was not even their second choice. The 71-seat majority about which Ms Truss seems so proud is not hers, it belongs to Boris Johnson. Notwithstanding this, they booted Johnson out, but that was more to do with his serial misbehaviour and dishonesty than anything else. Mark these words: in the absence of some Johnsonian-type magic, that majority will disappear into the ether like a smelly fart.

 

In the absence of support from her own MPs, Ms Truss eventually managed to earn the support of the wider membership and, voila! became party leader. But parliamentary parties are not terribly keen on leaders foisted upon them by the party membership. Nor is the electorate. Two words will illustrate this adequately: Jeremy Corbyn. If this piece of history is a useful guide, it explains why the Tories were so fractious at their party conference under Ms Truss’s leadership and why it appears that a large section of the party has accepted that they will lose the next election and are not prepared even to give an inch of breathing space to Ms Truss and her mate, Mr Kwarteng.

 

The sad reality of life for me, a diehard labour voter, is that, though the Tories may sometimes be down, they are very rarely out. After all, since WWI, the default position for British elections has been Conservative government. Labour governments have always been an anomaly. Things look ghastly for Truss and the Tories today, but two years is a long time in politics and there may be hope for the Tories yet. I cannot see any reason for optimism, no matter how hard I look, but I know that politics is a very funny game.

 

Still, a 33-point deficit to Labour does look pretty unassailable, no matter how you look at it. And don’t forget that there are a great many former Tory ministers who were ignored by both Boris Johnson and Liz Truss who may just want a longish period in opposition to burnish their bank balances as directors or whatnot. If you were an ex-Chancellor or Trade Secretary, wouldn’t you?

 

Gitau

6 October 2022