By Lennon Airey (Political Editor)
Having faced an electoral demolition on the 4th of July, their largest ever defeat, the Conservative Party must now choose their next leader, a pivotal decision that will undoubtedly shape the future makeup of British democracy. While all the candidates have not formally announced their interest, there is a clear ideological battle emerging, vying for the heart and soul of British conservatism: moderate one nationism or a hard right demagoguery. While I will explore the variety of options within the Conservative Party, from Victoria Atkins to Suella Braverman, this article will be underlined not only ideology, but will also have an eye on the practical, electoral significance of this decision. However, I will ultimately conclude that the Tories must shift back to the centre, bucking the trend of appeasing to the far right and finally ditching their toxic narrative on culture wars. This would give the Tory Party a platform to provide a credible, forensic opposition to the extremely powerful Labour government, allowing them to make a positive case for the centre-right once again. But, whatever the Conservative Party decides to do, be under no illusion that the fabric of our democracy hinges on this race and getting it wrong could have profound consequences for the future, with this having the potential to give far-right populism a silent, back-door entry into the epicentre of our political framework.
"The Progress flag says to me, one monstrous thing: That I was a member of a government that presided over the mutilation of children in our hospitals." It is difficult to comprehend how such bigotry could be given such a large platform as the Popular Conservative Conference, let alone the Home Office for a brief tenure. However, Suella Braverman's comments are emblematic of the failure of the Conservative centre-right to take on their more radical wing, breeding a dangerous, populist branch of the party which is now poised to take over. If we define demagoguery as playing up to people's fears and prejudices to cultivate political support, the right of the Conservative Party undoubtedly fits that definition. Underlined by aggressive culture wars and laissez-faire, libertarian economic policy, we saw flavours of this wing of the party under Liz Truss, as demonstrated by her abolition of the 45p tax rate and later desire to leave the ECHR and the Human Rights Act. However, worryingly, the leading candidates of the right for this Tory leadership candidates are, unlike Truss's 2022 campaign centered around the economy and energy costs, campaigning on more minor, specific and emotive issues such as immigration and LGBTQ rights, arousing not only press coverage but further appeasing to Nigel Farage's Reform UK. In this article, I will centre my analysis of the right of the Conservative Party around four specific candidates: Suella Braverman, Kemi Badenoch, Priti Patel and Robert Jenrick, all of which have positioned themselves as the darlings of the right to win the leadership race against the moderate wing, intent on shifting the party further in favour of the populist right.
Of the challenging political issues that the right will look to exploit and transform into a culture war, immigration, which has not only risen in legal, net figures, but also in illegal migration, will undoubtedly be one. There is an irony, one could say, in 3 former high-ranking Home Office parliamentarians, who have seen net migration rise from 184,000 in 2019 to 745,000 in 2022 (as per the Office of National Statistics), be so fervently against these increases, despite having had every power to control them. However, Braverman, Patel and Jenrick have all positioned themselves as being deeply critical of Rishi Sunak's immigration policy with Jenrick even resigning as Immigration Minister in late 2023 due to his criticism of the Rwanda Plan not going far enough. Braverman herself, even while Home Secretary, fuelled culture wars around immigration by referring to the small boats crisis as an 'invasion' (rhetoric previously reserved for the British National Party), alongside calling out the 'failed dogma of multiculturalism' in her latter days in the role, adding further fuel to the fire she had created. Braverman, however was only building on the pre-existing foundations laid by her predecessor Priti Patel who, unlike Sajid Javid and Amber Rudd before her, took a much more ferocious line on immigration, even introducing the Rwanda plan itself in the summer of 2022. While it is always significant to look to the past to judge the records of these candidates, it is even more significant to use their pasts to predict their future moves; all three of these candidates know the brief of immigration well and, even while part of government, seemed to transcend the government line, giving us a clear indication that their individual campaigns will be framed around their collective experience in trying to curb and exploit the rising numbers of immigration. Despite having been burdened by collective responsibility while Secretary of State for Business and Trade, Kemi Badenoch has consistently been seen as one of the voices in cabinet to push Sunak further on immigration; on legal migration, Badenoch pointed out the challenges facing British skills in a speech at Think Tent, the home of the Tax Payer's Alliance, arguing 'We need to make sure that the immigration that comes into our country is the right sort of immigration'. However, it is on illegal immigration that straight talking Badenoch undermined Sunak's authority most, stating in November 2023 that the Prime Minister must be 'much, much tougher' on the boats, urging him to do 'whatever it takes', visibly giving the disgruntled right wing of the party a voice in cabinet but, most importantly, creating a political distance between herself and Sunak's failed strategy. It is clear, from both the rhetoric and actions of these candidates, that the right will look to whip up cultural inter-party prejudice on immigration, creating significant challenges for the more centrist ilk of the party; while their ability to distance themselves from their personal records on the matter may prove challenging, this will not be without their unequivocal efforts to do so, giving them a pseudo conservative superiority and the political capital to exploit an increasingly right wing tory membership to cruise to victory. Among other culture wars that the right will intend to exploit are LGBTQ rights and it is under this banner that Braverman’s comments become particularly poignant. Synthesised with its libertarian economic policy, social conservatism is the bedrock upon which the right of the party will attempt to win this race. All four of the leading figures on the right have expressed unsavoury views about the LGBTQ community, with Braverman being unashamedly open about her regressive views on the matter. However, arguably the front runner in the race of the right, Kemi Badenoch, has allowed her social conservatism to directly shape her policies; as Minister for Women and Equalities, Badenoch refused to meet representatives from the LGB Alliance and has exposed many vulnerable trans people to the centre of the volatile, often toxic, political culture through weaponising the issue through attempting to rewire the Equality Act during the election. The above hints at the right of the Conservative Party utilising the tools they know so well in this race; all four of these figures have become leading political heavyweights, achieved through the exploitation of the vulnerable under the facade of talking for the ‘silent majority.’ The right will exploit these issues, pulling the Tory party further towards Reform; the capital and momentum it will give them among the Tory base cannot be snubbed, issues which the centre right simply must have an answer to to avoid the Tories enacting one of the biggest acts of political self-harm in a generation.
To this avail, I think the candidate for the right will be Kemi Badenoch due to her probable ability to unite the right while also promoting a younger, more modern leadership style to clearly contrast Sir Keir Starmer.
“Yesterday was an historic day” were the words of David Cameron on the steps of Number 10 having just legislated same sex marriage; heavily criticised by socially conservative backbenchers, Cameron pushed to find bipartisan support with Labour and the Liberal Democrats to ensure that marriage could be extended to all. A one nation conservative government, the 2010-2015 administration is exactly the ideological fusion that the Tory Party should make now, a reduced state to urge individual liberty by pressing Labour to reduce taxes synthesised with liberal social stances on LGBTQ rights. Although austerity was extremely unpopular at that time, Cameron’s modernisation of the Conservative Party was effective having won a shock victory in the 2015 General Election. I will frame the argument for one nation conservatism around Tom Tugendhat and Victoria Atkins, both associated with being on the soft left of the party. However, the battle between the left and right of the party will come down to one huge question: which lost seats do the Tories want to go after, those they lost to the Liberal Democrats in the South or those that switched to Labour with the help of Reform splitting the vote in the North? And it is paramount for the left of the party to win this argument, to connect once again with its base voters in leafy suburbs in the South and return the party to decency once again.
As opposed to amplifying the culture wars of the right, it would be wise for the left to unite around proposing a forensic, pragmatic challenge to Labour on the NHS, economy and foreign policy, issues that played a huge role in the last election. Atkins, the former Health Secretary, has experience in health and social care and, before the 4th of July vote, promoted the Conservatives’ plan to boost community care as part of their planned reforms they claim will make the NHS “faster, simpler and fairer”. While her tenure as Health Secretary will hardly have a place in the history books, namely due to her failure to come to a settlement with the junior doctors, Atkins could see health and social care placed at the centre of political discourse during her campaign for leader and, if successful, could find cross-party consensus with Wes Streeting and the Liberal Democrats to work constructively across the divide to help broker a better NHS for the future, forming an constructive and cooperative opposition rather than the populism of the right. Similarly, former Security Minister and veteran having served in Iraq, Tom Tugendhat could also provide a forensic and supportive opposition to Labour on foreign policy, with his wealth of experience, namely chairing the Foreign Affairs Select Committee from 2017-2022, helping the party to find its place in the world again having drifted into a narrative of isolationism. Interestingly, in his 2022 leadership race, in which he offered a ‘clean break’ from the sleaze and corruption of Boris Johnson, Tugendhat argued for the introduction of an “energy resilience plan” to build up Britain’s fuel reserves, as well as committing to clean energy, including nuclear, which could easily provide a decent critique of Labour’s plans to create GB Energy and a National Wealth Fund to channel £7.3 billion into clean energy across 5 years. Crucially, while being a moderate who could appeal to rural Liberal Democrats, during his last candidacy, Mr. Tugendhat won the key support of Jake Berry, leader of the Northern Research Group of Red Wall Tory MPs, suggesting that he could also win back, over time, the votes of the small c conservative North, crucial in dismantling the newly constructed Red Wall that aided a Labour landslide not through populism, but around good, detailed policy framed around a new age of conservatism. This is interesting as it suggests that, within the parliamentary party there is a yearning to return to the centre ground to promote a conservative agenda built around education, health and social care and making constructive (not radical) arguments on the economy, similar to the Blair/Cameron dynamic from 2005-2007 however, the extent to which the membership of the Conservative Party similarly value this direction of travel, having previously elected Boris Johnson over Rory Stewart and Liz Truss over Tom Tugendhat is contested. To once again take control of the party, the left must promote passion in articulating a one nation conservative agenda, promoting their achievements in primary education and the economy from 2010-2015 but simultaneously find answers to the culture wars of the right, without which, these candidates will confine themselves to the dustbin of history, just when the party, and the country needs them most.
To this avail, because of his broad respectability across the divide due to his service in the Armed Forces and ability to reach out to the previous base of the Tory vote and potentially extend this to the North, while simultaneously promoting the anti-corruption agenda the party needs, I believe Tom Tugendhat will be the be the likely candidate of the left.
Reading this, you are probably wondering why I have left Nigel Farage out of this article. There are two reasons for this; the first being that Reform UK have 5 seats and therefore should not be given the same attention as the official opposition and, secondly, the ideological positioning of the party following the race will give us a better answer of what the party will do with Farage. I strongly believe another shift to the right will see Nigel Farage inevitably absorbed into the party. However, it is more important to focus on this leadership race first. The most crushing blow for the Conservative Party in the early morning of the 5th of July was the loss of one seat in particular, Portsmouth North. Penny Mourdant was the leader in waiting, the heir to the conservative throne, her unusual ability to unite the moderates and the right gave her a clear mandate to lead the party; without her, there seems to be a vacuum. The question now is who will fill that vacuum. Just focusing on ideology, the party must shift back to the centre ground, promoting a one nation agenda to provide a genuine challenge to Labour policy and not personnel and, at times, work with Labour to construct the best possible policy at a time of national crisis. I suspect the Tories will appoint an interim leader; an Ian Duncan Smith or an Oliver Dowden, both adept at PMQs and both able to unite a fractured party while the extended leadership election takes place. While it is convincing to argue that the Tories will be out of power until 2034 at the earliest, this election holds great significance. The Conservative Party will not defeat the far-right by becoming the far-right and a failure to recognise this could see far-right demagoguery placed at the heart of our democracy for the first time since Enoch Powell. And, be under no illusions, this fight will shape our democracy for decades to come; if the Tories ever want to return to power and credibility, it must look left and elect Tom Tugendhat as leader. This will be a complex election but the choice facing the Tory membership could not be simpler, the ultimate choice between decency and dogmatic demagoguery.
コメント