Compared to the consternation over the Democratic nomination, where until yesterday, an increasingly loud minority thought the only way Donald Trump could be beaten was if Michelle Obama entered the presidential race, the tussle for the Tory leadership seems like a sideshow. You might have thought the inevitability of the election result would have been enough to steer the Conservatives away from the predictability of the post-match fall-out, but here we are again.
Just when you thought the Tories had learned something about humility they fall into the same old traps, turning the leadership process into a spectator sport. Admittedly, this time there appears to be some reticence to lurch quite so dramatically to the Right, although the party’s seemingly now enshrined fear about the encroachments made by Nigel Farage and Reform seems destined to control the narrative for at least the next few months (if not forever).
One problem is the circular conversation about the so-called “soul” of the party, the discussion of which is starting to come across like a public group therapy session. Perhaps those with a vested interest should start thinking about what the party means to people outside it rather than those within it. This, I would say, is the fundamental issue at its heart, and if they are so concerned about their soul then they should start considering what that soul means to people under 25. If you delineate yourself by the tastes of those who define themselves by their relationship with the party when it was successful, when it was in its pomp, and who rejoice in anything that feels nostalgic or, then you won’t have learned much from the election defeat. You may not have learned anything at all.
If they are so concerned about their soul they should ask what that soul means to people under 25
Politicians and political strategists often come across as though they care more about the outcome of their research rather than the opinions of those they badger to contribute to it (the public), so I suppose it’s no surprise they often ignore the end consumer.
Sometimes, too, they have to appreciate that people have simply had enough and want change. Just look at what happened to Winston Churchill at the end of the Second World War, or what happened to Rishi Sunak a few weeks ago (a decision that was no doubt foreseen by galaxies far and wide): sometimes we just want change. Sometimes we just shrug and wonder what’s going on “over there”, and start thinking the other lot might be better (subtext: surely they couldn’t be any worse).
The Tories might not have realised that. By looking inwards, and by cogitating on the soul of their party they’re ignoring the very people they need to impress: us. And while they’re obviously not going to be significantly operational for some time, they should wise up, because the Tories won’t get anywhere if they keep obsessing about the past. Not only is the past a different country, today that country probably has alternative borders and is almost certainly now called something else. After such an electoral mauling, why did Suella Braverman think that attacking the pro-LGBT Tories in her Washington speech a few weeks ago was a good idea? Why is there still such a persistent anti-woke agenda from so many potential Tory leaders?
Some of the so-called “woke” narrative is obviously culturally destructive (and as the wonderful Joanne Rowling keeps reminding us, Labour’s views on gender are still what you might call kaleidoscopic) but find another way to address the issues without alienating people who actually like change. To say you hate “woke” is no different from previous generations disliking long hair, dyed hair or no hair, like railing against piercings or tattoos, or any other visual manifestation of cultural transgression or personal expression. Tolerance comes in many forms (often slowly and insidiously), and our main opposition party needs to understand that. If they want to survive, that is.
As well as being mindful of the country’s shifting demographic, another thing the Tories need to do is quieten down. Labour are going to be under such forensic scrutiny from both the media and the public that they don’t need the Tories lambasting them for every decision they make; it’s simply not necessary. If the Tories continue to act like agitated Neanderthals, the public will stop listening, as all they’ll see is a gaggle of hyperactive middle-aged people in appropriately blue clothes looking for a portal back to 1979.
