“What do you think about Liz Truss’s claim that she was undermined by the deep state?” When that question was put yesterday afternoon to Rishi Sunak during his appearance before the Liaison Committee, he responded, reasonably enough, that it was a matter for her.
William Wragg (Con, Hazel Grove) proceeded to ask whether Sunak himself is a member of the deep state. “I probably wouldn’t tell you if I was,” the Prime Minister replied to laughter: a perfect way of dealing with the question.
It is not, evidently, the deep state which is undermining Sunak himself. That task has been undertaken by a shadowy group of Conservative rebels, few of whom care to identify themselves.
They have a perfect right to blame the Prime Minister of the day. Taking the blame has always been the PM’s chief function, as I realised some years ago while writing a volume of brief lives of all of them, from Sir Robert Walpole to the present day:
“The secret of the Prime Ministers is that they are weak. We give them an impossible job and blame them when they fail to perform it.”
But having the right to blame Sunak is not the same as having good reason to blame him. His critics fear the Conservative Party is heading for a heavy defeat at the next general election.
That may well be true, though one can think of recent election results which confounded the predictions of the pundits and pollsters.
But let us for the sake of argument accept that the pollsters may well be right that Labour is on course for a landslide victory.
It would still be wrong to defenestrate Sunak before the election. The rebels like to persuade themselves that by putting in a new leader now, they would enable the Conservative Party to perform much better at the polls.
Admittedly, they often avoid saying this in so many words, for as soon as it is said, the improbable nature of the assertion becomes apparent.
Here is Sherelle Jacobs in yesterday’s Daily Telegraph:
“The priority for the Tory party now is to avoid total liquidation. What it therefore needs is not a technocratic fixer but someone who can negotiate the party’s entry into the political equivalent of administration – that is to say, an arrangement whereby creditors (not least the Red Wallers who lent the party their votes) are kept at bay while it can drastically restructure itself into a viable organisation.
“That requires someone who has charisma on the campaign trail and isn’t reviled by the party’s Right. It requires someone who grasps the reality that the Tory Party can only survive as a pro-growth, low-migration movement, culturally oriented to the provinces rather than the metropolitan centre. It requires someone who can kill the Reform threat by convincing a high-profile populist such as Nigel Farage or Boris Johnson to join their Cabinet.”
We are asked to entertain the fantasy that the Conservative Party can “drastically restructure itself” while remaining in office and drawing on the services of Farage or Johnson.
Drastic restructuring may indeed be required, but cannot be carried out in the few months that would remain after splitting the party by defenestrating Sunak and bringing in either Farage or Johnson, neither of whom would be acceptable to a large proportion of the present parliamentary party, and both of whom would almost certainly have the sense to refuse to lend their extraordinary abilities as campaigners to a party that was about to sink beneath the waves.
Restructuring can happen only in opposition. It occurred, with varying degrees of success, after the defeats of 1945, 1964, 1974 and 1997.
The idea that sufficient time, energy and intellect could in the coming months be devoted to restructuring the party while also governing the country and fighting an internal civil war is preposterous.
Where is the national interest in this? How would the country benefit from a Conservative Party which turned in upon itself and gave itself over to fratricide? The months would shrink into weeks as the demand for a general election became irresistible.
Sunak, as he reminded us yesterday during his appearance at the Liaison Committee, is a man of high ability who can be counted upon to do the prudent thing.
He and Jeremy Hunt are restoring sound money, without which the Government can achieve very little. This is not a glamorous thing to do, but it is unquestionably in the national interest.
It is childish to suppose that the deep-seated problems which exist in such fields as productivity, welfare, health, housing and defence can be solved in a year or two.
There are no short cuts to happiness. Margaret Thatcher required four years as Leader of the Opposition, and over a decade in power, to begin to get to grips with the difficulties which had baffled her predecessors.
But there are short cuts to disaster. If the decent, brave, intelligent and prudent Sunak is overthrown in the next few months in a fit of panic and petulance, the Conservative Party will have sacrificed any remaining claim to the nation’s indulgence.
The post If Sunak is overthrown in a fit of panic and petulance, the Tory Party will have sacrificed all claim to the nation’s indulgence appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Andrew Gimson
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, http://www.conservativehome.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.