Peter Franklin is an Associate Editor of UnHerd.
We began the election in the worst position of any governing party in British political history. The leadership’s response was to run the worst campaign in British political history.
I’ll admit I’m not Team Sunak’s most enthusiastic cheerleader. Last year, I expressed my shock at Downing Street’s threadbare political strategy; earlier this year, I argued that a change of leadership was a desperate necessity; four weeks ago, I lamented the inexplicably foolish decision to opt for a summer general election; two weeks ago, I set out some of the disastrous consequences of that wrong-headed call.
But despite my mounting sense of despair I did not foresee, and could not have imagined, that the election date would now be the nub of an alleged betting scandal – one that has disrupted the Conservative campaign just when Nigel Farage was running into difficulty, and just when we needed to focus the country on the implications of a Labour supermajority.
For all these reasons and more, our poll ratings have hit equally unimaginable lows. To split hairs, they have been this low once before, but Liz Truss had to crash the economy to achieve that.
Team Sunak, however, has got us into the same territory against a background of mild economic optimism. Moreover, they’ve done it the course of a general election campaign. We’re thus facing a range of truly awful outcomes.
It says something that a 1997-style landslide defeat is now considered the best-case scenario. But let’s be clear, that would still be an appalling result. In fact, it would be worse than 1997, because in 1992 John Major won a slim majority of 21, which was then whittled away to basically nothing five years later.
This time round, however, the starting point was the majority of 80 gained in 2019. To end up with, say, 165 seats would thus be the more precipitous fall.
But, as mentioned, that’s at the upper-limit of expectations, and we have to brace ourselves for much, much worse.
Indeed, there’s no scenario too awful to dismiss absolutely. The lowest ever number of Conservative MPs? Could be. Fewer than a hundred MPs? Can’t rule it out. Third place in vote share? That’s what some polls are already showing. Lib Dems as the Official Opposition? Let’s hope not, but it’s just about possible.
Almost certainly, we’ll see senior Conservatives losing their seats. The field of leadership candidates will be winnowed before the next context even begins (officially). Truss appears to be in trouble in her constituency and even Sunak can’t take his seat for granted.
In the last few days, another horror has moved out of the realm of nightmares and into the bounds of possibility: the loss of what should be solidly blue seats – specifically North Herefordshire and Waveney Valley – to the Green Party. To repeat, the Green Party. Who (apart from yours truly) saw that coming?
At this point we may as well stop campaigning and work on a survival plan instead, because what comes next won’t be pretty (nor Priti, if she too loses her seat).
Just to be clear, I’m not talking about the long-and-winding road to recovery, but something much more immediate: which is getting through the next year – or, for that matter, the next few weeks – in one piece.
Let’s start with the party finances. I’d like to think that someone in CCHQ has a plan for what happens after the election. Has provision been made for the inevitable collapse in donations and other revenues? Do we have the money to cover liabilities and make redundancy payments?
Can the current leadership guarantee they haven’t left behind a financial mess that means that the next leader spends the next two years saving the party from bankruptcy?
Speaking of the next leader, there’s obviously going to be a contest this year. Let’s hope the new 1922 Committee doesn’t learn the out-of-date lessons of the 2022 leadership election. That, infamously, took far too long and so there’s a risk that, this time, Graham Brady’s successor will try to rush things.
But after a crushing defeat, we will need the space to properly debate what went so wrong and the reforms needed to put things right. As in 2005, we could use party conference as a platform for each of the leadership contenders to make their case. If nothing else, it would give the media a reason to pay us any attention.
Whether we can then afford to ballot the membership is another matter. Expect a concerted effort to blame party democracy for the dégringolade of the last five years. One can predict the smug opinion pieces almost word-for-word. Of course, what they won’t point out is that it was our MPs who presented the members with the lose-lose choice of Truss and Sunak.
(I’m not saying we’d be on course for victory if only they’d given us the chance to pick Penny Mordaunt, Kemi Badenoch or Tom Tugendhat, but it’s difficult to see how we could have done any worse.)
Of course, I’m making a big assumption here, which that there’ll be enough Conservative MPs in the next parliament to fill a complete frontbench team, while leaving enough backbenchers for a meaningful backbench committee (which, of course, is what the 1922 is). If there isn’t, then we’ll need new rules. Is the Conservative Party Board looking into this?
With numbers likely to be so low, something needs to be made clear to every one of our remaining MPs, which is that we can’t afford part-timers. There can be no slouching off to the boardroom or to the Bar or to gigs in the media. It will be hard enough to provide an effective opposition in the chamber or on select committees as it is, but impossible if our MPs aren’t fully committed.
As for the Lords, all new appointments of Conservative peers should be working peers. With a Labour supermajority in the Commons, the Upper House will be an indispensable check on the overweening power of a Starmer government.
The new prime minister might not abolish the Lords straightaway, but he will pack the red benches with new Labour peers. Therefore from our side of both chambers it must be all hands on deck; there’s no room for passengers.
That should start with Sunak’s Resignation Honours. Let him reward who he sees fit with the usual gongs, but peerages should be reserved for those capable of rebuilding the future, not those who’ve made such a horlicks of the present. Really, it’s the least he can do.
Finally, let me address the elephant in the room, or rather the elephant who will be in the room if he becomes the MP for Clacton.
With Farage in the Commons, the danger is that Conservative MPs will abandon thoughts of genuine reform and opt for the quick-fix of a merger with Reform UK. That, after all, would be consistent with the pattern of the last 14 years, in which we’ve lurched from one ill-considered stunt to another. If we can’t break that habit after a devastating defeat then there’s no hope for us.
Don’t forget there are people out there who don’t want to save the Conservative Party or even, like Farage, mount a takeover bid. Rather they want to replace us.
For instance, we haven’t heard a peep or tweet out of Dominic Cummings for a whole month now. Clearly, the man who said he wants to “plough the Tories into the earth with salt” is up to something. If we carry on as we are, then he, or someone like him, will succeed.
The post Peter Franklin: The Conservative Party needs a survival plan – not for long-term recovery, but the next year appeared first on Conservative Home.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Peter Franklin
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.