Peter Franklin is an Associate Editor of UnHerd.
Humza Yousaf may not be the most astute of politicians, but even he knew when the game was up. Rather than risk a vote of no confidence, he’s relinquished the leadership of the Scottish National Party and the position of First Minister of Scotland.
I wonder if Rishi Sunak was taking notes when he watched the resignation statement yesterday? It might not be long before he has to make a similar decision.
The local and mayoral elections are on Thursday; by the close of play Friday it should be clear whether recent opinion polls – many putting the Conservative vote share at just 20 per cent – reflect reality.
If that does prove to be the case, then a historically dreadful defeat beckons at the general election. To give us a fighting chance, a sane parliamentary party would be duty-bound to arrange a suitable change of leader.
You will, of course, have noticed my conditional language: “if” conveys a degree of uncertainty, as does (in this context) “sane”, “duty-bound” and “suitable”.
It’s still possible that Sunak will survive Thursday’s outcome. Labour might underperform. Andy Street and Ben Houchen might be judged on their records, not those of recent prime ministers. The Reform UK effect might be muted because the party isn’t geared to fight local elections (though the same applied to the Brexit Party in the 2019 and that didn’t save Theresa May).
It also wouldn’t be beyond the ability of the parliamentary party to bungle an attempted coup. For instance, we already have Penny-for-leader and Stop Mordaunt “plots” up-and-running.
Ideally, Sunak would save his colleagues the bother and follow Yousaf’s example. The alternative would be a vote of no confidence among Tory MPs which, like May and Johnson, Sunak would lose by winning.
But let’s consider the most important question concerning a change of leader: what’s the point?
I don’t ask this rhetorically, but literally. What purpose would a new leader (and thus a new prime minister) serve? Or, rather, what positive purpose?
The negative case for removing Sunak is clear: unless the local elections show that the pollsters have got it badly wrong, there’s overwhelming evidence that the Prime Minister’s “plan” isn’t working. After all, we’re not just talking about 1997-style defeat here, but a scenario in which the number of Conservative seats is reduced to double figures.
That possibility needs to be killed stone dead. If it isn’t, then any alternative to certain doom is preferable.
Nevertheless, it’s not just a case of abandoning a hopeless position, but of finding hope in a new one. So, of what might that consist? Before assessing the leadership candidates on their intrinsic qualities, we need to envisage what they might achieve.
To be frank, this is not about choosing a prime minister to lead a triumphant five year programme of government. It’s not even about choosing a long-term leader of the opposition.
No, this is a triage situation. We must save seats that were once considered safe as houses. Therefore, what we most need in a new leader is a gifted campaigner; someone to take the fight to Labour and stop the country from sleepwalking into a Starmer super-majority.
Let’s also be realistic about what can be achieved in our remaining months in office. Following the fall of Boris Johnson there was still time for a new prime minister to do something that was both sensible and meaningful. Unfortunately, Liz Truss took leave of her senses and the meaning of Sunak remains a mystery.
However, there’s more to be done than run-down the clock. For instance, the Victoria Atkins’ robust response to the findings of the Cass Review has forced Labour to u-turn on previous absurdities. Much more of this is required. The resistance to Sir Keir Starmer starts now, and we need a leader with the tactical nous to exploit the fast-expiring advantages of power.
By this I don’t mean metaphorical booby-traps in the machinery of government, or spending all the money, but forcing Labour to make decisions on issues it would rather avoid.
We also need a leader willing to speak up on the issues that Conservatives have avoided. The broken promises of the 2019 manifesto, for instance – especially the failure to get immigration under control.
Then there’s the scourge of runaway house price inflation, that we’ve barely acknowledged, but which has reduced us to minor party status among the under-50s; looking ahead, there’s the looming demographic crisis, which unless addressed, will condemn the nations of the West to bankruptcy.
It may seem far too late for a Conservative prime minister to be sounding the alarm bells after 14 years in government. But when one’s record in office is indefensible, defending it is an even worse strategy.
At the very least there’s an opportunity here to tell the unvarnished truth. Instead of boosterism, we ought to level with the British people: admitting to our own shortcomings, but also lifting the lid on deep institutional failure. We may be at the end of the present era, but the argument must be made for reform that persists from one government to the next.
In any case, there’s no point in fighting a change election on a platform of steady-as-she-goes. Labour’s change message is more vulnerable than it looks, because there’s so little to it. Yes, they’re not the Tories, but that’s just about all they’ve got to offer.
Don’t like the immigration policy of recent years? Well, don’t expect radical reform under Labour. Ditto the planning system. As for the reordering of the state to support and uphold the family, expect the opposite.
For all Starmer’s promises of superficial change, the underlying Labour message is that the foreseeable future won’t be so very different from the recent past. We need to make that a problem for them.
However, there can obviously be no Conservative change message without a change in prime minister.
A change of party platform will be required too. But with so little time left, where is that going to come from? Is there some source of new ideas, ready to be tapped? An oven-ready agenda that takes forward the promises made in 2019?
Well, yes, there is. The latest instalment of the Future of Conservatism project (A Conservative Economy, by Gavin Rice and Nick Timothy) was published only yesterday; as luck would have it, the paperback edition of Danny Kruger’s Covenant is also out this week.
Oddly, given the current state of party fortunes, the most interesting political ideas are on the right, not the left. It’s just that precious few of them have made their way into Downing Street.
No amount of thinking, however brilliant, alters the fact that the last three prime ministers have exhausted the party’s political capital. The edifice of the last 14 years has crumbled: bodged by Johnson, blown-up by Truss, and picked over uselessly by Sunak, the ruins lie all about us.
We need a leader who realises that the past is already lost. The only battle worth fighting now is for the future – so we might as well get started.
The post Peter Franklin: If the local elections are as bad as the polls suggest, Sunak should follow Yousaf’s lead and resign 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.