Pecksniff received a remarkable letter this week from the Conservative Party, apparently suggesting that everything that went before Kemi Badenoch (NW Essex) was a tissue of terminological inexactitudes.
The letter is from Nigel Huddleston MP, the co-chair of the party. He declares:
“Six months ago the Conservative Party lost the election because we let people down. But the Conservative Party is now under new leadership. And we’re now going to do politics differently.
We’re going to tell people the truth, even when it’s difficult to hear.”
The letter is sent under the wild misapprehension that your diarist is a Tory supporter. One has to admit, it shows chutzpah. How does a new leader wanting a fresh start get round the falsehoods, chicanery, duplicity, incompetence, scandals, law-breaking, arrogance, corruption and downright vulgarity of the previous 14 years?
So which is the real Tory party? Is the old one dead, or living still? If it is Ms Badenoch’s version which is in rude health, then what has happened to the gallimaufry of the past 14 years? Are we here confronting the spectacle of Schrödinger’s Tories?
*
We must assume the Conservatives are asking themselves the question: who exactly are going to be tomorrow’s Tory voters? The party is in danger of falling into the trap which has corrupted Labour, of giving up on what it feels are its core principles, and galumphing about desperately to where it thinks the votes are. But for the Tories, left or right there is a party who can do it better, with better credentials. There is a clear danger here of a transmigration of souls. (Note to self: do Tories have souls? Save for next week.) Those who were fed up with their traditional party’s drift to the extremes may find their karma takes them to the Liberal Democrats, or the Greens. Those for whom no rabid policy goes far enough will inevitably go to Reform.
And of course, the Tories have brought this upon themselves. The party has existed for a couple of hundred years and come through some scrapes, but perhaps has never before sacrificed itself to the charlatans and carpetbaggers who destroyed its base for their own base purposes. They threw out their ‘moderates’, a.k.a. all those who turned up for meetings, organised raffles, sat interminably outside polling stations on election day and would vote Tory till hell freezes over; and with them they threw out loyalty, which has always been claimed as the party’s secret weapon. So which way do they turn now?
*
It is not clear yet quite where Kemi Badenoch intends to position herself on the spectrum. Her statements to date have usually seemed eccentric and often unco-ordinated, as though each was the latest to be picked at random from the jamboree bag. But then, perhaps all her statements as leader up to the date of the letter are also to be ignored. So far, they could easily promote her into the ranks of her less than illustrious recent forebears. Let us look at what she has to beat.
Most recently there was a man who was too well dressed to be a gentleman, yet dismissed with a laugh any idea that he should know anybody from the working class. He further demonstrated his limited man-of-the-people credentials by illustrating he had no idea how to put petrol in a car.
Then of course there was the woman so lacking in self-awareness she thought that merely announcing the word ‘cheese’ to a party conference would confer on her the status of wit. She went on to test her political reputation on what amounted to a bout of metaphorical arm-wrestling with a lettuce. You may recall that the lettuce won.
She in turn of course followed that fellow who seemed to feel an irresistible sexual attraction towards mirrors. The man who started this farrago of self-interest.
Not much to beat, perhaps, and actually ignoring everything that has gone before may be the only feasible approach. Voters can have short memories, and Labour is doing its best to attract all the ordure to itself. For the first time, we can say that the Tories could yet be reborn out of the ashes of the present government.
*
So what of that government? We can be sure that the PM has never considered himself a Marxist, yet in one respect he appears to be at one with the old frondeur. The boy Karl declared that: “Historically, mankind has only ever asked itself the questions it can answer.” Sir Keir of course has apparently never asked himself how he can ‘make Brexit work’, since he clearly doesn’t know the answer.
*
The PM must know his posturings over the EU so far won’t even feed the cat. Dear reader, pour another glass and consider. When first the government was elected, we were led to believe that our future was finely balanced between being besties with either the US or Europe. But since the options would lead in the longer term to dramatically different outcomes – culturally, socially, historically, certainly economically – it’s clear the choice ignored all that and was only ever transactional. Short term.
It never encompassed a vision of who we want to be, it was just another bodge to tide us over. Who we are and who we want to be were apparently never a consideration. Just getting by. This ‘could go either way’ indecision was explained during the last days of the Biden administration. So at the time it was a choice between two axes, with both of whom we shared some rapport.
Not any more. We are now facing the devil incarnate, Donald Trump. So the scales should logically have slipped dramatically towards the EU, but apparently not. It is still, it seems, a tough call. Which shows us, my dears, that this was never a difficult decision awaiting a rational outcome. It was only ever frozen indecision. A terror of making any decision at all.
*
There continues to be a brooding omertà in the Commons over the dread word ‘Brexit’. At least two of the three main parties see it as an embarrassment. Pecksniff has reported before on how Labour MPs simply don’t want to discuss it, and that has been further confirmed this week.
Most of them are newly elected, and of course had to get though a party selection procedure. This took place during the Starmer ascendancy, so after the bloody chaos of the Corbyn interregnum, the party understandably looked for candidates who would not rock the boat. In practice, that often meant regional office breathing down local parties’ necks to take candidates they didn’t want. That has left bruises which are slow to heal.
This has been described to your diarist by those within Westminster as a ‘de-politicisation’ process, which some Labour MPs find deeply troubling – not least since meekly following the approved party litany is likely to influence longer-term thinking: which of course is where the EU and Brexit live.
*
This week however, the Liberal Democrats held a debate in Westminster Hall on the possible EU youth mobility scheme. It was proposed by Sarah Olney, a Liberal Democrat, which suggests that the party is gearing itself up at least to talk about Europe. Ms Olney however was at pains to stress that the scheme would in no way lead to the slippery slope of a return to freedom of movement.
Of most interest are the contributions from other members. Only one came from an MP from this region: Andrew Lewin, the Labour MP for Welwyn Hatfield. Mr Lewin was cautious, to the point of wearing a tin hat, but at least he hoisted a flag. He said:
“I think it is so important to reflect on the fact that we now have a Government who are actively saying that we want a stronger and closer relationship with the European Union. However … I completely respect the fact that this Government cannot give away every part of their negotiating strategy in public at this stage.”
*
So how is Labour’s position on Brexit going down with Labour party members? There seems little backlash at all, just a general exasperation at what are seen as the government’s own goals, and a failure to take on the Tory narrative. But there is perhaps a reluctance to recognise just how deep is the mess they left, and that the government may not be up to it.
There are also exasperating views for those outside the party who are looking for electoral change. There seems a strong sense that Labour members, having achieved government, have lost their enthusiasm for proportional representation. It is no longer considered a subject suitable for polite drawing-room conversation.
*
And what of the Liberal Democrats? The party welcomed Ed Davey’s rather lukewarm embrace of an EU customs union, which he repeated this week.
But beyond that there seems no dissemination of the message to the troops. Which is to say that the party would still prefer not to be heard talking about it, though members (mostly unlike Labour) remain impatient with this approach. If there is to be a grassroots members’ rebellion over Brexit, it seems much more likely to happen among the LibDems than Labour.
Though surely, since that sense of an international brotherhood was such an important attraction for many to join the Labour Party, many members must feel secretly humiliated by their party’s stance.
*
One of those Labour MPs who certainly seems on-message regarding growth at all costs is Jack Abbott (Ipswich). Together with Alice Macdonald (Norwich N), he has already been selected by the new government as a ‘mission ambassador’ for the eastern region, a new role which has been described as “exciting”, though cynics may see it slightly differently. Before the election, we wondered how the PM would manage his likely huge majority, and this looks like a cunning wheeze to bind the most promising new recruits to government policy.
In support of that mission ambassador role, Mr Abbott has already disinterred the idea of an Ipswich northern bypass, which collapsed through fierce environmental protest and dwindling political support. Mr Abbott’s constituency probably wants the bypass: those through whose gardens and villages it will be built understandably think differently.
But Mr Abbott has perfectly plausible reasons to accept the ambassador role, (which one does not doubt he will fulfil with aplomb). “For years, I’ve been fed up that we’ve had no pulling power in the East of England, the proof of which shows in the results, or rather the lack of them, and this offers a decent platform for getting things done”.
Fair do’s. We watch with interest. (Bring popcorn.)
*
This week saw the Scottish National Party’s 10-Minute Rule bill on the WASPI dispute come to the Commons on Tuesday, and the first reading was unopposed. (Though being a 10-Minute Rule bill it will go nowhere anyway.) Readers will recall the government’s recent embarrassment over the WASPI issue, and their equally embarrassing attempts to overcome it. It is reminiscent of a recollection in Lord Home’s diaries of a ministerial brief he was once given, which concluded: “This is a rotten argument, but it should be good enough for their lordships on a hot summer afternoon”.
The government required their MPs to abstain from this week’s vote on the issue, but two from our region bucked the whip and voted with the SNP, along with the Liberal Democrats and Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) for the Greens. The two Labour apostates from their government’s policy and who voted with their conscience were Chris Hinchliff (NE Herts) and Terry Jermy (SW Norfolk).
*
With thanks to Karl Whiteman.
<<< Previous Pecksniff’s Diary
