I get frustrated that Reform supporters are dumbing down and not demanding more from the party. Whenever one of the leading Tories does something positive, such as the fare dodging, the deliveroo scam, opposition to assisted suicide and demanding a rape gang enquiry I tell Reform supporters that this is what Reform and their MPs should be doing because if it were they leading on these issues they would bury the Conservatives. But they don't care. They just brag about their polling numbers and shout out that they're the future. None of their MPs has a brief...heck, even the LibDems can manage that...and their support is entirely down to disgruntled voters wanting to give established parties a kicking. That's all. The politics of moronic anger.
Agreed. Reform are a mirage, a chimera, a one-man lightning rod/grievance monger/cult of personality, marketed as a political party.
For me, I'm old school. It's a rejuvenated, policy-focussed Tory Party or bust for 2029.
But even I know this hinges on Badenoch's policy committee recommendations on immigration/illegals, and what she presents as a policy platform at Conference this year.
If she doesn't get it right, Reform edge to 40%, Tories tank to 10%.
Detailed policy can wait, the direction of travel must be set at conference and a call out to the One Nations to leave if they're unhappy, candidate selection/the whip will be predicated on this.
I think all Tory MPs should be de-selected and asked to re-apply in competition with new candidates and they should all be required to sign up to the new policies, particularly on immigration. One Nation Rejoiner Wets should not be countenanced.
The problem Tories have with Reform voters (I was a reform member myself but have not renewed on account of being sick of soundbites that are all sizzle and no steak) is that the Tories once had an 80 seat majority to get s*** done - and they didn't just fail, they actively chose not to do anything. Their donors remain the same. CCHQ remains the same. The Tories remain the same. There is zero faith that they will even do anything and that is based on their 14 years in office where they failed to do anything of value that they promised the electorate.
This isn't about public confidence in the Tories being low, it's that the public TRUST has gone - and rightfully so.
I have no idea what the 'solution' is, but the public need to see the rotten fish head cut off first before they'll take notice. That is something I can't see happening.
A big failure of Badenoch (and there are many) is no transparency in her purported policy committees.
This would have been an ideal opportunity for her and Jenrick (Deputy LOTO in all but name) to go around the country and *really* talk to citizens.
Yes, she would have to beg for forgiveness and hold her hand out, but it would generate momentum that she was really listening, getting the message.
She could also hear ideas for solutions etc.
What I suspect is that she will do the minimum in portraying humility and "getting it" in interviews like the Charles Moore one this week, turn up late to meetings including her hard working minions, retain her arrogant distance she projects so seamlessly, and maybe disastrously re-tread old ground with new slogans.
JC - if there's zero trust in the Tories - after only 11 months there is zero to negative trust in Labour/socialists - sure the Tories had to deal with Brexit & COVID - Labour struggle to deal with a rainy day. The Tories sooner than later will have to come up with some policies that we can as a country get behind - Labour is congenitally unable to do anything apart from make things worse - and we'll get, as Pete says, jack all from Reform.
As much as I hope you are correct, I just can't see it
They will say whatever is needed to get into office - then continue to do the same Uniparty 'business as usual' nothingness they've always done.
Mass immigration is as much the Tories fault as Labour
High taxation is as much the Tories fault as Labour
Bloated public sector is as much the Tories fault ass Labour.
Failing institutions are as much the Tories fault as Labour
The problems facing Britain today are as much the Tories fault as Labour.
We have had nigh on 30 years of this weak, expensive nonsense.
This isn't about confidence, it's about trust. And it has gone.
I wish I could share your optimism that the Tories will 'do something' if they get in, but I just can't. It will be the same as their 14 grey years of kicking the can down the road.
Is reform going to be any better? Probably not, but voting Tory will just give us the same as we have now in a blue tie.
As long as CCHQ and the Tory donors are running the show, they will not change course for the betterment of this country and will stay Globalist stool pigeons, lining the pockets of big business and transnationals (at our expense) while regulation competition out of existence.
Really good article Pete, which I’ve enjoyed reading. I also get it that you hate Farage from your UKIP days and you may be right that he won’t make a good PM. However, most sane people would say that we have an awful (the worst ever) in Starmer, he will be replaced by Rayner who will be even worse. We have Badenoch who shows no signs of being a leader and who has shown herself to be ineffective at PMQs, reading her questions and unable to think on the hoof. We’ve also had a succession of dreadful failures from Mrs May, through Boris and Truss to Sunak who was a good man at least but no leader.
Which leaves the choice at the next GE being Farage who can debate and think on the hoof and is leading a party of 250000 members and tearing up the polls.
You may be right that Reform are policy light but they are clear on priorities and many of us (a majority probably) believe that without changes to stop immigration and deport scumbags the economy, law and order, public services and tax can’t improve. It’s undeniable even by you I think that were it not for Reform and Farage in particular, even talking about reducing immigration would make us racists. He’s made it a mainstream topic.
I agree that detailed policies are missing and I’d love to have spokesmen for each office of state. But unless you bring in people like Matt Goodwin as Education spokesman from outside Parliament you can’t give a detailed brief to Lee Anderson as he would make a decent whip but that’s about it. I think your criticism of Farage and Reform is pretty unfair given the progress they’ve made in the polls and on the big issue of immigration. If policies don’t follow by 2027 you’ll have a point except Labour had no policies in 14 years and still don’t! Do you want more of them? If so vote for them or the Tories. Either will give you more of this traitorous bunch of clowns.
"If, in the Tories, they see quiet competence, strong local candidates …" Therein lies the problem. As long as the wets in Conservative Central keep a stranglehold on candidate selection, we’ll never get any of those. Give control back to the constituencies. This should give two benefits - a strong, competent, genuinely local candidate pool, and if the local party is seen to have real power it will encourage more people to sign up. (Maybe have a central vetting to weed out the absolute kooks, while leaving a few ‘weird sheep’ to leaven the mix.)
Soundbite. Tories need to pivot from the Nasty Party to the Tough Love Party.
Thoughtful piece of writing as ever but I suspect certain intangibles are being glossed over here, you are of course rationally correct that a party with coherent policies ‘should’ capture the public’s imagination but it doesn’t really work like that.
Problem is…the Tories are a hated ‘poison brand’ in so many parts of the Uk it’s hard to figure out where their ‘heartlands’ or ‘safe seats’ are. There was a rumour of a Boris comeback not long ago (god help us) but the by-election could easily be lost.
Not worth the risk…could be a laugh though.
It’s tragic that Reform are taking up the bandwidth they are, but they’re ‘playing the game’ with the juvenile subset of the electorate – the political equivalent of T20 cricket fans. These people are far more likely to be swayed by a campaign to bring back red phone boxes, hanging and Watney’s red barrel than they ever are by serious, credible policy.
I’m not absolutely convinced that some of these people can read.
The character of the electorate (or at least enough of it) has gone so far in this direction I can only conclude…sorry Pete but I think you’re profoundly wrong. The only circumstance in which I can see the Tories surviving would be if civil war broke out in Reform and Farage flat-packed the venture, taking his allies off to the Conservative Party with him.
But if that happened…so what? Kind of defeats the point don’t you think?
Wow. Spectacularly missing the point. Rebuilding a brand is contingent on rebuilding image. The Tories can establish themselves as the grown up alternative to Reform if they have policy and are visibly getting to grips with the issues in the way that Nick Timothy is.
People are more considered than you give them credit for. They might like the populist messaging of Reform but they will think carefully when it comes to choosing a PM and a local MP. I would rather have the sitting Tory in Easingwold than some no-mark grunter paper candidate, and I certainly don't see Farage as PM material. People might want change, but they tend not to vote for change for its own sake.
There's a reason Reform flopped in 2024, and that's because, other than Reform's big names, the rest of their candidates were dross. The same will be true in 2029. They will do well, but not well enough to break through their basic credibility problem. Reform will continue finding ways to be off-putting. The point here, is that the Tories can exploit Reform's inherent weaknesses by being the more presentable and credible party.
Valid points both. Serious policy is needed. So is contrition and a bit of humility. Go round the Red Wall and pretend to listen. And sacrifice a few wets who should be LibDems.
Pete, this is my point - there are a couple of key things you are missing.
1) the Tories are in an almost unique position of being a hated 'toxic brand' in large parts of the country. Some talk about the Red Wall but that was a freak occurrence in a very particular set of circumstances. These were not 'Tory votes' in the true sense but the buildup of UKIP and Brexit support over the years, turning its back on Labour and doing the unthinkable for the first time ever. The Tories had a golden chance to get these people onboard and...blew it, bigtime. They screwed up on Brexit, did the opposite of what they said they would do on immigration and did nothing regarding economic regeneration in those parts of the country that had lent them their vote. Had they delivered on 2 of those 3 points the Tories might still be in office.
These people did not go back to Labour in huge numbers, remember. The 33 per cent hath spoken etc.
2) I get that you, me and others and considered but there are millions who aren't. The landscape has changed and Reform have (for now) pitched themselves perfectly as a 'right wing' party who simultaneously play the utopian 'Corbyn Game' of telling you what you want to hear on all issues at all times. Like you I don't necessarily think this will carry to an election win but it will owe more to an internal meltdown/civil war than it will to a lack of coherent policy or anything like that. I also agree with you that the two things are linked - a lack of coherent philosophy WILL lead to infighting. But we're into correlation/causation territory here.
An engaging piece of writing nonetheless and I thank you for it - maybe do another podcast soon in the light of your depature from Homeland.
Goodwin's Red Wall analysis is bollocks. Voter sentiment did not change. The demographics did. Backwater towns have gradually become commuter belt dormitory towns made up of aspiring young families - without the legacy allegiance to Labour.
Regardless of antipathy towards the previous government voters are more sophisticated than you give them credit for. If populist propaganda worked the way people believe it does, leave would have won the referendum by a country mile. In the end, most people had more sophisticated reasons for voting the way they did than wonks give them credit for.
I'm saying the Tories can tap into that basic wisdom of the electorate by presenting themselves as motivated and serious where Reform is not. It might not be enough to win in 2029 but it is enough to save them from extinction. Regardless of the polls, Reform cannot escape the perception that they are disorganised, fractious rabble of pathological amateurs, and the closer we get to an election, the more that will crystallise in the mind of the public. The polls will continue to over-egg Reform, but it is very possible we will see a renewed "shy Tory" effect when people quietly conclude that Badenoch is coherent, sensible and that the party knows what it's doing.
The point here, is that if the Tory party can make it intact to 2029, and thereafter finds more likeable leadership, then claims of the party's death will prove to be exaggerated.
Hiya. I never mentioned Matt Goodwin and like you I find some of his analysis to be a bit 'sketchy' to put it politely.
Voters are not a homogenous block, there are people who think about the issues (on all sides) and others who would never vote for party XYZ under any circumstance, for any reason. I know plenty of folk who would never, ever have voted Conservative but would give Reform a serious look.
Our views on Reform are similar but there's a bigger problem with the Tories, one of branding. Sorry but the number of people who would never, ever vote Conservative even if the world was ending runs into several millions. Now I would vote Labour to (say) keep a fully-fledged Fascist out, but the same does not always apply.
As for Badenoch...look, we know a 'charismatic' leader is a short cut but Badenoch can't do that, so she's decided to go down the 'dry and serious' route instead, rather like Hague, IDS and Howard did. If the Tories could find a leader with personality, charisma and a short cut to the minds of the electorate then he/she would already be in place. Cameron 'sort of' had this briefly and did well off the back of it, but I see no 'charismatic Tories' out there.
Like you I cannot stand Nigel Farage, a dodgy used car salesman if I've ever seen one, but his 'charisma' has broken through with the electorate. You underestimate one other thing...at the last election the Tories had the incumbency advantage, they WERE the government. They could warn of the dangers of a Starmer super-majoirty. Well...no longer.
What would the Tories need to survive? A charismatic leader who can communicate to people, a few intellects behind him or her to put the coherent platform together...and the civil war to go off within Reform.
Now...Badenoch is NOT that person so...how likely are THOSE dominoes to fall into place?
These heartlands are those that have voted Tory enthusiastically in the past.
This now encompasses Reform Red Wall and LD/trad Tory Blue Wall/Shires.
It sounds irreconcilable to get those disparate voters back.
But I suspect a strong identification with secure borders, cultural pride, small state/growth/slashing the welfare state, build build build, Anglofuturism vibes, would attract both Labour types in Red Wall and LD/trad Tories in Blue Wall.
The Tory broad church needs to be the voters attracted, not two parties-in-one as we've had since Major.
there's your problem, Labour voters lending the Tories their vote was a once only deal. The Tories had five years to make friends for life and, well....we're back to 'F the Tories' in large parts of Britian.
Not going to happen again, not in significant numbers anyway...
Rely to Pete. If you’re concerned about immigration, why would you vote Tory when you could vote Reform? One had 14 years to sort it out and made it far worse. The other made it a mainstream conversation.
Why would you vote Reform if you were concerned about immigration? Their immigration policy (if you can call it that) is "net zero immigration" - which is still a massive influx of foreigners.
Why would you vote Reform if you were concerned about immigration? Seriously? Would I vote Labour with their “smash the gangs” policy? Obviously not. Tories after 14 years of saying one thing and doing another? Why would I trust them again? Reform will at least return illegal immigrants and not allow new illegals to remain. Let’s see where they get to on legal immigration too. Surely that’s the best option of the three parties who could win Pete?
Pete is fundamentally correct about Reform - if they ever get into office (highly doubtful but let's imagine) they would then have the problem of not knowing what the hell they needed to actually do.
In all the years UKIP were in the public eye they never bothered to actually formulate a plan re:- HOW to leave the EU. Nor did they ever put together a coherent policy platform.
Reform are a dead end for the reasons Pete rightly identifies.
The Tories are a lost cause for reasons Pete perhaps can't see fully.
Without power a plan is completely irrelevant. UKIP didn’t need a plan to leave the EU as they would never form a government. That was Cameron’s job which he failed at. This is where I think Pete’s expectation of having fully loaded policies four years out from an election when you don’t know who’ll be standing yet let alone have particular portfolios is unreasonable and unnecessary. Reform’s main plan should be to win. Without that nothing matters.
The Tories do have a chance, but a slim one. They have the apparatus and the potential to properly screen candidates (though not for wets, it seems), and could regain ground if Reform is tested before the election and found wanting. Some of the Reform spokespeople have not shone, and that is putting it mildly.
There needs to be a robust and confident response to the managed decline and abdication.
While actually denouncing the ECHR would be the simple approach, but with complex consequences, it is not the only option.
Its own terms (the so called 'colonial clause') allows for its territorial scope to be altered. So we have two other possible options:
1) Denounce for UK alone, leaving CI and IoM still covered.; then resubscribe for NI only.
2) Use the territorial alteration clauses to reduce the territorial scope, excluding GB. Hence leaving NI, CI and IoM still covered.
There is a piece by folks in Jersey analysing the first part of option 1 above, so this idea is not simply wild speculation.
Pursuing either of these approaches avoids issues arising out of NI and the GFA, but would still leave issues arising out of the EU withdrawal agreement and TCA regarding ECHR.
While actually denouncing the ECHR would be the simple approach, but with complex consequences, it is not the only option.
Its own terms (the so called 'colonial clause') allows for its territorial scope to be altered. So we have two other possible options:
1) Denounce for UK alone, leaving CI and IoM still covered.; then resubscribe for NI only.
2) Use the territorial alteration clauses to reduce the territorial scope, excluding GB. Hence leaving NI, CI and IoM still covered.
There is a piece by folks in Jersey analysing the first part of option 1 above, so this idea is not simply wild speculation.
Pursuing either of these approaches avoids issues arising out of NI and the GFA, but would still leave issues arising out of the EU withdrawal agreement and TCA regarding ECHR.
"If, in the Tories, they see quiet competence, strong local candidates …" Therein lies the problem. As long as the wets in Conservative Central keep a stranglehold on candidate selection, we’ll never get any of those. Give control back to the constituencies. This should give two benefits - a strong, competent, genuinely local candidate pool, and if the local party is seen to have real power it will encourage more people to sign up. (Maybe have a central vetting to weed out the absolute kooks, while leaving a few ‘weird sheep’ to leaven the mix.)
Soundbite. Tories need to pivot from the Nasty Party to the Tough Love Party.
I get frustrated that Reform supporters are dumbing down and not demanding more from the party. Whenever one of the leading Tories does something positive, such as the fare dodging, the deliveroo scam, opposition to assisted suicide and demanding a rape gang enquiry I tell Reform supporters that this is what Reform and their MPs should be doing because if it were they leading on these issues they would bury the Conservatives. But they don't care. They just brag about their polling numbers and shout out that they're the future. None of their MPs has a brief...heck, even the LibDems can manage that...and their support is entirely down to disgruntled voters wanting to give established parties a kicking. That's all. The politics of moronic anger.
Agreed. Reform are a mirage, a chimera, a one-man lightning rod/grievance monger/cult of personality, marketed as a political party.
For me, I'm old school. It's a rejuvenated, policy-focussed Tory Party or bust for 2029.
But even I know this hinges on Badenoch's policy committee recommendations on immigration/illegals, and what she presents as a policy platform at Conference this year.
If she doesn't get it right, Reform edge to 40%, Tories tank to 10%.
Detailed policy can wait, the direction of travel must be set at conference and a call out to the One Nations to leave if they're unhappy, candidate selection/the whip will be predicated on this.
I think all Tory MPs should be de-selected and asked to re-apply in competition with new candidates and they should all be required to sign up to the new policies, particularly on immigration. One Nation Rejoiner Wets should not be countenanced.
PS. Because nobody is going to trust them if they are literally the same people!!
The problem Tories have with Reform voters (I was a reform member myself but have not renewed on account of being sick of soundbites that are all sizzle and no steak) is that the Tories once had an 80 seat majority to get s*** done - and they didn't just fail, they actively chose not to do anything. Their donors remain the same. CCHQ remains the same. The Tories remain the same. There is zero faith that they will even do anything and that is based on their 14 years in office where they failed to do anything of value that they promised the electorate.
This isn't about public confidence in the Tories being low, it's that the public TRUST has gone - and rightfully so.
I have no idea what the 'solution' is, but the public need to see the rotten fish head cut off first before they'll take notice. That is something I can't see happening.
A big failure of Badenoch (and there are many) is no transparency in her purported policy committees.
This would have been an ideal opportunity for her and Jenrick (Deputy LOTO in all but name) to go around the country and *really* talk to citizens.
Yes, she would have to beg for forgiveness and hold her hand out, but it would generate momentum that she was really listening, getting the message.
She could also hear ideas for solutions etc.
What I suspect is that she will do the minimum in portraying humility and "getting it" in interviews like the Charles Moore one this week, turn up late to meetings including her hard working minions, retain her arrogant distance she projects so seamlessly, and maybe disastrously re-tread old ground with new slogans.
It... won't...work.
Needs to be Jenrick in charge. I wouldn't vote for them with current leadership.
JC - if there's zero trust in the Tories - after only 11 months there is zero to negative trust in Labour/socialists - sure the Tories had to deal with Brexit & COVID - Labour struggle to deal with a rainy day. The Tories sooner than later will have to come up with some policies that we can as a country get behind - Labour is congenitally unable to do anything apart from make things worse - and we'll get, as Pete says, jack all from Reform.
It's the Tories or bust - take your pick.
It is bust - this is exactly where we are.
The Tories will NOT do anything. CCHQ and their donors won't let them.
That is the sad reality of where we're at
By your logic - the Tories have every incentive to do something different - doing nothing is not an option for them.
The Tories may be as thick as mince - but they're not stupid.
As much as I hope you are correct, I just can't see it
They will say whatever is needed to get into office - then continue to do the same Uniparty 'business as usual' nothingness they've always done.
Mass immigration is as much the Tories fault as Labour
High taxation is as much the Tories fault as Labour
Bloated public sector is as much the Tories fault ass Labour.
Failing institutions are as much the Tories fault as Labour
The problems facing Britain today are as much the Tories fault as Labour.
We have had nigh on 30 years of this weak, expensive nonsense.
This isn't about confidence, it's about trust. And it has gone.
I wish I could share your optimism that the Tories will 'do something' if they get in, but I just can't. It will be the same as their 14 grey years of kicking the can down the road.
Is reform going to be any better? Probably not, but voting Tory will just give us the same as we have now in a blue tie.
As long as CCHQ and the Tory donors are running the show, they will not change course for the betterment of this country and will stay Globalist stool pigeons, lining the pockets of big business and transnationals (at our expense) while regulation competition out of existence.
Really good article Pete, which I’ve enjoyed reading. I also get it that you hate Farage from your UKIP days and you may be right that he won’t make a good PM. However, most sane people would say that we have an awful (the worst ever) in Starmer, he will be replaced by Rayner who will be even worse. We have Badenoch who shows no signs of being a leader and who has shown herself to be ineffective at PMQs, reading her questions and unable to think on the hoof. We’ve also had a succession of dreadful failures from Mrs May, through Boris and Truss to Sunak who was a good man at least but no leader.
Which leaves the choice at the next GE being Farage who can debate and think on the hoof and is leading a party of 250000 members and tearing up the polls.
You may be right that Reform are policy light but they are clear on priorities and many of us (a majority probably) believe that without changes to stop immigration and deport scumbags the economy, law and order, public services and tax can’t improve. It’s undeniable even by you I think that were it not for Reform and Farage in particular, even talking about reducing immigration would make us racists. He’s made it a mainstream topic.
I agree that detailed policies are missing and I’d love to have spokesmen for each office of state. But unless you bring in people like Matt Goodwin as Education spokesman from outside Parliament you can’t give a detailed brief to Lee Anderson as he would make a decent whip but that’s about it. I think your criticism of Farage and Reform is pretty unfair given the progress they’ve made in the polls and on the big issue of immigration. If policies don’t follow by 2027 you’ll have a point except Labour had no policies in 14 years and still don’t! Do you want more of them? If so vote for them or the Tories. Either will give you more of this traitorous bunch of clowns.
"If, in the Tories, they see quiet competence, strong local candidates …" Therein lies the problem. As long as the wets in Conservative Central keep a stranglehold on candidate selection, we’ll never get any of those. Give control back to the constituencies. This should give two benefits - a strong, competent, genuinely local candidate pool, and if the local party is seen to have real power it will encourage more people to sign up. (Maybe have a central vetting to weed out the absolute kooks, while leaving a few ‘weird sheep’ to leaven the mix.)
Soundbite. Tories need to pivot from the Nasty Party to the Tough Love Party.
Like that soundbite 👍🏻
Thoughtful piece of writing as ever but I suspect certain intangibles are being glossed over here, you are of course rationally correct that a party with coherent policies ‘should’ capture the public’s imagination but it doesn’t really work like that.
Problem is…the Tories are a hated ‘poison brand’ in so many parts of the Uk it’s hard to figure out where their ‘heartlands’ or ‘safe seats’ are. There was a rumour of a Boris comeback not long ago (god help us) but the by-election could easily be lost.
Not worth the risk…could be a laugh though.
It’s tragic that Reform are taking up the bandwidth they are, but they’re ‘playing the game’ with the juvenile subset of the electorate – the political equivalent of T20 cricket fans. These people are far more likely to be swayed by a campaign to bring back red phone boxes, hanging and Watney’s red barrel than they ever are by serious, credible policy.
I’m not absolutely convinced that some of these people can read.
The character of the electorate (or at least enough of it) has gone so far in this direction I can only conclude…sorry Pete but I think you’re profoundly wrong. The only circumstance in which I can see the Tories surviving would be if civil war broke out in Reform and Farage flat-packed the venture, taking his allies off to the Conservative Party with him.
But if that happened…so what? Kind of defeats the point don’t you think?
Wow. Spectacularly missing the point. Rebuilding a brand is contingent on rebuilding image. The Tories can establish themselves as the grown up alternative to Reform if they have policy and are visibly getting to grips with the issues in the way that Nick Timothy is.
People are more considered than you give them credit for. They might like the populist messaging of Reform but they will think carefully when it comes to choosing a PM and a local MP. I would rather have the sitting Tory in Easingwold than some no-mark grunter paper candidate, and I certainly don't see Farage as PM material. People might want change, but they tend not to vote for change for its own sake.
There's a reason Reform flopped in 2024, and that's because, other than Reform's big names, the rest of their candidates were dross. The same will be true in 2029. They will do well, but not well enough to break through their basic credibility problem. Reform will continue finding ways to be off-putting. The point here, is that the Tories can exploit Reform's inherent weaknesses by being the more presentable and credible party.
Valid points both. Serious policy is needed. So is contrition and a bit of humility. Go round the Red Wall and pretend to listen. And sacrifice a few wets who should be LibDems.
Pete, this is my point - there are a couple of key things you are missing.
1) the Tories are in an almost unique position of being a hated 'toxic brand' in large parts of the country. Some talk about the Red Wall but that was a freak occurrence in a very particular set of circumstances. These were not 'Tory votes' in the true sense but the buildup of UKIP and Brexit support over the years, turning its back on Labour and doing the unthinkable for the first time ever. The Tories had a golden chance to get these people onboard and...blew it, bigtime. They screwed up on Brexit, did the opposite of what they said they would do on immigration and did nothing regarding economic regeneration in those parts of the country that had lent them their vote. Had they delivered on 2 of those 3 points the Tories might still be in office.
These people did not go back to Labour in huge numbers, remember. The 33 per cent hath spoken etc.
2) I get that you, me and others and considered but there are millions who aren't. The landscape has changed and Reform have (for now) pitched themselves perfectly as a 'right wing' party who simultaneously play the utopian 'Corbyn Game' of telling you what you want to hear on all issues at all times. Like you I don't necessarily think this will carry to an election win but it will owe more to an internal meltdown/civil war than it will to a lack of coherent policy or anything like that. I also agree with you that the two things are linked - a lack of coherent philosophy WILL lead to infighting. But we're into correlation/causation territory here.
An engaging piece of writing nonetheless and I thank you for it - maybe do another podcast soon in the light of your depature from Homeland.
Goodwin's Red Wall analysis is bollocks. Voter sentiment did not change. The demographics did. Backwater towns have gradually become commuter belt dormitory towns made up of aspiring young families - without the legacy allegiance to Labour.
Regardless of antipathy towards the previous government voters are more sophisticated than you give them credit for. If populist propaganda worked the way people believe it does, leave would have won the referendum by a country mile. In the end, most people had more sophisticated reasons for voting the way they did than wonks give them credit for.
I'm saying the Tories can tap into that basic wisdom of the electorate by presenting themselves as motivated and serious where Reform is not. It might not be enough to win in 2029 but it is enough to save them from extinction. Regardless of the polls, Reform cannot escape the perception that they are disorganised, fractious rabble of pathological amateurs, and the closer we get to an election, the more that will crystallise in the mind of the public. The polls will continue to over-egg Reform, but it is very possible we will see a renewed "shy Tory" effect when people quietly conclude that Badenoch is coherent, sensible and that the party knows what it's doing.
The point here, is that if the Tory party can make it intact to 2029, and thereafter finds more likeable leadership, then claims of the party's death will prove to be exaggerated.
Hiya. I never mentioned Matt Goodwin and like you I find some of his analysis to be a bit 'sketchy' to put it politely.
Voters are not a homogenous block, there are people who think about the issues (on all sides) and others who would never vote for party XYZ under any circumstance, for any reason. I know plenty of folk who would never, ever have voted Conservative but would give Reform a serious look.
Our views on Reform are similar but there's a bigger problem with the Tories, one of branding. Sorry but the number of people who would never, ever vote Conservative even if the world was ending runs into several millions. Now I would vote Labour to (say) keep a fully-fledged Fascist out, but the same does not always apply.
As for Badenoch...look, we know a 'charismatic' leader is a short cut but Badenoch can't do that, so she's decided to go down the 'dry and serious' route instead, rather like Hague, IDS and Howard did. If the Tories could find a leader with personality, charisma and a short cut to the minds of the electorate then he/she would already be in place. Cameron 'sort of' had this briefly and did well off the back of it, but I see no 'charismatic Tories' out there.
Like you I cannot stand Nigel Farage, a dodgy used car salesman if I've ever seen one, but his 'charisma' has broken through with the electorate. You underestimate one other thing...at the last election the Tories had the incumbency advantage, they WERE the government. They could warn of the dangers of a Starmer super-majoirty. Well...no longer.
What would the Tories need to survive? A charismatic leader who can communicate to people, a few intellects behind him or her to put the coherent platform together...and the civil war to go off within Reform.
Now...Badenoch is NOT that person so...how likely are THOSE dominoes to fall into place?
These heartlands are those that have voted Tory enthusiastically in the past.
This now encompasses Reform Red Wall and LD/trad Tory Blue Wall/Shires.
It sounds irreconcilable to get those disparate voters back.
But I suspect a strong identification with secure borders, cultural pride, small state/growth/slashing the welfare state, build build build, Anglofuturism vibes, would attract both Labour types in Red Wall and LD/trad Tories in Blue Wall.
The Tory broad church needs to be the voters attracted, not two parties-in-one as we've had since Major.
there's your problem, Labour voters lending the Tories their vote was a once only deal. The Tories had five years to make friends for life and, well....we're back to 'F the Tories' in large parts of Britian.
Not going to happen again, not in significant numbers anyway...
Rely to Pete. If you’re concerned about immigration, why would you vote Tory when you could vote Reform? One had 14 years to sort it out and made it far worse. The other made it a mainstream conversation.
Why would you vote Reform if you were concerned about immigration? Their immigration policy (if you can call it that) is "net zero immigration" - which is still a massive influx of foreigners.
Why would you vote Reform if you were concerned about immigration? Seriously? Would I vote Labour with their “smash the gangs” policy? Obviously not. Tories after 14 years of saying one thing and doing another? Why would I trust them again? Reform will at least return illegal immigrants and not allow new illegals to remain. Let’s see where they get to on legal immigration too. Surely that’s the best option of the three parties who could win Pete?
Pete is fundamentally correct about Reform - if they ever get into office (highly doubtful but let's imagine) they would then have the problem of not knowing what the hell they needed to actually do.
In all the years UKIP were in the public eye they never bothered to actually formulate a plan re:- HOW to leave the EU. Nor did they ever put together a coherent policy platform.
Reform are a dead end for the reasons Pete rightly identifies.
The Tories are a lost cause for reasons Pete perhaps can't see fully.
Without power a plan is completely irrelevant. UKIP didn’t need a plan to leave the EU as they would never form a government. That was Cameron’s job which he failed at. This is where I think Pete’s expectation of having fully loaded policies four years out from an election when you don’t know who’ll be standing yet let alone have particular portfolios is unreasonable and unnecessary. Reform’s main plan should be to win. Without that nothing matters.
Cab you let me know what drugs you are on - I’d love to try them.
The Tories do have a chance, but a slim one. They have the apparatus and the potential to properly screen candidates (though not for wets, it seems), and could regain ground if Reform is tested before the election and found wanting. Some of the Reform spokespeople have not shone, and that is putting it mildly.
There needs to be a robust and confident response to the managed decline and abdication.
While actually denouncing the ECHR would be the simple approach, but with complex consequences, it is not the only option.
Its own terms (the so called 'colonial clause') allows for its territorial scope to be altered. So we have two other possible options:
1) Denounce for UK alone, leaving CI and IoM still covered.; then resubscribe for NI only.
2) Use the territorial alteration clauses to reduce the territorial scope, excluding GB. Hence leaving NI, CI and IoM still covered.
There is a piece by folks in Jersey analysing the first part of option 1 above, so this idea is not simply wild speculation.
Pursuing either of these approaches avoids issues arising out of NI and the GFA, but would still leave issues arising out of the EU withdrawal agreement and TCA regarding ECHR.
While actually denouncing the ECHR would be the simple approach, but with complex consequences, it is not the only option.
Its own terms (the so called 'colonial clause') allows for its territorial scope to be altered. So we have two other possible options:
1) Denounce for UK alone, leaving CI and IoM still covered.; then resubscribe for NI only.
2) Use the territorial alteration clauses to reduce the territorial scope, excluding GB. Hence leaving NI, CI and IoM still covered.
There is a piece by folks in Jersey analysing the first part of option 1 above, so this idea is not simply wild speculation.
Pursuing either of these approaches avoids issues arising out of NI and the GFA, but would still leave issues arising out of the EU withdrawal agreement and TCA regarding ECHR.
A party that promised to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands but increased it to the millions is regarded as serious?Seriously flawed?
For people to rely on (what is left of) the Tories requires an amount of trust that is hardly credible.
A party that still retains politicians that pushed mass migration on the populace, in direct opposition to their voters.
Better that ‘right wing’ Tories separate themselves from such Tories into a new party and draw in other like minded politicians.
If they aren’t willing to do that can they really be steadfast in opposing mass migration and forcing repatriation whilst under the pressures of MSM?
Or will they wilt and fade away - contenting themselves with their MP salary?
"If, in the Tories, they see quiet competence, strong local candidates …" Therein lies the problem. As long as the wets in Conservative Central keep a stranglehold on candidate selection, we’ll never get any of those. Give control back to the constituencies. This should give two benefits - a strong, competent, genuinely local candidate pool, and if the local party is seen to have real power it will encourage more people to sign up. (Maybe have a central vetting to weed out the absolute kooks, while leaving a few ‘weird sheep’ to leaven the mix.)
Soundbite. Tories need to pivot from the Nasty Party to the Tough Love Party.