The path to power starts with a vision

My writing of late has been geared to thinking about how the right wins and retains power. I've used the Reform Party as a focal point of my analysis. Most of my criticism stems from the lack of party definition. I argue that it's absolutely critical to declare in unambiguous terms what you believe in. If you do that, it informs all your subsequent policies and campaigning activities. It gives you structure.

There's a man in recent history who understood this; Tony Blair. Labour had long been unelectable because of its militant left wing tendency. Britain had turned its back on socialism and the dysfunction of left wing economic ideas.

Blair understood that the path to power demanded a rewrite of the Labour party constitution. Particularly Clause 4. The original Clause 4 defined Labour as an avowedly socialist party. Blair recognised the obsolescence of socialism and the necessity to imprint a new ideology on the party. Blair's "third way".

This action caused an almighty ruckus on the left, but it had a dual purpose for Blair. Not only did it give New Labour definition, purpose, and an intellectual framework, by definition it excluded the old trouble makers, Trotskyite cranks and dinosaurs. A definition sets out who you include and, quite importantly, who you exclude. Blair didn't mess about with this. He understood it was a prerequisite for taking power. That's real leadership.

The new Clause 4 expanded considerably on the original. Blair outlined the basis for his new model of the state. He had a vision. Subsequent policy was designed to implement and advance that vision. Because there was a vision and a plan, the party got behind him. They believe he could deliver victory. And he did.

This is what a party of the right needs to do. But Reform doesn't have anything approaching a constitution or statement of values. It has a vague wishlist with no detail attached. Nothing that suggests an ideological definition or vision.

This is not something that can be neglected. It is not an academic exercise. It brings coherence to everything you do. Even Ukip has a "What we stand for page", and its policies are logical derivatives of that. Similarly, the SDP has its foundation declaration. As yet it doesn't have many fleshed out policies to speak of, but those that exist are consistent with its definition. It knows why it exists.

A foundation definition has the immediate advantage of members self-vetting. A party dedicated to National Democracy in the defence of of a tolerant, prosperous and unified country does not attract the quasi-fascist ethno-nationalist tendency. But a robust civic nationalist definition can include disaffected Tories and traditional Labour voters. It can still be robust on immigration and cohesion without becoming a voter-repellent far right entity.

Blair understood that only a movement with energy and definition could consign the Tories to opposition for a generation. The Tories were at their fag end, and were on course to lose the 1997 election, but had Blair not rewritten the Labour constitution, it would have inherited power by an accident of numbers and would have been ejected after a single term. It would have been rudderless, disorganised and unpopular from the get go.

From wide ranging discussions I've had recently, Reform's defenders tell me the function of the Reform party is to destroy the Tories. There's a few problems with this. Firstly, the Tories seem to be doing a pretty good job of that unaided. Secondly, it doesn't solve anything if there is no alternative to fill the void. Reform in its current incarnation does not present as an alternative.

Ultimately, what made New Labour look like an attractive prospect is that it was a genuine alternative. As much as Blair knew what he wanted to do, he also had a reasonably good idea how to do it. During his first term, his majority allowed him to use the Commons as a rubber stamping house for a raft of pre-prepared legislation. And they got busy on day one.

This should be contrasted with Boris Johnson's 2019 victory. There was no substance to Johnson, and nothing you could define as Johnsonism. He leaves no legacy other than a broken country and a shattered Conservative party. He will be remembered as the PM who squandered one of the largest majorities in modern history. There was no definition and no plan.

There was much that could have been done with Brexit, and no PM has ever had a greater opportunity to completely reinvent the nation. But the policy cupboard was bare. All Johnson had to reach for was empty slogans such as "levelling up" and "build back better", culminating in a raft of wildly unpopular Net Zero ideas. That's what happens when you have no policies to speak of.

This, in part, is also the fault of Vote Leave which never really bothered to define Brexit or what post-Brexit Britain should look like. They should have seen that their great leader had no ideas of his own. They should have been poised to feed him with policy after policy. But they shirked that obligation and Brexit, as a catalyst for change, flopped on its face. Sunak is just sweeping Johnson's mess under the rug. So much for the "genius" of Dominic Cummings.

So now we're back at square one, but with an insurgent party that doesn't really know what it is for or what it would do. They called it Reform, but there is no blueprint for governmental reform. Nothing to buy into, nothing to believe in. No Clause 4.

Blair understood that New Labour had to be a movement in politics; A departure from the old and stale, to a fresh vision of Britain. He even had a brand for it. Cool Britannia. He had vision, energy and stamina. That Blairism was horrific vandalism that will take a generation or more to repair is besides the point. He knew what he was doing from the outset, and it all came down to the root commands he defined at the beginning. That's what we need Habib and Tice to understand.