Peter Franklin is an Associate Editor of UnHerd.
Panic gets a bad press, but the fight-or-flight response has evolved for a reason. Dumb animals who just sit there while certain death closes-in tend not to have many descendants.
Right now — and in response to a truly dreadful set of January polls — the survival instincts of our MPs are finally kicking-in. The question of whether Rishi Sunak should lead us into the next election is now an open one. As the Editor of this website puts it — without approval — the game’s afoot.
There is, of course, an obvious rejoinder to those seeking a change at the top, which is have you lost your tiny mind? Changing leaders now would mean changing Prime Ministers — and for the third time in less than two years. How can we even contemplate such a move?
Well, for one thing, there’s no law against it. We elect parliaments in this country, not Prime Ministers. If former so wishes, it can change the latter as often as bedsheets — and for much the same reason.
Ah, but what would the voters think? Foisting yet another unelected Prime Minister on the country would risk an almighty backlash. Indeed, we could see our support tumbling down to levels that would make the 1997 result look like a best case scenario.
Except that the polls show we’re already there. YouGov puts us on 20 per cent, for shame. Admittedly, it is possible that we could sink even lower — Liz Truss proved that. But whether or not we re-visit the Mariana Trench of public approval isn’t especially relevant. Where we are now — stuck in the mid-to-low twenties — is enough to finish us off for a generation.
And speaking of generations, just look at where we stand with younger voters. According to the YouGov poll, our level of support among the under-50s stands at just 10 per cent. We’re not just heading towards landslide defeat at next election — but, beyond that, extinction.
To insist that Sunak remains in place means assuming one of two things: firstly, that his basic political strategy is commensurate with the challenges facing us a party; or, secondly, that he can successfully execute a change of direction. If, in either respect, that is what you do believe then I’d love to see your evidence; but if you don’t, then what possible reason could there be for sticking with Sunak?
Well, there is one justification. It rests upon the fatalistic assumption that it’s too late to avoid defeat: changing strategies won’t work, nor will changing leaders. We’re therefore better off having the next leadership contest — and a fundamental rethink — in opposition.
Until recently, that’s what I thought too. But then I remembered Lyndon B Johnson’s first rule of politics: “learn to count.” A leadership contest before the general election would be hurried, but at least there’d be 346 Conservative MPs (who haven’t been leader before) to choose from. But how long would this long-list be after the election? 200? 100? 50? As things stand, none of those numbers is out of the question, (though I’d admit that 200 is pushing the bounds of plausibility).
Then there’s the short-list problem of the most likely leadership candidates. According to the YouGov MRP model featured in last week’s Telegraph, no less than eleven cabinet ministers are set to lose their seats. They include Jeremy Hunt (goodbye, Godalming), Penny Mordaunt (toodle-pip, Portsmouth North), Gillian Keegan (cheerio, Chichester) and Grant Shapps (farewell, Welwyn Hatfield).
Furthermore, we shouldn’t forget that YouGov made some optimistic assumptions about the return of former Conservative voters to the fold and on the level of anti-Tory tactical voting. If those assumptions are wrong, then we’ll end up with many fewer seats than the 169 predicted.
Over the weekend, Robert Jenrick conspicuously did not rule out running for the leadership in a future contest, but he’ll have to if he loses his seat. The YouGov model shows him holding on by a narrow margin, but on a slightly worse vote share he too would be out (nice-knowing-you, Newark).
Even if one feels seriously relaxed about a contest without the likes of Mordaunt, Keegan or Jenrick, the next leader will still need to assemble a frontbench team. The Westminster talent pool might seem to lack depth now, but after a landslide defeat it would be more of a talent puddle. After the 1997 defeat, William Hague had endless trouble appointing shadow ministers who weren’t visibly deranged and/or blatantly disloyal. It wasn’t just that there were so few Tory MPs, but that many abandoned the front bench to pursue other interests. Faced with a decade or more in opposition, the same could happen again.
The post-election leader is also likely to find him-or-herself dealing with a funding crisis. The coffers will be empty after the election campaign and donors will be thin on the ground. So for all the time and space of opposition, a new broom would have more to work with before the next election than in its grim aftermath.
Part of that post-apocalyptic scenario is the prospect of a Labour government. If Sir Keir Starmer storms into Downing Street with a crushing majority, he’ll have an excess of backbenchers but a lack of financial headroom. The burden of taxation is already at a multi-decade high, but it is still lighter than in many of our European neighbours. Eye-watering tax hikes would be an option for a Labour government — especially one without an effective opposition.
Starmer might please his party with other goodies too: a liberalised immigration policy; wokeness allowed to run riot; realignment with the European Union. You might think that after 14 years of unconservative Tory government, things couldn’t get any worse, but that’s to forget a key principle of conservatism — which is that things can always get worse. No matter how moderate Starmer might seem now, he’s still the man who tried to overturn Brexit and make Jeremy Corbyn Prime Minister.
Therefore, if there’s even a slim chance of averting a landslide defeat at the next election then we must take it.
That raises the issue of timing. Leave it too late and the opportunity will be gone. Move too soon and there’s a risk of precipitating an immediate general election. It therefore makes sense to wait until May — which is when Sunak wants the first Rwanda flights to take off. It also gives him time for a budget and to prove the viability of his political strategy in the local elections.
If, however, there’s no sign of recovery and the council and mayoral results are a disaster, then Sunak must resign.
It gives me zero pleasure to say that. He’s a decent, intelligent, hard-working man — who deserves less blame than either Boris Johnson or Liz Truss for the current state of the party. Nevertheless, when so much has gone wrong, only the incumbent is in a position to put it right — and so far he hasn’t.
In his speech to conference last year, the Prime Minister made the case for making tough decisions. “There is nothing ambitious about simply pouring more and more money into the wrong project,” he said. It may be “embarrassing to stop”, but that “would be an absurd reason to continue.”
He was talking about HS2, of course — but the same logic applies to his leadership of the Conservative Party.