“It was only in April 1974 that I was converted to Conservatism. I had thought I was a Conservative, but I now see that I was not really one at all.”
So said Keith Joseph, as chronicled by Adrian Lee for us last week. “In contrast to the other two post-war spells in the wilderness,” our History Man noted, “the Conservatives used their time [between 1974 and 1979] more productively”. This was the age of red chiffon dresses, Stepping Stones, the Centre for Policy Studies, and Conservatism’s revival (via a few classical liberals).
Joseph stood at the heart of all that. Being the first Jewish Tory in Cabinet – Benjamin Disraeli’s father fell out with his synagogue and had his son baptised an Anglican – would have made him notable. But it was his rejection of the post-war consensus and conversion to free markets and monetarism that helped change Britain’s course. John the Baptist to Margaret Thatcher’s, well…
Having been interested in Enoch Powell’s heretical ideas before the 1970 election, Joseph went native as Edward Heath’s Secretary of State for Social Services. He failed to resign over the 1972 ‘U-turn’ in favour of propping up industry and acquiesced in the ongoing expansion of the government’s biggest bureaucracy. The lure of the Red Boxes and ministerial Jags proved too strong.
But liberated from office, Joseph abruptly turned on the record of the government he had served in. In a series of speeches that still bear reading today, he condemned his party for acquiescing in “altogether too much socialism” since the Second World War. Consensus politics had failed. A clean break was needed, a mission to which setting up the CPS with Thatcher was key.
For a far more effective insight into Joseph, consult Lee’s profile, Dominic Sandbrook’s Seasons in the Sun (which got me my degree), or the files available from the Thatcher Foundation or the CPS, including Conservative Revolution, their superb new tome. I summon his memory in the context of a contemporary imitator: one Robert Jenrick, William Hill’s new pick for our next leader.
Since quitting as Immigration Minister last December over his objections to the Rwanda Bill, Jenrick has levelled the Joseph-esque critique that neither he nor the previous government was sufficiently Conservative. With our collective attention spans reduced by Twitter, Jenrick has turned to the medium of Telegraph op-eds and GB News appearances, rather than set-piece speeches.
As a connoisseur of both, I don’t doubt their effectiveness. And since the election, Jenrick has been setting the pace among leadership contenders. A Sunday Times piece explained why we had been so roundly rejected, and a slick leadership video, launched on Monday, toured his views, how he would take us back into office, and how natural he looks with a pint.
Jenrick’s thesis is simple and convincing. The party did not suffer a “near-existential result” because “we were too left-wing or too right-wing”. We lost “because we failed to deliver what we promised for the British people”. Yes, Brexit got done. But living standards fell, the NHS crumbled, and we lost control of migration, legal and illegal. Too much socialism? Or habitual Tory inadequacy?
He must be pushed on just why these failings happened whilst he was in Cabinet. But explaining why pledges on migration proved impossible to deliver should be a cornerstone of any post-mortem of the last fourteen years, extending back to 2010. What were the pressures? Who signed off on what? Paging all think tanks: we need Stepping Stones 2: Immigration Boogaloo.
It’s fair to say that Jenrick’s assessment – similar to that of Neil O’Brien – has been backed up by available evidence. Onward’s Breaking Blue report suggests voters deserted us because they did not trust us to govern and were united by outrage at levels of migration, whether they went to Reform, the Liberal Democrats, or Labour. Credibility on migration is existential to our future.
Unlike Joseph, Jenrick is said to have been ‘radicalised’ in office, rather than having had his principles submerged. He was once dubbed ‘Robert Generic’: another youthful member of the ministerial class, Cambridge-educated, Remain-backing, and happy to serve under successive PMs. His journey from there to enthusiasm for leaving the ECHR undoubtedly raises eyebrows.
As he outlines in his video, his experience in government at Housing and the Home Office showed him a state that was fundamentally not working. Homes were not being built, and his attempts at planning reform were scuppered. We did not match our pledges on migrant numbers or deport criminals and illegal arrivals en masse. Taxes went up but public sector productivity fell.
The state has become flabby and ineffective. Having slimmed down himself, Jenrick’s pitch is that he can deliver a similar trim. He can cut through the Gordian Knot of international law, civil service resistance, and MP timidity to deliver what voters want. He will not carp from the sidelines – or Washington – but has that iron in him. He might not be mad as hell, but he is quite fed up.
Joseph’s hopes of replacing Heath expired via his otherworldly willingness to complain about our human stock. Jenrick channels his frustrations quietly, aiming to come across as what ConservativeHome always hoped Rishi Sunak would become: a reasonable man at his wit’s end. He overhauled Suella Braverman because he doesn’t alienate colleagues whenever he opens his mouth.
Yet his conversion still raises eyebrows. Yes, he says all the right things. But is it genuine? He isn’t the only leadership candidate flashing some leg on the ECHR. Jenrick would point to his resignation, Telegraph articles, and recent CPS paper as evidence that he gets it. But we’ve been burnt before. Yimbyism and Net Zero immigration? Our Anglo Pierre Poilievre? Is it all too good to be true?
Readers will make up their own minds. Tune in to his leadership launch later for a look. Yond Jenrick has a lean and hungry look. Supportive articles from David Frost, tours of the United Kingdom, lining up Esther McVey: his leadership campaign demands to be taken seriously. Unlike Joseph, one struggles to see Jenrick crucified by his own phrasing. Famous last words.
Like Kemi Badenoch, Jenrick has stood out so far by going beyond platitudes about unity to diagnosing the defeat, being honest about our failures, and clear on what we should do. Unlike her, he got out before the ship sank. He hopes, unlike Joseph, to take the crown for himself, rather than make way for another. We might all be tired of bets. But is he worth a flutter? No notes indeed.
Even if Jenrick does not win, he once told ConservativeHome that “there is a lack of ideas and energy” in today’s Tories and that if he could “contribute in any way to setting out a different path” then that was his role. Out-of-control immigration is as existential for Britain today as out-of-control inflation was in the 1970s. By jiggling the Overton Window, he has done our party a service.