James Cleverly is out of the race for Conservative leader, despite being boosted by the support of former MP and Defence Secretary Grant Shapps who was chair of his leadership campaign (archive). Cleverly obtained 37 votes, rivals Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch obtained 41 and 42 respectively. Cleverly doubtless benefited from Tory ‘big beast’ Grant Shapps’ support – it just was not enough. The question is which candidate can now connect with the the party, reconnect with former Conservative voters and appeal to the wider public. MHN says that means a proper strategy with credible policies that appeal to to voters and to Conservative Party members – past, present and future.

Grant Shapps has always been good at picking Conservative leaders. He was one of the signatories to David Cameron’s nomination papers for leadership. My personal opinion is James Cleverly gained more from Shapps’ support than Shapps did from backing him. Of course, Shapps is a canny politician and the support was undoubtedly in part based on the calculation that Cleverly could win and then reward his supporters. He was very close to correct – two or three votes more would have seen Cleverly in the final round. It was very close and Cleverly’s loss of two votes in the final round came as a big surprise to observers.

The question is, what comes after the ballots of MPs? It is all very well to be able to predict and count support in the Parliamentary Conservative Party, but after their votes comes the Party members’ vote followed by the most important vote of all – the next general election.

Make no mistake, Labour did not win the last election. Keir Starmer obtained a large majority with fewer votes than Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘disaster’ of 2019. In the 2024 General Election, Starmer’s Labour received 9,708,716 votes. In 2019, Corbyn’s Labour had 10,269,051 votes. The only reason Keir Starmer got a whiff of power was that the Conservative vote split. When the New Labour-ish right regained power in Labour and ousted Corbyn, Tony Blair wrote a triumphant article in the Guardian, “Labour’s task is not to make itself feel better – it’s to win power” (archive). He summarised his message about Corbyn like this,

“The proximate cause of defeat was not complicated or hard to see, but simple and in plain sight. We put forward a leader and a manifesto that voters thought unacceptable to such a degree that many were repelled. Too extreme economically. Anti-western. Lacking in patriotism. And therefore dangerous.”

Tony finished, “These things are obvious. The frustration is that it is necessary to say them”. I haven’t seen Tony Blair for years since I was Labour Party staff in 2005 and as a local staffer I was part of the entourage on a visit he made to Enfield. I felt like responding, “touché”. The reason Corbyn was ever Labour Party leader is the same as the reason Keir Starmer got less votes. New Labour is a far, far more tainted brand than Corbyn’s hard leftism has ever been. That is an objective truth demonstrated by the cold hard numbers from the last election.

When I was 18 I was a starry eyed Labour supporter, indeed a party official. What we were promised was a, “Third Way” (archive) between left and right. What we got was something else – a government that mostly cared about image. Not just spin over substance but which presided over a culture in which whistle-blowers and critics were actively terrorised. As a few examples from many, there were the mid-Staffordshire Hospital scandal (archive), the Essex scandal (archive) and of course the Rotherham Scandal (archive). Under Labour, police and local authorities were afraid to acknowledge or tackle the rape of 1,400 children due to a fear of being accused of racism by the government. Aside from that was a great deal of race baiting and laughing with contempt at our members and supporters. There was casual corruption even over trivial issues. The contempt for the supposedly benighted masses ran to the bone. That is Tony’s legacy. That is why Keir Starmer got less votes than Jeremy Corbyn. That is why I cannot envisage ever returning to Labour. That is why all attempts to rehabilitate Blair have failed. To respond to Tony, “The frustration is that it is necessary to say.”

All of that did us no good at the 2024 General election. Despite getting less votes, Keir Starmer won because nearly half the Conservative vote split off and backed Reform.

For the Conservatives now to win, they need those Reform votes back. In fact, given Labour’s current low vote share, given a first past the post system and assuming Labour lose votes next time, the Conservatives do not actually need floating voters from anywhere else, although they are always nice to have. The Conservative Party will have some help from Keir – within a few months he and his government have managed as much sleaze as our government were accused of in 14 years. The problem is that those supporters who have left the Conservatives are profoundly alienated, and many of those who remain are lukewarm. Polling by YouGov shows that Reform voters are actively hostile to the Conservatives (archive). They are not going to rush to return. Disaffected Labour votes may go to Reform, who are actively seeking them out.

Years ago, when I was a Labour Party staffer, I attended a briefing by Margaret McDonagh, former General Secretary of the Party, at an event by a Labour Party faction. The points she made were valid then and still important today. The Conservatives have a natural support – a base, of about 38-41% of the electorate. The Labour Party’s base is slightly smaller. To win they need to win the undecideds – especially in a first-past-the-post system. As of 2024 the Conservatives have alienated about 40% of that core vote, based on the election results. Perhaps that situation can be repaired.

The Conservatives also alienated the ‘red wall’ voters Boris Johnson’s Conservative Party picked up in 2019. One of the most important public works projects in Britain was the HS2 project – a new modern train line to link London with Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. Our public transport system has lagged behind many countries for decades and this would have improved the economy general and especially in the North. Conservative MPs who had won seats in those areas warned that if the project was cancelled, their voters would cancel them (archive). Grant Shapps was tasked with announcing it although in reality Jeremy Hunt and Rishi Sunak were the ultimate decision makers. The cancellation was a generational error – economically and in terms of policy, also politically. It was bad for the country in the long term, and it withered on the vine electoral support in the north of England that could have been nurtured and helped to permanently turn the red wall into a blue wall.

A lot of Conservatives have profound reservations about the Ukraine war. During the election, the Conservative Party and some mainstream media tried to demonise Nigel Farage as ‘extreme’ for saying that the West provoked Russia, whilst he by no means endorsed Putin. It was alleged Reform was haemorrhaging support, but 4,117,610 people stuck with Farage’s party and even the Guardian defended him (archive). When the party of the socialist left is backing you on an issue, your position is probably not far right. Indeed, the Conservatives only received 6,828,726 votes.

The west’s position on the Ukraine has been disastrous. We knew they were threatening war. We should have either sought peace and found a compromise or been ready to fight it and win decisively. Instead, we continued down the path without accepting the consequences and we are losing on all levels whilst the media regurgitates absurd propaganda. In 2022, western newspapers reported government propaganda that the Russians were losing and could only carry on for, “ten to 14 days” (archive). Two and a half years later, the war is ongoing.

The west tried economic sanctions, but the rest of the world was not having it, in part because much of the rest of the planet has a perspective similar to Farage’s on the Ukraine issue. The result of the sanctions was the expansion of the BRICS alliance. Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa – some of the worlds biggest economies. The other nations involved have only increased trade with Russia (archive) – and more are asking to join. The result has been an institutional degradation of the west’s economic power in absolute terms and relative to Russia and China.

We are regularly told that Vladimir Putin is humiliated, that he is losing, that the Russians cannot sustain the conflict. At one stage, western media were even reporting a ludicrous story that witches would topple Putin with magic rituals (archive). All the while, in the real world, the Russian army marches slowly but inexorably westwards, now positioned to take the key town of Povrosk from the Ukrainians (archive). All the while BRICS grows in power and support, internally and externally.

On 8 September 2024, Grant posted on Facebook about Ukraine, “Time for the UK to lead again by giving Ukraine the freedom to strike back—yes, even inside Russia—using our Storm Shadows. A simple ultimatum to Putin: Stop your attacks from within Russia or there will be consequences. My article in today’s Sunday Times” (archive). The response from his followers in the comments, presumably mostly right leaning, was almost uniformly negative. I’ve linked the archive so that readers can see for themselves the comments, including:

• Banji Adegunju – “Grant Shapps Am seriously disappointed with your statement. You should be advocating for peace not an escalation.”
• Adrian Royce Smith – “We need peace not wars, why are we funding it anyway Ukraine has no direct links with the history of our country. It’s never been in our commonwealth or even part of the EU. Our country is broke. It is financially irresponsible to give away so much money and totally irresponsible to get us into a war with Russia.”
• Susan Reap Scott – “You’ll be crying victim when the Russians retaliate you 🤡”

Grant is a good guy – hardworking, a good communicator, with a strong personal base in his constituency. The worst dirt his enemies have found in nearly 20 years is that he used a pen name for a book he wrote and related marketing / conferences. He has shown better personal behaviour than many Labour MPs. When I was a Labour Party staffer, I remember campaigning in a safe seat (I will not say which one) and a Labour MP who was on course to win having a tantrum at me asking why there were no postal vote forms. A Party officer gently pointed out to the MP that he was holding a stack of them in his hands, commissioned by me, as they featured prominently on the colour leaflets I had commissioned for that morning’s event. The MP later apologised. In the last election, when at real risk of losing, I saw no tantrums from Grant, he was courteous and professional at all times.

It is a shame that instead of prioritising popular policies where we differ from Labour, he has prioritised supporting Ukraine, an issue on which Conservatives have mixed views and on which Labour is little different (and so gives voters no reason to switch).

People do not like the Ukraine-Russia war. We are not convinced the black-and-white way it is portrayed. The conflict is not a Saturday morning cartoon. Zelensky is not He-Man and Putin is not Skeletor. The 2021 Amnesty International Report into human rights in Ukraine, just before the invasion in 2022 said (archive):

“Impunity for torture remained endemic. Gender-based violence remained widespread, although a new law removed legal obstacles to prosecuting military personnel and police for domestic violence. Homophobic attacks by groups advocating discrimination and violence continued. The investigation of attacks against journalists and human rights defenders was slow and often ineffective. A draft law on the security services envisaged additional powers of surveillance without legal safeguards.”

The public and many Conservatives are not against dialogue or peace. Seeking peace is not endorsement of the policies of the Russian government. Recently a story emerged in the media, seeking to discredit Donald Trump and claiming he had spoken to Putin on the phone seven times since Trump left the office of President of the United States (archive). This is misconceived. Aside from the fact it is denied by the Kremlin, the ideas of dialogue with Putin, compromise, peace, a restoration of economic relations and trade, repairs to the damaged global economy and military de-escalation appeal to many people. The idea Trump might actually talk to Russia and China to find common ground is not a vote loser, it is an objectively good and popular idea. That is why Christians like myself, in Britain and the US, as well as pragmatists and many with actual experience of conflict, favour a less bombastic approach.

If we as Conservatives want our lost voters back, we have to do three things:

• Firstly, expound appealing policies. By appealing policies, I mean policies our supporters like, the supporters we want like, and which are not also proposed by the current government. So we present, y’know, a clear alternative. A choice which will lead to a predictable, foreseeable difference in outcome.
• Secondly, rebuild trust in our honesty. Supporters have to believe we want to do the things we say and are not going to abandon our promises. This is especially important for today’s Conservative Party.
• Thirdly, rebuild trust in our competence. Supporters have to believe we have the competence to deliver. This is especially important for today’s Conservative Party.

The public want to see action. They want to see reduced immigration, even deportation of some groups – especially those from races or cultures that find it hard to integrate. Jenrick put this as his number one issue in his campaign video and so does Farage. Immigration is the alpha and omega of Reform’s policy position. Its raison d’être. Setting out a credible and tough position renders Farage’s entire party obsolete if it can convince the members.

People really hate wokeism. The acronym DEI, short for “diversity, equity and inclusion” is now often rephrased with the simple words, “Didn’t Earn It”. The Conservatives have been hesitant about addressing this. There has been a lot of talk but limited action. When we have, it has been very successful. One of our few great achievements towards the end of government was the commissioning of the Cass Report, which has won the argument around transgenderism on all levels. That document, commissioned hesitantly with great caution and controversy, has swept all before it. The incoming Labour government accepted and made permanent the consequential ban on puberty blockers. Dissent from the British Medical Association was crushed by a tidal wave of enraged doctors (archive).

Changes to the Conservative Party need to take place at the local level also. They cannot just be superficial changes at a national level. Towards the end of the last government I noticed a marked decline at a local government level. We have good local party officers and a good local association chair. However, at a council level, I have found some councillors less accessible than in the past. When I joined the Conservatives, Welwyn Hatfield Council was led by then Councillor John Dean with the support of his formidable wife, Irene Dean. Later, Mandy Perkins succeeded Dean when he retired. She sadly passed away. They would always make time to speak and try to help, even if they did not agree. They did a lot to make the council more efficient, modern and customer focused.

In contrast, in more recent years from around 2019 I have received multiple complaints about some local Conservative councillors not replying to case work or correspondence, including in my view breaches of the Equality Act 2010. I have observed some of these first hand with the local council. I have seen correspondence in which County Council officers asked councillors not to respond to a constituent on an issue when said officers were being legitimately criticised – and no evidence of pushback. The resident later had their complaints upheld. This cannot be tolerated. Councillors are there in large part to advocate for residents, not to ignore them at the request of council officers.

As Conservative Party chairman, Grant Shapps infamously removed two of Theresa May’s aides from the list of approved Parliamentary candidates for not working in a by-election in 2014 (archive). There is no reason whatsoever why local candidates should not be deselected promptly if they fail to do case work. It is not like we have been delivered a Conservative council. At present our councillors are the smallest group. Sometimes problems can be subtle. One councillor finds their way into a lot of photographs but I receive a lot of complaints about their behaviour towards voters and in voluntary work.

There was a particularly nasty incident in 2022 in which a Conservative candidate was dropped after a minor gaffe, but it was exacerbated when a senior councillor admitted to things that the candidate had not done and claimed they would be disciplined or even expelled under rules that did not exist. The candidate later left the Conservative Party and became a Parliamentary candidate for Reform. I feel it was disgusting treatment, morally wrong and strategically wrong. The Conservative Party should not be throwing people under the bridge over issues that will soon be forgotten, especially when more senior persons, such as some MPs, survive far worse. Tony Blair made a point of not allowing the media to dictate expulsions or sackings at any level.

I feel that there has been a significant drop in quality including breaches of s26 (1) (b) (ii) Equality Act 2010. Now the general election is over I will therefore be writing to the Association asking the officers to address certain issues with councillor conduct, including if needs be disqualifying two individuals as candidates. Permitting local councillors, the peons of politics, to show hubris and disdain towards their own members and constituents is not a winning strategy.

Robert Jenrick is in my view the best candidate out of the surviving contenders. It is not the best field. We have no one of the stature of David Cameron or even Boris Johnson. Jenrick’s platform is only a start, and many have concerns about his commitment to his current positions. His greatest challenge is on point 2 – some people feel he has yet to prove he is sincere on his rightward policy move.

Regardless, someone is going to be elected Party leader. They will have an opportunity to prove their critics wrong, and to take on Reform. The stakes are high. The Conservative Party has an opportunity, in these strange electoral circumstances, to go from a rump to a regained majority in a single parliament. If we fail to rise to the challenge, however, we could also lose ground. Dissatisfied Conservatives have somewhere to go in the shape of Reform. In an adverse scenario, Farage’s party could reach a tipping point and displace the Conservative Party entirely.

I’ll be voting for Jenrick, but whichever of he and Kemi Badenoch wins, the stakes they face for the Party are existential. A wrong move could ensure the Conservative Party ceases to exist as a party of government.