Volatile public opinion means the Tories aren’t doomed yet
‘The boy stood on the burning desk/whence all but he had fled.’ Anyone who still thinks that Rishi Sunak could win the next election will know how that boy felt. As for the PM himself, it is more a matter of Claudius. ‘When sorrows come, they come not single spies but in battalions.’ So are the Tories doomed? Not necessarily.
It is of course possible that too many voters have simply had enough of this Government. ‘Time for a change’ is the most powerful slogan in British politics, which must be a constant source of reassurance in Labour circles. But there may be a way of appealing against that verdict. Tories who retain a capacity for optimism must make one assumption: that public opinion is volatile. They must hope that a lot of voters who now believe that they have written off the Tories could still change their mind. It is worth remembering that just before Theresa May called her Election, she had a seventeen-point lead in the polls (which is why she went to the country). If the Grenfell Tower fire had happened a week earlier, there would have been a hung Parliament. So volatility can happen.
It is also worth considering 1997. Some of John Major’s senior colleagues had wanted him to call the Election earlier thus bringing the agony to an end and fearing that if he held on, the inevitable defeat would be even heavier. In retrospect, they were right.
Yet there were three crucial differences between 1997 and 2024. First, as his Government turned into a Calvary, poor Mr Major found it impossible to make himself heard. Most undeservedly, he had lost respect. That is not true of Rishi Sunak. Whether it is the dismissal of Jonny Bairstow, the possible use of cluster bombs in Ukraine or his long-term plans for the NHS, the Prime Minister has no difficulty in making himself heard and being taken seriously.
That brings us to the second difference. In 1997, Tony Blair found it easy to command his audiences, even though he never seemed to be saying very much. Those of us who protested that all this was just so many warm fuzzies could make no impact. Some Blairites actually came out with the phrase, ‘The best of the old, the best of the new’ – but attempts to accuse them of insulting the electorate’s intelligence got nowhere. A lot of people closed their ears to Blair’s detractors. They wanted to believe in him, and he was a superb actor-manager.
That is not true of Keir Starmer. To be fair to him, he has never applied for an equity card. Nor can he be accused of peddling warm fuzzies. Fuzzy, yes: warm, no. Although it was never clear whether Blair was really as confident as he appeared, he knew how to project confidence. That is not true of Sir Keir. When he is under pressure, Starmer can often turn into stumbler.
That brings us to one of his problems. I suspect that Keir Starmer would have plenty of intellectual self-confidence, if only he were allowed to express himself. But he dare not do that, because his views are too left-wing. He wants to win an election. In recent weeks, whenever Labour’s spending plans have come under pressure, there has been an immediate retreat. At any suggestion of fiscal laxity, Rachel Reeves instantly sounds like an old-fashioned monetarist, tut-tutting over Liz Truss’s brief Icarus voyage into degringolade.
There might seem to be an obvious reply to that. In the run-up to 1997, Messrs Blair and Brown promised to adhere to the spending-plans which they would inherit from Ken Clarke. They also pledged themselves not to raise income-tax rates. The aim was to reassure voters that it would be safe to vote Labour, and this seemed to work.
Well and good, but the comparison has flaws. In the first place, Tony Blair’s body language helped. The Tories’ ‘demon eyes’ campaign, claiming that behind the mask, Blair was a sinister Leftie, got nowhere. No-one believed it. Keir Starmer could be a more credible target. Moreover, why might people want to vote Labour? Will Labour candidates really be saying: ‘The Tories were wrong to introduce austerity, and we are now offering a second instalment.’
There is a further point. By 1997, Britain had recovered from the inflationary crisis of the early Nineties. To the despair of the Tory leadership, no-one was prepared to give the Government any credit for this, but a lot of voters felt safe. In 1992, they did not feel safe enough to vote for Neil Kinnock. Five years later, they were ready to entrust the country to that nice Mr Blair.
Will they trust Keir Starmer? Whatever the polls now say, there must be an element of doubt. But if trust is vital, why should Sunak not benefit? He knows what he believes in: prosperity, opportunity and patriotism. That is a simple message, but he has the intellect and drive to make it a plausible one. It should also be possible to convince enough voters that Britain’s problems are not unique. Those two five-letter words, Covid and Putin, have caused widespread damage. Yet there is a road to recovery: a combination of hope and realism.
There is an obvious conclusion to be drawn from all this. As Sunak can make himself heard, let us hear more. He should tell people more about his beliefs, his own values and his plans for the future. He should frankly acknowledge that although this is a wonderful country, there is a great deal which needs to be put right – but that you do not put things right by going left.
‘Time for a change’ is potent. Yet without saying so implicitly, Rishi Sunak can point out that he is the change.
Equally, there is another slogan, almost as powerful. ‘The country is on the right lines. Don’t let the other lot ruin it.’ Sunak should be able to claim that he is steering the country in a sensible direction. There is no reason why that claim should not be credible.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life