Thursday’s by-elections were not a re-run of Blair’s 1995/96 victories

So what does it all mean? There is a simple answer. We do not know. At the beginning of the by-election campaign, the government was unpopular and Labour was well ahead. By the end, that was still true. But there was no sign of any surge in enthusiasm for Keir Starmer. This was not a re-run of 1995/96, when Tony Blair did seem to be offering hope and a new beginning. 

As for the Liberals, they were ready to perform their customary role as the ‘none of the above’ party.

From Rishi Sunak‘s point of view, it could have been worse. Although he did lose two seats by thumping majorities, he held the third one. That counts as an away win. Moreover, there is a further difference between now and late Major. In those days, former Tory voters were defecting to Blairism, in sizeable numbers. Last week, large numbers of Tory voters were staying at home.

That was hardly surprising. At the best of times, the voters never like by-elections and these were anything but the best of times. One MP was defenestrated because he was, shall we say, unsatisfactory. The other resigned because he had not been made a peer. Diddums. Nigel Adams is not a bad fellow, but really. Why should he have tried to emulate Nadine Dorries – and why should anyone blame local Tories, unimpressed by his temper-tantrum, who refused to turn up?

This does not mean that they will automatically return home next year. But it does mean that they have not definitively abandoned their former allegiance. From the Tory point of view, all is not lost. Everything will depend on Rishi Sunak. Labour will be insisting that it is time for a change. He must convince doubting Tories that he is the change.

The criticism most often made against the PM is that he is too managerial. On the one hand, that might seem a curious complaint. As most voters believe, rightly, that an awful lot is wrong with this country, they might appreciate some sound managerialism. Equally, in personality terms, Starmer is hardly an anti-manager – which does not mean that he would be very good at managing. 

But managerialism is not enough. In order for Sunak to assert himself, he will have to win some intellectual arguments. Starmer has made it clear that his policy-making is determined by the opinion polls. Anything which appears to be unpopular is promptly discarded.

A lot of Tories would like to do something similar, especially on carbon, motor fuel and climate change. Yet it is possible to modify energy policy without the exercise turning into an undignified retreat. There are two sorts of climate-changers. The first are the eco-masochists. In the grip of a religious cult, comparable to the flagellants and other itinerant loonies in the later Middle Ages, they are the enemies of prosperity and economic growth. It is reasonable to accuse them of hating the human race, unless and until humans are ready to revert to a cave-man’s standard of living.

The second group take a scientific approach. The climate is always changing, and it is not clear that we could prevent all malign consequences. Even if mankind had been vastly more advanced, we would not have been able to halt the great ice-age. Presumably the same would still be true today. Yet that does not mean that climate-change sceptics should do nothing. If they are right and it could be proved that most climate change is not anthropogenic, there are still measures which could be taken to mitigate the carbon problem. Nuclear power, hydrogen as fuel and carbon capture are obvious examples.

As the eco-masochists hate every expression of the human intellect except slogan chanting, they are also opposed to science. The rest of us ought to take a rational approach. We should not lose faith in the ability of science to solve the problems which science may have created. We need to keep the lights on, the economy functioning and with it the transport system on which so much depends. We also need to keep the costs down while also taking sensible measures to reduce net carbon consumption. Nor should the government commit itself to unrealistic deadlines.

If all that were explained, it ought to have a respectful hearing, except from the loonies. Indeed, it should be part of a Tory intellectual offensive, including housing, the culture wars and an explanation for our present difficulties. In that, Sunak should start with an advantage. He knows what he believes. He now has to project that to the public. He should find that far easier than Keir Starmer would.  

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life