Rishi Sunak still has something to learn about leadership and political projection. He ought to take guidance from two masters of the art. The first was Margaret Thatcher. Throughout her premiership, she made it clear who she was and what she believed, so successfully that Left-wing opponents paid her a compliment. They invented the term Thatcherism.
There are grounds for sceptical reserve. Nigel Lawson always insisted that if you wanted to understand her, you should look at what she did rather than what she said. On the Party Conference platform, she would sound like a warrior Queen. Yet in the privacy of No.10, she could be much more cautious, pragmatic, even hesitant.
But that did not matter. Whether they liked her or loathed her – there was rarely much uncertainty – most voters believed that they knew what she stood for and who she was. Almost no one doubted that she was a conviction politician. Although she would never have used the term ‘narrative’ to describe all that, she expounded one and used it to dominate British politics for a decade.
Someone was watching. It could be argued that Tony Blair was a much more natural politician than Margaret Thatcher, though not necessarily in a complimentary usage. He too set out to dominate British politics. He wanted to combine the moral depth that the best elements of the old Labour Party could contribute while not alarming the small c conservative voters who made up a large part of the English electorate. In effect, he was trying to capture the centre ground without acknowledging that goal. It would have sounded too bland and unexciting. But he turned much of the business of government into a narrative, based on modernisation, moderation and his own youthful charisma. In pursuit of this, he also turned much of the machinery of government into a press office: damage from which it has not yet recovered.
He too projected himself as a conviction politician. With the passing of time, it becomes increasingly hard to define those convictions. It is as if we are in the final phase of the Cheshire cat. There is one exception: going to war in alliance with George Bush, although many would regard that not as acceptable conviction politics, but as grounds for a conviction. Even so, the Blair tactic worked. Most people thought that they knew who he was.
Now we have another youthful, attractive politician. Rishi Sunak is obviously able and seems happy in his own skin. But where is the narrative? Who is he and what does he believe?
This causes problems and the latest kerfuffle over motor cars and domestic heating is a prime example. Boris Johnson simply plucked some deadlines out of the air. There was never a shred of evidence that he had given the matter any thought, and he does have form. Remember Boris Island? His travel agent Zac Goldsmith and his latest wife Carrie were both in favour and may have needed to be placated. So he made commitments, no doubt on the assumption that 2030 was a long way in the future. This is a man who believes that truth has a shelf-life measured in hours. It would never have occurred to him to worry about the end of the decade.
Others did. It became clear that 2030 would cause all sorts of problems. This was also the view of several European governments. So Sunak was absolutely right to change tack.
But he did not do nearly enough to explain himself. He could have made it clear that the postponement of 2030 need have no effect on the net-zero pledge for 2050. Equally, and although the UK has already shown itself willing to address climate change, we have to keep the lights on and the economy moving while not inflicting crushing burdens on the public. Above all, we have to think hard.
The climate has always changed, largely due to the vagaries of the unruly Sun. Plenty of serious scientists are still doubtful of the extent to which the current changes are anthropogenic. What did mankind do to create the great Ice Age? The answer to carbon is nuclear.
There is another important requirement: hard thinking, in response to the religious maniac wing of the green movement. There are practical solutions to carbon control and practical methods of producing clean energy, in the longer term. In the short run, the UK will still need fossil fuels, which will amount to a tiny share of global consumption. But the Thunbergs et al are not interested in practical solutions. They seem to hate the West and its civilisation. It is as if they would prefer to reduce mankind to the same living standards which it enjoyed at the end of the Ice Age. Rationalism could easily take their millenarian fantasies to pieces. The PM and other ministers could help, but in future they need to roll the wicket. By failing to do so, they allowed critics to claim that this was just about electoral opportunism, and not a measured, wise approach, restoring common sense.
The PM has clearly decided on a bold course of action. “You want change?” he will ask the voters. “So do I, and I am the man to deliver it.” But in order for this to work, he will have to spend much more time telling people who he is and what he believes. Despite the height difference, he needs to sound Gaullist, telling the public that he has always had a certain idea of Britain. He needs a narrative.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life