Since 2005, the Conservative Party has had five leaders. Of those five, only one has lasted more than ten years. Two have (barely) lasted more than three years. Rishi Sunak, by a whisker, will have made it to a little over two. His tenure will still be about fifteen times the length of his predecessor’s.
The next election is likely four years away – five if Keir Starmer’s ratings remain in their current spin. How likely is the next Tory leader to make it that far? If you think that is a ludicrous question to be asking now, speak to Iain Duncan Smith. Or Starmer, who considered resigning after Labour’s spectacular loss in the Hartlepool by-election. Or William Hague, who should have done.
As we prepare for party conference, basking in the expectation of a beauty pageant comparable to 1963 and 2005, we should not blind ourselves to the potential that we could have to do this – the great leadership election jamboree – again in two or so years. That is a scenario that every rational Tory member should view with dread unless they hanker for another coronation.
With a government as eminently beatable as this one, any time spent indulging in more of the Tory telenovela is wasted. That is as true for being in opposition as it was in government. The stakes may be lower – no winner in a leadership putsch becomes Prime Minister by default, after all – but the truth of hanging together or falling together is just as true. We can’t afford civil wars.
But why would a leader face a no-confidence vote, or resign of their own volition? Leaving aside any hitherto unimagined scandals, there are two major reasons we can imagine: a lack of support amongst MPs, or a failure to make progress against Labour. Both would put a target on the leader’s back. The former from day one; the latter a bullseye that grows with every mediocre poll.
Both explained why Duncan Smith – second amongst MPs in 2001, and still behind Tony Blair by the time the men in grey suits came circling in 2003 – proved so vulnerable. Under the current leadership rules, the obvious challenge of a leader second amongst MPs but first among members is a continual worry. History repeats itself, the first time as tragedy, the second time as farce.
It is not for ConservativeHome to suggest to members that just because a candidate came first amongst MPs, members should pick them. If you do not think they are up to the job, you are free to vote against them. But you should do that conscious of the tensions it will create. MPs also see far more of their colleagues than us. One hopes they are good judges of character.
Nonetheless, those tensions should not prove insurmountable. The greatest metric by which any Tory leader is judged is electoral success. Against this government, we are already winning local by-elections on big swings without a chief. One suspects that this is not so much a hankering for the grand old days of Sunakism, but a realization that voters have elected themselves a dud.
In this case, the next leader should hope to be ahead in the polls within a relatively short time. The longer they are not – weeks, months, years – the more questions about their leadership appear. Can we go into the next election with a leader unable to overhaul an administration as miserable as this, and that continues to leak voters multiple ways? Will Nigel Farage show them up?
The twitch to switch horses will begin. That will especially be the case if a leader is behind on MP support in the first place, or if they construct a Shadow Cabinet made overwhelmingly of their supporters. Learn from Margaret Thatcher, not Truss, and be comfortable appointing a top team that includes your former rivals. We have too few MPs to leave candidates outside the tent.
Accordingly, each leadership candidate should make explicit their willingness to serve under the others, as we aimed to tease out in our interviews with them, and reach out to their teams and supporters. The airtime, bandwidth, and goodwill available to us are limited. We should not waste it on falling out, as much as tensions may simmer in a parliamentary party of only 121.
If a candidate proves electorally unappealing, natural questions of their competency will arise. To avoid reaching that stage, the next leader must keep the MPs and membership on side – as much love and time must be dolled as possible – whilst communicating directly to voters Labour’s failures, our renewed sense of purpose, and the lessons we have learnt.
Orientate towards the voters, rather than intra-party disputes, or pointless online silos. As we prepare for the hustings, receptions, speeches, and selfies by which the candidates will be judged in Birmingham, each should bear in mind that, as fun as meeting members might be, they should only have to do it once before the next general election. Spare us another merry-go-round.
