Victorious political parties should be exuberant; defeated ones downbeat. That is not quite how it is working out this conference season.
It was the Labour conference that appeared downbeat and while the Tories are certainly not exuberant, they also do not appear to be in despair after the worst election result in their history.
There are two reasons why the mood is more positive than one might expect. The first is that the government is evidently facing difficulties. At this point in 1997, Tony Blair could do no wrong. Tory MPs of that era say that on both style and substance, Blair’s was a government that looked invincible. Current Tory MPs are certainly not saying the same about Keir Starmer and his administration today.
The second reason why Tory morale is higher than it might be is the leadership election. What’s more, the conference is of genuine importance in determining who wins in what remains an open race. That is not to say that the nation as a whole waits with bated breath for news from Birmingham, but this conference has more relevance than might have been expected the day after the general election.
We are, of course, only partly through the first stage of the leadership race in which the remaining Tory MPs narrow the field to two. For those who may have forgotten where we had got to – a forgivable lapse – the last action involved the elimination of Mel Stride, reducing the field to four. Robert Jenrick led the pack with 33 votes, Kemi Badenoch had 28 votes and Tom Tugendhat and James Cleverly were tied on 21.
MPs will vote again after the party conference, having assessed the candidates’ performances and the reaction of grassroots activists. The latter really matters because MPs will be asking themselves not just who they think will make the best leader, but which candidates can win the final round among the party members.
On the face of it, one might expect that the 16 votes that went to Stride will go to the candidates seen as more centrist, namely Tugendhat and Cleverly, with the tallies for Badenoch and Jenrick remaining much the same. That would still likely result in one of Tugendhat or Cleverly finishing fourth and dropping out, but with the bulk of their votes switching to whoever survived. If this were to happen, one of Tugendhat or Cleverly would have a very good chance of not only making it into the final round but with the highest level of support among MPs.
Which of these two survives the next round may well be determined by how they perform in Birmingham. If one looks more capable of winning among the membership than the other, they will quickly emerge as a genuine challenger.
Were this to happen, it would be Badenoch most at threat. She started the contest as favourite but her results have been underwhelming. In terms of her ability to perform in front of the members, she is the high ceiling/low floor candidate. She has already gaffed over maternity pay and can appear tetchy and defensive, but also has a natural charisma that has made her popular with the Tory grassroots. If she emerges as the conference darling, she might also appeal to centrist Anyone But Jenrick voters as the only one who can stop the Newark MP. She cannot be written off.
Finally, there is Jenrick himself, the candidate who started the week with the most momentum. With 33 votes in the last round, even he is not guaranteed a spot in the final two (for which 40 votes are required). Some might argue that he will struggle to pick up votes from those who voted for Stride and whoever is the next candidate to drop out.
There are, however, three factors that suggest he should make it to the final round unless he badly slips up. First, as the favourite he will attract support from those wanting to be on the winning team. Second, there may be some Anyone But Badenoch voters who see him as the candidate best placed to beat her with the members. And third, there is a view held by at least one other team (denied by the Jenrick campaign) that he has lent out three votes to other candidates for tactical reasons.
All of that makes this week intriguing, as MPs use the evidence emerging from the conference to assess how members will vote in the final round. It is not, however, a very good way of choosing the next leader of the Conservative Party.
Indulging the instincts of the party membership resulted in Boris Johnson and Liz Truss winning the leadership, despite their flaws being all too apparent to MPs. Members may not be despondent about the state of the Tories, and are full of righteous anger over the performance of the government, but they would be out of touch with the wider country if they did not appreciate the precarious state the party is in.
The Conservative Party needs to recognise this reality and broaden its support. MPs should be asking themselves which potential leader has the capability to do that. Instead, the logic of its system results in even sensible MPs assessing leadership candidates on whether someone can win among a very narrow part of the electorate. Even sensible candidates, in turn, campaign accordingly. The consequence is a leadership race that is doing little to restore the Conservative Party’s prospects.
[See also: Labour cannot afford to lose Rosie Duffield]
Content from our partners
Related
