One of the commonest sayings in British politics is that divided parties can’t win elections. On that basis, Rishi Sunak’s decision to sack Suella Braverman and bring back David Cameron looks perverse. Sacking a darling of the Conservative right-wing, and giving one of the biggest jobs in politics to a one-nation centrist, is surely an act of political suicide.
However, the saying is not quite true. It misses out a crucial word: unresolved. Divided parties are often a fact of life. What matters is how their leaders deal with them. Unresolved divisions are fatal, not least because they make leaders look weak. But leaders who tackle divisions and defeat their opponents within their parties can emerge stronger and more popular.
In 1985, when Neil Kinnock fought and defeated Militant, his poll rating shot up. Boris Johnson, egged on by Dominic Cummings, forced out a whole range of experienced Conservative centrists in 2019. One can argue (as, indeed, I would) that this was bad for British politics and the long-term health of the Conservative Party. But in the short-term, it’s hard to argue with the 80-seat majority he secured in the general election that December. Of course, Labour helped him by offering the unelectable Jeremy Corbyn as the alternative Prime Minister. Even so, emerging victorious from his party’s bloodletting did him no harm with the general public.
Sunak, then, is gambling that he will emerge stronger from this week’s reshuffle – and that the inevitable criticisms that he will now face from Braverman and others will do him more good than harm. Much as each battle that Keir Starmer fights and wins against Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’s left-wing strengthens the Labour leader, Sunak should, and perhaps will, anticipate future spats with his own party’s nationalist right wing not with trepidation but with relish.
He should certainly welcome Braverman’s remarkable resignation letter. A more temperate and nuanced epistle might have attracted more support and caused real difficulty for the Prime Minister. Instead, she has chosen all out attack. This has alienated not just many Tory MPs; it has horrified the Sun, Daily Mail and Telegraph, all of whose leader columns have condemned her. The point here is not the influence these papers have with the general public – this is somewhere between minimal and non-existent. It is the impact the right-wing papers have on the occupants of the Westminster bubble.
By unanimously upholding the Appeal Court’s ruling that the Government’s Rwanda deportation is unlawful, rhe Supreme Court has also helped Sunak, even if it wrecks a much-publicised – albeit, in truth, trivial – plank of his immigration policy. His right-wing opponents will demand that Britain withdraw from the European Convention on Human Rights. Sunak can now fight his opponents by asserting the case for abiding by its treaty obligations. This might need a bigger clash with his right-wing than that over Braverman’s letter. But it’s a battle he can win, providing he stands firm and doesn’t blink. As I have argued before, character matters to voters as much as policy – and often more. Sacking his main Cabinet rival, and standing his ground on human rights demonstrate strength of character. Giving ground in a quest for a unity that his opponents don’t want would demonstrate a weakness that few voters would respect.
The past precedent that appears to prove the opposite argument is John Major’s battle in the mid 1990s with his right-wing. In July 1995 he stood down as Conservative leader in order to flush out his opponents. In those days, MPs chose the party’s leader. Major defeated John Redwood by 218 votes to 89. Two years later Major led his party to its worst defeat since 1906. So, collapse of stout theory? Not necessarily. At the time of Redwood’s challenge, Labour enjoyed a “poll of polls” lead of 29 points (55-26 per cent). In the 1997 general election, Labour won by less than half that: 13 points (44-31 per cent).
Terrible though the result was for the Conservatives, it would have been even more catastrophic had Major not secured at least some authority over his party. (Because of his narrow majority in Parliament, he did not regain complete control. Sunak has less to worry about on that front.)
Not that Sunak has much chance of remaining Prime Minister after the next election. Labour’s lead has been too big for too long. We should not go overboard. Over the weekend, a new MRP poll by Survation projected a Labour majority of 212. I have looked at past seat-by-seat MRP surveys and argued that they greatly overstate Labour’s advantage. My own estimate, taking Survation’s overall voting figures (Labour 46 per cent, Conservative 29 per cent) is that this would produce a Labour majority of around 130. (For the benefit of nerds, I have taken account of (a) new boundaries, (b) Labour’s big advance in Scotland and (c) significant anti-Tory tactical voting in England and Wales.)
In reality, I would expect the gap to narrow to some extend as the next general election approaches. At the moment around four million people who voted Conservative at the last election now tell pollsters they don’t know or won’t vote. They are the kind of people who have sat out recent by-elections and led to loss after loss for the Tories. Many of them are likely to return to the fold when they are asked to choose a government, rather than grumble at their party without any risk of kicking it out of government.
In short, Labour is on course for a victory but not a landslide; and the Tories are heading for defeat but not oblivion. What Sunak has done is give his party a chance of survival as a fighting force in the next Parliament.
That leaves unresolved the question of who will succeed him as the next Tory leader, presumably soon after the next election. He may have marginalised his right-wing for now, but can he persuade enough grassroot members to share his centre-right views and elect a successor with a similar outlook? In the cruel world of politics, he might have improved his party’s prospects of being a substantial opposition, only to see that blessing bestowed on the very people, and even the very person, that he has seen off this week.
Peter Kellner. The Politics Counter 