I watched Tuesday night’s leaders’ election debate with fellow guests at a party to launch Conservative Revolution, a book to mark the 50th anniversary of the Centre for Policy Studies, the thinktank founded by Keith Joseph and Margaret Thatcher to ‘think the unthinkable’ after Tory defeat. Rishi Sunak’s performance certainly achieved one of its intended effects, which was to summon up the blood of supporters. Oddly, given his amiability, he is impressive in attack. Both leaders conveyed their main true points well: Sir Keir that Mr Sunak dare not talk about his party’s record of 14 years in government, Mr Sunak that Sir Keir dare not talk about what he would do in office. Of the two, Mr Sunak’s is the more powerful, because it is about what happens next. Sir Keir looked suitable prime ministerial material, I thought, but his persistent fault is his moralism. His favourite word about his opponent was ‘shocking’. That is prissy maiden-auntism, not leadership.
It was funny to think that when Mrs Thatcher, leader of the Opposition, fought her first general election, her advisers insisted she stay off the television debate which oppositions always called for and sitting prime ministers always avoided. They thought the avuncular Jim Callaghan would worst her, because she would remind men of their nagging wives. This may have been a right reading of the spirit of the age. Anyway, no debate took place, and Mrs Thatcher won the election. This time, despite being Prime Minister, Mr Sunak needed the debate more than Sir Keir, who just wants to maintain his poll lead. Although Sir Keir’s repeated talk of terrorists made it sound as if he had wrestled them to the ground with his bare hands, he seemed the establishment figure, Mr Sunak the challenger.
I first got wind of Nigel Farage’s late run last week from the Substack of Matt Goodwin, the leading chronicler of revolt on the right. He made clear he knew the Farage mind: ‘Farage’s entire legacy now comes down to this one moment, to this one question. Will he stand for parliament?’ Farage had realised, wrote Goodwin, that we are approaching ‘a “civilisational moment” – a time when we start to lose the very things that make us a “we”’. But despite the tumult and the shouting of Monday afternoon, is one allowed to feel underwhelmed? Mr Farage has well articulated conservative dissent for many years. But what does he add now? The bandwagon has been rolling without his help for quite a long time. His late entry feels like a rush to jump on to it. At a general election, voters work out what government they want. Mr Farage’s gift is throwing a spanner in the works. Lots of people can do that. What is really missing is someone to steer the careering vehicle.
In Monday’s Times, Dale Vince, founder of the green energy firm Ecotricity, promoted his new campaign called Just Vote. His article urged the young to register to vote. He presented his campaign as a public service, assisted by Saatchi & Saatchi which, said Mr Vince – perhaps hoping to win over Tories – ‘has had a powerful influence on British political history’. It may even improve your sex appeal: ‘Just Vote found that the UK public thinks people who vote are more intelligent, trustworthy, and attractive than non-voters.’ What Mr Vince did not say was that he is a former big backer of Just Stop Oil and a current backer of the Labour party. If you go to his Just Vote website, you do not, in fact, find out how to vote. There is no information on the subject. Instead, there is an essay by Mr Vince, in which he explains his determination to prevent new oil and gas drilling in the North Sea, but does not mention that he is paying Labour to back this policy. More protests, he warns, will just feed the Tories’ ‘new culture war narrative’. Instead, he is putting his money into launching Just Vote. It turns out to be not so much about voting per se, but voting for a political cause: ‘Just Vote will reach across the political spectrum, and encourage people to vote for the party with the greenest policies.’ He did not tell that to readers of the Times.
The Piccadilly Hunt occurred 75 years ago. As now, Labour MPs wanted to ban hunting (then of foxes, now of trails). A private member’s bill was introduced. Hunt supporters from the West Country decided to bring their case to parliament on the day of the debate. They hired 25 London-based horses for the purpose, leading a much larger foot march. In those days, however – would it were so with the Gaza marches today – the law forbade processions within half a mile of parliament, so the riders clattered down from Hyde Park to Piccadilly Circus, to widespread applause. Later in the day, the bill was defeated by 214 votes to 101. In the Commons debate, the Labour Minister of Agriculture, Tom Williams, expressed the government’s view: ‘I am quite satisfied that the bill… would lead to much more rather than less cruelty.’ He admitted he had spoken differently in the past: ‘I yield to none in my detestation of unnecessary cruelty… [but] one should never be ashamed to own that one may have been wrong. In the 24 years since, I have learned a great deal, not only about hunting but about governing people.’ After examining the facts, he had decided that ‘if we were to abolish hunting without providing an effective alternative… there certainly would be more rather than less cruelty’. That evening, the protestors found that a Horse & Hound ball was by chance being held in the Park Lane Hotel: they were merry and welcome gate-crashers. The last survivor of the Piccadilly Hunt died recently, but on 30 June a commemorative Gala Day will be held in Upper Snodsbury, including a 14-hunt puppy show and speeches. Booking details from piccadillyh75@gmail.com.
Comments