To see the problem one has only to look at the analysis of the reasons for the recent historic defeat offered by Truss and Braverman, for example.
Writing in The Telegraph, Liz Truss thinks the reason for the Labour landslide is the failure of successive Tory governments since 2010 to "roll back Blair’s Leftist agenda." She honestly thinks the governments of Cameron, May, Johnson and Sunak were not just insufficiently right-wing but were in fact too left-wing.
She bases her opinion on conversations that took place on the doorsteps of South West Norfolk during the campaign, where she was repeatedly told by former Conservative voters that "we didn’t deserve to be re-elected and that they were now looking at voting for Reform instead."
I am sure these conversations happened but basing your entire future strategy on the notion that you haven't been right-wing enough would be a profound mistake. She can't even see that her own 49-day tenure in Downing Street, where she tried to be more right-wing contributed to the landslide defeat. Voters may want change, they may even believe that Reform offers that change but Tice and Farage simply offer more of the same only harder.
Truss says: "Whether it be the economic stagnation we are suffering as a result of a bloated state and punitive levels of taxation and regulation, the exorbitant cost of energy, our inability to deport illegal immigrants or the wokery sweeping through our schools and institutions, all of these problems can be traced back to the agenda pursued by the Blair and Brown governments."
The idea we have a 'Bloated state' takes some chutzpah after 14 years of cuts. We have the tax levels of a bloated state but public services are starving from lack of investment. And I'm fed up with these culture wars about 'wokery' - I'm not even sure what it means. We just want stuff that works.
And Truss seems to have erased her own brief, painful time as leader when she claims:
"Our overriding failing as Tories was not to do enough to counter their project at the time or reverse it when we had the opportunity to do so."
Err...Yes, you did and the result was near economic meltdown. In any case, Britain has one of the lowest tax burdens in Europe and the lightest regulations.
There is no practical plan for growth in her article and she is convinced that "after five years of Labour, the public will be crying out for a popular Conservative alternative." I somehow doubt that in 2029 memories of the Tories will have faded that badly we want to see her back in power.
Suella Braverman meanwhile has been in Washington DC delivering a speech at the far-right National Conservatism Conference, where she suggested that Rishi Sunak in 2022 rolled out "a programme our new Labour government today could quite happily do. And probably will."
Braverman made it clear that she wants the Tories to move closer to Reform voters by “talking credibly” to them and rendering Reform UK's “separate existence” unnecessary. I assume this means a merger, a position which 47% of grassroots members are comfortable with while 48% are not, according to polling by Queen Mary University in London.
In the midst of this, Ben Habib, still stinging from being sacked by Nigel Farage, the major shareholder and sole decision maker in Reform UK Ltd, is calling for his party to be 'democratised.' Reform can't be a one-man band he says. But if it was democratised, as he wants, band leader Farage would be off like a shot.
Apart from all the trappings of a political party like boards, executive committees, and elections for leadership positions, Habib says:
"Reform needs talented people in senior positions. It must involve and carry them in decisions made. Great leaders are surrounded by great people and take counsel. Leaders with undue control are surrounded by sycophants and have no truck with criticism. I am pleased to hear the matter is being seriously considered and I hope it will provide democratic voice to the movement."
And therein is the problem. No 'talented' people are ever going to join Reform because their ideas are simply off-the-wall crazy. At best, they're experimental and would spook the markets, but they're utterly convinced they are right and the economic experts wrong - precisely as they did with Brexit.
If talented people joined Reform it would look like the Conservative Party under John Major.
So, to go back to my post on Saturday about Allister Heath and his 'broad church' for the Tories, I think what the electorate needs is several narrower churches because otherwise, when we vote nobody will have any clear idea about the direction the party will be going in, which of the several competing ideologies on offer will gain traction or which faction will be sitting around the cabinet table. What we need is clarity and a broad church can't provide it.
The whole idea of political parties is that they all (mostly) agree on the main policies but when the ideologies are irreconcilable that becomes even harder to achieve and you end up with splits like UKIP, The Brexit Party and Reform UK Ltd. Which is where we are now.
