Why I am supporting Robert Jenrick
His vision is the right one for both the Party and the nation
It is impossible to tell how good someone will be in the top political job until he or she has it. Sometimes the apparently best qualified does not succeed. As former Chancellors of the Exchequer, both Lord Goodrich and Gordon Brown turned out to be ill-suited to the highest office. Goodrich only lasted 144 days and burst into tears when he resigned, leading George IV to call him a ‘damned snivelling, blubbering blockhead’. Brown lasted a bit longer, but failed to adapt to the pressures of being Prime Minister.
On the other hand, some unlikely candidates turn out to be the greatest successes. From the 19th century, Benjamin Disraeli stands out as someone whose previous roles did not mark him out as the outstanding domestic and overseas statesman that he became. In the 20th century, the same applies to Margaret Thatcher, who found being leader of the opposition difficult, but was a magnificent Prime Minister.
In this leadership contest, neither candidate is in the Goodrich-Brown category. They have not held the high offices that could make their ascent inevitable, nor have they been long enough in office to be the obvious candidate. If anyone in this contest fell into such a category, it was James Cleverley, whose name is not in front of the members.
Both of them have their virtues, and each has identified an issue as their own. Jenrick has made migration, and the failure of the last period of Conservative rule to deal with it, his issue. His bold resignation from the government led by Rishi Sunak, and his critique of the failures of the legislative base for the Rwanda scheme, have made the subject his.
Badenoch has done the same for ‘woke’ issues. Her clarity and courage in speaking out against the latest fashionable virtue signalling has been a tonic for Conservatives, and she was one of the first to involve herself in these matters.
Whoever wins, these two issues will remain important as the current government is already moving in the wrong direction on both.
Nonetheless, wider issues will inevitably be at the forefront of the next election. Economic growth has stagnated since the global financial crisis and the UK is now living beyond its means. This is a deep-seated problem as there is no more tax to take. The UK economy has almost never managed to pay more than 38 per cent of tax as a proportion of GDP, and even that rate only for a year or so, while spending is now running at 45 per cent. Cutting expenditure is almost as hard, as the Labour government has found as it tries to take away the Winter Fuel Allowance for the elderly.
Borrowing is at its limit and it is, in any case, arguable whether additional borrowing helps, as the principle of Ricardian equivalence is a reminder that taxpayers are not fools and realise that unfunded expenditure is merely taxation delayed, so adjust their behaviour accordingly.
Hence, with no room for unfunded tax cuts or extra borrowing, the only way to solve the problem is to deregulate. These are the famous supply-side reforms, little understood, but the only way to economic growth.
Jenrick does understand this and has made it clear in his speeches that he sees a way through to revitalise the flagging British economy. The effects could be phenomenal. In his recent book, Lord Moynihan of Chelsea quotes research that shows that by 2011 the US economy would have been three times larger than it was if regulations had stayed at 1949 levels. Regulation cuts growth by one to two per cent per annum, which at two per cent doubles the economy in about 35 years.
Outside the European Union, we can do this and make the most of the Brexit dividend. This is a major opportunity for the Conservatives, and it is a pity we did not do more in our last eighteen months in government.
Growth is also hampered by the effluxions of regulation from unaccountable quangos. These will need to be stopped and many of them abolished altogether. Robert Jenrick's determination to leave the European Court of Human Rights is important in itself, but also in its symbolism. It indicates a desire to get back to a situation where the elected politicians are in charge, rather than officials and judges.
This was our constitutional system until 1972, and it maintains accountability and legitimacy. In the last 25 years, endless formerly ministerial powers have been handed over to quangos, which prevents the development of public policy. This has then been interfered with by an increasingly aggressive judiciary, that has gone from interpreting the law as passed by Parliament, to deciding what the law ought to be. Removing a foreign court from our system and removing the Human Rights Act domestically is part of a constitutional restoration that will embolden voters and encourage politicians to take responsibility for the state of the nation.
Yet these economic and constitutional boons depend upon winning an election, which is not an easy task. As Sir John Curtice, the famous psephologist, has pointed out, voters left the Tory party not just because we let them down by not being particularly Conservative, but because we lost their trust. Indeed, by the end, we were seen as less competent than Sir Keir Starmer.
How do we restore trust? This will be the hardest campaigning test, but one I should be delighted to help with as Party Chairman, if Robert wins. Conservative Campaign Headquarters (CCHQ), as it is rather lugubriously named, needs to reconnect with its members, and its base needs to grow. Twice in its history, the Conservative Party has established a mass membership organisation, and it needs to do so again. The attitude towards members needs to change, as they are the lifeblood of politics. CCHQ has plenty of good people in it, but is viewed in the constituencies as overbearing and domineering.
The attitude to candidates has long illustrated this. They are not seen as public-minded individuals who want to serve, but as fodder for the party machine to be sent hither and yon, often on fruitless tasks, as if they were little children who need exercise. Many good candidates were also overlooked for safe seats, if any now exist, in favour of a chumocracy of the party hierarchy. Even distinguished and popular figures, such as Lord Frost, were hindered in their search for seats. This was quite wrong, both in its treatment of the candidates and in its disdain for the abilities and competence of associations.
When the party was reformed after the war, members were taken seriously. The Conservative Party Chairman wanted to know their thoughts on policies and speakers addressed members on the issues of the day. Admittedly, the speeches were not always listened to, and a distinguished neighbour of mine tells me that he met his wife at an event where he carefully timed his arrival to miss the speech, but to enjoy the social part of the evening. At least the intellectual side of policy-making was available to those who wanted it.
This is not to say that the tools of the 1940s will reinvigorate the party in the 2020s, even less the methods of the Primrose League in the 1880s. However, people are interested in politics and in reforming the country, and modern techniques must be used to bring people into the conversation. Beyond all else, the Right needs to reunite, which won't happen if we simply throw stones at Nigel Farage and his supporters.
There are many ideas for reform, but the starting point must be respect for those who, out of their civic-mindedness, take the trouble to join a political party. This will help build the local campaign team, which could see trust rebuild from the grass roots, rather than expecting it to come from the top. How much more likely is it that a voter will begin to trust the Tories if they know a decent neighbour who is avowedly one?
In this context, we must be bold, not shy, Tories. We want people, especially those at university, to feel that it is safe to wear blue. This is a basic tool of marketing, a word-of-mouth that engenders respectability and popularity. Just lying back and accepting that there are shy Tories who will always be with us is not enough.
As the structures are being overhauled, so must policy be developed. It takes too long to turn a good idea into law and will not happen at all if, after an election victory, the party is not ready. This is why the Thatcher-Joseph example must be learned from; the work done from 1975 to 1979 prepared the way for an epoch-changing administration. It was successful because it knew what it wanted to do.
Once the first priority of enabling politicians to make decisions again has been enacted, the laws must be ready to be introduced to Parliament. Draft bills need to be drawn up, so there is no delay. 2010 to 2024 showed how quickly fourteen years could pass, so readiness from day one is essential. Sir Keir has shown what happens if you have no plan, as anyone who looks at the current barren Parliamentary timetable can tell.
Party reform is the way to electoral success and national revival. I'm excited that Robert has asked me to be part of this and I believe his vision is the right one for both the Party and the nation.
If you have enjoyed this article, then please do share it with your friends.
Your comments on this article would be most welcome. Please click the button to join the conversation. Thank you.
Good morning Jacob 🙏 As much as I would like to see you as Party Chairman I fear any new Leader who would appoint your good self will not be allowed to step outside the current narrative dictated not by those on these shores but by a global elite intent on destroying what's left of western democracy. I'm not sure Robert Jenrick is up to the job of Leader of the Opposition it requires a cool head and a determination to hold government to account. Does he have that? I don't see much of that happening currently except by Reform MPs. I and doubtless thousands of ex Conservative members are bitterly disappointed in the Party and will require a lot of convincing to vote Conservative in future.
I think Jenrick is the man to try