Latest news with #MichaelFoot
The Guardian
19-05-2025
- Politics
- The Guardian
Peter Taaffe obituary
In the 1980s, Peter Taaffe, who has died aged 83, was famous in political circles, and Labour party grandees shivered at the sound of his name. As leader since 1964 of the Militant tendency, which, unlike other Trotskyist groups, wanted to work within the Labour party, Taaffe had spent two decades shaping and implementing a policy of 'entryism', in which Militant members were to take over the party from the ground up. In 1983 Militant gained control of Liverpool city council. The new intake of Labour MPs after the June 1983 general election included two Militants, Terry Fields, representing Liverpool Broadgreen, and Dave Nellist, for Coventry South East. A third, Pat Wall in Bradford, was elected in 1997. Militant and the 1984-85 miners' strike dominated the politics of the labour movement – the Labour party and the trade unions – for most of the 1980s. The journalist Michael Crick, who wrote two books about Militant, estimated in 1985 that it had about 7,000 members, 150 full-time workers, a turnover of around a million pounds a year and offices in most major cities. It was a party within a party. Under the Labour leader Michael Foot, Taaffe and his four leading lieutenants were expelled in 1983, after three years of bitter debate in the party and in the courts. After Foot's defeat to Margaret Thatcher in the 1983 general election, Foot's successor, Neil Kinnock, began a purge in which dozens of Militant activists all over Britain were expelled. Taaffe was born in Birkenhead, Cheshire, the son of a sheet metal worker, and he and his five siblings grew up in poverty. He was a keen footballer and a lifelong Everton supporter. He was recruited to Militant in 1960 by Ted Grant, a veteran Trotskyist, who had been politically active since arriving in Britain from South Africa in 1934, and had worked with, and fallen out with, most of the major figures in British Trotskyism. They had learned sectarianism and doctrinal rigidity from the Communist party, which they loathed. Taaffe became the general secretary of Militant in 1964 and launched the Militant newspaper. By the 80s he had made it easily the most significant Trotskyist group, and he remained general secretary of Militant and its successors until 2020. In the 90s, Militant was prominent in the movement to refuse to pay the poll tax, and in the demonstrations against it, which helped to undermine Thatcher. He was a talented political organiser. His life was politics, and his commitment was total. At one point he was sleeping under the desk in the office, and he only took wages if enough money had been raised. In 1966 he married Linda Driscoll. A primary school teacher and a leftwing activist in the National Union of Teachers (now the National Education Union), she shared his politics. Some former associates say Taaffe was ruthless and intolerant of dissent; that those who crossed him found themselves frozen out. But they add that he taught them rigorous socialist study and a disciplined approach, and his successor, Hannah Sell, said: 'He was not sectarian. We would discuss all issues and he would listen to everyone.' These qualities enabled Taaffe to build Militant into a force that could seriously trouble Foot and Kinnock. By 1980, he was a serious player in Labour party politics, which gave him a platform he used skilfully. 'The idea that just a few Marxists could just parachute into constituency Labour parties and take them over is absurd,' he wrote in the Guardian that year, just as he was making this absurdity happen. In the 90s, Labour was moving not to the left, as Taaffe had hoped, but to the right, with the election of Tony Blair as leader in 1994. Taaffe decided the time had come to abandon entryism. Grant disagreed, and when Taaffe got his way at a special national conference in 1992, Grant left Militant (he claimed to have been expelled, which Taaffe denied) and started a new group called Socialist Appeal. From 1997 to 2020 Taaffe was general secretary of Militant's successor, the Socialist party, and he was to hit the headlines one more time. In 2016, Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader, and some members of the Socialist party argued that this was the time for the left to make peace with the Labour party and to quietly influence its direction. Taaffe rejected this softly softly approach, instead saying publicly that his old chum Corbyn (they had known each other in Islington before Corbyn was an MP) would lift the ban on Militant. This made it impossible for Corbyn to do any such thing, and Corbyn's deputy Tom Watson moved swiftly to kill the idea. Taaffe called Watson 'Stalinist' – and he knew no worse insult. For many on the left, Taaffe is the bitter sectarian who helped ensure that the last half century has been dominated by Conservative governments. In the Socialist party, they believe he showed the way forward after the collapse of the Soviet Union, correctly predicting that it would lead in the short term to a move to the right. He inspired love and loyalty. Sell said: 'He left us the Socialist party with 2,000 members and members on several trade union executives. That will enable us to advance socialism in the future.' He is survived by Linda, their two daughters, Katie and Nancy, four grandchildren, and a great-grandson. Peter Taaffe, political activist, born 7 April 1942; died 23 April 2025
Yahoo
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Badenoch's Tories are well placed to see off the threat of Farage's Reform
The British political system does not normally allow us the luxury of simultaneously repudiating both His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That appears, however, to be happening now. A YouGov poll last Wednesday showed Reform UK ahead on 25 points, Labour second on 23 and the Conservatives third on 20. Further indications of the travails of the two main parties may come at next Thursday's local elections. There is also a by-election in the once-safe Labour seat of Runcorn and Helsby, which the bookmakers believe Reform will win. The so-called populist Right has already wrought havoc on the Conservative Party by helping reduce it to the lowest number of seats in its history. Now, it is eating away at Labour, emphasising that party's abandonment of the values of the white working class in favour of an agenda dictated by middle-class progressives. A great change in British politics is possible, but far from certain. We have been here before, with the two main parties disdained and a third emerging to provide a new, and apparently viable, option. The last time this happened in Westminster politics was in 1981-82, when the birth of the Social Democratic Party allowed the country to exercise simultaneously its dislike of Margaret Thatcher's economic radicalism and of the hard-Left, Bennite capture of Michael Foot's Labour Party. It didn't work: the party was dead within seven years, never had a sniff of power and what was left of it was sucked up by the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats. Reform is advancing. Another poll last week, by More in Common, suggested that were a general election held today Reform would win 180 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. Labour and the Conservatives would win 165 each. That would give Reform 175 more seats than it won last year, and Labour 247 fewer. Reform's gains would mainly be at Labour's expense, not merely in the North and the Midlands but also around the Thames Estuary, in seats held by the Conservatives until last year, and, most significantly, in Labour's Welsh heartland. The predicted 44-seat gain by the Conservatives would be utterly inadequate and if the party were overtaken in numbers by Reform, the whole dynamic of British politics would change. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, told students last month that he wanted to bring together a 'coalition' of Right-of-centre voters to defeat Labour. Aware of accusations that he is 'on manoeuvres', Mr Jenrick rapidly clarified that he was talking about a coalition of voters, not of parties. His leader, Kemi Badenoch, equally quickly endorsed this sentiment. That she did was no surprise. Since becoming leader, her aim has been to return the Conservative Party to a position akin to where it was under Thatcher. It is a position rather like that advocated by Reform. It includes dilution of the policy of pursuing net zero by 2050 because of the carnage it threatens to the country's economy, tackling mass illegal immigration and stopping the anti-growth economic policies of the Labour Government. Mrs Badenoch has made uncompromising statements that evoke common-sense conservatism, and represent a disavowal of the ideology of 'woke' that still hobbles a Labour Party in thrall to identity politics. Take, for example, her rejoicing at the Supreme Court judgment about the definition of a woman, which allowed her to score a serious victory over Sir Keir Starmer at last week's Prime Minister's Questions. Or her demands for a proper inquiry into the Muslim rape gangs in various British cities and her demand to end the Orwellian absurdity of reporting so-called 'non-crime hate incidents'. Her party has also signalled it will fight the proposal in the Employment Rights Bill to allow people working in public spaces, such as pubs and bars, to sue their employers if they are 'offended' by 'banter' while working. This is all part of a strategy to revert to a more traditional conservatism, hoping to advertise some solid principles that will persuade former Conservative voters who either voted Reform last year or did not vote at all that it is safe to return 'home'. That is because, despite the far greater damage that the polls suggest Reform is preparing to do to Labour, the focus is on the bloody nose Nigel Farage's party may well give the Conservatives later this week. It has become something of a sport among parts of the media sympathetic to Labour, but who recognise all too well the party's pitiful performance during its nearly 10 months in office, to highlight the 'shortcomings' of Mrs Badenoch, before speculating that her days are numbered. The media have become so used to there being an apparently permanent vacancy for Conservative Party leader – Mrs Badenoch is the sixth in nine years – that if a newcomer fails to revive the Conservatives' opinion poll standing more or less instantly, the hunt is deemed to be on for a replacement. In reality, if the Conservative Party were to panic and try to ditch Mrs Badenoch, who is still learning the job and making all the right noises, the small portion of the British public that still takes the party seriously would quickly cease to do so. That is not least why a calm and analytical response to the outcome of next Thursday's elections is essential. It is one of those moments where one may usefully quote the legendary Conservative backbencher Rear-Admiral Sir Morgan Morgan-Giles, who during heated scenes at a meeting of the 1922 Committee in 1971 stood up and pronounced: 'Pro bono publico, no bloody panico!' The main reason not to panic is that it is likely to be at least three and half, and possibly four, years until a general election. Everything Mrs Badenoch has done since assuming the leadership suggests she is directing her party back to its natural course – the course desired by its natural supporters. It took 14 years to complete the car crash that was the last Conservative administration; a new, more sensible and in-touch party is being made, but it will not materialise overnight. If the results look grim for the Conservatives next Thursday, and they may well, there is still plenty of time to put things right. Sir Keir seems to lack a suicide wish, and so his calling a snap election is highly unlikely. Expectations about the local elections have already been carefully managed, not least by Mrs Badenoch herself. She has stressed that she envisages 'very difficult' results, knowing that she and her colleagues still have much work to do in apologising for and learning from the mistakes of the 14 failed years of Conservative-led government from 2010 to 2024 if they are to rebuild public trust. When she mentioned this difficulty, the Liberal Democrats accused her of 'throwing in the towel'. Such sneers are the price she must pay for engaging in the hard-minded realism that the Conservative Party desperately needs if its revival is to happen. There had already been similar catcalls when she apologised for several aspects of the last government's policy, even though distancing herself and the party she leads from the some of the debacles with which it was associated – such as the catastrophic premiership of Liz Truss, the dishonesty and incompetence of Boris Johnson, and the chronic indecision and tin ear of Theresa May – is to most minds essential if the party is to move on. The main reason the Conservatives cannot expect to do well on Thursday is that in 2021, when these elections were last contested, they won two thirds of the seats contested. It was a time when Mr Johnson still enjoyed some public confidence and Sir Keir, like Mrs Badenoch now, was still finding his feet and being accused of being useless. On the Conservative benches today no leader or potential leader exists who, in the circumstances bequeathed by the last government, could hold on to so many local government seats now. And, as Mrs Badenoch has said, there is a mood of protest in the country at the moment. When people vote next Thursday, protest will be an important factor behind their intentions. The Lib Dems, who have always been a protest party, may well benefit but Reform looks likely to be the biggest beneficiary. The party will quite justifiably rejoice and argue it has taken yet another of many steps forward. That will be their privilege. The immediate danger for the Conservatives is that they do not take Morgan-Giles's advice. Whatever the local results, nothing about how the country is governed from Westminster will change. The Conservative challenge to Reform is only now beginning, and not always by obvious or conventional means. The party has no appetite for an all-out war with Reform, not least because there is so much common ideological ground and so many natural Conservatives find the party attractive. Mrs Badenoch has convictions with which she can make the political weather, as she has shown over the Supreme Court judgment and non-crime hate incidents. She has also been categorical about free trade, the status of Ukraine and the Government's inadequacy in keeping its promises to control illegal immigration. She displays a common-sense conservatism similar to that heard in the rhetoric of Reform politicians. It is precisely the sort of approach that, if maintained over the next few years, will help persuade people that the Conservative Party again harbours conservative beliefs. Avoiding aggressively attacking Reform is not the same as being blind to its problems and exploiting them where possible to undermine the party. Members of the shadow cabinet talk, for example, of Mr Farage's position on the NHS. He has talked of revising the NHS's 'funding model' and the Left has accused him of seeking to make many people insure their own health, which would leave them considerably worse off unless accompanied by tax cuts. He has also been criticised by Rupert Lowe – whom he had forced out of the party – for worshipping the 'cult' of the NHS and not accepting Mr Lowe's idea for a Royal Commission to consider how to fund the crumbling and overstretched service. Critics of Reform claim it is a one-man band, over-dependent on the considerable campaigning skills of Mr Farage, skills that contributed perhaps more than anything else to Britain's vote to leave the EU in 2016. Mr Farage, who has been extremely visible in the local elections campaign in a way his Reform colleagues have not, certainly has abundant energy and supreme communication skills. But if Reform is to succeed in the long term it cannot be just about him. Many Conservatives believe this makes the party highly vulnerable, not just because of its reliance on Mr Farage, but because of the controversies that his leadership style appears to create. His largest problem, which arose in early March, was with Mr Lowe. He described Mr Farage as 'the Messiah' and Mr Farage described Mr Lowe as 'contemptible'. Reform then reported Mr Lowe to the police for allegations of bullying, and the police are investigating. Mr Lowe has announced he is suing his former leader for libel, and also Zia Yusuf, the Scottish businessman who chairs the party, and his fellow MP Lee Anderson. If he does, the only beneficiaries may be the legal profession. Mr Yusuf has also been the target of severe criticism from Reform staffers and chairmen of local branches, about his management style and the alleged disrespectful nature of his leadership team. He is also blamed for the rupture with Mr Lowe. However well the party does next Thursday, insiders believe there will be a shake-up at the centre immediately afterwards. Yet Mr Yusuf has such authority in the party, and under its structure shares control of it with Mr Farage, he appears only to be able to be sacked if he agrees to be. Another former ally who has cast himself adrift from Mr Farage is Ben Habib, the former deputy leader, who has announced he is setting up a new Right-of-centre party, Integrity. Mr Farage described his former colleague as 'very bitter, very twisted' and described it as a 'relief' that he had left the party. Mr Habib responded by saying Mr Farage was 'dangerous'. Mr Habib said that the 'last straw' for him in deciding to leave Reform was its treatment of Mr Lowe, who has hinted he might join Integrity, even though there appears to be no room for it in the British political firmament. All this is highly comforting for the Conservatives, who so far are, by contrast to Reform, maintaining a reasonable level of discipline. Meanwhile, Mr Habib's professing not to care whether the extremist Tommy Robinson joins Integrity could be an early kiss of death for the party's, and Mr Habib's, ambitions. These tribulations within Reform appear to follow a pattern, and the Conservatives are quietly confident that without much help from them this state of apparently permanent civil war will continue. Reform insiders say the difficulties are a 'Westminster bubble' story. Paradoxically, a strong showing by Reform next Thursday could be the stimulus for the story to burst out of the bubble, as the party demands more scrutiny. Mr Farage has another problem, which could prove his most intractable: his strong association with Donald Trump. Mr Trump's bizarre tariff policies, the various climbdowns and the damage they are perceived to do to Britain, are bad enough. His repeated humiliations of Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, and his perceived sympathy with Putin, are even worse. It has helped unite the British people against him like almost nothing else. Mr Farage has criticised Mr Trump in recent weeks; whether such statements are enough to end what many voters will consider his guilt by association remains to be seen. Mr Farage is experienced, and good, at his own public relations. One doubts he will be cheering for Mr Trump too volubly in the immediate future. It is part of the Conservatives' expectation management for next Thursday that the party might lose 500 seats. If it does, there will be a predictable slew of stories about how Mr Farage is on course to be prime minister (unlikely), how Mrs Badenoch is under pressure and could lose her job (unlikely in the short term), and how Sir Keir has one foot in the political grave (the most accurate of the three). It will be worth concentrating on how badly Labour does, as it will demonstrate just how shallow its vast majority was in 2024. It might be worth reflecting, too, on various important developments within the Conservative party itself, which has not, contrary to some views, simply been sitting around in recent months like a rabbit in the headlights. During her nearly six months as leader Mrs Badenoch has overseen the raising of more funds than Labour and Reform combined. She has also sought to restructure Conservative Central Office so that the party's organisation and campaigning operation are improved. And above all, she has a full policy review under way that is seeking submissions widely. She and people around her – including Mr Jenrick, as is obvious from his 'coalition' remarks – understand the intractability of the system. The last time a leading political party was permanently relegated to third place was in 1924, when Labour formed its first, short-lived administration. The destruction of the old Liberal party was the product of David Lloyd George's ambition and ability to bear a grudge: first with the coup d'état he launched against his colleague HH Asquith in December 1916, to become prime minister, alienating almost all his parliamentary party; and second with his manipulation of the candidate selection for the 1918 general election, which denied winnable seats to his Liberal critics (including Asquith). Thus the Liberals were divided and neutered, just as a united and increasingly appealing Labour Party was asserting itself, and becoming a natural opposition to the Conservatives. Ever after, apart from the Conservative-dominated coalitions in 1931-45 and 2010-15, the government of Britain has alternated between Labour and the Conservatives. It is far from obvious that the Conservative Party is going to oblige Reform in the way that the Liberals obliged Labour a century ago. However, if the Conservatives cannot succeed in providing a suitable programme to the electorate that will win back millions of their lost voters, the unprecedented prospect of two centre-Right parties jointly having a majority of seats in the Commons could become a reality. Were the Conservatives ahead they could try to come to an arrangement such as Asquith did with the Irish National Party when his Liberal party lost its majority in January 1910: by asking what the Nationalists wanted – Home Rule – he brought a succession of measures in to pursue it, and was able to govern with their help until 1915. If Reform were ahead, many Conservatives, with their traditional thirst for power, would doubtless be only too happy to come to an accommodation with them, though it would be on Reform's terms. That is the situation that Mrs Badenoch and her colleagues will be spending the next three or four years seeking to avoid, by striving to convince the public that their party is genuinely conservative again. Whatever else they prove, Thursday's results will provide little or no evidence of whether the Conservatives can achieve that. Despite the headlines you will read next week, all is still to play for. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Telegraph
27-04-2025
- Politics
- Telegraph
The Tories face a bloody nose from Farage's Reform, but the fight has just begun
The British political system does not normally allow us the luxury of simultaneously repudiating both His Majesty's Government and His Majesty's Loyal Opposition. That appears, however, to be happening now. A YouGov poll last Wednesday showed Reform UK ahead on 25 points, Labour second on 23 and the Conservatives third on 20. Further indications of the travails of the two main parties may come at next Thursday's local elections. There is also a by-election in the once-safe Labour seat of Runcorn and Helsby, which the bookmakers believe Reform will win. The so-called populist Right has already wrought havoc on the Conservative Party by helping reduce it to the lowest number of seats in its history. Now, it is eating away at Labour, emphasising that party's abandonment of the values of the white working class in favour of an agenda dictated by middle-class progressives. A great change in British politics is possible, but far from certain. We have been here before, with the two main parties disdained and a third emerging to provide a new, and apparently viable, option. The last time this happened in Westminster politics was in 1981-82, when the birth of the Social Democratic Party allowed the country to exercise simultaneously its dislike of Margaret Thatcher's economic radicalism and of the hard-Left, Bennite capture of Michael Foot's Labour Party. It didn't work: the party was dead within seven years, never had a sniff of power and what was left of it was sucked up by the Liberals to form the Liberal Democrats. Reform is advancing. Another poll last week, by More in Common, suggested that were a general election held today Reform would win 180 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons. Labour and the Conservatives would win 165 each. That would give Reform 175 more seats than it won last year, and Labour 247 fewer. Reform's gains would mainly be at Labour's expense, not merely in the North and the Midlands but also around the Thames Estuary, in seats held by the Conservatives until last year, and, most significantly, in Labour's Welsh heartland. The predicted 44-seat gain by the Conservatives would be utterly inadequate and if the party were overtaken in numbers by Reform, the whole dynamic of British politics would change. Robert Jenrick, the shadow justice secretary, told students last month that he wanted to bring together a 'coalition' of Right-of-centre voters to defeat Labour. Aware of accusations that he is 'on manoeuvres', Mr Jenrick rapidly clarified that he was talking about a coalition of voters, not of parties. His leader, Kemi Badenoch, equally quickly endorsed this sentiment. That she did was no surprise. Since becoming leader, her aim has been to return the Conservative Party to a position akin to where it was under Thatcher. It is a position rather like that advocated by Reform. It includes dilution of the policy of pursuing net zero by 2050 because of the carnage it threatens to the country's economy, tackling mass illegal immigration and stopping the anti-growth economic policies of the Labour Government. Mrs Badenoch has made uncompromising statements that evoke common-sense conservatism, and represent a disavowal of the ideology of 'woke' that still hobbles a Labour Party in thrall to identity politics. Take, for example, her rejoicing at the Supreme Court judgment about the definition of a woman, which allowed her to score a serious victory over Sir Keir Starmer at last week's Prime Minister's Questions. Or her demands for a proper inquiry into the Muslim rape gangs in various British cities and her demand to end the Orwellian absurdity of reporting so-called 'non-crime hate incidents'. Her party has also signalled it will fight the proposal in the Employment Rights Bill to allow people working in public spaces, such as pubs and bars, to sue their employers if they are 'offended' by 'banter' while working. This is all part of a strategy to revert to a more traditional conservatism, hoping to advertise some solid principles that will persuade former Conservative voters who either voted Reform last year or did not vote at all that it is safe to return 'home'. That is because, despite the far greater damage that the polls suggest Reform is preparing to do to Labour, the focus is on the bloody nose Nigel Farage's party may well give the Conservatives later this week. Common-sense conservatism It has become something of a sport among parts of the media sympathetic to Labour, but who recognise all too well the party's pitiful performance during its nearly 10 months in office, to highlight the 'shortcomings' of Mrs Badenoch, before speculating that her days are numbered. The media have become so used to there being an apparently permanent vacancy for Conservative Party leader – Mrs Badenoch is the sixth in nine years – that if a newcomer fails to revive the Conservatives' opinion poll standing more or less instantly, the hunt is deemed to be on for a replacement. In reality, if the Conservative Party were to panic and try to ditch Mrs Badenoch, who is still learning the job and making all the right noises, the small portion of the British public that still takes the party seriously would quickly cease to do so. That is not least why a calm and analytical response to the outcome of next Thursday's elections is essential. It is one of those moments where one may usefully quote the legendary Conservative backbencher Rear-Admiral Sir Morgan Morgan-Giles, who during heated scenes at a meeting of the 1922 Committee in 1971 stood up and pronounced: 'Pro bono publico, no bloody panico!' The main reason not to panic is that it is likely to be at least three and half, and possibly four, years until a general election. Everything Mrs Badenoch has done since assuming the leadership suggests she is directing her party back to its natural course – the course desired by its natural supporters. It took 14 years to complete the car crash that was the last Conservative administration; a new, more sensible and in-touch party is being made, but it will not materialise overnight. If the results look grim for the Conservatives next Thursday, and they may well, there is still plenty of time to put things right. Sir Keir seems to lack a suicide wish, and so his calling a snap election is highly unlikely. Expectations about the local elections have already been carefully managed, not least by Mrs Badenoch herself. She has stressed that she envisages 'very difficult' results, knowing that she and her colleagues still have much work to do in apologising for and learning from the mistakes of the 14 failed years of Conservative-led government from 2010 to 2024 if they are to rebuild public trust. When she mentioned this difficulty, the Liberal Democrats accused her of 'throwing in the towel'. Such sneers are the price she must pay for engaging in the hard-minded realism that the Conservative Party desperately needs if its revival is to happen. There had already been similar catcalls when she apologised for several aspects of the last government's policy, even though distancing herself and the party she leads from the some of the debacles with which it was associated – such as the catastrophic premiership of Liz Truss, the dishonesty and incompetence of Boris Johnson, and the chronic indecision and tin ear of Theresa May – is to most minds essential if the party is to move on. The main reason the Conservatives cannot expect to do well on Thursday is that in 2021, when these elections were last contested, they won two thirds of the seats contested. It was a time when Mr Johnson still enjoyed some public confidence and Sir Keir, like Mrs Badenoch now, was still finding his feet and being accused of being useless. On the Conservative benches today no leader or potential leader exists who, in the circumstances bequeathed by the last government, could hold on to so many local government seats now. And, as Mrs Badenoch has said, there is a mood of protest in the country at the moment. When people vote next Thursday, protest will be an important factor behind their intentions. The Lib Dems, who have always been a protest party, may well benefit but Reform looks likely to be the biggest beneficiary. The party will quite justifiably rejoice and argue it has taken yet another of many steps forward. That will be their privilege. The immediate danger for the Conservatives is that they do not take Morgan-Giles's advice. Whatever the local results, nothing about how the country is governed from Westminster will change. One-man band The Conservative challenge to Reform is only now beginning, and not always by obvious or conventional means. The party has no appetite for an all-out war with Reform, not least because there is so much common ideological ground and so many natural Conservatives find the party attractive. Mrs Badenoch has convictions with which she can make the political weather, as she has shown over the Supreme Court judgment and non-crime hate incidents. She has also been categorical about free trade, the status of Ukraine and the Government's inadequacy in keeping its promises to control illegal immigration. She displays a common-sense conservatism similar to that heard in the rhetoric of Reform politicians. It is precisely the sort of approach that, if maintained over the next few years, will help persuade people that the Conservative Party again harbours conservative beliefs. Avoiding aggressively attacking Reform is not the same as being blind to its problems and exploiting them where possible to undermine the party. Members of the shadow cabinet talk, for example, of Mr Farage's position on the NHS. He has talked of revising the NHS's 'funding model' and the Left has accused him of seeking to make many people insure their own health, which would leave them considerably worse off unless accompanied by tax cuts. He has also been criticised by Rupert Lowe – whom he had forced out of the party – for worshipping the 'cult' of the NHS and not accepting Mr Lowe's idea for a Royal Commission to consider how to fund the crumbling and overstretched service. Critics of Reform claim it is a one-man band, over-dependent on the considerable campaigning skills of Mr Farage, skills that contributed perhaps more than anything else to Britain's vote to leave the EU in 2016. Mr Farage, who has been extremely visible in the local elections campaign in a way his Reform colleagues have not, certainly has abundant energy and supreme communication skills. But if Reform is to succeed in the long term it cannot be just about him. Many Conservatives believe this makes the party highly vulnerable, not just because of its reliance on Mr Farage, but because of the controversies that his leadership style appears to create. His largest problem, which arose in early March, was with Mr Lowe. He described Mr Farage as 'the Messiah' and Mr Farage described Mr Lowe as 'contemptible'. Reform then reported Mr Lowe to the police for allegations of bullying, and the police are investigating. Mr Lowe has announced he is suing his former leader for libel, and also Zia Yusuf, the Scottish businessman who chairs the party, and his fellow MP Lee Anderson. If he does, the only beneficiaries may be the legal profession. Mr Yusuf has also been the target of severe criticism from Reform staffers and chairmen of local branches, about his management style and the alleged disrespectful nature of his leadership team. He is also blamed for the rupture with Mr Lowe. Eating the Tories for breakfast. 🥣 @Keir_Starmer — Nigel Farage MP (@Nigel_Farage) April 24, 2025 However well the party does next Thursday, insiders believe there will be a shake-up at the centre immediately afterwards. Yet Mr Yusuf has such authority in the party, and under its structure shares control of it with Mr Farage, he appears only to be able to be sacked if he agrees to be. Another former ally who has cast himself adrift from Mr Farage is Ben Habib, the former deputy leader, who has announced he is setting up a new Right-of-centre party, Integrity. Mr Farage described his former colleague as 'very bitter, very twisted' and described it as a 'relief' that he had left the party. Mr Habib responded by saying Mr Farage was 'dangerous'. Mr Habib said that the 'last straw' for him in deciding to leave Reform was its treatment of Mr Lowe, who has hinted he might join Integrity, even though there appears to be no room for it in the British political firmament. All this is highly comforting for the Conservatives, who so far are, by contrast to Reform, maintaining a reasonable level of discipline. Meanwhile, Mr Habib's professing not to care whether the extremist Tommy Robinson joins Integrity could be an early kiss of death for the party's, and Mr Habib's, ambitions. These tribulations within Reform appear to follow a pattern, and the Conservatives are quietly confident that without much help from them this state of apparently permanent civil war will continue. Reform insiders say the difficulties are a 'Westminster bubble' story. Paradoxically, a strong showing by Reform next Thursday could be the stimulus for the story to burst out of the bubble, as the party demands more scrutiny. Mr Farage has another problem, which could prove his most intractable: his strong association with Donald Trump. Mr Trump's bizarre tariff policies, the various climbdowns and the damage they are perceived to do to Britain, are bad enough. His repeated humiliations of Volodymyr Zelensky, the Ukrainian president, and his perceived sympathy with Putin, are even worse. It has helped unite the British people against him like almost nothing else. Mr Farage has criticised Mr Trump in recent weeks; whether such statements are enough to end what many voters will consider his guilt by association remains to be seen. Mr Farage is experienced, and good, at his own public relations. One doubts he will be cheering for Mr Trump too volubly in the immediate future. All to play for It is part of the Conservatives' expectation management for next Thursday that the party might lose 500 seats. If it does, there will be a predictable slew of stories about how Mr Farage is on course to be prime minister (unlikely), how Mrs Badenoch is under pressure and could lose her job (unlikely in the short term), and how Sir Keir has one foot in the political grave (the most accurate of the three). It will be worth concentrating on how badly Labour does, as it will demonstrate just how shallow its vast majority was in 2024. It might be worth reflecting, too, on various important developments within the Conservative party itself, which has not, contrary to some views, simply been sitting around in recent months like a rabbit in the headlights. During her nearly six months as leader Mrs Badenoch has overseen the raising of more funds than Labour and Reform combined. She has also sought to restructure Conservative Central Office so that the party's organisation and campaigning operation are improved. And above all, she has a full policy review under way that is seeking submissions widely. She and people around her – including Mr Jenrick, as is obvious from his 'coalition' remarks – understand the intractability of the system. The last time a leading political party was permanently relegated to third place was in 1924, when Labour formed its first, short-lived administration. The destruction of the old Liberal party was the product of David Lloyd George's ambition and ability to bear a grudge: first with the coup d'état he launched against his colleague HH Asquith in December 1916, to become prime minister, alienating almost all his parliamentary party; and second with his manipulation of the candidate selection for the 1918 general election, which denied winnable seats to his Liberal critics (including Asquith). Thus the Liberals were divided and neutered, just as a united and increasingly appealing Labour Party was asserting itself, and becoming a natural opposition to the Conservatives. Ever after, apart from the Conservative-dominated coalitions in 1931-45 and 2010-15, the government of Britain has alternated between Labour and the Conservatives. It is far from obvious that the Conservative Party is going to oblige Reform in the way that the Liberals obliged Labour a century ago. However, if the Conservatives cannot succeed in providing a suitable programme to the electorate that will win back millions of their lost voters, the unprecedented prospect of two centre-Right parties jointly having a majority of seats in the Commons could become a reality. Were the Conservatives ahead they could try to come to an arrangement such as Asquith did with the Irish National Party when his Liberal party lost its majority in January 1910: by asking what the Nationalists wanted – Home Rule – he brought a succession of measures in to pursue it, and was able to govern with their help until 1915. If Reform were ahead, many Conservatives, with their traditional thirst for power, would doubtless be only too happy to come to an accommodation with them, though it would be on Reform's terms. That is the situation that Mrs Badenoch and her colleagues will be spending the next three or four years seeking to avoid, by striving to convince the public that their party is genuinely conservative again. Whatever else they prove, Thursday's results will provide little or no evidence of whether the Conservatives can achieve that. Despite the headlines you will read next week, all is still to play for.
