Nick Timothy, a former Tory Party spin doctor, has published an article in the paywalled Daily Telegraph which deserves a closer look, as I announced here. As always, I make no apologies for quoting at length, starting with this astonishing confession:
“At the 2015 election, I helped to run the Conservative campaign that stopped Nigel Farage getting into Parliament. Four years on, I wonder if we made a terrible mistake.”
Savour this – it must be a first, this confession by a political expert, spin doctor and now pundit: a terrible mistake was made! I remember that GE very well indeed, and the way the Tories came out at the last minute with the terrifying warning that a vote for UKIP would mean a Miliband/Sturgeon socialist government … Now we get Ms May saying ‘vote for my WA or there will be a GE and Corbyn will get in’. Plus ça change …
Moving on:
“Back then, Farage forced the Tories to listen to millions of ignored voters. So they promised the Brexit referendum, and said they’d cut immigration. Now, without Farage breathing down their necks, they are breaking both promises.
Like many other Brexit supporters, Farage seemed to believe that the will of the people would be implemented by the Government and Parliament. But we were wrong.
With the Leave campaign disbanded, and its advocates scattered far and wide, the pressure dropped. Many MPs began to play a cynical game. First, they wanted Parliament to have a greater say. Then they wanted a softer Brexit, and then they wanted it softer still. They wanted a delay and, then, another. Many now support a second referendum, and the revocation of Article 50.”
Does that mean even Mr Timothy believed that the MPs and his Tory government would do as promised? We ‘believers’ are in good company, it seems. Next:
“The Remainers who claim that ill-informed Leavers were duped into voting for Brexit have themselves been unscrupulously dishonest. We respect the result, they said after the referendum and at the election, when they knew they did not.
Labour told their voters – a third of whom voted to leave the EU – they accepted Brexit. The Tories told their voters – two thirds of whom voted to leave – we would get out of the single market and customs union and “no deal is better than a bad deal”.”
The following sentences are even stronger:
“Due to the dishonesty and dishonour of this Parliament, and a negotiation in which Theresa May has rolled over time and again, we face the prospect of Brexit In Name Only – a customs union and close alignment with EU laws – or no Brexit at all.
But actions have consequences. And in the European elections the party system will be smashed.”
Frankly, I’ve not read such strong words by a Westminster insider since … I can’t remember! To continue:
“It will not be the kind of smash predicted and hoped for by liberal centrists on the BBC. It isn’t the Independent Group, or Change [sic] UK, who will bring about the change demanded by a frustrated public. Neither will the street demonstrations, obstruction and criminal damage of Extinction Rebellion. The smash will be brought about by the moderate masses who shocked the liberal centrists three years ago when they voted for Brexit. These people aren’t mouthy, they’re not rowdy, and they don’t turn up in London with banners and blimps. They’re not likely to prostrate themselves before a 16-year-old from Sweden prophesying the end of days. They are quiet, respectable, hard-working and patriotic people who want their politicians to do what they promised.”
That is as good and close an analysis as one would expect from a former spin doctor. It lends weight to the next remarks:
“They will ensure the Brexit Party finishes ahead of the Tories in the European elections, and possibly top the list. Just as the referendum demonstrated – and hastened – a trend in which working class voters were becoming more culturally conservative, so the European elections will illustrate how precarious the Tory position is.
And these are only the European elections. At the next general election, if the Conservatives have not delivered Brexit, and a Brexit that is meaningful to Leave voters, they will be smashed again. A senior Tory explains: “Stopping Brexit and stopping Corbyn is the Remainers’ version of having your cake and eating it: you can have one, but not the other.”
Hm. Of course, I’d like to ask what that ‘senior Tory’ and his colleagues are going to do about it. Curl up and whimper in the face of the May WA ‘Dragon’? Next, some questions which Tory MPs ought to ponder:
“The Tories cannot win unless they are the party that accepts, welcomes and delivers Brexit. But we should be honest that this will not be a bloodless act. Remainers have complained about the attempts to hold votes of no confidence in the likes of Grieve. But why should he be above scrutiny?
How would sticking with die hard Remainers help the Conservatives to unite and deliver their mandate? And what would more resistance from these rebels do for Conservatives like Eddie Hughes or Ben Bradley who represent Leave-supporting marginal constituencies? Showing good form to some MPs – despite their disloyalty – would mean death for others.
It is not only MPs. The Tories will lose some voters who supported them in the past but are ardent Remainers. They have the opportunity, however, to win over Leave voters who have never before voted Conservative.”
That is a good point, but I think that particular train has already left the station … The following paragraphs are important, especially for the leaders of those ‘new’ parties:
“According to polling by Lord Ashcroft, when voters are presented with choices between not only the Conservatives and Labour but a culturally liberal party and a culturally conservative party, more voters choose the two new parties than the old ones, and the cultural conservatives come first.”
Ah! And do note, if you click on the link, that this poll was undertaken last year, before the TIGs and indeed TBP sprang onto the scene. The following underlines the importance of this change in voter attitudes. It’s no longer ‘the economy, stupid’ – other issues have become more important:
“Other pollsters confirm that the salience of cultural issues is rising at the expense of the economy, which is driving a political realignment. With Brexit and immigration the defining issues at stake, the Tories have no future as a metro, liberal party. They have to become the champions of community and solidarity. In other words, the National Party.
Although libertarians and ultra-liberals recoil in horror at this prospect, it would mark a return to the party’s philosophical roots. Disraeli, who bemoaned Britain’s slide into two nations of rich and poor, passed laws to protect workers and improve working class housing. Neville Chamberlain, the party’s forgotten social reformer, improved pensions and social services and built millions of homes. He wanted to “get rid of that odious title Conservative” and have the party known by “a National name”.”
Mr Timothy of course doesn’t ask why the Tory Party has abandoned these philosophical roots. I can help him out there: as spin doctor he and others were chasing the elusive ‘swing voters’ and assumed that ‘going full Blair Mk II’ would be the winning solution. That was and is of course another grave mistake, perhaps a worse one than keeping Nigel Farage out. Finally:
“Personally, I don’t find the name “Conservative” odious at all. And of course I don’t really regret helping a Conservative MP to beat Farage in 2015. But his comeback, and his likely success in the European elections next month, serves a severe warning to the Tories. Make yourselves the National Party, or cease to be the governing party.”
But why should the two Parties which have so blatantly broken their promises to the voters be entitled to form the government of our country? Now that would be worthy of an analysis by spin doctors past and present.
Looks like Nick Timothy is now admitting what he has denied. ‘I helped to run the campaign to stop Nigel Farage getting to parliament’. I understand there was a police investigation and a long running court case regarding the financial resources employed by the winning candidate. It would seem the services of a civil servant employed by the Home Office were directed to supporting the conservative candidate. This expense would be in addition to the declared expenses and probably broke rules about employing civil servants. Playing fast and loose with electoral law and boasting about your role in a national newspaper shows the calibre of person employed by our anti-democracy Prime Minister. It begins with election expenses and before you know it your reversing a democratic national referendum.
Viv,
Because of you-know-what voting system, voting choices have whittled down to a ‘Left’ and a ‘Right’ party, each lumping together a small gas board of policies which the voter has to hold their nose to vote for so’s the Other Lot don’t get in.
To my knowledge, only two established national parties have made campaigning for Proportional Representation a policy priority, For Britain and UKIP, and UKIP only quite recently.
I have been banging on about PR for close to 20 years now. Other parties don’t seem to get that you just can’t win a seat under the current system, they work on the One-More-Heave-And-We’ll-Win principle, despite that method never having got close to working.
Even in UKIP a lot of members think First Past The Post is OK. They believe in miracles. I find that extraordinary that they don’t get it.
And so the ‘Left’ and ‘Right’, AKA Labour and Conservative, can justifiably claim to be entitled to swap terms in office. Who’s gonna stop them under FPTP?
Who’s gonna stop them Rob? Good question, and the only answer is the two parties themselves. And we all know that turkeys don’t vote for Christmas.
https://www.makevotesmatter.org.uk/home
Difficult to disagree with your sentiment.
I believe that there would, however, be a chance for PR if TBP, assuming it smashes its way to the top of the Euros in a few weeks time, were to adopt Proportional Representation as its co ~equal main policy plank ( with WTO Brexit ) it might have a chance of sweeping to victory in the next General Election : It could adopt the policy of Proportional Representation for elections to both the Commons and local authorities, with a pledge to enact such a change in its first year, and then, within months of the enactment, calling a new General Election , so that for the first time ever we might have a House of Commons which broadly reflected all currents of opinion within the United Kingdom.
I believe that the patent fairness of such a policy might well resonate with people…………and if it looked like doing so one or even both of the main legacy parties might incorporate such a pledge into their Manifestos ( this happened with the Referendum Party in 1997, as I recall ~ it kind of obliged Lab and Tories to promise that the UK would enter the Euro only after a referendum on the issue ? )
So there might, after all, be a way forward to Fair Votes and Making Votes Matter.
Meanwhile all people of goodwill who believe in fairness generally and in the electoral system in particular, should join up with MVM, join or even form your local Branch. (UKIP, btw, is already a collective Member of MVM . Not sure about TBP.)
‘and if it looked like doing so one or even both of the main legacy parties might incorporate such a pledge into their Manifestos ‘ Quite, with the sole intention of putting the kybosh on it if the 2017 GE manifestos are anything to go by.
The Brexit Party consists as far as I can see, and I have not looked into it that deeply, of Nigel and Richard Tice. No members only supporters, and no pesky NEC etc to hold them back.
Nigel is personally signed up to MVM, so he could adopt your suggestion on a whim, today. Why don’t you suggest it to him?
Perhaps even better, maybe the supporters should suggest it, shouldn’t be a problem as he supports it, but would that be tantamount to power sharing?
Yes it is worth a try, but is ANYONE who is benefitting from FPTP going to change it?
OH WHAT A TANGLED WEB WE WEAVE, WHEN FIRST WE TRY TO DECEIVE ! ….. or ….. FRANKLY MY DEAR, I DON’T GIVE A DAMN ! ….. These two totally unconnected statements seem to be an appropriate summary of attitude to this Conservative Party today, from voters that have enough intelligence to understand, and evaluate the true worth of their vote !
The Lib/Lab/Con all have their ‘Grunt’ supporters, which are those folk who never think before casting their vote. Never read a manifesto.- These folk probably come from a long line of ‘Political Grunts’, and the sad fact is that they have more than likely never voted for what they want, only against what they have been told to not want !- It is the outworking of a FPTP vote system, and I am depressed that this fact has not been used well, in the debates for bringing in a PR vote system.
The point made, of money being spent upon an unwanted and unnecessary Euro vote, and therefore little money left to fight a General Election, is a fair and accurate point upon Domestic Parties ! ….. Little investigation was made upon David Cameron’s large leaflet, pre referendum, to all households in the hope of keeping the voters ‘On Script’, and was as stupid as it was unnecessary, and where did the millions come from for that ?- I think it was from out of OUR POCKETS !
As this Brexit, or THE EU DRIVEL continues, our once fairly held assurance of Democracy has taken a battering, thanks to the inept Mrs May. She is without doubt most incorrectly cast as our PM, and my own view is that she should never have entered politics at all.- Now we see the difficulty in getting shot of her, with the 1922 committee considering a change to Tory Party rules. I hope that this might open the way to consider voting change, but I am braced for disappointment !
It is clear that THE MOTHER OF PARLIAMENTS has fallen into dementia, and the majority of its current members need to be cut out of it, but the surgeon can only be the people, and their scalpel has to be their precious votes !
If TBP are sensible they will continue to concentrate on the matter of trust. It is all important. A Tory is convicted of “”deliberate fraud” in claiming his expenses by a Crown Court this week yet his constituency association have declared their full backing for him in remaining an MP and the Party does not expel him. Who wants to place their trust in such a plainly odious and shameless bunch? It’s a similar case with Labour. The Peterborough MP, a qualified solicitor no less, is found guilty of an offence close to perjury and is given 3 months inside. Released after a month she rejoins her criminal Tory pal in the House to vote on the fate of OUR nation. Hollywood would belly laugh at such an outrageously fantastical screenplay yet here are the British electorate faced with precisely that situation. Add in the fact that an ex-Scottish MP was found guilty this week of the embezzlement of £20,000 of charity.monies whilst at Westminster and our democracy, so called, is verging on farce. TBP has something of an open goal here: Keep playing the “Trust” card. A majority of their candidates have not been tainted by a close association with Parliament. A swamp for the draining for sure.
Time that those with a criminal conviction were prevented from standing for public office at all levels of government and expelled immediately on a conviction.
The compensation claims against the ‘government’ that we the grateful taxpayers will have to pay for cancelling the e.u elections would be substantial , reading comments from other blogs and in msm I wouldn’t place a bet this time on voters ( except maybe some floaters ) returning to Con/Lab at a general election either. It seems to me that the the old party system is dying and like msm they just don’t know or see how close they are, even Warren Buffett said recently that the ‘newspaper business is toast’
It could be that the High Court challenges to the Brexit delay and what looks like the beginnings of problems for the whole establishment let alone May’s farce of a government could bring pressure on the monarchy to put an end to this chaos. Although one has to have some sympathy for the ‘firm’ as they battle to solve the problems of Wills, Kate ,Harry and Meg which apparently are more pressing than shambles created in Westminster. The ‘honours list’ when May goes will be most interesting as will the next opening of parliament, when presumably the Queen will dress in more politically neutral and appropriate attire.
Good article. The illegitimate EU elections ( we should have left on March 29th ) are now the only opportunity to kick the Tories and Labour where it hurts and a greater than 50% combined vote for either UKIP or TBP should be regarded as at least an indicator that any illegitimate second referendum ( only the 2016 one is legitimate ) would deliver a strong Brexit majority.
But……
That’s the reason why we should expect all sorts of shenanigans to halt the May 23rd farce. The last thing the Remoan Establishment want is that sort of indicative vote— so it will be stopped.
Yesterday the 1922 Committee let May off the hook again – you know why – and one can only predict that the grand plot is to deliver May’s Withdrawal Agreement, perhaps mildly diluted, or BRINO, as a last solution to the war-weary public so the EU elections can be cancelled.
Cancelling very late of course, achieves a couple of things . All of UKIP / TBPs’ money would have been burnt in fighting the EU elections – weakening any future General Election efforts – and all the Tory defectors / wannabe gravy-trainers would have been exposed and finally purged from the Tory ranks.
UKIP/ TBP will be burned.
It’s rope-a-dope.
This will leave BoJo -or a BoJo sound alike free to romp home in a Tory leadership battle and line up for a final conflict with Corbyn’s Marxists, who again would have purged all their treasonous mob of Tiggers. Right v Left. Simples.
What we will end up with then – come October/November will be a quick general election and most of the UKIP / TBP voters will 1/ Either flock back to BoJo -who will seek to renegotiate WA over time – or 2/ Abstain, which will lead to a Labour victory and apocalypse .