Achi news desk-
During John Redwood’s 1995 challenge to John Major’s leadership of the Conservative party, his campaign team came up with the slogan, “No change, no chance”. He was sure to appeal to Tory MPs rightly fearing for their seats.
But, as a recent opinion poll put Labor ahead by almost 40 points – and the only instrument of change available was Redwood, rather than an elected person – a more honest presentation would have been: “No chance either way neither, but let us at least. lose with a right-wing leader.”
Alamy
Slogans can be used more than once, and if there is a solid basis for speculation about an initiative to replace Rishi Sunak with Penny Mordaunt, “team Penny” could be confident that they would revive Redwood’s abstinence on behalf of a more credible competitor. Whatever her political abilities, Mordaunt (unlike Redwood) seems pleasant, prudent – and quite nice with an oversized ceremonial sword.
Why, as a seemingly balanced individual, would Mordaunt want this job? First, serving as prime minister for a few weeks is still a positive decoration for the average CV.
Even being the leader of the Conservatives in the opposition probably helps in the eyes of potential employers. That would be enough to justify a temporary sacrifice of sanity before Mordaunt ventures back into reality TV.
The no change, no chance argument also makes sense for Mordaunt personally, as she is due to lose her seat at the next election. Having to leave her current cabinet position as leader of the House of Commons would not cause her undue grief.
Given the mess that can be expected after the next general election, and the list of far-right candidates who have been vying to succeed Sunak, for Mordaunt it is almost certainly now or never.
Would change give them a chance?
But would another change of leader help the Conservatives? In one sense, it almost certainly would. Sunak’s tenure was doomed not least because right-wing MPs were always determined to deny him the opportunity to establish governing authority.
If Mordaunt became leader at the invitation of the party’s ultra-nationalists, she would have a much better chance of creating an illusion of party unity. They would all have to keep quiet about the fact that she is basically the same person the parliamentary party rejected two years ago, when MPs decided she was less attractive than Liz Truss.
Alamy/Imageplotter
Meanwhile, Mordaunt’s family background is interesting enough to attract sympathetic media intervention, without involving any multi-millionaires. An added advantage is that few people know what she stands for, and probably never will.
Google from the name of the would-be savior is ready to surrender the “Coronation of Penny Mordaunt” to commemorate her best known service to king and country. Unfortunately, Mordaunt’s own coronation is a very unlikely scenario.
First the Tories would have to reward the incumbent, which is likely to be a messy business as there is little sign of Sunak doing a Leo Varadkar and resigning.
Likewise, even if Mordaunt is a passable poster person, she will have to choose a ministerial team. With heavy debts to pay off on her right, the subsequent procedure could be unpleasant.
Lord Johnson to replace Cameron from his trouble at the Foreign Office? Truss in the Treasury? Such forecasts could prompt a dramatic change in UK net migration figures, but at an unacceptable cost.
The heart of the problem
Although the current speculation is not entirely far-fetched, the reality is that if the Conservatives are going for Penny, they are still in for a pound. After the next election, almost anything is possible from a party that is an unwitting gift to public entertainment, and cannot stop itself from giving. By the end of the next parliament, the leader of the Tories could just as well be Nigel Farage or someone who is currently in prep school.
When historians look back on the unraveling of a once great party, they will point to 1997 as the time when it all started to go wrong. One person, one vote in leadership elections is a worthy idea in theory, but it should never have been extended to a frivolous body of people like members of the Conservative party.
Even more alarming than the number of leadership contests is the post-1997 tendency of every Conservative MP, however unqualified, to consider standing for an office that became impossible in 2016, if not before. Michael Howard – rejected in 1997 and praised six years later – tried in vain to get rid of a system that had allowed the party faithful to elevate Iain Duncan Smith.
For the Tories, there is now no navigable route back to common sense. Even if the final choice of leader is once again entrusted to MPs, they will (as in the fateful case of Boris Johnson) feel limited to choosing the person who appeals most to the grassroots.
Unfortunately for Sunak, he cannot pass a vote of no confidence in his party and install a new one. Despite the speculation, as in the case of the Major, they are probably stuck together until the electorate sends them on their (very) separate ways.
