What kind of leader should the Conservative Party really be looking for? It’s a question that doesn’t get enough attention, even though the party has a habit of swiftly deposing its leaders. Dissatisfaction often centers on the current leader, while speculation circles around potential replacements.
On some level, this makes sense. From a practical politics standpoint, there’s little benefit in imagining a perfect leader who doesn’t exist. It’s like being an online dater with an endless checklist: you might find no real person measures up to the image in your mind.
However, lacking imagination has its pitfalls, notably the belief that one of the existing options must be the right one. While chasing an unrealistic ideal is a surefire way to end up alone, settling without a clear understanding of your needs can lead to rapid disillusionment—as Conservatives have experienced time and again.
With the party still grappling with quick bouts of buyer’s remorse—evident in the press’s nervous chatter about Kemi Badenoch’s leadership—discontented Tories would do well to delve deeper into what they truly want in a leader, beyond their current dissatisfaction.
Everyone’s vision of the perfect leader will be slightly different, a bit like stitching together a unique Frankenstein’s monster. However, many Conservatives are likely drawing from the same source of inspiration: their pantheon of past heroes. So, what are they searching for?
For many, the honest answer is straightforward: a winner. More specifically, someone who makes them feel like winners. Politics is a team effort, and just like sports fans, party members chase the thrill of victory.
This is the common thread between Margaret Thatcher and Boris Johnson. Notably, both managed to inspire devotion among right-wing enthusiasts despite Johnson’s agenda of mass immigration and increased government spending. Both leaders had their moments of victory, and victory feels invigorating.
They did, however, achieve success in nearly opposite manners. Johnson thrived on being liked and wanted to please everyone, while Thatcher had a clear vision and wasn’t afraid to take significant political risks to achieve it.
This willingness to take risks is too often overlooked by Conservatives. In retrospect, the 1980s can seem like an uninterrupted stream of successes. When modern Tories wistfully long for “another Thatcher,” they often overlook not only her failings but her real strengths.
Firstly, Thatcher had a clear ideological and intellectual project, which gave her government direction and a purpose that transcended personal loyalty. This allowed prominent figures within the party to rally towards a common cause. However, her acceptance of competition within her party waned alongside the fortunes of her government.
Importantly, the Conservative Party of Thatcher’s era had an instinctive grasp of its social coalition. It might sound crass now, but back then, both Labour and the Tories were very much sectional interest parties and were aware of it.
Thatcherism aimed to broaden the party’s base, but it remained focused on its core supporters and succeeded because it protected their interests. From the transformation of the City to the sale of council houses, her policies created clear beneficiaries who knew whom to thank.
This resulted in John Major securing 14 million votes in 1992—the highest popular vote ever achieved by any party in a British general election, unmatched even by Johnson during his peak, with a larger electorate.
Today, the Conservative Party lacks that clear sense of purpose. Efforts from Cameron’s detoxification agenda to Johnson’s “cakeism” have tried to expand the Tory coalition but have ultimately made it narrower, especially among working-age voters.
Events like Brexit and the Partygate scandal have contributed to this. However, Brexit itself stemmed from a deeper issue: an attempt to keep everyone happy without addressing significant political questions. Cameron’s austerity efforts, for instance, tried to make painless cuts across the board, resulting in a cumbersome state that serves no one well.
During their tenure, Conservative leaders were easily swayed by opponents away from policies that created clear winners. Local opposition to development (nimbys) or overregulating childcare, along with recruiting numerous local councillors as MPs, eroded the social processes that traditionally created Tory supporters.
In their search for leadership, Conservatives might be better off abandoning the quest for the next Thatcher. She, after all, didn’t win the leadership in 1975 by harking back to Stanley Baldwin.
At the very least, it’s crucial to recognize that what’s needed isn’t a revival of her specific agenda, but her determination to overhaul the party and tackle the deep-rooted challenges facing Britain. This endeavor was uncomfortable for many Tories, but meaningful revolutions often are.
