Read on Twitter
A well-argued response to my recent pessimistic piece about the future direction of the Conservative Party. @DLidington is usually right, so a few thoughts on his article. /1 https://twitter.com/ConHome/status/1280417172519636992
First, he is right to say that the Government's ambition to "level up" opportunities available to people living in parts of the country that feel left behind is to be supported. It is in the best traditions of One Nation Conservatism. /2
Second, I agree that a 'tilt towards the economic & industrial policies of Macmillan, Heath & Heseltine should be seen as a pragmatic response to the times... not some heretical departure from the one true faith'. Agreed, but there are some risks. /3 https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/06/david-gauke-big-government-is-back-it-didnt-work-before-it-may-not-now-heres-why-we-should-be-wary-of-it.html
Third, I very much agree with David's case that the Conservative Party needs to expand its support, win the votes of younger and more socially liberal people. My original piece (see below) touched on the risks of not doing so. /4 https://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2020/07/david-gauke-i-fear-the-conservative-party-is-lost-for-small-state-free-marketeers-and-one-nation-social-liberals.html
But, my suspicion is that the Government will see its priority being to hold what it has and keeping the support of the voters that decided the result of the last election. 'Beginning to deliver results for their families and neighbourhoods' won't be enough. /5
For as long as possible, the Government will want to appeal to a broad range of voters. But in the end, I think they'll need to make a choice. And my guess is that they'll go for the economically left, socially right wing Red Wall voters rather than younger social liberals. /6
