A.N. To say 100k views is incredible is an understatement. Thank you for reading and thank you for supporting. And its fitting that one of my favourite updates, and one of the most consequential so far, marks this incredible milestone.
The 2007 elections was the end for Chris Patten. Local elections reflected the devolved elections which reflected the mayoral elections. Shedding thousands of councillors across the country, stumbling in London, Scotland and Wales, it was clear that voter at best apathy, at worst anger, ran far and wide.
Michael Portillo’s comments on Patten, reiterating that the PM needed to resign, if an expected intervention from a political rival in the party, was again a firing shot, as it was in the autumn of 2006. This time however, Patten was not alone in his criticism. When William Hague, the former Home Secretary, unceremoniously dumped by Patten in 2004 (with hindsight now seeing the sacking as the beginning of the end for the Patten), also announced that he had lost confidence in Patten’s leadership, Patten could no longer hold on.
It was clear too many in the Conservative Party that the last year had been one of inertia, stagnation and gridlock. A continuation of Patten, represented by Lansley, Rifkind and Maude, was not what was needed. Change was the buzzword and every candidates began scrambling to offer change.
Portillo was the man-to-beat. Having ran London for 8 years, then elected to a safe Conservative seat in London, Portillo could use his experience to boast of his experience and prove that he would be “
ready from day one”, to steal Portillo’s campaign slogan. His entry into the race was expected, as was the significant number of MPs backing his campaign.
Having been first neutral (if privately against the common currency) in the 1999 ecu referendum and then outright campaigning against the EU constitution in 2006 gave him significant political capital within the Conservative Party and let him effectively make the argument that he was in-touch with “regular people” and could blunt the rise of Union by appealing to such regular people.
Portillo however, had his flaws. Ambitious to a tee, those who supported him on the backbenches did so out of craven political ambition, believing that he would be the next PM and wanted to back a winner. Those MPs who backed him were not loyal to him or his ideology, but saw the potential of a plum Cabinet position and ministerial promotions. Portillo’s lax work as a constituency MP and the way he carried himself had also done little to win over either the irreconcilable euroskeptics or the moderate and quiet MPs on the backbenches, with figures such as Edward Leigh and Francis Maude picking up ample support.
Portillo had also been a thorn in the side of Pattenites in the party, having attacked the PM for years and, as to be expected, a large section of the Conservative Party was adamantly opposed to him. Further, Portillo’s political viability had been depleted by his failed attempt in 2006 to force Patten’s resignation. Portillo was not the vote-winner he had been when he was London mayor, and serious questions were raised on how Portillo would perform in the general election.
Despite these pros and cons, it was anticipated that Portillo had enough support with MPs and MEPs to make it to the membership vote, regardless. As such, the initial phase of the leadership contest became a referendum on Portillo, with the other candidates positioning themselves as the “
Anti-Portillo”.
The man expected to be the
Anti-Portillo was William Hague. Hague, however, chose to sit out the race, shocking considering his ambition for the top job, his unjustified sacking in 2004 and his most recent public intervention against Patten which finally toppled his premiership. Hague either seemed set for retirement from public life in the next election, or had done a back-room deal with one of the candidates for a plum position in the next Cabinet.
It would be the ‘
wunderkind’ David Laws who would claim this mantle. His years in Cabinet and had amassed him a significant support base in the party. Nicknamed the “
Young Guns”, men such as David Laws, David Gauke, Nick Clegg, Mark Littlewood and Jeremy Browne, came to change the Conservative Party. Whilst on the liberal wing of the party, these men were economically austere and socially liberal but tinged by a reformist nature and a distrust of the welfare and nanny state. Pro-European but (unlike Patten who fully supported the more social and cultural aspects of EU membership) for economic reasons and motivations, was a tonic to many Conservatives who had never been comfortable with embracing Europe. Balancing the budget, instituting tax cuts, using the ecu and aligning economically with Germany was why Britain chose Europe.
With the European constitution dead in the water, and Brundtland’s Commission focused on the fallout from the annexation of Crimea, there was little to criticise (at least within Conservative ranks) about the EU aside from generic arguments regarding immigration and sovereignty. It would serve Laws well. If the election had been held in the aftermath of the European constitution debacle, those who supported the EU would be in a disadvantageous place.
Laws also had something different about him, something dynamic about him, something new. Young, attractive, charismatic, Laws preformed perfectly in the 24/7 news cycle, which Patten had never quite mastered. Portillo was a media man himself, but with the excitement surrounding Laws, the attention was on him.
The Home Office, the graveyard of political careers, had been relatively kind to Laws. Less activist than Hague, civil servants worked well with the more managerial Laws and good luck had avoided significant scandals or tragedies during his tenure. Even if immigration was a sore point as always, Laws could count his blessings.
As John Bercow, Chris Grayling and Edward Leigh divided the hard euroskeptics amongst themselves and Maude, Lansley and Rifkind found themselves with the Pattenites in the party, many names were felled before the first ballot.
Edward Leigh had a sizeable contingent of die-hard euroskeptic and social conservatives behind him, enough to dispatch Bercow and Grayling. Lansley and Rifkind divided support amongst themselves and Maude barely made it to the second round, withdrawing shortly after, rather than suffering embarrassment on the second ballot. There was no surprise in the second ballot, with Laws leapfrogging both Leigh and Portillo to win the most support of MPs and MEPs. It would be Laws v Portillo.
Of course, questions arose about both men’s sexualities. Laws, within the Westminster bubble was ‘
out’, but to the wider public he was not. Portillo had dodged accusations of his sexuality throughout his political career. With both men tarred by homophobic rumours and poking questions from journalists, it was agreed that such matters were not right for such a campaign and most questions were either shut down or ignored by the candidates.
Political pundits and journalists expected Portillo to romp to victory in the members ballot. What they failed to recognise was that stringent membership rules instituted in 2006 meant that the expected flood of Union agitators or hard-right figures didn’t materialise. The membership of the Conservative Party was moulded by the moderate and long-lasting leaderships of Heseltine (1984-1993) and Patten (1995-2007).
While still more ‘
small-c conservative’ than the parliamentary party, many members disliked Portillo’s continual sniping and blamed the man for the current state of the Conservative party. The man who wielded the knife should not win the subsequent election was a sentiment shared by many.
Laws, still relatively fresh-faced and relatively unknown to the public, was better able to sell the change narrative than Portillo, who had been at the forefront of politics since 1995. Polling showed that Laws would fare better than Portillo, as Union’s support seemed solid (a worrying sign of the level of political disenfranchisement in the late 2000s) and a significant number of moderates were willing to back a blank-slate candidate such as Laws.
In the many leadership hustings held across the country, Laws would enter with low expectations and often match and met them. Promising a return to fiscal responsibility, tax cuts and individual responsibility harked back to the martyred Thatcher era. Portillo preferring a BBC or ITN interview would struggle in a hustings environment and would often be on the backfoot. On top of this, Portillo was forced to defend some of scandals of his mayorship, including the many elitist champagne lunches and luxurious and often unnecessary trips to Europe, unnecessary distractions in the campaign.
It was still Portillo’s to lose. That was until Laws’ promise that any further changes/treaties implemented by the European Union would first need to be approved by a public referendum. This policy announcement, the brain-child of Laws confidant and fellow Conservative MP Nick Clegg, gave Laws significant cover with euroskeptics. It was Union’s main campaign promise and Laws had adopted it. It change the very nature of the race.
Portillo’s contrarian approach that he would not support such usages of referendums, lest the public approve the change, was quickly reversed but heavily damaged Portillo’s standing, and with Edward Leigh refusing to endorse Portillo’s bid, saw many hard euroskeptics either leave the Conservative party wholesale or abstain/spoil their leadership ballot.
When William Hague backed Laws’ leadership bid a few days after, it was clear who had the momentum. Polling of Conservative membership showed both men level by the end of the campaign.
And so by a narrow margin, 52%- 48%, not including spoilt ballots, David Laws had, against all the odds, emerged triumphant over Michael Portillo in the membership vote. As the cameras focused on Portillo, what should’ve been his moment, the crowning achievement of his political career had been stolen from him. The so-called “
Portillo Moment” was born. Portillo's shell-shocked appearance and unenthusiastic clapping would be one of the last moments he would ever have the public and media spotlight on him.
As attention turned to David Laws, Britain had her youngest Prime Minister since Lord Liverpool. Promising a dynamic government, one which would deliver an “
enabling society” which would allow people to succeed on their own merits, would cut taxes and balance the books, sounded like a tonic to many across the country.
Laws’ Cabinet was also a clear departure from Patten’s. Gone were stuffy, old, Etonian men who had been in ministerial positions since the 1970s, with fresh new talent was brought into government. Whilst one big beast returned, in William Hague, who returned to Cabinet as Chancellor and First Secretary of State, it would be new faces who would’ve dominated the papers. Caroline Spelman, David Gauke, Nick Clegg and David Willetts all entered Cabinet in prominent positions. While some Patten staples such as Malcolm Rifkind and Francis Maude remained in Cabinet, it was clear to all that their time was coming to a close, and had a position to balance the party, rather than for their experience. This was a new government, from top-to-bottom.
It should’ve dominated tomorrow’s news.
Instead, David Laws was woken up at 4AM by a phone call from his landline. His partner lay next to him, grumbling at the intrusion. Grabbing the landline blearily, a calm voice told the Prime Minister that there had been an attack in America, and that he needed to turn on the news. Security services had been put on high alert and a COBRA meeting was being scheduled for the morning. Laws put down the phone and fumbled for the television remote, but realised that the TV had yet to be connected to the aerial in his room. He stumbled out of bed and into the still half-unpacked living room.
A member of staff was already in the room, transfixed to the TV. As both looked at the horrific footage from New York, of ambulances, hazmat suits and bodies, Laws had a moment of clarity. He was completely, utterly, out of his depth.
