With their party conference blown off-course by the row over HS2, and the king’s speech overshadowed by Suella Braverman’s comments about homelessness, next week’s autumn statement is one of the few remaining opportunities for the government to make a renewed pitch to the public. Our focus group last night suggests the chancellor, Jeremy Hunt, has his work cut out – not just to bolster vulnerable colleagues but even to win back voters in his own back yard. The voters that researchers from More in Common spoke to in the new Godalming and Ash seat were part of the so-called “blue wall”. Most were lifelong Tory supporters – as concerned about issues like the rise in private school fees or pressures on landlords as the more day-to-day cost of living concerns we often hear. Voters like these held their noses and stuck with the Conservatives in 2019, despite disliking Boris Johnson, because they feared Jeremy Corbyn was worse. Four years later the mood, summed up by Heather, a sales manager, was of having reached the end of the line with a government behaving like “a runaway train”.
This week’s events had done nothing to dispel that perception of chaos. The group felt Braverman’s sacking as home secretary was inevitable. As Julie, a property developer, explained, “the government was losing credibility because … she just did what she wanted and said what she wanted all the time”. Jeff, a recruitment consultant, added: “On such sensitive subjects [her comments] were just going to stir up even more hatred … It was quite irresponsible.” That reaction to Braverman was not borne out of unabashed liberalism – in fact, the group agreed with some of her goals. They didn’t think it was right that pro-Palestinian protests took place on Remembrance weekend, and despite sympathy for those seeking asylum who cross the Channel, they wondered why they hadn’t stopped in safe countries en route. It was how the former home secretary spoke and dealt with those problems that they disliked. Nowhere more did that sense of right diagnosis, wrong solution emerge than in discussing the Rwanda policy for removal of asylum seekers. All of the group wanted to see a crackdown on criminal gangs, but Rwanda left them queasy. Dale, who works in HR, asked what would happen to “LGBT people going to a country with questionable rights”. Hayley, a charity manager, added: “If it’s been deemed not safe to send them, it’s not right,” while Heather wondered why we couldn’t just send those who’d crossed for the wrong reasons. Leaving the European convention on human rights to deliver the policy was a non-starter. As Barry, a facilities manager, put it: “We need some rules and we’ve signed up to them.” Julie went even further: “I’ve always voted Conservative … and if they push that agenda, I would be ashamed to call myself a Conservative.”
More positively for the government, if there was a target audience for bringing David Cameron back to the cabinet it was this group, and it had had the desired effect. They felt that the former prime minister’s return reflected “stability”, with Hayley reflecting that “old knowledge is always good”, Julie welcoming that we have “an incredibly experienced politician back”, and Jeff thinking Cameron’s return would be popular, but adding: “It smacks of desperation they’ve had to resort to going back to get any kind of stability.” That contrast between the Conservative parties of the past and today will worry Downing Street. There was little love for the prime minister despite approving of his financial background and track record as chancellor; they felt Rishi Sunak wasn’t strong enough to hold the role. Dale said: “It feels like he hasn’t got a grip”; Jeff lamented: “He knows his onions when it comes to finance, most billionaires do … but he’s just a bit underwhelming”; and Julie explained: “We need a leader and I don’t think he’s that.” Nor was there any love for his opposite number, with the group saying Keir Starmer wasn’t the man for the moment. But that lack of enthusiasm might not matter – the group were well aware that Labour were not the main opposition locally, and many were tempted instead to vote Liberal Democrat. Indeed, it was striking that even though fewer than half knew Ed Davey’s name, they still thought there was a good chance the Lib Dems would topple Hunt. Overall it seemed for these voters that the past week had been one step forward with the return of Cameron, and two steps back with the reaction to the Rwanda judgment. The question then is whether traditional Conservative economics are enough to convince them to stay in the Tory fold, or whether populist rhetoric on migration is what finally snaps their bond with the party. If Hunt is to avoid a “Portillo moment” at the next election, he will have to hope it is the former. Luke Tryl is the UK director of the research group More in Common.