The Conservative Party is at a crossroads. After 3 years of parliamentary paralysis and stagnation in domestic policy, we need a leader who can once again show that the Conservatives are the party of social mobility. To use that well-worn phrase, we need a ‘new type’ of Conservative.

How about a Conservative who spent her early years in the care system so has real empathy for those from the most difficult backgrounds? How about a Conservative who has written several careers books and set up a charity to inspire young girls to achieve their potential? How about a Conservative who instead of relying on think tanks in London, has founded a bottom-up campaign seeking to attract working-class support? That Conservative is, of course, Esther McVey.

Esther spent the first part of her life as a Barnardo’s child in care and has spoken movingly about this in the past year. She still follows Barnardo’s work closely and I know she fully understands the crisis of aspiration we have for our young people in the care system. This is of particular importance to me, as I work across 20 children’s homes in the East Midlands, managing the young people’s education. Every day I see the disaster of family breakdown, children being moved 100 miles away from where they live and schools struggling to cope with behaviours. Having spoken to Esther McVey about this very topic, I know these challenges would be high on her list of priorities. 

Something which not many people know about Esther, is that she has written an inspirational careers book which aims to demonstrate that women can achieve their goals in any field. Esther also set up a charity for young girls, If Chloe Can, which works with secondary schools across the country.  Students are offered career planning, workshops and the aim is to develop young women’s aspirations, enthusing them to reach their full potential. As somebody who delivers careers workshops to looked after children, this is another huge area which is lacking and needs to be prioritised from the very top of government.

Esther is the type of Conservative who genuinely cares about speaking to the whole country, not just London and the South East. That is why the launch of Blue Collar Conservatism has been so refreshing. The group have been travelling all over the country, engaging with people’s ideas on how we can develop a policy platform attractive to the Midlands and the North. Many videos have been uploaded from normal grassroots members, with many different accents, discussing everything from why they are Conservatives to proposing policy questions for the future.

As well as a positive platform, we also need a leader with resilience. Let us not forget the disgusting abuse Esther has endured from McDonnell and Co, which she has dealt with in a calm and measured manner. But we must remember why they hate her so much. She is a working class northerner and has the audacity to be a Conservative. Labour think they ‘own’ people like Esther. They know, that under the leadership of somebody like her, the Labour heartlands of the North of England will be much more receptive to the Conservative message. 

We need a leader who will lead us into the future and crucially, take us to a time beyond Brexit – deal or no deal. A leader who doesn’t just care about image but has genuine policy proposals which have been developed through real life experiences. We need a leader who doesn’t run away from the debate with Labour, but take them on with conservative principles and pro-capitalist policies. That leader is Esther McVey.

22 May 2019 | OPINION

Apologies Brenda from Bristol, but the country should go to the polls once again. Slowly but surely, a public vote is making logical sense. Parliament is in a logjam; the cross-party talks between the Government and Opposition are simply an exercise in ‘kicking the can’ down the road; not to mention, the widening disconnect between the electors and parliamentarians.

A recent report in the Sunday Telegraph suggested that the Prime Minister was contemplating a three-way referendum as a contingency plan in the event of the cross-party talks with Labour failing. In the article, it was reported that the options would be: Remain in the EU, leave on the Government’s terms, or leave without a withdrawal agreement.

Any three-way referendum would have to be contested under a transferable voting electoral system. Hypothetically, under first-past-the-post, Remain could poll 36%, No Deal could poll 33% and the Government’s Withdrawal Agreement could poll 31%.  Not only does the Leave vote get split under a majoritarian electoral system but despite 64% supporting Leave options in this scenario, the U.K. would remain in the EU.

The decision to leave was made in 2016. The question would permit the electorate to decide the UK’s future relationship with the EU. The options on the paper would include Labour’s vision of Brexit – either full membership of the single market, the customs union or present something that resembles their ambiguous concept of a ‘jobs first’ Brexit. The Government could use the Withdrawal Agreement which would form the essence of their pitch to the country, and Nigel Farage could champion the vision for a WTO Brexit.

This strategy allows the debate to be advanced. No longer, is it about the benefits or drawbacks about membership of the European Union. Like it or not, the answer was conclusive in 2016; 1.26 million is a considerable majority. Now, the debate should be about how we enact the referendum of 2016. Admittedly, Brexit is a broad narrative; it covers a wide spectrum of views. Post-Brexit, the UK could have a close economic relationship or we could diverge completely from the European project. A choice of this magnitude should be in the hands of the electorate.

Remain supporters should think carefully about the risk of a binary second referendum. I foreshadowed a binary choice between Remain and leaving without a deal. As we know from 2016, no referendum is a fait accompli. Remain may be the preferred outcome in this hypothetical scenario but imagine the fallout if a ‘no deal’ Brexit proved victorious. A disenfranchised and disillusioned electorate could quite easily denounce the socioeconomic and political risks that leaving without an agreement could result in as Project Fear. Disruption to just-in-time production chain supplies, food and medical shortages and the disintegration of the UK are only a selection of potential outcomes. One poll conducted by Panelbase for Sunday Times Scotland suggested that Scotland would vote 52-48 in favour of independence in the event of a no-deal Brexit.

Ultimately, the Brexit issue has gone beyond the issue of whether the country should remain in the EU. Referenda are dangerous; the traditional binary nature allows them to be manipulated into a narrative which is convenient.  It is not ridiculous to argue that a vote for ‘no deal’ in a referendum could be manipulated into a vote against the likes of Andrew Adonis, Anna Soubry, Chuka Ummuna, David Lammy and James O’Brien to name a few, who are at the forefront of reversing the 2016 result. A populist campaign echoing the narrative of ‘betrayal’, an ‘out of touch political class’ and ‘tell them again’ enriches the terrifying division of Westminster versus the people.

The problem with a binary choice is the issue of legitimacy. Remain voters would be alienated if the choice was the Government’s withdrawal agreement or to leave without a deal. Remain supporters would simply not engage, which would have an impact on turnout and a potential effect on the legitimacy of the vote. If the Government’s deal acquired 60-65 per cent of the vote on a turnout of less than 50 per cent, for instance, then a legal quagmire has been opened. Similarly, staunch Brexiteers would abstain if they felt they were being provided with a false choice.

This solution legitimises the argument that the UK should leave the political institutions but remain economically aligned to the Union, which would arguably be an accurate implementation of the June 2016 result. Remainers may be disheartened that the UK would be leaving but they needn’t be. In the event of soft Brexit option being victorious, there would be minimal change. All it takes is an energised campaign to articulate the benefits of retaining permanent membership of the economic institutions.

A classic smear is that the vote in 2016 was misinformed. ‘Informed consent’ is a moral argument adopted by those supporting a second referendum. Whilst claims on both sides were questionable, it is disingenuous to suggest 17.4 million were misinformed, purely on the basis that you are opposed to the result. A referendum on the future relationship would resolve the issue of ‘informed consent’.

The three options would be presented, allowing the electorate to make a rational choice once they have considered the benefits and drawbacks of the respective models. The toxic language of betrayal and division would be reduced significantly and that stems from not having Remain on the ballot paper of any second vote. A decision was taken and let’s have the adult conversation which will start the overdue process of bringing the country back together.

22 May 2019 | OPINION

Whilst we sit around questioning our democracy and party allegiance, there doesn’t seem to be much thought spared for our European counterparts or how they see us. Do they think we are a cohort of single-minded “Rule Britannia” colonialists? Or are we just a bunch of bumbling Borises who make for a spot of light entertainment when the rest of the world isn’t busy worrying about Trump’s antics?

Felix Kehrel is a 20-year-old political activist from Germany, and he is associated with the youth wing of Angela Merkel’s party, the Christian Democratic Union of Germany. He spent most of his education as a student at the Scottish boarding school, Fettes College. Often nicknamed ‘the Eton of the North’, Fettes was Felix’s home for five years. It therefore only seemed natural that he and other international students at Fettes viewed Britain as their second home.

It was during his time at boarding school that the EU referendum took place. Kehrel says: “Even though the school was divided when it came to Brexit, everyone was under the impression the Remain side would win.” He goes on to mention that when he woke up on the morning of June 24^th, he and other students felt “disheartened” – not by the UK as whole, but because of “young people failing to stand up for their future”.

A few years down the line, Felix believes that Europe can learn a great deal from what’s been happening, not just in the UK but in the US as well. When looking at the political significance of Donald Trump and Brexit, Felix feels that “reactionary politics” can teach us a lot about contemporary politics within Europe today. He says: “When it comes to elections, it’s not about the right or left any more, it’s much more about globalisation. It’s about Remainers who embrace globalisation and Leavers who fear it.”

Marion van Renterghem has just finished writing a book on nationalism and populism in Europe, having written about Brexit for Vanity Fair and The New European. She is a self-proclaimed “Brexit addict”. Morever, despite the rise of Eurosceptic parties such as the Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) and Marine Le Pen’s Ressemblement National, Marion doesn’t believe the appetite for a ‘Frexit’ or ‘Deutschleave’ is still there. She talks about the “Brexit chaos” and the “pure madness” being the sole reason for parties in France, Germany and Italy being put off the idea of leaving the European Union.

Like many Europeans, Marion feels as though Britain has made a mistake, and that although she’d ideally like to see it reversed, she believes there is no way back at this stage. Marion may have good relations with the likes of ‘People’s Vote’ champion Alistair Campbell; however, she is keen to point out that a ‘second referendum’ at this point would only end up with the Brexit side winning again.

Also, as a well-respected French journalist, Marion has held meetings with both the French President, Emmanuel Macron, and the Chancellor of Germany, Angela Merkel. She says: “Both leaders are frankly fed up with Brexit, and Macron especially would not like to see a second vote.” For Marion, it’s a straightforward case of ‘let’s see what happens’, and hopefully Britain can return to the EU once a new, younger generation gets into government.

Italy is a country that knows all too well about populist quakes. Ever since Luigi Di Maio and the ‘Five Star Movement’ found their way into a coalition, Italian politics hasn’t stopped bringing up the subject of ‘Italexit’.

Antonello Guerrera is the London Correspondent for Italian newspaper La Repubblica. He’s talked candidly about the difficulties of trying to comprehend the “endless riddles of Brexit” for an Italian audience. He says: “You have to be extremely precise when reporting on it; however, it is the most exciting thing to witness from a journalistic point of view.” Unlike Marion and Felix, Antonello doesn’t have a passionate view about whether or not the UK should stay within Europe. However, he says: “I’ve never seen such a political mess in my whole life.” He only views Brexit from a journalist’s point of view, rather than through the eyes of a citizen.

Despite the different degrees of passion over Britain’s departure, the one topic that brings the three together is that of tribalism and the notion of Brexit – and even Donald Trump in America – being the root cause for the rise of populism throughout Europe. On the other hand, it seems that in spite of all the uncertainty the UK might be experiencing, according to Antonello, most Europeans find the whole situation extremely amusing.