An open letter to Grant Shapps: will you suspend Traditional Britain from the Conservative Party?

Just as Iain Duncan Smith suspended links with the Monday Club in 2001, so David Cameron must now take action against the far-right group.

Dear Grant,
 
It is with some alarm that those of us in the centre ground of British politics learnt this week of the existence of the Tory fringe group Traditional Britain. Today's Independent reports that the group’s vice chairman, Mr Gregory Lauder-Frost, campaigns for "traditional" values in the Conservative Party. You might be aware that he has caused deep offence with his recent comments about Doreen Lawrence: "we do not feel there is any merit in raising such a person to the peerage. She’s a complete nobody. She has been raised there for politically correct purposes. She’s just a campaigner about her son’s murder."
 
It is also reported that Mr Lauder-Frost believes that anyone living in Britain not of "European stock" should be offered "assisted voluntary repatriation" to their "natural homeland." I know you will find these views as offensive as I do. I am, however, shocked that such views are still alive in what I hoped was a modernised Conservative Party.
 
Secondly, I am sure you will agree that Traditional Britain, as a group, holds deeply offensive views. Its Facebook page calls for minorities to return to their "natural homeland" and refers to respected ethnic minority British MPs from the Labour Party and the Conservative Party as "Nigerian" and "foreign".
 
You will recall that the Monday Club held similarly offensive views and that in October 2001, Iain Duncan Smith was forced to finally suspend it from the Conservative Party. Do you agree that now is the time for David Cameron to show some leadership and suspend any links between the Conservative Party and Traditional Britain? Will you go further and make it absolutely clear that membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party is incompatible with membership of Traditional Britain? I know this will be difficult for you. Under your leadership of Conservative Campaign Headquarters, alarms bell apparently failed to ring when one of your backbenchers made enquiries about this group. As you know, that backbench MP subsequently spoke at a Traditional Britain dinner.
 
All of us are also aware of the plummeting Tory membership and I appreciate that you won’t want to lose yet more members on your watch.
However, I genuinely hope you will agree with me that these outdated and offensive views should have no place in a modern, mainstream British political party.
 
I look forward to your response.
 
Best wishes,
 
Jon Ashworth
Conservative chairman Grant Shapps speaks at last year's Conservative conference in Birmingham. Photograph: Getty Images.

Jon Ashworth is Labour MP for Leicester South. 

Getty
Show Hide image

Is defeat in Stoke the beginning of the end for Paul Nuttall?

The Ukip leader was his party's unity candidate. But after his defeat in Stoke, the old divisions are beginning to show again

In a speech to Ukip’s spring conference in Bolton on February 17, the party’s once and probably future leader Nigel Farage laid down the gauntlet for his successor, Paul Nuttall. Stoke’s by-election was “fundamental” to the future of the party – and Nuttall had to win.
 
One week on, Nuttall has failed that test miserably and thrown the fundamental questions hanging over Ukip’s future into harsh relief. 

For all his bullish talk of supplanting Labour in its industrial heartlands, the Ukip leader only managed to increase the party’s vote share by 2.2 percentage points on 2015. This paltry increase came despite Stoke’s 70 per cent Brexit majority, and a media narrative that was, until the revelations around Nuttall and Hillsborough, talking the party’s chances up.
 
So what now for Nuttall? There is, for the time being, little chance of him resigning – and, in truth, few inside Ukip expected him to win. Nuttall was relying on two well-rehearsed lines as get-out-of-jail free cards very early on in the campaign. 

The first was that the seat was a lowly 72 on Ukip’s target list. The second was that he had been leader of party whose image had been tarnished by infighting both figurative and literal for all of 12 weeks – the real work of his project had yet to begin. 

The chances of that project ever succeeding were modest at the very best. After yesterday’s defeat, it looks even more unlikely. Nuttall had originally stated his intention to run in the likely by-election in Leigh, Greater Manchester, when Andy Burnham wins the Greater Manchester metro mayoralty as is expected in May (Wigan, the borough of which Leigh is part, voted 64 per cent for Brexit).

If he goes ahead and stands – which he may well do – he will have to overturn a Labour majority of over 14,000. That, even before the unedifying row over the veracity of his Hillsborough recollections, was always going to be a big challenge. If he goes for it and loses, his leadership – predicated as it is on his supposed ability to win votes in the north - will be dead in the water. 

Nuttall is not entirely to blame, but he is a big part of Ukip’s problem. I visited Stoke the day before The Guardian published its initial report on Nuttall’s Hillsborough claims, and even then Nuttall’s campaign manager admitted that he was unlikely to convince the “hard core” of Conservative voters to back him. 

There are manifold reasons for this, but chief among them is that Nuttall, despite his newfound love of tweed, is no Nigel Farage. Not only does he lack his name recognition and box office appeal, but the sad truth is that the Tory voters Ukip need to attract are much less likely to vote for a party led by a Scouser whose platform consists of reassuring working-class voters their NHS and benefits are safe.
 
It is Farage and his allies – most notably the party’s main donor Arron Banks – who hold the most power over Nuttall’s future. Banks, who Nuttall publicly disowned as a non-member after he said he was “sick to death” of people “milking” the Hillsborough disaster, said on the eve of the Stoke poll that Ukip had to “remain radical” if it wanted to keep receiving his money. Farage himself has said the party’s campaign ought to have been “clearer” on immigration. 

Senior party figures are already briefing against Nuttall and his team in the Telegraph, whose proprietors are chummy with the beer-swilling Farage-Banks axis. They deride him for his efforts to turn Ukip into “NiceKip” or “Nukip” in order to appeal to more women voters, and for the heavy-handedness of his pitch to Labour voters (“There were times when I wondered whether I’ve got a purple rosette or a red one on”, one told the paper). 

It is Nuttall’s policy advisers - the anti-Farage awkward squad of Suzanne Evans, MEP Patrick O’Flynn (who famously branded Farage "snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive") and former leadership candidate Lisa Duffy – come in for the harshest criticism. Herein lies the leader's almost impossible task. Despite having pitched to members as a unity candidate, the two sides’ visions for Ukip are irreconcilable – one urges him to emulate Trump (who Nuttall says he would not have voted for), and the other urges a more moderate tack. 

Endorsing his leader on Question Time last night, Ukip’s sole MP Douglas Carswell blamed the legacy of the party’s Tea Party-inspired 2015 general election campaign, which saw Farage complain about foreigners with HIV using the NHS in ITV’s leaders debate, for the party’s poor performance in Stoke. Others, such as MEP Bill Etheridge, say precisely the opposite – that Nuttall must be more like Farage. 

Neither side has yet called for Nuttall’s head. He insists he is “not going anywhere”. With his febrile party no stranger to abortive coup and counter-coup, he is unlikely to be the one who has the final say.