0 
0 Careless conservatism. As political slogans go, it is not one of the greats. You won’t see it plastered on the side of a bus. Yet carelessness is becoming a defining trait of successive Tory administrations.
It is now the excuse offered by Nadhim Zahawi, the Tory party chair, for his non-payment of millions in tax and the subsequent penalty levied by HM Revenue & Customs. But it is not just Zahawi who looks “careless”. Rishi Sunak looks the same for not delving into the persistent rumbling rumours before appointing him. Boris Johnson looks careless for making him chancellor while the issue was live — although with the former prime minister, carelessness was pretty much priced in. Questions must also be asked about officials, especially Simon Case, the cabinet secretary, who seem to have failed to warn leaders of any concerns even as Zahawi was threatening legal action against those pursuing the truth.
This goes beyond appointments. Johnson was careless about the impact of Brexit. Liz Truss was careless about the impact of her unfunded tax cuts on the British economy, and a similar indifference still seems to apply to the practicalities of attempting to abandon every EU regulation within a year.
Sunak was meant to be the antidote to all this — a prime minister who spends hours in his study working his way through the paperwork and data to wrestle a problem to the ground. After a period of chaos, the public has been sold a serious, details man to restore care and integrity to government.
Yet he is now also a leader whose party chair and deputy prime minister are under investigation for their conduct. He has even been hit with a comically trivial penalty fine for taking off his seatbelt in a car to film a social media clip. And he is acquiring a reputation for caving in to his MPs on policies ranging from housing to online safety.
Some of this is fluff, much of it legacy issues from the lax standards of the Johnson era. The cornucopia of misdeeds that are gathered together under the meaningless heading of “sleaze” has less impact on voters than one might imagine. But the effect is cumulative and debilitating. The studious Sunak, suddenly, is starting to look unlucky.
This evokes a worrying parallel for Tories because the question many are asking, more often with hope than belief, is: “Is this 1992 or 1997?” In other words, can Sunak emulate the John Major of 1992 and defy the pollsters, or is he closer to Major circa 1997 and careering towards an electoral rout?
Many worry that the past few weeks point to the latter. There is an end-of-days feeling. “We’re stuffed,” says one loyal minister. The challenge, he argued, is to minimise the defeat and “save the party from the headbangers”.
There are plenty of reasons for thinking this, not least the state of the economy and public services, or the chaos of the Truss government. Above all, Sunak looks ill-fated and his administration appears exhausted. Like Major in the run-up to 1997, his efforts to gain control of the political narrative are undermined by unforced errors, silly scandals, internal revolts and noises off.
Some of Sunak’s bad luck is down to his being in charge when the downsides of a long run in power begin to hit home. He has a large cohort of disaffected MPs who have decided the game is up, are preparing for the post-defeat battle and feel there is no reason to be team players. On almost any issue there are enough rebels to threaten his majority.
But he is not helping himself. Having stood by Zahawi last week, Downing Street is now distancing Sunak from him, while keeping him in place. The Tory chair is a popular figure and a capable administrator who is demanding the due process of an inquiry. But if Zahawi falls, as looks certain, Sunak will have dragged matters out for no purpose.
The prime minister’s manner can also give the impression of a leader who is happier in his study and, beyond economic issues, not quite up for the fight. This reached absurdity when he let himself be mauled by a Scottish TV reporter on an independence question he had no reason to evade. Bad luck and a shortage of brute political skills sap Sunak’s authority and his party’s electoral appeal. An outright challenge is unlikely but he faces more revolts, not least over MPs’ demands for early tax cuts.
There are still almost two years till the election, long enough to shift the narrative. But there is one essential condition for there to be any chance of repeating 1992. Sunak’s credibility must hold up.
Labour sees this. Listen to any Starmer interview and it will be only moments before he describes the prime minister as “weak”, or “too weak” to stand up to his own MPs. Sunak might reasonably counter with his readiness to defy his party over public finances. But Starmer’s political calculation cannot be faulted.
While opinion polls routinely show Labour about 20 points ahead of the Conservatives, Starmer leads by far less on who would make the best prime minister. The implication is clear. A successful Sunak can drag his party back into contention. Breaking his reputation is key for Labour.
And this is the true import of all the small volcanoes erupting around him. They dull the veneer of effective government, and conspire to make him appear unlucky, weak and out of time. Carelessness links him to his predecessors and the legacies of 13 years in office. Sunak is his party’s best hope but the sheen is coming off his leadership far too fast.
