One Direction?

So, the usual suspects remaining within the rump of the Conservative Party are putting their hats into the ring for the leadership and, from the names, the contenders will be determined to neutralise the Reform vote by emulating Farage, rather than target the centre, which they vacated with Boris Johnson.

Pros: 

1. Solidifying the Base: By appealing to Reform voters, the Conservatives can consolidate support from those who are more aligned with right-wing policies, ensuring a strong and loyal voter base. 
2. Clear Ideological Position: This approach would clarify the party's stance on issues such as immigration, national sovereignty, and economic policies, making it distinct from Labour.

Cons:

1. Limited Appeal: Reform voters represent a smaller segment of the electorate. Focusing too heavily on this group may alienate moderate and centrist voters. 
2. Long-term Viability: With demographic changes and shifting public opinion, a hard-right stance might become less tenable over time, risking the party's relevance in future elections. 
3. Internal Divisions: Moving further to the right could exacerbate internal divisions within the Conservative Party. Different factions with varying degrees of ideological purity could clash, leading to a fragmented and less cohesive party. This infighting could undermine the party’s effectiveness and electoral appeal. We've already seen this in action within the far left and the current Conservative Party.

Targeting the Centre Ground

Pros:

1. Broader Appeal: By moving towards the centre, the Conservatives can attract a wider range of voters, including moderates and those disillusioned with Labour's policies. 
2. Policy Flexibility: A centrist approach allows for more pragmatic policy-making, which can adapt to the changing needs and concerns of the electorate. 
3. Internal Unity: A more moderate stance might help to maintain unity within the party by accommodating a broader spectrum of views and reducing the potential for internal conflict.

Cons:

1. Risk of Alienating the Base: Shifting towards the centre could disenfranchise the party's core supporters who favour more Conservative policies, although it remains doubtful what this actualy means now.. 
2. Identity Crisis: The party might struggle to maintain a clear identity, leading to internal divisions and a diluted message.

Strategic Considerations

1. Electoral Geography: Understanding the specific electoral battlegrounds is crucial. If key constituencies lean towards the centre, targeting these voters might be more beneficial. 
2. Public Sentiment: Gauging the overall public sentiment post-landslide is vital. If there is a strong appetite for change and reform, a centrist approach might resonate more. 
3. Long-term Vision: The party needs to consider its long-term vision and how it wants to be perceived in future elections. A balance between ideological purity and pragmatic appeal is necessary.

Internal Cohesion:

1. The party must consider how its strategic direction will impact internal unity. A strategy that minimises internal divisions will help maintain a cohesive and effective party structure.

Ultimately, the decision should be based on thorough analysis and understanding of voter behaviour, demographic shifts, and the evolving political landscape. While doubling down on Reform voters might provide short-term gains, targeting the centre ground could offer a more sustainable path to recovery and relevance, while also ensuring greater internal unity.

However, the votes of the Conservatives and Reform combined are still about 3m short of the combined Labour and LibDem votes, from which many could be garnered with more centrist, One Nation Conservative policies.

The best strategy for the Conservative Party post-Labour landslide is to adopt a centrist approach that broadens appeal while maintaining core conservative principles. This involves modernising policies, engaging with communities, addressing regional disparities, and fostering internal unity. By focusing on pragmatic solutions and inclusive messaging, the party can rebuild trust, attract a wider electorate, and position itself for future electoral success.

I won't hold my breath.

In relation to my earlier post supporting proportional representation: Considering Farage, who frequently uses the cloak of democracy to undermine institutions that hold politicians accountable (as evidenced by his support for Trump and his methods), I would add a condition to my support for PR – it must be implemented alongside mechanisms that strengthen democratic accountability and conduct in public office.

There was a referendum on 5 May 2011 regarding the alternative vote (AV) system, which is a form of PR. This referendum asked voters if they wanted to replace the "first-past-the-post" system with AV for electing Members of Parliament to the House of Commons. The proposal was rejected, with 67.9% voting to retain the existing FPTP system and 32.1% voting in favour of AV, on a turnout of 42.2%. If Farage wants another referendum - tough! He's not known for wanting 2nd referendums.

On the number of votes for Labour being lower than in 1997, it's worth noting that there was a lot of tactical voting taking place this time, with the LibDems being advantaged by loaned Labour votes (including my own and those of my immediate family) in areas where Labour didn't stand a chance, so the numbers were skewed. By how much is not known, unless a poll were to be done.