The Tories can do anti-politics too. Here’s how

November marks ten years since the North East voted overwhelmingly to reject Government proposals for a Regional Assembly. While there were signs that the electorate was becoming increasingly disillusioned – Hartlepool voting for a man dressed as a monkey as Mayor in 2002 – the 2004 referendum was decisive proof that the electorate was entering a period of anti-politics.

The North East Says No Campaign (NESNO) was the ultimate anti-politics campaign, tearing into the establishment and turning around the polls from 3-1 in favour of an Assembly, to 4-1 against. NESNO’s business spokespeople stuck to the message that a yes vote just meant higher taxes and more politicians. The campaign team created a stream of TV events: for example, burning fake £50 notes to show how much would be wasted; hiring diggers to ‘start’ the inevitable new building; and taking a huge inflatable white elephant on tour to show what the Assembly was all about.

All four main parties were involved in the campaign. Labour and the Lib Dems lined up with Yes 4 the North East; the Tories and Ukip with NESNO. None of them could have been under any illusions: the Government had been devastated by a small group of competent businesspeople with a brutal anti-politics message. It was clear that anti-politics was a powerful and growing force with the potential to alter electoral politics dramatically.

Yet only Ukip drew this conclusion in the period that followed. Since the mid-2000s, Ukip have owned the anti-politics space, securing public sympathy and, over time, public votes, by positioning themselves as being the only party that will represent their views on issues like immigration and Europe. Ukip’s anti-politics stance hasn’t always been perfect – in fact much of it has been crass and incompetent from a political and professional perspective – but with other parties playing politics as usual, Ukip has secured significant political advantage.

Ukip’s popularity derives as much from its anti-politics style as its specific policies. After all, their appeal crosses traditional party lines. Voters are heavily emotional; they vote on what politicians make them feel. For a significant minority, Ukip’s anti-politics rhetoric, coupled with their policies, makes them feel angry and makes them want to get out and vote and give the mainstream parties a kicking.

Senior Tories explicitly rejected the idea of tapping into anti-politics in the wake of the 2004 referendum, arguing both that single-issue referendum campaigns have little crossover to party politics (often true) and that it was impossible Westminster politicians to take on an anti-establishment identity. They clung to this belief for the last ten years, even during the expenses scandal, a far greater shock to the system than the referendum.

But anti-politics is the defining theme of our age; no party serious about staying in touch with the electorate can ignore it. While only a minority of people may vote Ukip, anger runs much wider and deeper – affecting people from across the political spectrum. Vast numbers of voters across the country are deeply angry about the state of the country – and they directly blame politicians and the prevailing political culture for it, rather than the particular party that happens to be in power.

They’re angry at all politicians’ lack of interest in ensuring a welfare state that’s fair to all, at all politicians’ happiness to spend billions on projects they think will never benefit anyone, and at taxes that seem to rise endlessly while essential public services stay as stretched as ever.

In formulating strategy, the real challenge for the Tories is in tapping into this prevailing anti-politics climate. Credible policies on immigration (above all, ensuring fair access to welfare and services) and Europe are vital but should be seen as derivative decisions from this bigger shift.

Going down this route requires two things. The first is essentially a simple one: a change in language. There is no difficulty for a Tory politician to say that the health system needs reform so that doctors and medical experts are running the NHS, rather than Westminster politicians. And no difficulty saying that some taxes should be lower because families know better how to spend their money than politicians. And none in saying that having elected crime commissioners is better than having everything run from Westminster. This is a way of selling small-state policies in a way that big-state voters (the majority) actually respond to.

The second thing is harder but more important. Tories will only begin to generate policies that fit the anti-politics mood if they enact a major cultural shift within the party.

Frankly, most senior Tories understand the struggles of their own people – the upper middle class – and they have increasingly chosen rhetorically to focus on the plight of the very poorest. But they have little understanding of the lower middle class and upper working class communities that make up provincial Britain. Tories can’t see why people are concerned about the impact of immigration on wages, services, and house prices; or why tax cuts just for the richest and poorest irritate them in a recession; or why massive spending on niche projects is so annoying.

The party needs to start listening to politicians that understand the anti-politics mood, and who can speak for the mass of increasingly disillusioned voters – people like Nick Herbert, George Eustice, and Robert Halfon. They need to start using less orthodox spokespeople more that Westminster derides but that can tap into parts of the public that others can’t, like Philip Davies. And they need to start listening to the polls and focus groups more closely, so that they’re under no illusions as to the depth of feeling amongst the electorate as a whole.

The Tories don’t need to—and shouldn’t—go all Tea Party. The British public have practically nothing in common with the American public. The whole freedom agenda is lost on us. But the British public’s disillusionment with politicians and Government is so strong that a significant response is required. Anyone that thinks the electorate will be pacified by a referendum on the EU and an immigration quota isn’t listening to what the public is saying.

James Frayne was Campaign Director of North East Says No and is author of a guide to public opinion, Meet the People, published by Harriman House.