There’s a new divide in the Conservative party: Waitrose or Lidl? But it’s not about which supermarket you shop at. It’s how you view a potential trade deal with the US.
As talks get under way across the pond, the cabinet is split between those who wish to prioritise British farmers and those who want their constituents to benefit from cheaper produce on the supermarket shelf.
This isn’t a rehash of remain v leave. Instead it’s about which part of the Tory voter coalition gets priority treatment: traditionally Tory rural constituencies or the post-industrial, “red wall” seats that the party won for the first time last December.
A trade deal with the US has long been cited by Tory Brexiteers as the jewel in the crown of their plans for post-Brexit Britain. The idea is that such an arrangement with Washington would remove the UK from Brussels’ regulatory orbit and show that the UK can negotiate its own trade deals even with the world’s largest economies.
But despite the Conservatives now having a majority of 80, senior Tories are beginning to worry that their free market dream is on life support. As the prime minister grapples with the government response to coronavirus, a battle of ideas is playing out among ministers and MPs – and to the surprise of the free marketeers, it’s the protectionists who are on the front foot.
This month Boris Johnson agreed a proposal for the trade deal that would see a “dual tariff” system in place that could allow ministers to use high tariffs to make it economically unsustainable for US producers to supply the UK with controversial foodstuffs such as chlorinated chicken and hormone-injected beef.
“We’re in real danger of a once-in-a-lifetime chance to do a trade agreement with the United States being hijacked by a bunch of Waitrose protectionists,” says a senior Tory. The Waitrose set, as they have been dubbed, are made up of the likes of the Cabinet Office minister Michael Gove, environment secretary George Eustice, his predecessor Theresa Villiers and green Brexiteers such as Zac Goldsmith and Danny Kruger.
Boosted from the sidelines by rural and organic champions such as Henry Dimbleby, this group wants British farmers and UK food standards to remain protected. Their concern is that farmers must not be undercut by cheaper production and lower animal welfare standards.
Leading the charge on the free market side is the international trade secretary, Liz Truss – with a majority of the cabinet sympathetic to her position. They believe they have public support, with internal polling suggesting 62% of Britons back a deal.
Those familiar with Truss’s thinking insist she does not favour chlorinated chicken, but does view free trade as a way to increase consumer choice. The growing concern among this group – the Lidl free marketeers – is that chlorinated chicken is being used to shut down any debate on wider imports from the US.
Several of the usual suspects who would be looked at to make the case have been missing in action of late, their attention focused either on China or the need for the lockdown to be eased. So it’s the new intake of red wall MPs who are agitating that protectionism could deprive their voters of a tangible benefit of Brexit: cheaper food on the supermarket shelf.
“I don’t think it’s a coincidence that a lot of the MPs hijacking the debate represent wealthier constituencies with middle-class neighbourhoods,” says one. “They might appreciate organic produce but our new voters want decent stuff on the shelf and they also want choice.”
This split between the agricultural interests and free trade goes back a long way, of course. In 1846, Robert Peel repealed the corn laws to provide cheap food for people in the new manufacturing centres. But that decision led to his resignation and a schism that kept the Tories out of power for the best part of 30 years.
Coronavirus and the new importance placed on supply chain security means the argument for free trade – that many Brexiteers believed they had won in the EU referendum, Tory leadership contest and general election – is becoming harder to make. As Johnson’s government becomes more interventionist and looks to make Britain more self-sufficient, arguments for free trade will have to be made again.
Johnson’s final decision on the deal will come down to how he plans to sell Brexit in the post-coronavirus landscape. Is it via a vision of a new, self-sufficient nation where British is best – or as a champion of free trade where consumers have more choice and cheaper food?
Whatever the prime minister decides, one section of his new party will be left disappointed.
• Katy Balls is the Spectator’s deputy political editor
