ast year I interviewed a senior member of the Cameron government. We talked about austerity and student protests, and he gave the impression that he wasn’t particularly interested in criticism of his government – if anything, he was contemptuous. The 2010 student protests were, according to him, a movement campaigning for the right of “Cordelia and Harry to go to Cambridge for free”. If you’re not a fan of the Conservatives, you might be outraged at such an airy dismissal of criticism. But this interviewee wasn’t an outlier: the party has always been like this. Whether it’s coal miners, refugee advocates, remainers or the anti-apartheid movement, the Tories have always defined themselves against their opponents. Hell, if anything, they positively enjoy it. This long-standing Conservative trait makes it all the more unusual that the current government has made quite so many U-turns in such a short space of time. It has ditched the NHS contact-tracing app, agreed to extend free school meals into the summer holidays, scrapped the migrant surcharge for health and care workers, extended the bereavement scheme, agreed to remote voting in the House of Commons, and – of course – scrapped the dodgy algorithm it had been relying on to predict A-level grades (one can’t help but wonder how senior members of the Cameron government feel about a bunch of students winning that last one). An obvious explanation for all of these reverse ferrets is the pandemic, which has forced the state to take control of our lives, whether by paying our wages or prohibiting us from leaving the house. The extent of this state control has made it difficult for the government either to blame individuals for their own misfortunes or to suggest that politicians are powerless to help. In other words, coronavirus has neutered two of the Tories’ go-to rebuttals. The drastic curtailment of our social lives during lockdown, and the scale of political disruption, have also given people time and inclination to follow the news. In March, the Press Gazette reported a “staggering demand” for trusted TV news, with some stations reporting a doubling of viewing figures in a matter of days. Boris Johnson’s lockdown announcement was watched by more people than the 2012 Olympic opening ceremony and Prince William and Kate Middleton’s wedding; even Dominic Cummings’ national humbling drew nearly 4 million viewers on a bank holiday weekend. This is not a moment that allows governments to sneak their usual shenanigans past the public unnoticed. But pinning the explanations on context alone overlooks the intelligent work of campaigners. None of these U-turns happened because Boris Johnson suddenly experienced an attack of conscience. They happened because the status quo had become an embarrassment for the government, and because each campaign was directed at a situation where people had been victims of obvious unfairness. Of course it’s unfair that doctors were exempt from the NHS migrant surcharge when the cleaners who work with them side by side were not; of course it’s unfair that children should be denied food, and of course it’s unfair that young people’s futures were snatched from them by a mysterious algorithm. The campaigns were led by sympathetic figures who spoke eloquently and movingly about how these issues had personally affected them. Hassan Akkad, a Bafta-winning filmmaker who became an NHS cleaner to fight the pandemic, was the face of the campaign to scrap the migrant surcharge. The Manchester United footballer Marcus Rashford led the campaign to continue free school meals, revealing how much they had helped him as a child. Countless A-level students spoke to the media about losing their university places as a result of the algorithm fiasco. These campaigns were clear, understandable and human. They felt urgent and emotive, and portrayed the government as cruel and remote. The U-turns were not a result of unfocused public anger, but sharp, directed work. There is another factor that explains these U-turns, and that is the changing nature of the Tories. As a believer in the indomitable durability of the Conservative party, I’ve often wondered whether predictions about the collapse of Conservatism and the deficit of new ideas on the right are too optimistic. But it’s hard to deny that Johnson seems far more directionless than his predecessors. Cameron was known for his determination to slash public spending; Margaret Thatcher remade the country in her own image. What is Johnson’s plan for the country, beyond riding the wave of indignation that the leave campaign uncovered? The current Conservative government seems to have hoisted itself by its own petard. It has defined itself as majoritarian and populist in order to win power, and is now imprisoned by the whims of the British public and obliged to drop anything that voters take against. The Tories haven’t represented places such as Blyth Valley or Ashfield for decades (if ever), and they seem to find their new voting coalition somewhat bewildering. In attempting to understand this new terrain while coping with an ideological vacuum, the party has become susceptible to backtracking when the going gets tough. Many of these current U-turns have been preceded by brand new Tory MPs in red-wall seats warning that constituents are getting angry. These are unchartered waters for the Conservatives, and an opportunity for campaigners. One organisation that has not been following the example of these successful campaigns is the Labour party. When the chancellor, Rishi Sunak, announced the discount meal scheme to encourage people to resume eating in restaurants, Labour released a graphic stating: “It’s important to support business, but meal deal vouchers don’t substitute for effective public health messaging and measures.” Such dreary and incomprehensible messaging means it is unsurprising that Keir Starmer has had less traction than a cleaner sitting in a car recording videos on his smartphone. As I write this, pollster Deborah Mattinson is on Times Radio saying that the word people most often use to describe the Labour party is “quiet”. The party is not quiet – it’s being outshone by campaigners, both on communications and strategy. Perhaps the lesson from this summer’s many U-turns is that the usual progressive strategy of waiting for a Labour government can be abandoned. With the right circumstances and the right strategy, even this reactionary government can be forced to acquiesce to progressive demands. The question for campaigners to ask themselves now is: what else do we want? • Ellie Mae O’Hagan is a journalist and author