尊敬的用戶您好，這是來自FT中文網的溫馨提示：如您對更多FT中文網的內容感興趣，請在蘋果應用商店或谷歌應用市場搜尋「FT中文網」，下載FT中文網的官方應用。
Political narratives are extremely hard to shift once they have set. There are still people who erroneously attribute Labour’s 1992 election defeat to Neil Kinnock’s over-exuberance at a party rally. Now, as the Conservative party digests the most unpalatable result in its entire history, the first battle will be to set the official version of why they lost. And since this is central to the looming leadership contest, the fight has already begun. In fact it started well before the election.
一旦形成，政治敘事極難改變。仍有人錯誤地將工黨1992年的選舉失敗歸咎於尼爾•金諾克(Neil Kinnock)在一次黨派集會上過於熱情洋溢。現在，保守黨(Conservative party)正在消化其整個歷史上最難以接受的結果，第一場戰鬥將是確定他們爲何失利的官方版本。由於這對即將到來的領導人競選至關重要，戰鬥已經開始。實際上，它早在選舉之前就已經開始了。
Where all agree is that this week’s loss marks the collapse of the broad, contradictory and probably unsustainable coalition assembled by Boris Johnson after Brexit, which brought white working class and Leave-supporting voters into the Tory tent alongside successful liberal-minded globalists.
所有人都同意的一點是，本週的失敗標誌着鮑里斯•強森(Boris Johnson)在英國退歐後組建的廣泛、矛盾且可能不可持續的聯合政府的崩潰，這個聯合政府將白人工人階級和支援退歐的選民與成功的自由主義全球主義者一起納入了保守黨的陣營。
But there, the debate starts. On one side are those Tory rightwingers like Suella Braverman and David Frost, who argue that on tax, immigration and net zero, the party abandoned its core voters, opening up the space for the success of Nigel Farage’s Reform UK.
但辯論就此開始。一方面是像蘇埃拉•佈雷弗曼(Suella Braverman)和戴維•弗羅斯特(David Frost)這樣的保守黨右翼人士，他們認爲在稅收、移民和淨零排放方面，該黨背棄了其核心選民，爲奈傑爾•法拉奇(Nigel Farage)的改革英國(Reform UK)的成功打開了空間。
For them the wipeout is entirely explained by a split on the right. In this account Rishi Sunak is a woke, Tory left-winger whose ideological betrayal was compounded by his ineptitude in calling the election before it was necessary and running a disastrous campaign.
對於他們來說，這次滅頂之災完全可以歸咎於右派的分裂。在這個說法中，裏希•蘇納克(Rishi Sunak)是一個覺醒的託利黨左翼人士，他的意識形態背叛加上在提前召集選舉和進行災難性競選方面的無能使情況更加糟糕。
The more convincing counter-narrative is that voters felt worse off and were repelled by a government they concluded was incompetent. Defeat was sealed by the Covid lockdown breaches of Johnson’s Downing Street and Liz Truss’s mini-Budget.
更有說服力的反敘事是，選民們感到自己處境更糟，並對他們認爲無能的政府感到厭惡。強森的唐寧街團隊違反Covid封鎖規定和利茲•特拉斯(Liz Truss)的迷你預算，使失敗成爲定局。
Having already lost liberal-minded voters over Brexit, they then lost their new coalition of voters too. But while this explanation makes more sense, the party still needs to heal the split.
在英國退歐問題上已經失去了自由派選民之後，他們又失去了新的選民聯盟。儘管這種解釋更有道理，但該黨仍需要彌合分歧。
Traditionally the Tories would simply move a notch to the right and steal enough of Reform’s clothes to regain their supporters. However, this new opponent will not easily let itself be out-righted. Each move right will also cost votes on the other, more liberal side of the Tory coalition.
傳統上，保守黨只需稍微向右移動，偷走足夠多的改革英國的選票，就能重新贏回他們的支持者。然而，這個新的對手不會輕易讓自己被右派超越。每一次向右的舉動也會在保守黨聯盟的另一邊，即更自由派的一邊，失去選票。
The other problem is that the radical right now has a toehold on Westminster politics and Farage believes he can supersede the Conservatives. Those calling for a new nationalist right argue that there is no point in trying to win back lost liberal Tories.
另一個問題是激進右翼目前在威斯敏斯特政治中佔據了一席之地，法拉奇相信他可以取代保守黨。那些呼籲建立新的民族主義右翼的人認爲，試圖重新贏回失去的自由派保守黨是沒有意義的。
Reform looks to the success of the radical right in Europe and asks whether it cannot turn into the main voice of the right in the UK. Farage’s ambition will only have been fortified by his modest parliamentary breakthrough and the 98 seats where Reform is currently in second place, almost all of them to Labour.
改革英國關注歐洲激進右翼的成功，並詢問自己是否能成爲英國右翼的主要聲音。法拉奇的野心只會因爲他在議會的小突破和改革英國目前在第二位的98個席位（幾乎全部都是工黨的）而得到加強。
Farage argues his party can reach parts of the electorate, notably the white working class and some young men, who backed Johnson but no longer think any of the main parties speaks for them. While the primary damage in this election was to the Tories, he argues that the next time it could be to Labour.
法拉奇認爲他的黨可以觸及選民中的一部分，尤其是白人工人階級和一些年輕男性，他們曾支援強森，但不再認爲任何主要政黨代表他們。儘管這次選舉對保守黨造成了主要損失，他認爲下一次可能會對工黨造成損失。
So what next? The UK’s electoral system punishes splits. That means the odds are still in the Conservatives’ favour against Reform. They have more votes, more than twenty times the seats and a historically recognised brand. They will also hope that Reform’s success reflects a temporary disaffection which can be clawed back.
接下來怎麼辦？英國的選舉制度懲罰分裂。這意味著保守黨對改革英國仍然佔據優勢。他們擁有更多的選票，超過二十倍的席位和一個歷史上被認可的品牌。他們還希望改革英國的成功反映的是一種暫時的不滿，可以重新挽回。
For this to be true, however, the Tories need to find a leader with the confidence to argue for the UK’s economic interests, who can rebuild a broad coalition and speak to the populist vote while not alienating core supporters. This probably means recognising the potency of the immigration issue while finding a way not to alienate large sections of liberal and wealth-generating Britain on all other matters. Above all, it means reconnecting with younger voters and families by showing that the party has an economic offer for them.
然而，要實現這一點，保守黨需要找到一位有信心爲英國的經濟利益辯護的領導人，他能夠重建廣泛的聯盟，同時能夠與民粹主義選民溝通，而不會疏遠核心支持者。這可能意味著認識到移民問題的重要性，同時找到一種方式，不會在其他所有問題上疏遠自由主義和創造財富的英國的大部分人。最重要的是，這意味著透過展示該黨對年輕選民和家庭有經濟方案，重新與他們建立聯繫。
The challenge is that Farage is one of the most effective communicators in politics. He is rethinking his pitch, softening some of his free-market instincts and looking at how to appeal to younger voters. The Tories are not currently blessed with a similarly stand out figure.
挑戰在於法拉奇是政界最有影響力的溝通者之一。他正在重新思考自己的宣傳方式，減弱一些自由市場的本能，並尋求如何吸引年輕選民。保守黨目前沒有類似的傑出人物。
The only other path, unless Farage is gifted the electoral reform he seeks, is some form of unspoken pact with Reform. But this probably requires a few more defeats and stalemates before it could happen.
除非法拉奇得到他所尋求的選舉改革，否則唯一的其他選擇就是與改革英國達成某種形式的默契。但這可能需要更多的失敗和僵局才能實現。
What is clear is that right-wing politics is now in flux. At its heart is the battle over whether future success lies in a broad coalition built on restored reputation for competence or a radical realignment of the right.
顯而易見的是，右翼政治正在發生變革。其核心是圍繞未來成功是建立在恢復能力聲譽的廣泛聯盟，還是右翼的激進重組之間的鬥爭。
Logic, history and the British electoral system strongly suggests the former. Surrendering to the Faragist path rather than taking it on and defeating it would herald the end of the centre right and a capitulation to unserious politics. But the only guarantee is that as long as the split remains, the right should get used to opposition.
邏輯、歷史和英國選舉制度都強烈表明前者是正確的選擇。屈服於法拉奇主義的道路而不是與之抗爭並戰勝它，將預示著中右派的終結和對不認真的政治的屈服。但唯一的保證是，只要分裂存在，右派應該習慣於處於反對派的位置。