Is there a winning future for the Conservatives? Tom Barker and Conor Farrington outline the party's recent history and find that it has often demonstrated a careless approach to institutions and objectives it has otherwise claimed to champion. For there to be a winning future, the Conservatives must seek to genuinely rebuild, rather than merely pay lip-service to, a One Nation party

Farrington, Conor

LSE Research Online

“All	that	is	solid…”:	the	destructive	tendencies	ofthe	Conservative	PartyIs	there	a	winning	future	for	the	Conservatives?	Tom	Barker	and	Conor	Farringtonoutline	the	party’s	recent	history	and	find	that	it	has	often	demonstrated	a	carelessapproach	to	institutions	and	objectives	it	has	otherwise	claimed	to	champion.	Forthere	to	be	a	winning	future,	the	Conservatives	must	seek	to	genuinely	rebuild,	ratherthan	merely	pay	lip-service	to,	a	One	Nation	party.Not	since	1987	has	the	Conservative	Party	enjoyed	a	landslide	victory.	Despite	clinging	on	to	power	and	winningits	largest	share	of	the	vote	since	1983,	the	realities	of	the	British	electoral	system	and	the	yawning	chasmbetween	initial	expectations	and	eventual	outcome	mean	that	the	general	election	of	2017	was	nothing	less	thana	humiliating	disaster	for	the	Party.	That	it	was	a	humiliating	disaster	of	the	Party’s	own	making	only	compoundsits	woe.In	this	respect,	the	election	resembled	David	Cameron’s	defeat	in	the	EU	referendum	just	over	a	year	ago,although	Theresa	May,	unlike	Cameron,	has	made	an	effort	to	cling	on	to	power.	While	Cameron	argued	in	Aprilthat	the	referendum	had	drained	the	poison	from	British	politics,	thereby	recasting	himself	as	a	martyr	to	nationalharmony,	this	result	should	be	understood	first	and	foremost	as	a	grave	political	miscalculation	that	hasprecipitated	a	period	of	great	uncertainty	and	unease.	Far	from	being	‘strong	and	stable’,	the	Tory	party	risksearning	itself	a	reputation	for	political	recklessness	potentially	every	bit	as	damaging	as	the	label	of	economicincompetence	which	has	dogged	Labour	for	years.Indeed,	a	review	of	the	Conservatives’	record	in	the	post-war	era—during	which	they	have	more	often	been	ingovernment	than	not—reveals	a	careless	and	sometimes	destructive	approach	to	institutions,	relationships,	andobjectives	that	the	Party	itself	has	claimed	to	champion.	On	the	economic	scorecard,	the	most	recent	glaringpolicy	failure	has	been	the	inability	to	deal	with	the	budget	deficit.	In	2010,	the	new	Chancellor	George	Osbornestated	that	his	aim	was	to	eliminate	the	deficit	within	five	years.	Two	years	since	that	initial	deadline	has	passed,the	Conservatives’	current	pledge	is	to	balance	the	books	by	the	middle	of	next	decade,	having	presided	over	anincrease	in	the	national	debt	from	£1.03	trillion	in	2010	to	£1.73	trillion	in	March	of	this	year.Whether	or	not	deficit	reduction	at	the	expense	of	spending	on	public	services	and	infrastructure	was	everjustified	is	something	of	a	moot	point.		Since	2010	the	public	have	been	repeatedly	told	by	Conservativepoliticians	that	deficit	elimination	and,	ultimately,	debt	reduction	are	essential	to	the	UK’s	economic	health	andcredibility,	yet	now	these	goals	are	being	kicked	into	the	long	grass	in	the	face	of	Brexit	uncertainty.	The	guidinglight	of	the	2010-15	Coalition	government	has	been	extinguished	by	the	very	people	who	helped	light	the	torch.British Politics and Policy at LSE: “All that is solid…”: the destructive tendencies of the Conservative Party Page 1 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-17Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-destructive-tendencies-of-the-conservative-party/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/Image	credit:	OltreCreativeAgency/Public	Domain.Of	course,	it	can	be	argued,	quite	convincingly,	that	the	demotion	of	deficit	reduction	represents	a	reassertion	ofgood	old	Conservative	pragmatism	in	the	face	of	changed	circumstances.	State-shrinking	zealotry	only	occupiesone	tier	in	the	dense	Tory	layer-cake	of	ideas	and	traditions,	and	it	was	arguably	only	a	matter	of	time	beforeOsborne’s	stark	ideological	agenda	clashed	with	new	demands	and	alternative	ways	of	thinking.	One	of	thefundamental	tensions	at	the	heart	of	Conservatism	is	that	between	the	promotion	of	free	market	capitalism	andthe	defence	of	traditional	institutions	and	ways	of	life.	Capitalism’s	tendency	to	dissolve	established	social	normsand	relationships	was	best	captured	by	Marx	in	The	Communist	Manifesto:	‘All	that	is	solid	melts	into	air,	all	thatis	holy	is	profaned…’.	If	the	Thatcher	and	Major	governments	were	criticised	for	taking	privatisation	too	far,Cameron	pushed	market	forces	into	areas	they	shied	away	from—succeeding	in	selling	off	the	Royal	Mail	butbeing	beaten	back	at	the	edges	of	the	national	forests.While	referring	specifically	to	the	effects	of	capitalism	on	society,	Marx’s	phrase	also	aptly	describes	theevaporation	of	some	of	the	Conservative’s	key	geopolitical	commitments	over	the	course	of	the	post-war	era.	AsSir	William	Harcourt,	Liberal	leader	from	1896-8,	put	it:	‘The	Conservatives,	mark	my	word,	never	yet	took	up	acause	without	betraying	it	in	the	end.’	One	of	the	greatest	ironies	of	British	politics	is	the	fact	that	theConservative	Party,	despite	a	marked	attachment	to	British	prestige	and	global	eminence,	ended	up	overseeingBritish	decline	over	much	of	the	twentieth	century	and	indeed	to	the	present	day.This	is	not	to	say	that	the	Conservatives	are	wholly	responsible	for	decline,	nor	to	deny	that	other	parties	havetheir	own	catalogue	of	failures,	but	now	does	seem	like	an	appropriate	time	to	draw	attention	to	the	peculiarlydestructive	nature	of	the	Conservative	Party,	which	has	failed	in	so	many	respects	on	its	own	terms.One	of	the	most	useful	frameworks	for	thinking	about	the	role	of	the	Conservative	Party	in	British	decline	wascreated	by	one	of	the	twentieth	century’s	greatest	conservatives,	Winston	Churchill.	In	1948,	he	famouslydescribed	the	United	Kingdom	as	standing	‘at	the	point	of	junction’	of	‘three	great	circles’	(or	transnationalrelationships):	‘the	British	Commonwealth	and	Empire’,	‘the	English-speaking	world’,	and	‘United	Europe’.	ForChurchill,	Britain’s	unique	world	role	derived	in	large	part	from	its	potential	ability	to	unite	these	circles	andmaintain	a	position	of	great	influence	in	each	one,	without	becoming	fully	integrated	into,	or	limited	by,	any	ofthem.	In	Between	Europe	and	America:	The	Future	of	British	Politics	(2003),	Andrew	Gamble	adapted	Churchill’smodel	with	the	addition	of	a	fourth	circle,	the	British	Union	itself,	which	had	been	so	taken	for	granted	by	Churchilland	his	audience	in	1948	that	it	did	not	merit	inclusion	in	his	schema.British Politics and Policy at LSE: “All that is solid…”: the destructive tendencies of the Conservative Party Page 2 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-17Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-destructive-tendencies-of-the-conservative-party/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/With	regard	to	the	circle	of	Empire,	Conservative-dominated	governments	bowed	to	the	inevitable	in	approvingIrish	Independence	in	1922	and	(against	Churchill’s	bitter	opposition)	the	Government	of	India	Act	1935.	Churchillled	Britain	to	victory	in	World	War	Two,	but	at	a	catastrophic	cost	for	Britain’s	world-role.	Churchill’s	unpopularold-school	conservatism	ensured	that	Attlee’s	Labour	government	presided	over	Indian	independence,	butAnthony	Eden	sealed	the	fate	of	Britain’s	global	aspirations	at	Suez,	and	much	of	the	Empire	was	broken	upunder	Harold	Macmillan.	Churchill	stated	in	1942	that	he	had	not	become	prime	minister	to	preside	over	theliquidation	of	the	British	Empire,	but	his	Conservative	successors	ended	up	doing	just	that.	Few	today	will	shedtears	for	the	passing	of	the	Empire,	but	its	demise,	overseen	to	a	significant	extent	by	Conservative	governments,marked	the	collapse	of	a	major	pillar	of	Conservative	identity,	a	fact	which	is	often	underappreciated	today.While	there	have	been	undoubted	low	points,	most	obviously	the	Suez	crisis,	which	cast	Britain’s	new	post-warsubservience	to	the	United	States	in	sharp	relief,	Conservative	governments	and	prime	ministers	have	beenlargely	successful	in	maintaining	a	strong	and	stable	relationship	with	the	US	and	other	members	of	Churchill’s‘English-speaking	world’.The	same	is	not	true	when	it	comes	to	the	circle	of	Europe,	or	‘United	Europe’	as	Churchill	presciently	termed	it.While	Churchill	was	enthusiastic	about	European	co-operation	and	integration	after	the	War,	he	was	alsoadamant	that	Britain	would	always	choose	the	open	sea	over	Europe,	and	under	his	leadership	Britain	stayedaloof	from	early	negotiations	in	the	1950s	that	set	up	what	would	become	the	EU,	thus	losing	power	over	itsshape.	Although	Britain	applied	for	membership	under	Macmillan,	this	was	rejected;	finally	Britain	joined	underEdward	Heath,	splitting	the	Party	and	introducing	momentous	change	into	the	traditional	constitution	that	theConservative	Party	had	always	sought	to	defend.The	post-1972	‘Euro-British’	constitution,	as	described	by	the	late	Anthony	King,	will	now	alter	drastically	in	natureonce	again	as	Britain	leaves	the	European	Union.	Overall,	the	picture	is	one	of	ineffective	and	finally	destructivevacillation	over	Europe	–	destructive	for	Britain,	that	is;	the	EU	is	large	enough	to	carry	on	without	us.While	the	War	weakened	the	Empire	and	Britain’s	global	role,	it	strengthened	the	Union.	A	sense	of	sharedvictory,	the	emerging	welfare	state,	and	the	continuity	represented	by	strong	national	institutions	bound	theconstituent	nations	together.	Soon,	however,	relative	economic	decline	and	the	loss	of	the	Empire	together	withpolitical	and	economic	shifts	combined	to	undermine	the	post-war	sense	of	shared	identity	and	destiny.In	particular,	the	Conservative	Party’s	enthusiastic	adoption	of	neoliberalism	and	the	deindustrialisation	thataccompanied	it	greatly	inflamed	pro-independence	views	in	Scotland,	and	the	2014	Independence	Referendum(again	authorised	by	Cameron)	has	not	settled	the	issue.	Brexit	has	added	fuel	to	the	fire,	since	Scotland	ismarkedly	more	pro-EU	than	England	and	Wales,	and	although	the	SNP	suffered	a	significant	electoral	setback	inthe	2017	general	election	it	would	be	unwise	to	assume	that	a	second	referendum	is	impossible.In	addition,	Theresa	May’s	post-election	deal	with	the	Democratic	Unionist	Party	has	compromised	the	Britishgovernment’s	commitment	to	impartiality	stated	in	the	Good	Friday	Agreement,	threatening	the	hard-won(relative)	stability	enjoyed	in	Northern	Ireland	for	much	of	the	last	two	decades.	All	in	all,	the	Conservative’sreward	for	holding	onto	power	could	be	to	preside	over	the	end	of	the	Union,	just	as	it	presided	over	the	end	ofthe	Empire.One	of	the	few	glimmers	of	hope	to	emerge	for	the	Conservatives	on	election	night	was	the	mini-revival	for	theParty	in	Scotland,	spearheaded	by	Ruth	Davidson.	A	young,	down-to-earth	gay	woman,	Davidson	in	manyrespects	embodies	the	Tory	modernisation	process	initiated	by	David	Cameron.	If	there	is	to	be	a	winning	futurefor	the	Conservative	and	Unionist	Party,	it	must	surely	look	to	figures	like	Davidson	and	seek	to	genuinely	rebuild,rather	than	merely	pay	lip-service	to,	a	One	Nation	party.	Such	a	party	would	champion	a	patriotic	yet	liberal	andoutward-looking	United	Kingdom	for	the	post-Brexit	era;	an	entrepreneurial	trading	nation,	yet	generous-spiritedand	compassionate,	which	has	fully	internalised	the	fundamentals	of	the	post-1945	welfare	settlement.Crucially,	the	Conservative	Party	must	understand	that	in	choosing	to	leave	the	EU,	the	British	people	have	notchosen	to	accelerate	an	already	discredited	experiment	in	Randian	state-dismantling.	The	time	has	come	forconstructive	thinking.British Politics and Policy at LSE: “All that is solid…”: the destructive tendencies of the Conservative Party Page 3 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-17Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-destructive-tendencies-of-the-conservative-party/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/_________About	the	AuthorsTom	Barker	is	Associate	Lecturer	at	Sheffield	Hallam	University.		Conor	Farrington	is	Research	Associate	at	the	University	of	Cambridge.		British Politics and Policy at LSE: “All that is solid…”: the destructive tendencies of the Conservative Party Page 4 of 4		Date originally posted: 2017-07-17Permalink: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/the-destructive-tendencies-of-the-conservative-party/Blog homepage: http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/

"All that is solid...": the destructive tendencies of the Conservative Party

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

LSE Research Online