November 9, 2004
IGNORING RED BRITAIN:
Tories at war (still): The Tory party remains politically becalmed. A leading Thatcherite blames Michael Howard for succumbing to Majorism. The modern Conservative party, he argues, can only be led from the right (Robin Harris, October 2004, Prospect uk)
Michael Howard is in many ways an admirable human being - brave, charming, witty and self-deprecatory. But he is also at fault for the current failure. Everyone wanted him to succeed. He was given a free hand - perhaps too free - like the receiver of an insolvent company. But Howard has turned out to be a better parliamentarian than politician. He cannot, it seems, distinguish a strategy from a tactic or a persuasive argument from a plea of last resort. He proves strangely relaxed about broad principles but fiercely obsessed with the narrowest of logical deficits. He is not merely stubborn, he manages to be most stubborn when he is most wrong. Everyone but Howard has known for months that the more he focused on the Iraq war, the higher the anti-war vote would go. But he refused to stop scratching the sore until it assumed the features of a tumour. Almost everyone has been arguing that the party had to offer big tax cuts to win back middle-class support and to stake out ground where Labour could not follow. But he has nitpicked, objected and hesitated so long that it will now be more difficult to portray whatever the party finally proposes as sensible or responsible.And then there is Europe. It is the one issue which every Tory leader should know he has to get right. It is also the one issue on which Blair's views are at odds with those of the British people. Yet during the European election campaign, Howard managed to insult a large section of his own core vote by attacking their conviction that Britain should leave the EU as "extremist." And now, whatever he does to try belatedly to win them back will be ridiculed by Europhiles and meet with a wall of doubt from Eurosceptics. But if he fails to win them back, and if Ukip continues to poll well, the Conservative party may be out of government for at least another decade.
But Howard's personal qualities are not the root of Tory travails. To try to understand the latter, it is necessary to reach farther back into the party's history - back, in fact, to 1985, when Michael Howard and, more importantly, a certain John Major entered the Thatcher government. This, in retrospect, was the start of the trouble. In her memoirs, Thatcher records the circumstances: "When as a whip John Major came to the annual whips' lunch at Downing Street with the other whips, he disagreed with me about the importance of getting taxation down. He argued that there was no evidence that people would rather pay lower taxes than have better social services. I did not treat him or his argument kindly and some people... thought that he had ruined his chances of promotion. But in fact I enjoy an argument and when the whips' office suggested he become a junior minister I gave him the job."
Blood, sweat, tears and ink have been spilt on the Thatcher-Major relationship. Howard is one of the few to have maintained good relations with both of them. This, too, is perhaps a tribute to his qualities as a man rather than his perspicacity as a politician, because Tories in the end have to make a choice between one or the other's approach, and then be consistent about it. [...]
The thatcher approach was to preach a message and then try to put it into effect. No less important, the Thatcher assumption was that the preaching would be persuasive because somewhere in the depths of the British national psyche it would strike a chord. Just as Disraeli saw working-class Tories as "angels in marble" - that is, natural conservatives awaiting only the inspired touch of the sculptor to emerge as Conservative voters - so Thatcher and her closest colleagues believed in a natural conservative majority. Keith Joseph was alluding to this when he urged the Tory party, in opposition in the 1970s, to seek out the "common ground," rather than the centre ground. The common ground, he argued, was composed of the shared values, beliefs, instincts and attachments that united people from diverse socioeconomic groups and different party-political traditions. The centre ground, by contrast, was simply where the professional politicians and the media class considered that the respectable middle was properly located. Moreover, the intellectual trend was to shift the centre farther and farther to the left. By contrast, the common ground was situated well to the right. So, for example, in the 1970s and 1980s, on issues like trade union power, inflation, tax rates, home ownership, crime and immigration, millions of people felt disenfranchised by the prevailing political consensus: break that consensus and one could unlock that support.
In Britain, Tory success under Margaret Thatcher depended on embracing and acting upon that analysis. In America, the Republicans under Ronald Reagan did the same. Just as Reagan believed that there was a "spirit" of America which could be evoked and activated, so did Thatcher believe that there was a definite British "character" - a favourite word - which could become the basis of a non-socialist British political, social and economic order. This view can be ridiculed, but it can be neither disproved nor discounted. The policies to which it gave rise ensured the transformation of Britain into the leading power in Europe - and the Tory party, while such thinking prevailed, into the natural party of government.
The Major years did not substantially change Britain, but they did change the Conservative party. Most obviously, by leading to its catastrophic defeat, they diminished its size, and thus the talent pool from which a new group of leaders could emerge. At the same time, they also destroyed Tory organisation in whole swathes of the country. But the Major legacy had deeper effects than that. So far were the party's leading figures enmeshed in the shifts of approach and of philosophy which occurred with Thatcher's departure, that they could not frankly admit what they had got wrong. If they, the party leaders, were not to blame, then the party itself must be.
This happened to fit in with the analysis of another, highly politically educated, group of Tories. For them, the obvious analogy was to be found in the Labour party. Viewing the transformation of the party of Foot and Kinnock into Tony Blair's New Labour, some young Conservatives hungered for "New Tory." Drawing on the parlance of advertising, mesmerised by focus groups, often lacking the instincts (or, as they might say, prejudices) that influenced an older generation, they set about their task with a will. They proudly called themselves "modernisers," and every Tory nostrum was to be challenged in the name of modernity - attachment to the free market, hostility to trade union power, support for the traditional family, scepticism about Europe.
In the late '70s Margaret Thatcher and the Tories forged ties with Ronald Reagan and the conservative wing of the GOP, then the two sides borrowed ideas from each other and engineered sweeping government takeovers. It says everything you need to know about the Tories today that they don't think they can learn anything from George Bush and Karl Rove. Posted by Orrin Judd at November 9, 2004 8:41 AM
Yes, but the Tories have a real practical problem here.
On law and order, you really can't get any further to the right of the current Home Secretary David Blunkett without actually being Darth Vadar.
The can't play the Bush's religious-right moral value card, since Britain is now utterly indifferent to the religious beliefs of its politicians, and even if they did you can be sure the PM would be thumping his Bible before you can say 'Saint Tony'.
They have been unable to make any capital out of the national divide on Iraq becuase they supported Blair every step of the way.
The economy is in excellent shape, the Unions are powerless and business is quite content with Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown
Which leaves only Europe. And they're hopelessly split on the issue within their party, even if their supporters aren't.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 9:53 AMSending minions to help Kerry didn't burnish their star here, either.
Don't forget guns. There's a wealth of rural votes.
And many suggesting that unwritten constitution become written to everyone understands the ground rules?
Draconian hate speech laws, too. And that nonsense the government can protect you, please.
Posted by: Sandy P at November 9, 2004 10:10 AMThey could conceivably come out as strongly anti-single European currency and survive the ruptures within the party.
They certainly couldn't come out strongly anti-EU (you mean withdrawal?) and survive intact.
The trouble is that Gordon Brown has established 'tests' that the Euro has to pass before Britain can consider joining which are so stringent that it just isn't going to burgeon into a decisive issue in the forseeable future.
On immigration, Blunkett is already rapidly establishing himself as Chief Guardian of the White Cliffs of Dover against the Incoming Hordes.
Death penalty is a non-starter.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 10:14 AMBrit:
Fox-hunting, huge public investments in trying to win the World Cup and evolution as a theory, not a fact.
Sandy:
"and many suggesting that unwritten constitution become written to everyone understands the ground rules?"
No, PULEEZE! Do you hate the Brits that much?
Posted by: Peter B at November 9, 2004 10:17 AMSandy:
Guns is even more of a non-starter, I'm afraid.
The 'countryside alliance' has recently kicked up an almighty fuss over the proposed ban on foxhunting with hounds, but there's no similar demand for more relaxed gun laws. It's just not part of our culture in the way it is in the US.
Your mention of a written constitution is interesting. Proposing such a move is considered the most un-conservative thing imaginable - on a par with removing the monarchy. The Tories would ban warm beer and roast beef sooner.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 10:25 AMRestore Common law right of self-defense at home without retreat.
Oppose EU constitution, Blair will be pushing for it and it is a very bad idea.
Restore the fox hunt.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz at November 9, 2004 10:33 AMBrit:
Guns too are a 60-40 issue in Britain.
If the Tories ran on the 60 side instead of the 40 on these things they'd win.
Posted by: oj at November 9, 2004 10:38 AMOJ:
Re: the death penalty. Yes, it's probably 60:40 in the general public. But not within the Conservative party, and certainly not within Parliament, which is probably at least 80:20 against.
You have to understand how our system works. Party leaders and their 'whips' have a horrendous time constantly striving to keep the disparate elements within their party united enough to vote along the party line.
Capital punishment is a cross-party issue. It's considered a matter of conscience, and MPs are freed by their whips to vote on an individual basis.
The last time there was a vote - in 1994, and on the specific issue of excecution for the murder of a policeman on duty (and this at a time when the Tories were in power), the count was a 197 majority against. Which is large.
Where did you get the idea that guns is a 60:40 issue? I'd be very surprised, but would be interested to see a source.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 10:42 AMBrit:
Yes, if the Tories don't run on conservative principle they won't get to govern. That's the point.
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel051403.asp
Posted by: oj at November 9, 2004 10:56 AMMm. That article is hardly an impartial review of public attitudes to guns, is it?
"if the Tories don't run on conservative principle they won't get to govern".
That is true, but I'm talking about practical steps for Howard to take.
Two issues are mixed up here. One is relaxing gun ownership laws for recreational purposes. There's no demand for that whatsoever- and far more likely to be a vote-loser than a vote-winner.
The other is allowing more protection for homeowners who use force to defend their property. That would definitely be a vote-winner. But Blunkett will get there first.
Brit:
The only practical step in politics is winning elections. You win by standing with the 60%, not the 40%.
Posted by: oj at November 9, 2004 11:32 AMTrue, but you've got to do it on the election-winning issues. It's no good being with the majority on the death penalty if that's not a an election-deciding issue. Which it isn't.
Here are the election-winning issues in Britain, in descending order of approximate importance: the economy; health; education; law and order (especially street crime by gangs of young men - ie. not murder); public transport; taxes; Europe; immigration; Iraq.
Here's the state of play in Britain: socialism is dead. There is a huge political consensus, which is basically centre-right. On all the major issues above, New Labour are indistinguishable from Thatcher's conservatism, but with a rather glib facade of 'caring-sharing' added. And Howard's conservatives are indistinguishable from New Labour.
Therefore, the key voting issue is trust and competence. Who can run the country most competently?
Blair has lost much of his sheen, but Gordon Brown - the expected next leader - is considered extremely reliable. The disastrous last years of Major's Government, along with their farcical inability to find a leader who'll last more than a couple of years, means that the Tories just don't look competent.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 11:55 AMBrit:
Run on anti-immigration, anti-Europe, death penalty, etc. and they'll win.
Posted by: oj at November 9, 2004 12:08 PMI would think they could attack the National Health Service which does a truly terrible job for most people. They cannot attack the concept of a National Health because Brits view it as sacrosanct. However, a modified privatization like the French and Germans have might be something workable. Incentivization can work wonders.
What about the schools? They do even a worse job than American public schools for the most part. Couldn't the Tories offer a return to the 'good old days' or perhaps a voucher system so people can flee the national schools?
On law and order the Tories could discuss a full-court press on gang violence. No gang summits, no understanding but a policy of treating them like terrorists. The rhetoric just jumps out at you. 'Blair has understood the War on Terror when our enemy is outside our shores, but here in Britain there is a terrorism that he has failed to confront. It is the terrorism of gang violence, street thugs are a threat to the very essence of Britain and we must do something. 'Yadda Yadda Yadda.
Posted by: Bart at November 9, 2004 12:20 PMOJ and Bart:
All potentially true, but it won't matter a jot what their policies are, radical or otherwise, until they appear competent to govern.
Not being here, you don't really appreciate just how far the Tory stock has fallen. They aren't taken seriously. Comedians don't even bother impersonating them any more - the general target is too easy, the specific targets too anonymous.
Even at a time when Blair has lost virtually all the goodwill he had, they have not only been unable to gain political ground - they've actually lost it - a remarkable achievement.
Their other big weapon -the fear of left-wing loony Labour - has also long gone: a triumph for Blair; a disaster for the Tories.
And I say all this as a natural conservative-supporter.
A semblance of competence first. Issues second.
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 12:57 PM"Run on anti-immigration, anti-Europe, death penalty, etc. and they'll win."
Those just aren't election-winning issues. Anti-immigration isn't a huge issue because Labour has severely decreased the flow of illegal immigrants and businesses need the cheap labour and we've already got a right-wing Home Secretary. The bulk of the population isn't in favour of closer integration with Europe and Blair is pragmatic enough not to push things further than he can and encourage a backlash. The public would like the death penalty but its' not likely to be a political winner because violent crime just isn't that bad and there have been several high-profile cases where people convicted of major crimes (like the Birmingham Six) were subsequently found innocent.
"I would think they could attack the National Health Service which does a truly terrible job for most people. They cannot attack the concept of a National Health because Brits view it as sacrosanct. However, a modified privatization like the French and Germans have might be something workable. Incentivization can work wonders.
What about the schools? They do even a worse job than American public schools for the most part. Couldn't the Tories offer a return to the 'good old days' or perhaps a voucher system so people can flee the national schools?
On law and order the Tories could discuss a full-court press on gang violence. No gang summits, no understanding but a policy of treating them like terrorists. The rhetoric just jumps out at you. 'Blair has understood the War on Terror when our enemy is outside our shores, but here in Britain there is a terrorism that he has failed to confront. It is the terrorism of gang violence, street thugs are a threat to the very essence of Britain and we must do something. 'Yadda Yadda Yadda. "
The thing is the middle-class generally send their children to good private schools and use private medicine so real political clamour for reform just isn't very strong. The Tories unleashed a string of market-oriented reforms on the NHS which got a bad reception and didn't lead to a noticeable performance boost. Currently the Tories just aren't offering anything new and compelling besides vowing to cut taxes.
And like I said before violent crime just isn't a huge issue.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 9, 2004 2:20 PMBrit:
Economy's doing allright but two or three years down the line, Gordon's spending and increased taxation is going to have real consequences.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 9, 2004 2:23 PMM Ali:
Agreed. Would you broadly agree with my list of election-winning issues:
"in descending order of approximate importance: the economy; health; education; law and order (especially street crime by gangs of young men - ie. not murder); public transport; taxes; Europe; immigration; Iraq."
Posted by: Brit at November 9, 2004 3:08 PM
Brit,
If you're not the party in power, given the lack of local power centers, where do you get the chance to 'appear competent' when you are out of power?
Ali,
If, as you say, many middle class parents send their kids to private schools, wouldn't they want the government to give them a few thousand quid for each kid? In America, where about 10% of kids attend private schools, vouchers are a powerful issue. If that is a larger number in Britain, shouldn't it be more potent?
If comparatively few people use NHS as you imply, why should such a large percentage of the budget be devoted to it? Couldn't it then be cut or eliminated as part of a tax reduction package?
Posted by: Bart at November 9, 2004 8:39 PMBrit: Yep.
Bart: So far the perception that the system is broken just hasn't set in. It's still felt by a lot of the public that increased public funding would fix a lot of the problems.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 10, 2004 1:17 AMBart: What basically happens is that we elect a dictatorship every 5 years and if they mess up, we kick them out.
Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at November 10, 2004 1:24 AMBart:
"If you're not the party in power, given the lack of local power centers, where do you get the chance to 'appear competent' when you are out of power?"
It won't be easy. The first stage is to not appear an utterly incompetent shambles unable to agree on a consistent direction or a leader.
Posted by: Brit at November 10, 2004 4:19 AM