The Conservative Backlash Begins

E.D. Kain

This sounds vaguely familiar. Hmmmm. Where have I heard this line of reasoning before?

Chris

Common sense, but the Conservative party won't be listening. What the Conservative party wants the country to have is William Hague, leading an authoritarian anti-Europe party that will close our borders and fall out with our allies.

That idea was thoroughly rejected in 2005. Cameron has tried to drag the Conservatives back to electability. He's failed. You can still see the same old conservative party behind him. It's like Blair had kept Benn as shadow foreign secretary. He wouldn't have had a chance.

Rupert Evans

What piffle! First, it's not to the centre ground where Cameron has moved the Tories, but a left of centre, liberal position to which most of Westminster and the media hold - with all parties characterised by supporting a bloated welfare state, anti-family, opposed to tough sentences, pro-Europe, high taxation etc (the disagreements are over relatively small differences within this broad consensus).

Secondly, it's ridiculous to say therefore that a conservative party should move to this left-liberal (disguised as centre) ground in order to be elected. What's the point of a party if it betrays the principles for which is stands? To do so is like a football fan changing the team he supports each year so his team always win the title. If grammar schools, capital punishment and tough drug laws are good things and easy divorce, abortion and EU membership are bad, conservatives should stick to their principles and persuade people of them so that they become electable.

Thirdly, it's not true that the Tories lost recent elections because they were too right-wing. For one thing, they weren't particularly right-wing anyway, but they lost essentially because the media fawned so much over Tony Blair and because the Conservative brand was so badly damaged after the Major government (and not because it was right wing).

Finally, it's not true that the electorate would never vote for a right wing party. Huge numbers of people would vote for a party which wanted to withdrsw from the EU, was actually tough on crime, pro-family and tough on immigration. In contrast, few people want to vote for Cameron when he just says the same as the others.

It dismays me that many Spectator writers believe and write such nonsense these days. Hooray for the brave few like Melanie Phillips, Gerald Warner, Peter Hitchens and Simon Heffer who actually understand what conservativism is.

Ben G

Worst case scenario:

1 - Dave loses, party reacts against Dave-ism, swings to the right.
2 - Lib-Lab government passes electoral reform.
3 - Tories elect right wing nutter as leader, lose next election, never recover.

And so the Tories will forever live to regret William Hague's barmy decision to let party members choose the party leader. As I suspect they might now - Ken Clarke, anyone?

Beer Moth

Has it ever occured to you Doc, that your idea of 'the centre ground', might not be most people's? Your idea of 'extremism' might not be quite the shocking position you think it is?

In my time I've voted Tory to get rid of Labour folly, I've voted Labour to oust a clapped out Tory mess. I'm here waiting for any mainstream party to say they'll do what is necessary to sort out the biggest Labour mess we've ever had; and Cameron's 'centre' ain't it.

I think perhaps things have moved on from this centre ground thing of yours. The 'change' we are looking for requires a bit more than the nibbling that Cameron has on offer.

Andre

I like the term 'Conservative Backlash' - a good title for a reborn Tory Party
Yeah

Ian C

'Piffle' may be a bit strong as Alex has a point. But the blanket 'elections are won in the centre ground' is a truism but not one without qualifications.

On immigration and Europe, Brits are what would be defined as right-wing, almost whatever party they regularly vote for. The problem for the Tories is that Europe screwed their reputation for competence in 1992 and it lives long. Immigration was only just on the radar in 2001 and a bit more so in 2005 when it was concentrated on too much by Howard. In 2010 it is a mainstream issue and all party leaders know it, but dare not put it centre stage.

No, Cameron's error has not been about being too centrist, it has been about not doing enough basic common sense 'vision thin'g for the centre-right case. He has tried to copy Blair, who only succeeded because the Tories had been in power for 18 years and had screwed up why they were re-elected in 1992, regardless of having sorted the mess by 1997.

On the other hand, Brown has been allowed/able to hide behind 'global recession' etc not to get sufficiently tarred with the depth of opprobrium for the Labour party as was felt for the Tories by 1997. And Blair was exceptional presentationally, whereas Cameron is not.

In summary, too much was left to technique and presentation, as learnt from Blair. Too little was left to a clear vision of where the Tory Party would lead.

That is why the public is not sold on the Cameron Tories - and expenses nailed it if a fresh face was allowed to pop up. Then they agreed on the debates. I said when they were announced that the Lib Dems had most to gain. I did not anticipate a) such a stilted performance from Cameron or b) such vapidity from those watching, especially the media. But we are in very depressing times - partly because of the lack of clearly expressed vision from the Tories.

Uri

It's the supposed centre ground that has got us where we are. Last time it was Maggie who sorted it out. Now she is so vilified by ignorant people brought up on Labour propaganda and union folklore that the only political solution possible is seen as out of the question.

People should remember the state this country was in before Maggie and that the pain was necessary and worth it for the greater and long term good.

Now we have only one party standing up for the cure, UKIP and no one's paying attention.

Role on the impending crisis, we really need it soon.

Noa Zrk

Well Alex, we won't accuse you of LMF in this debate.
That said I'm with Rupert Evans and Beer Moth in refuting your arguments.

Times change, and fiscal, cultural and social Conservatism simply went out of fashion. With the departure of Blair and the arival of Brown the fun element went from Labour, and vanished completely when we became the new beggars of Europe with a spendaholic one-eyed lunatic in charge. Being out out of debt and having personal values has become fashionable again.

Cameron hasn't recognised that fundamental element of conservatism or picked up on the feeling of change that is revaluing it. He is paying dearly for failing to do so.

If Cameron looses this easy win election it will be because he rejected principle for expediency over lasting values; failing also to recognise the changes and messages the country requires and the electorate knows this and despises him for it.

Right On

Some good points Ian C.

To me the problem with Cameron is not that he's brought the party to a more centrist position on gay rights, diversity, poverty etc. it's that he's neglected issues where a more right wing stance is popular.

I understand (but don't agree with) the motivation on the EU but on immigration they have abandoned the policy on which they could win fairly widespread support.

The idea that elections are won in the centre is flawed - most elections are won on the left of some issues, in the centre with others and to the right with the rest.

Michael

Alex, this is facile - it completely ignores the fact that society has changed rather alot since previous elections, forcing people to consider issues that relative prosperity had previously encouraged them to ignore. Perhaps the Conservatives need to be bold enough to say 'what we said would come to pass has indeed come to pass, we see the evidence of it all around us, and now we have to take action to deal with the consequences'. Immigration is the perfect example here - perhaps it wasn't as important an issue for many communities in 2001 or 2005 the same way as it will be in 2010, with a spluttering economy putting jobs and services under incredible strain. Saying we should avoid discussing it because, you know, back in 2005 it wasn't a popular message... well, forever churning out New Labour doctrines as if they were still shiny new might not play so well to those who think the brand is looking rather dated and in need of an upgrade.

Tiberius

I entirely agree, Alex, and although feeling I was rather letting myself in for it, posted a suitable response (but not eloquently as you of course!) on Mel's blog. It hasn't appeared, though.

The myopia displayed on this theme, particularly in ignoring the state of the Party that Cameron inherited, is quite extraordinary.

Rupert Evans

Tiberius, you go on about the state of the party Cameron adopted etc etc. But Cameron is polling at fairly similar levels to Howard, Hague and IDS. In fact, shortly before he was so outrageously knived by Tory MPs (against the wishes of most conservatives), IDS was doing slightly better in the polls than Cameron is now. Cameron hasn't turned round a sick party, he's accelerated it's death by making it worse.

Graham De Roy

Too right wing in 2001 and 2005? It didn't matter what the Tories said then, Labour was still being given a chance because even they had not completely destroyed the econmomy and Blair was still spinning. Now Brown is rapidly turning us into a third world nation, some good old Tory policies will have a remarkable effect in the marginals - where it matters.

Tiberius

Rupert: none of old guard polled at 38-42%, which Cameron has consistently done throughout his leadership. That is an improvement in my book, which shows he knows the electorate's and the media's mindset better than the others did. You confront them at your peril.

Cameron's current polling has dropped (as has Labour's) because of Cleggmania, which suggests Cameron has focused too much on policy if anything. Even so, he is still ahead in the polls which, apart from the days of the fuel blockade, his predecessors never were.

Right On

I would also say that Cameron has failure is that they've signed up to Labour orthodoxy that spending is good and is an achievement in itself and that reducing tax is a bad thing.

So in summary he's done ok with general subjects that barely anyone votes on, but has missed the boat on tax and on immigration. Basically he's trying to win the last election.

For speculation purposes where would we be if David Davis has won in 2005?

cg

Uri - I was unemployed for most of the 1980s thanks to your beloved Maggie. she certainly 'sorted it out' for me and millions of others. Her legacy is poisonous and is the main reason why the Tories were so unpopular for years. Cameron has finally got them to a position where they could win again, but we have the appalling spectacle of Tebbit, heffer and the other useless idiots who are desperate for him to lose.

Tiberius

Indeed Heffer's piece for the DT is already online.

You and he are a bit of an item though, aren't you, Alex?

Robert Heming

Forget the election manifestos - the country already has a major crisis facing it and the current government has handled it very poorly. They are standing by twiddling their thumbs while the UK aviation industry withers and many businesses need the passengers and airfreight that is the life blood of the UK economy. This is not about rescuing trapped holiday makers and Brown et al. just do not get it. I can think of no better indictment of their incompetence which flows from their failure to understand how the economy really works. Come on DAVE, let the attack dogs out.

Rupert Evans

Tiberius, given people's dislike of New Labour, anyone could have got to 38-40% in the polls as Tory leader. I stgrongly suspect Cameron would have polled much higher with truly conservative policies. Actually, he was down to 35% (or less) for several days before the debate last week so Cleggmania isn't the only reason for the drop. Labour were within 2-3 points in the polls.

Either way, the point still remains that it's wrong to change your views simply to win votes. You stick to your views and persuade voters to support them. This is why true conservatives rightly feel betrayed by Cameron and disenfranchised. He's lost his core vote.

Not sure why Alex is calling true conservatives the 'authoritarian right'. What he labels as such are simply true, traditional conservatives. It's a strange, meaningleness and derogatory label to use.

Beefeater

"Electability" is the media-and-marketing pseudo-political science substitute for "popular". A politician who claims electability is looking to the majority of the last election to vote for him. It is is also asking the losers of the last election to vote according to the majority so that they can win this time round. An electable candidate avoids a strong manifesto deliberately to be popular. A buzz of this, a lick of that, a wave at the other will do. The theory is that everyone will buy a #1 best-seller.

I think that the time has come, that moment has arrived, when it is not too soon to predict that Cameron's electability will cost him the election.

ndm

The authoritarian right brought to mind Jean Kirkatrick's attempt to distinguish authoritarian and totalitarian regimes. This was, of course, little more than an apology for the United States continued support of right-wing dictatorships.

THX1138

If Britain really wants a right wing nutter anti EU, anti immigration, anti AGW party why have UKIP disappeared without trace? And why is a centrist pro EU, pro environment party surging in the polls?

Ask yourselves that!

Rhoda Klapp

Yeak, there is a big problem with authoritarian right. What justification is there for calling those with whom Dr M disagrees authoritarian, except that it is obviously intended to categorise them as wicked slave drivers and nazis? Those who don't like EU hegemony or open borders are not thereby authoritarian. Read the LibDem manifesto, or look at Labour's record, and see who is authoritarian. Or check to see the list of restrictive laws which Cameron proposes to repeal at once. Oh, there is no list? Seems Cam is quite OK with the way things are.

Alex, please retract the authoritarian taunt, or justify it.

Rupert Evans

THX1138, I'm sorry, but you must know perfectly well that people don't vote UKIP because they have no chance of winning. Morevoer, they have a few slightly eccentric views and (because they've not had much airtime), we know little about their candidates. Who knows what might have happened if they'd been on the debate last week- we might be talking about Pearson/Farage mania rather than Clegg mania. The fact remains that UKIP came second in the European elections which disproves your theory and shows people do want an anti-EU party. If the Tories adopted similar views to UKIP on things like Europe, immigration, bureaucracy, law and order, AGW etc, I suspect you'd be surprised how popular they'd be.

Rupert Evans

One further point, Thx1138, there is nothing 'centrist' about the Lib Dems as you say. They are a dangerous, misguided, opportunistic left wing, liberal (but actually fiercely intolerant) party. The reason people vote for them isn't because they are pro-EU/Green etc (in fact most people don't know their policies and would withdraw support if they did) but because they're neither Tory nor Labour and their leader put in a relatively polished and smooth performance at the debate. But their surge is most definitely not a sign that the public supports their policies.

Moreover, to call them 'centrist' is the sort of dishonest propaganda which the BBC/Guardian liberal elite have been spouting for 40 years-by unilaterally deciding to redefine what is 'centrsit', traditional, reasonable centre ground and conservative views are just dismissed as extreme/bigoted etc. This means that debate isn't needed to defeat them: rather, simply by dishonestly labelling them as 'extreme' (as Alex does in his article), they become 'beyond the pale' and people feel guilty if they even consider such ideas. It's a scandal.

Ironically, someone like Evan Harris is really 'extreme', but as the BBC love his ideas, he's made to appear reasonable while the likes of Hitchens and Tebbit are dismissed as loonies. True conversatives must see through this Fabian trick of gradually defeating conservativism by filling instituions such as the media with subtle liberal biases. The biggest obstacle to a conservative revival may not be the liberals but pseudo-conservatives like Cameron and Alex who scare true conservatives into not supporting someone who really shares their views. This is New Labour's greatest legacy: filling the Tory party with leftist ideas and so destroying any real opposition.

fifer

Picking up CG's point, and indeed going back to Alex's "why do Scots vote Labour" question of a couple of days ago, a friend of mine holds that it really doesn't matter what the Tories do or say, they're always going to struggle until Maggie is actually in her grave. A desperate swing to the right would simply remind people what Tebbit et al were actually like.

Cameron's not doing a bad job; he's just looking at the most poisoned of chalices and is having to be very circumspect because of it. One can only hope that if he does get in, Osborne uses his capital to wipe the floor with government spending in his first term - but if I was them I wouldn't be admitting the fact right now either.

Noa Zrk

Rupert Evans @ 10.06am

"This is New Labour's greatest legacy: filling the Tory party with leftist ideas and so destroying any real opposition".

Most profoundly observed.

David Galea

Was the 2005 Manifesto "right wing"?

Page one was a list of vacuous phrases:-

"
More Police

Cleaner Hospitals

Lower Taxes

School Discipline

Controlled Immigration

Accountability

Are you thinking what we're thinking?

It's time for action."

Page two was an ugly black and white photograph of Michael Howard posing against a white background.

The rest is page after page of empty drivel and waffle. There is a photograph of a black lollypop lady and a black businessman, clearly placed in a cowardly and weak attempt to defend the Conservative Party from charges of racism. "It's not racist to talk about immigration" - a cowardly phrase. Why not say "we will heavily cut immigration"? Howard stupidly danced to Blair's tune, in a manifesto prepared by David Cameron.

It's a mistake to infer that this manifesto represents the opinions of Tebbit, Heffer, Hitchens, Warner, and Phillips. It comes nothing close.

Ian C

Rupert Evans

You're on the money.

Beer Moth

Rupert Evans

Ditto Noa Zrk's last.