Home > Alex Massie

Tuesday 22 May 2012

Mainstream vs Liberal Conservatives

Friday, 10th December 2010

Tim Montgomerie is on maneuvers again and, as tends to be the case when Tim's on patrol, it's worth listening to what he says. At ConservativeHome and in the Times (£) he outlines what he sees as a divide between "Mainstream" and "Liberal" Conservatism. In part this is simply a matter of using the grass-roots to keep the party leadership "honest" and in part it's an attempt to head off any talk of electoral pacts in 2015 that might see the coalition run for a second term. All of which is fine and dandy.

Nevertheless, the divide between Mainstream and Liberal may not be as clear as Tim suggests. For instance, he writes:

Later in this parliament the Tory Party must choose one of two futures: liberal Conservatism or mainstream Conservatism. Both are viable electorally but they are very different. One takes the party away from its grassroots and traditions; the other demonstrates a belief that authentic conservatism is still a potent force.

[...]The vast majority of party members, in contrast, are frustrated with the leadership’s unwillingness to argue for traditional Conservative positions. They want an outright majority, won on the back of a recognisably centre-right manifesto. This would not jettison David Cameron’s political breadth. His emphasis on social justice, conservation and civil liberties would, however, be combined with strong assertions on tax, crime and Europe.

Tim is right to emphasise the importance of breadth but surely a "centre-right" conservatism is a liberal conservatism? Otherwise why do you need the "centre" bit? And anyway with the arguable exception of Europe, almost none of this would embarrass any self-respecting liberal conservative either So where's the distinction really drawn? Indeed, one could infer from this that "social justice" and "civil libertarianism" and so on aren't core parts of Mainstream Conservatism at all but welcome Johnny-come-latelys to the party. (This might be unfair to IDS' work but on the latter matter I certainly doubt even this government's civil libertarian bona fides and would be hugely sceptical of a Tory majority's approach to such matters. David Davis, for all his many qualities, is hardly typical of Tory views on this.)

Meanwhile, Tim also writes (£):

Nearly all the politically necessary moves that followed [Cameron's ascendancy to the leadership], on the NHS, the environment, gay rights, and away from America’s foreign policy orbit, moved the party closer to the Lib Dems. Mr Cameron’s moves to the right, by contrast, have nearly always been tactical and never became sustained campaigns. The pledge to take Tory MEPs out of the federalist European People’s Party was offered when his leadership bid needed more right-wing support. Promises on the Lisbon treaty and inheritance tax were made while Gordon Brown enjoyed his honeymoon bounce in the polls.

This positioning was probably too clever and appeared inauthentic to many voters. Despite the economic circumstances, Mr Brown’s unpopularity and the demoralised, penniless Labour Party, Mr Cameron’s overhaul of the Tory brand did not win a majority.

Again, this seems confusing. True, Cameron did not win a majority but was this because he made too many "politically necessary" moves or because he also feinted to the right (towards the Conservative Mainstream?) and so undid some of the benefits won by his previous repositioning?

Or was it because by the time the election was held the worst of the economic crisis has passed (in some respects anyway) and some part of Gordon Brown's negatives were offset by the lingering drag factor of past Tory performances? Most probably some combination of all of it. You can add some voters being scared by Labour's attacks on "Tory cuts" and, for that matter, the fact that Tory economic plans were hastily, and plainly, rewritten once the banks crashed.

"Sharing the proceeds of growth" began as a strength ("We've Changed!") but was then eclipsed by events, forcing a rethink and an "Age of Austerity". The Tories never quite found a way of selling their "Times are tough and will need tough decisions but, look, we're the Optimists!" message. Nor could they quite decide whether to sell cuts as necessary medicine or as a great ideological leap forward. They're both those things but that's a somewhat nuanced message too.

As for tax, crime and Europe. Well the latter is parked and waiting to see what happens both with the coalition and, just as importantly, in Brussels. Crime? "Traditional" Tories may not much like Ken Clarke but it's much too soon to tell whether his ideas survive in recognisable form. Again, a compromise between the liberals and the traditionalists seems most likely. On tax, yes there have been compromises, some forced by the Lib Dems and some by Gordon Brown's legacy but the coalition is cutting corporation tax and raising the threshold at which one begins to pay income tax. That's not a bad start.

I suspect that cutting the top-rate of tax will be done - or at least promised - when the politics of doing so become easier. Add welfare reform, deficit reduction, education reform and, perhaps, localism to the mix and you have a pretty strong set of traditional or mainstream conservative policies being pursued by this government. If "Mainstream Conservatives" choose to ignore this then fine, but the rest of the country seems pretty sure it has a pretty Conservative government.

Reading Tim, and those who agree with him, one sometimes gets the impression that this must be a Liberal Democrat government supported by a handful of Conservative ministers. This is not actually the case. Of course there are some compromises (europe, some aspects of prisons policy, some matters of tax etc) but the Lib Dems have, as many of their members may tell you, given up rather more. (A Good Thing in my book.) Immigration is but one such example. Whether one agrees with the government or not, its plans for an immigration cap don't come from any liberal textbook.

Tim also makes a great deal of a ConservativeHome survey reporting that 79% of Tory members want a Conservative majority after the next election. This, with respect, seems a Dog Bites Man finding. Much more interesting, surely, is that 16% say they want the coalition to have a second term. That's one in six Tory members. This was the question ConservativeHome asked:

Would you like the Conservatives to govern on their own after the next General Election or in continued partnership with the Liberal Democrats?

I don't think it's a surprise that most activists desire a Conservative majority. But what if the question were: Would you like the Conservatives to continue their partnership with the Liberal Democrats after the next General Election or be in opposition?

Anyway, what is a Mainstream Conservative? I know some dispute Cameron's conservative credentials but does that mean Macmillan and Balfour weren't Conservatives too? Wasn't the Iron Lady herself once thought a Manchester Liberal? Does this divide between mainstreamers and liberals really even exist or is it more a matter of emphasis and rhetoric?

Finally, in his ConservativeHome piece Tim also argues that Mainstream Conservatives want "a strong identity for England". This, I suspect, is code for an English parliament. This isn't the place to get into the technicalities of that discussion (though, broadly speaking, I'm not against the idea) so I'll just argue that Tories have traditionally been against such moves, fearing that they might weaken the Union. They may be wrong about this but Cameron is certainly a Unionist and so firmly, on this Big Question at least, a wholly traditional, mainstream Conservative.

UPDATE: See Graeme Archer, also at ConservativeHome, for more.

Filed under: Cameron (227 more articles) , ConLib (132 more articles) , Tories (273 more articles)

Previous Back to Alex Massie Next

Blogs: Martin Bright | Susan Hill | Melanie Phillips | Coffee House | Faith Based

Actions: Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (8)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

normanc

December 10th, 2010 7:10am Report this comment

I have no idea what the differences between a liberal conservative, social conservative, fiscal conservative, neo-conservative, mainstream conservative, and whatever else, are. I have no idea what half of those are.

To me, a conservative is a conservative. We believe in individual freedom, the responsibility that comes with that, which means the state staying out of the way, low taxes to match that, a sense of community rather than centralisation. Socialists believes the opposite.

A couple of points I think you hit the nail on the head. Cameron has no core set of beliefs. He finds it difficult to inspire people because of this, as you say he tries to be everything to everyman, changes his mind apparently whimsically, and no one really knows what he stands for. Big government, high tax? Small government, low tax? Progressiveness/socialism? Conservatism? For profit entities running government responsibilities (e.g. education, health)? Government running everything? Who knows.

As for the electoral pact, Cameron must know that the Lib Dems as a whole vastly favour Labour over teh Conservatives. If they are not locked in to a deal with the Conservatives (and I don't see how that can be possible) and there is any chance of a Lib/Lab coalition in the event of a hung Parliament there's no question that is what the membership will be pushing for.

The converse for the Conservatives is that forcing the Lib Dems to hitch themselves on to the Conservatives coat tails prior to an election will drive huge amounts of their voters to Labour, always assuming there are large numbers to be lost in the first place, after 5 years (optimistically) of contamination (e.g. see last night) from the nasty Party.

Ian Walker

December 10th, 2010 8:12am Report this comment

"To me, a conservative is a conservative. We believe in individual freedom, the responsibility that comes with that, which means the state staying out of the way, low taxes to match that, a sense of community rather than centralisation. Socialists believes the opposite"

Well done, normanc. Tim should print this out in a big typeface and stick it on his office wall.

Rhoda Klapp

December 10th, 2010 9:25am Report this comment

Normanc, yes, let us not try to label every position, but make up our own minds on each issue, based on a set of primciples.

Why is Europe a left/right thing? I remember the unions and most of the Labour party being against it. How is the coalition position on europe a compromise? Between the status quo and...what? No, it is the unalloyed status quo. Same old three chords. What chairs the tories sit in at their non-democratic sham parliament is totally irrelevant.

What we have here is the age-old question: Will you give up your principles for power? For all three main parties in the UK, we have our answer.

Jonathan Woolf

December 10th, 2010 10:29am Report this comment

It seems to be the disconnect between the Tory leadership and many of their MPs, party members, and right of centre voters comes down simply to a combination of cultural factors and a couple of key issues.

Culturally, despite what Labour would like to believe, not many right-of centre voters are super-rich Old Etonian patricians or dewy-eyed admirers of those who are. I therefore suspect most are just as suspicious as lefties that Cameron and co. don't get the concerns of those who want to work and take responsibility for their own lives but can't seem to move or breathe without paying some sort of tax or fine or being hassled by someone from the public sector. The evident happiness with which Cameron (rich, public school, Oxbridge) got into bed with Clegg (rich, public school, Oxbridge) just reinforced this sense of our leadership living in a different world. The Google-inspired Steve Hilton nonsense, the waffle about the big society from Letwin, and now Clarke's re-hash of the same old anti-prison liberal rubbish that has cursed us for 40 years with high crime rates, also re-inforces this sense that the Cabinet are on a different planet.

The key issues are obvious: tax and Europe. Europe seems to me particularly toxic for Cameron, because it is the issue which has nailed him as a principle-less PR man. His cast-iron referendum volte-face killed the idea that he was different to the New Labour liars and could be trusted. After that, he was just another politician, and the Tories never again enjoyed a lead above a few percentage points. Europe also is the issue most of his MPs and activists are most passionate about. It is also costing Britain real money at a time when the rest of the talk is about cuts.

Otherwise, I agree with Alex that all this talk of liberal vs mainstream conservative is more heat than light and doesn't stack up; right-of centre people generally share values like an aversion to being bossed about, a positive view of Britain's history, a dislike of those taking a free-ride on their taxes, and a love of freedom, but within that are capable of taking pretty different views on a lot of issues.

normanc

December 10th, 2010 11:51am Report this comment

'make up our own minds on each issue, based on a set of primciples.'

As good a definition of a conservative as you'll get. Unfortunately there are very few MP's with a set of conservative principles willing to stick their heads above the parapet so instead we are treated to the nonsense we have now.

If Labour had won the election we'd be getting virtually the same policies as we are getting now.

The opposition in Britain now simply opposes for form's sake, not because of any fundamental ideological differences. The Conservative & Labour position swapping on student fees perfectly illustrates this.

We love Eurasia (student fees), we have always loved them, we hate eastasia, we have always been at war with them.

Simon Stephenson

December 10th, 2010 11:57am Report this comment

normanc : 7.10am

"Cameron has no core set of beliefs"

Mmmmm. I think this is probably wrong. I suspect that Cameron has just as much an idea as leaders from the past of how he would like things to be. The difference is in the circumstances, the culture, rather than with the individual.

Where we have reached is a position of mutual distrust between leaders and people, in which the concept of politics as a constructive process has almost completely broken down. There is as little faith that leaderships are working in the common good as there is that the general public recognises the need for the country to be run at a level of high intellect.

I'm afraid that unless decent authority is skilled enough to re-establish faith in its competence and its straight, equitable dealing, what we will see is power seeping away to the mono-visioned nutcases who can talk a good story by omitting to mention the less-good consequences of what they plan to do.

We have a choice - but it won't just happen.

Baron

December 10th, 2010 3:50pm Report this comment

normanc @ 7.10:

I second that to the power of 10, the multi-labeling succeeds in nothing except camouflaging the near absence of genuine conservative principles, the old divisions remain, and as for the de-coupling of the mainstream parties from the rest of the country, well, if anything it’s getting even more pronounced.

Scary Biscuits

December 10th, 2010 5:42pm Report this comment

Alex, you ask what mainstream and left wing (aka Tory Reform Group) Conservatism is as though this is a difficult question. It isn't.

The division has two defining features:

1. Economics. TRG Conservatives have consistently been on the losing side of the argument, including Mrs Thatcher's economic reforms, sound money and a smaller state. TRG Conservatives were also in favour of joining the ERM. TRG concessions on these issues are only ever tactical. They, like Labour, see state spending as something intrinsically good, to be maximised. Hence, Osborne's boast at the budget that because of his clever management, he was able to spend more money than Labour had planned to. A mainstream Conservative would have prioritised tax cuts over relaxing spending restraint.

2. The definition of fair. TRG Conservatives share with Labour the idea that a fair society has an equality of outcome. Hence their support for 'positive' discrimination and both the continuation by Theresa May of Hariet Harman's feminist agenda and their support for Vince Cable's notion that top executive pay should not exceed a fixed multiple of junior pay. By contrast, Mainstream Conservatives define fair not in terms of outcome but opportunity. They hated the A-List and see fairness as rewarding good behaviour. Many commentators think that because IDS cares about the poor that he is therefore on the liberal wing of the party. He is not. His reforms come from the opposite end of the party and he consistently talks about not rewarding failure. If Cameron had won the election outright he would probably have not even have appointed IDS to the cabinet and as it was had to be persuaded. Similarly, Cameron wasn't a supporter of raising tax thresholds before the election and was only forced into this by the Liberals, paradoxically. Unlike the Liberals, however, mainstream Conservatives see tax as an issue of fairness no matter how rich or poor you are and being rewarded for your labour.

Post comment