Revision Update: UK Politics: Conservative Party

The dilemma the Conservatives faced after the 2005 general election was similar to that of the Labour party in the 1990s. The party, having lost successive elections, needed to change in order to get re-elected. Labour’s four defeats in 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992, assisted the development of New Labour. This “project” saw the Labour party abandon many of its traditional policies such as state ownership of the “commanding heights” of the British economy with the amendment to Clause IV of their constitution with a move to the centre right ground of British politics. The success of this move was evident with an unprecedented three successive election victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005.

The Conservatives then had a similar need for a “makeover”, a reinvention if you will, so that they could reconnect with the British public. Their support in the elections where Labour won showed no real sign of change. Their vote “flatlined” around the 30% mark and this was in part due to the public’s perception of the Conservatives as “the nasty party” as was identified by the then party chair, Theresa May, at the 2003 party conference. This allowed the election of David Cameron in 2005 after their third election defeat on a modernising agenda. Part of his brief was to give his party a more new policies and a new image; a brief which might be called a modernising agenda.

In the early years of his leadership, he focused on the environment and suggested a more sympathetic approach to alienated urban youth (in the so-called “hug a hoodie” speech). Like Blair and New Labour, Cameron was championing a form of “compassionate Conservatism”.

Election success (of a sort) followed in 2010, but it is clear that the party as a whole has not fully embraced this modernising agenda. After the embarrassment of coming third behind UKIP in the Eastleigh by election, Cameron had to declare that there would be “no lurch to the right”. The level of discontent is plain to see with a substantial proportion of Conservative MPs defying the leadership over issues such as a proposed referendum on continued membership of the EU and House of Lords reform. There have even been rumblings of a leadership challenge although at the time of writing none is yet to appear.

The Conservative right want to focus on:

1. Europe

2. Human Rights (as in their objection to the European Court of Human rights and the Human Rights Act of 1998)

3. Immigration

4. More tax cuts

5. Further welfare reforms (as in cuts)

Cameron has a different focus which may have a broader appeal. He identifies

1. The NHS

2. The economy

3. Crime

As being the main concerns of the electorate. He has supported gay marriage and House of Lords reform both of which have incurred the ire of Conservative backbenchers.

One difficulty in attempting to effectively evaluate the present ideological position of the party is not only the issue of internal divisions but also the need to read through the political posturing and soundbite politics that are designed to maximise electoral support. Cameron and the party are in a dilemma in some respects in that they need to:

1. Move to the right to avert the UKIP threat and;

2. Move to the centre to win the support of floating voters

Consequently we need to cut through the electoral rhetoric and assess what is happening in reality. There is some debate about the extent to which Cameron truly believes in the modernising agenda outlined above. Is it merely a façade to help remedy the problems of the party’s past image?

Cameron has had to walk a tightrope seeking to balance two competing ideologies.

1. When he was elected he sought to detoxify the Conservative brand and jettison notions that the Conservatives were the uncaring nasty party. Hence he embraced issues such as the environment and the NHS. This modernising agenda has come under increased attack from within the party.

2. The party may have been willing to accept his leadership and this agenda in order to get elected, however, in what has been a rapid turnaround of events, there have been demands that the Conservative party return to more right wing positions.

The cabinet reshuffle (see chapter on the executive) represented in many people’s eyes a shift to the right for the party. Further demands followed the defeat at the Eastleigh by election and the threat posed by UKIP who came second to the Conservatives’ third. .

The values of the party then can change depending upon which wing of the party is in the ascendant. The move to the right is likely to seen the following values being given greater priority.

a. Nationalism. A more Eurosceptic approach. Cameron was able to oppose an increase in the EU budget and a referendum on UK’s continued membership is on the cards after the 2015 election.

Opposition to rulings from the European Courts have seen both Cameron and May argue for a “British bill of Rights”.

b. Individualism. This is evident from cuts in the welfare budget and can be linked to the next value. The Conservatives have traditionally argued that hierarchy in society is natural and that attempts to create a more egalitarian state via taxes redistributing wealth and income could hinder the advance of the economy and society.

c. A minimal role for government. Not only is the government looking to reduce public spending to remedy the ailing finances of the country but it sees the private sector as the best source of job creation.

In some respects it is difficult to speak of common values within the party. It could be argued that the values of the leader at anyone point in time define the values of the party at that time. The election of another leader however can lead to a different set of values being introduced as was evident with the change in leadership between the Heath (1965 -1975 a one nation paternalist) and Thatcher (1975 -1990 – a free market advocate).

As mentioned above, within the Conservative party it is possible to identify a sizeable right wing Thatcherite rump but there are other factions. These include:

Bright Blue: campaigns for progressive conservatism and pushes an environmentalist agenda and supports international development.

The Free Enterprise Group: promotes radical free market solutions based upon tax cuts and minimal government. It has a pro-business agenda which is supported by Osborne.

The Tory Reform Group: are the remnants of the left wing of the party that supports membership of the EU and state intervention.

The Cornerstone Group: are socially conservative and oppose gay marriage.

Given this fragmentation it could be argued that a core value of the party is not to have one dominant ideology. In this sense the party retains a pragmatic, flexible anti – ideological outlook which it allows to adapt to the changing needs of both society and the economy. This factor explains the party’s longevity and its phenomenally successful record in elections throughout the last century and at the start of this one.

In terms of party leadership however it is rather surprising though that this factionalism is so evident so early on in a government where the ruling party were out of office for 13 years. Normally the need to retain a semblance of party unity is maintained in order to secure election victories. The level of disunity presently evident could not only be to the party’s detriment in the next election but also suggest that Cameron has not been able to maintain a tight grip over his party.