A Shift To The Right Would Lead To An Electoral Dead End

The debate about ‘mainstream Conservatism’ has been raging across the centre right blogosphere over recent days.  Tim Montgomerie, over at Conservative Home, has suggested that a shift to the right, defined by Tim as ‘mainstream Conservatism’ would boost the electoral fortunes of the party.  I would argue that such an approach is based on a profound misunderstanding of the nature of Conservatism, a right wing myth about the 2010 election campaign and a misunderstanding of the British people.  A shift to the right would be a shift to an electoral dead end.

‘Mainstream Conservatism’ Misunderstands The Nature Of Conservatism

Conservatism is notable for its lack of dogma and for its ability to change as circumstances change.  There is a good reason that the Party has survived and prospered through universal suffrage, the rise of the welfare state, the rise and fall of Democratic Socialism, two World Wars and seismic national and global events that have killed off other political parties.  It is the lack of dogma and belief in serving the whole national interest that has allowed British Conservatism to remain the most potent electoral force in Western European politics.

Peel and the Tamworth Manifesto reconciled the Party to sensible reform.  Disraeli laid down the basis for a progressive Conservatism –widening the franchise to the working man and realising that the power of the state was necessary to deal with the social consequences of Gladstone’s unbridled capitalism and the Manchester school of economic liberals.  Baldwin helped present the Party as the defender of the national interest, largely avoiding the social unrest and switch to the extremes that affected the rest of Europe.  Churchill, that great Liberal Conservative, was the nation’s saviour and , under his tutelage, Rab Butler helped the Tories embrace and build up the NHS and the welfare state.  Macmillan was a supreme Prime Minister – bringing together (as progressive Conservatives always have) social justice and economic efficiency.  Thatcher dealt with the challenges of her day – taming excessive trade union power and excess statism.  With each new generation, the Party has adopted and changed.  Its absence of dogma has allowed it to do that.

Tim Montgomerie is suggesting that the nature of Conservatism should be fundamentally changed.  He is suggesting that Conservatism is the same as Thatcherism and that right wing ideas should be preserved in aspic as the ‘true beliefs of Conservatism.’  It would bind the hands of the party and focus the Party in a narrow, right wing mindset.

How Oakeshott would be horrified at such an idea.  Would Macmillan or Churchill’s views be welcome in the narrow church of mainstream Conservatism?  Conservatism has proven so powerful and enduring because of its adaptability and lack of dogma. Are we really suggesting that we should embrace dogma at the same time as the public is becoming less ideological, less partisan and continues to frown on dogmatic politicians?

Mainstream Conservatism Is Built On A Myth Of The 2010 Election

The foundation of Tim Montgomerie’s proposal is that the 2010 election was lost because ‘true Conservative’ views were diluted and the campaign was ineffective.  The latter comment has some validity.  The former has none.  The campaign was a mediocre one – it failed to reach out to ordinary people and their families.  It failed to set out a compelling vision for what a Tory Britain would look like.  It failed to say, ‘you and your family will be better off if you vote Tory because…’  The campaign was unfocused and the Party suffered because of it.  But that doesn’t mean the Party should knee jerk to the right after their best pick up of seats since 1931.  It means that the next campaign should be more focused and professional.

Tim Montgomerie argues that the campaign also suffered from not being ‘Conservative’ enough (although, as I argued above, I believe the definition of Conservative is flawed).  He suggests that issues such as climate change were over-played and issues like immigration and Europe weren’t given enough attention.  We must have been involved in completely different election campaigns.  The one I remember is the campaign in which immigration was a major feature on the election address of the vast majority of candidates (including mine) and immigration was one of the top few issues in the final weeks of the campaign, as well as dominating the final televised debate.  Europe was seldom mentioned because it was low down voters lists of concerns and people were in little doubt about our position on the matter.  At the same time, I cannot recall climate change being mentioned by any major politician during the campaign.

The idea that people rejected the Party because they thought we had modernised too much isn’t borne out by any of the available evidence.  I knocked on thousands of doors over the course of the election and spoke to thousands of people over the phone and not a single person I spoke to thought that we had modernised too much.  There were plenty who were anxious about whether we had really changed.  There were plenty who thought we were the ‘same old Tories’ of the 80s.  Plenty were concerned that too few top Conservatives had social backgrounds similar to their own.

What held us back in the election wasn’t that we had modernised too much.  It was that we hadn’t modernised enough.  People didn’t think that we had really changed.  They weren’t convinced that we were genuinely in the centre ground by instinct rather than just for the sake of presentation.  Internal and external polling has shown that people were wary of voting Conservative because they doubted our modernising, centrist credentials.  That is an argument for more modernisation, not less.

And what do the experts say about this?  One of the country’s top psephologists, Philip Cowley, had this to say when discussing what Conservative reaction to the election result should be.  He described the belief that the Conservatives failed to win the election because they weren’t right wing enough as “dangerously wrong.”  He went on to say:

“Finally – and most importantly, in terms of the debate about the party’s future – there is the claim that the campaign was not Right-wing enough. Look at the votes that leaked to Ukip, say some of those who wanted a more muscular approach: it enjoyed the best ever performance by a fourth party.

It is here that critics of the Cameron approach are in danger of misreading the public. For sure, Ukip cost the Tories votes. But minor parties are now part of political life, and hurt the other parties as well.

Much more significantly, the party’s own polling found a lingering distrust of the Conservatives among the public. When those who had considered voting Tory were asked why they had not eventually done so, the most common answers involved concerns that the party was still for the rich rather than for ordinary people, or about spending cuts and the removal of benefits such as tax credits.

The marginal constituencies where the Conservative failed to break through, and which they needed to win an overall majority, were those in Scotland or with large numbers of ethnic minority voters or public-sector workers, or all three.. It is difficult to argue that the best way to appeal to them in future will be to move the party back to the Right.”

Mainstream Conservatism Ignores The Coalition Building Necessary To Win Elections

Elections are NEVER won by appealing purely to the core vote.  That is a means of shoring up a vote and preventing too heavy a defeat.  Elections are won in the centre ground by building a coalition of voters.  Chief amongst these voters should be aspirational working and middle class families.  The people who swing elections place themselves firmly in the centre ground of politics and recoil from parties they regard as too right wing or too left wing.  Perception in many ways matters as much as policy.

Tony Blair was the master at locating firmly in the centre ground – the foundation for the biggest electoral victories for generations.  He understood that you do not win elections by appealing to the people who would vote for you anyway.  You win general elections by appealing to swing voters in the centre ground.  These voters are turned off by extremism and want to see moderate, competent, trustworthy people running the country.  They do not tend to elect ideologues.  I haven’t seen any evidence that mainstream Conservatism would be more likely to attract these swing voters.

We should remember where the public perceived the Conservative Party of 2005 (and 2002 and 2001) to be on the political spectrum and the devastating effect of that perception on Conservative electoral performance.  This excellent UK Polling Report blog reminds us of how far the Conservative Party had drifted away from the mainstream of UK public opinion.  In 2005, You Gov asked the public where they rated the party leaders, the parties and themselves on a scale of -100 to +100, with -100 being extremely left wing, +100 being extremely right wing and 0 being in the centre.  The average member of the public regarded themselves as very much in the centre at -2.  Tony Blair was seen as very marginally right of centre at +7.  At the same time, the Conservative Party was viewed as way to the right of most voters at +34.  In other words, the Conservatives were regarded as being completely out of step with the general public.  Stuck in a  comfortable right wing hinterland, we talked endlessly about what we wanted to hear, treating public opinion as a hindrance and coming close to a Bennite ‘no compromise with the electorate’ position.

That is why modernisation was needed and that is why modernisation must be accelerated rather than reversed.  Put simply, we should not base any policies or strategy on the whim of Tory activists or people who already vote Conservative.  We should be concerned by what the general public think, rather than by polls of Tory Party members.

A shift to the right would lose all the gains of modernisation and mean that the general public again regarded the Party with suspicion.  It would restrict the broad electoral coalition that needs to be built in order to win an election to a narrow core.

The Conservatives are faced with a choice.  We can continue to be progressive, centrist, utterly comfortable with modern Britain and in step with the British people.  Or we can retreat to being an ideologically pure, right wing party, fixed by a narrow ideological dogma.  Modernisation will lead us to electoral success and continued good Government, whereas a shift to the right will lead to an electoral dead end.

We would be wise to remember the words of a great former Conservative Prime Minister when making the decision about the future of the party:

“The great thing is to keep the Tory Party on modern and progressive lines”.

Harold Macmillan, 1959

Related posts:

1. “A partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are yet unborn”
2. A radical power shift
3. Another 14 point poll lead
4. We Should Consider Carefully The Idea Of An Electoral Pact
5. Building An Enduring Progressive Conservative Electoral Coalition