The future is not what it used to be. Can the Conservative Party adapt to confront the challenges that the country now faces?
It has done it before. The party claims—with some justification—to be the longest-serving party of government the world has known, going back to Pitt the Younger in 1783. Despite the British Isles and the wider world having changed unrecognisably over these centuries, the Tories have retained their dominance. They have been in power for 32 of the last 50 years.
The most important explanation for this longevity is that the Conservative Party has never been burdened with an ideology. Ideologies are rigid systems of ideas and beliefs. They form the basis of economic or political theory as regards the governance of a state. Socialism, fascism and communism are—or were—attempts to shape society into a particular mould. The political ends were often used to try to justify the means, with terrible consequences. Ideologies tend to be the product of a particular period of history, or of industrial and technological development: communism and Marxism-Leninism developed out of the Industrial Revolution and the creation of a mass urban working class. As the world changes, ideologies more often than not become redundant. So do the political parties associated with them.
Tories, in comparison, have never had rigid beliefs as to how the state and society should be governed. Instead, they have had values and principles that have remained constant throughout the years. These values have included patriotism, personal liberty, the rule of law, a free parliament—and a government dependent on that parliament—as well as an acceptance of the responsibility to improve the economic and social wellbeing of the people as a whole. This last objective has often been described as the One Nation aspiration.
The single most important reason for Conservative political success is that, throughout its history, the party has tried to be true to the principles and values that I have mentioned. Most importantly, the Tories have been a conservative, not a reactionary, party. They have accepted the words of Lampedusa’s hero in The Leopard, that “if you want things to stay the same, things will have to change.” Reactionaries are against change. Conservatives need to be persuaded. They are reluctant to alter institutions or social norms unless—and not until—they are persuaded that society as a whole needs reform to remain healthy and successful. When it is persuaded, the Conservative Party can be as radical as any other party, and sometimes more so. Margaret Thatcher was such a leader.
Over the last 200 years, the Tories have come to terms with fundamental shifts, including the extension of the franchise; embracing an NHS that they at first opposed; accepting and implementing much of the dissolution of the British Empire and its transformation into the Commonwealth; and leading much of the world in choosing a woman as prime minister in 1979. They have accepted the permanence of devolution and of the Scottish and Welsh parliaments. And it is the Johnson government that has had a chancellor of the exchequer, a home secretary and several other Cabinet ministers from Asian and African backgrounds. As I write, it is quite possible that one of them will be Britain’s next prime minister.
But enough of history. What about the future of Conservatism this year, next year, and in the years to come?
The Conservative Party, and most of the country, is united in the belief that there is no going back on our departure from the European Union, including the single market and the customs union. Whether that departure was wise or foolish will divide opinion for years to come. But there is a sense of almost tangible relief that it is no longer the dominant issue in British political life.
The Conservative Party, however, must be more pragmatic than it has been so far in recognising the need for the closest possible co-operation with Europe, and France and Germany in particular, on foreign and security policy—especially with regards to the common threat from an aggressive Russia and a rising China. Nato brings us together in a military union. But we require more than a military alliance to meet our foreign policy and security needs.
There is no geopolitical threat to France or Germany that would not also be a threat to the UK. And we need the closest possible collaboration with other European states, too. Boris Johnson, sadly, had a poor relationship with other EU presidents and prime ministers, which was aggravated by their belief—fair or unfair—that they could not trust his promises. The British threat to renounce the Northern Ireland protocol, which was signed by Johnson as part of his Brexit deal and puts a hard border down the Irish Sea, is the most serious cause of bad relations. But the next prime minister may find it difficult to dump that threat without any significant concessions from the EU in softening the frontier. My advice would be that he or she should tell the EU that the threat has been put into “cold storage,” and for the government to concentrate on intense diplomatic negotiations in an atmosphere of revived goodwill.
The Tories are, of course, the Conservative and Unionist Party, and the threat to the Union from the SNP remains strong. On this issue, Johnson has been correct in rejecting Nicola Sturgeon’s demand for another independence referendum. There is no majority of Scots wanting another divisive campaign on separatism. But the unionist-nationalist divide will remain a serious challenge until a very large majority of Scots are content in seeing themselves, as I do, as both Scottish and British, and identify as much with the parliament in Westminster as the parliament at Holyrood.
There is a constitutional reform that would help to achieve that objective and which would be desirable even if the SNP were to go into serious decline. We have two chambers of parliament at Westminster. It has become anomalous and unnecessary that the upper house should still be called the House of Lords, with a composition that is still partially hereditary and totally undemocratic. We should rename our upper house the Senate, and its elected membership should reflect the four nations that make up the United Kingdom. Such a Senate could include additional members appointed for a period of years solely on grounds of merit, untainted by political cronyism or fundraising.
Tony Blair was bold enough to give the UK its first Supreme Court. It would be entirely fitting for the Conservatives, who greatly extended the franchise in Benjamin Disraeli’s time, to be responsible for the modernisation of parliament and the strengthening of the Union.
There is a further constitutional priority for the Conservative Party and its next prime minister. Johnson trashed, or tried to trash, many of the conventions that protect our liberties and help make up our unwritten constitution. If he had remained in power for longer, the case for a written constitution—like most countries have—would have become irresistible. That would have been unfortunate, because the UK has been able to enjoy centuries of peaceful political evolution. The flexibility of conventions is much more satisfactory than the rigidity of written constitutions in responding to changing needs. The United States is a sad example of the latter at present.
The next prime minister, and the Conservative Party as a whole, must emphasise their determination to respect the spirit as well as the letter of our constitutional conventions.
The public will, over the period ahead, be giving more priority to domestic issues such as the cost of living, the rate of tax, the NHS, railway strikes and other priorities that directly affect our health and standard of living.
There is virtually no Conservative who would not welcome the lowest possible levels of taxation, and in principle the policy would be popular with the public as a whole. But the very same people want an ever-stronger NHS, first-class schools, decent public transport and a welfare system that protects those on the lowest incomes.
Conservatives believe, quite properly and decently, that we should aim for a low-tax economy. It is the mark of a free society, and one that encourages personal responsibility, that we should all be entitled to retain as much as possible of the income that we have earned and the savings we have invested. But levels of taxation must, in the real world, be balanced by the state of the economy, the defence of the realm and the quality of public services that we also seek. The pursuit of low taxes must always be a Tory objective. It must never be allowed to become an ideological imperative.
The same applies to privatisation. I, like many Tories, believe that there could be a stronger private health sector and higher levels of privately funded education. But the obligation will, correctly, be on the Conservatives not to champion such radical reforms unless and until there is solid and demonstrable evidence that those on low incomes will not suffer as a consequence.
The objective of low taxes must never become an ideological imperative
Similar considerations apply to the debate over how much the state should involve itself in industry, commerce and the financial sector. The Conservatives often see themselves as the champions of the private sector, while the Labour Party wants to extend the power of the state either to own, regulate or supervise it.
The reality is that Tories have never been as laissez-faire as this description would suggest. As early as the 19th century, Conservatives saw the need to interfere in the workings of the capitalist system to prevent monopolies emerging that would destroy competition. There has been no dispute between the political parties that financial regulation has needed to be strengthened in order to protect the general public—and the economy—from unrestrained and self-serving behaviour by the City.
The Conservative Party has not, and never has had, any entitlement to continue as Britain’s strongest party. The Liberals, in the days of William Gladstone and then HH Asquith, had a similar reputation, but died as a natural party of government. This was not through the personal failings of the party’s leaders but because its priorities ceased to correspond with those of the nation as a whole. The Labour Party, under Clement Attlee and then later Blair, appeared to have supplanted the Tories as the most powerful political force in the country. It too has collapsed, at least for the time being.
The longer Johnson remained prime minister, the more it was beginning to look as if the Conservatives might share the same fate. But the Tories have shown, and not for the first time, their unique ability to oust a serving prime minister who has ceased to be a political asset and become instead an irreversible liability.
At this moment it cannot be said with confidence that, having rejected Johnson, the Conservatives are set to remain Britain’s natural party of government. For that to be ensured it will need to restore its reputation for integrity, honesty and an uncompromising belief in the rule of law. It will also need to demonstrate that pragmatic common sense will triumph over shallow ideology in resolving the serious challenges that face our nation.
