Whatever happened to Conservatism?
The right are increasingly presenting as radical - in a country that never has been. What will be the effects of decoupling their agenda from their traditional image?
NOTICE: From the beginning of March, I will be introducing paid-only content.
This will mean that I will be increasing posts to weekly and every other one will only be available for paid subscribers. I want to thank the 1000+ of you who have already signed up for free. I totally understand that only a small percentage of you will want to, or be able to, pay for this. Your experience of (roughly) fortnightly free content will not change for the foreseeable future.
I also want to thank everyone who has been kind enough to send me money through KoFi. I will maintain this link for those of you who don’t wish to subscribe, but who might wish to thank me for a post you liked occasionally. I will separately get in touch with the few of you who have set up a regular donation here to make sure you get a full subscription.
If you sign up for paid content before the end of April, you can have a 20% discount. Just hit the button below.
There is no particular reason why economics match up to social attitudes except that they sort of always have. It has generally been the case that those who wish to see a more equitable society economically have also been at the forefront of fighting for more equality socially.
But here I don’t want to look at the politics of conservatism but its presentation. The way that the Tory party - over many years, but with absolutely no slowdown over their long period of government have changed the way they present themselves.
It could be - as so much is - that the blame lies with David Cameron - who wanted to coat his radical austerity agenda not with the clothes of conservatism but with a veneer of liberalism. The Tories took worries about being seen as the Nasty Party seriously for a while. And while they had no problem being absolutely vile to anyone who needed a working state, local government services, welfare benefits or social housing, they were socially liberal on areas that cost them nothing. So we got the party that created the Bedroom Tax also offering Gay Marriage. I’m in favour of the latter - of course. But I did have a moment while watching Pride (an absolute favourite film of mine) thinking that while a lot of the film rightly celebrated the progress made for gay and lesbian rights, too little was made about the stalling and reversal of the fortunes of the working class community. Perhaps in part the adoption of gay right by the right wing has allowed them to overshadow just how much social progress has slipped backwards for working class communities.
It seemed the nastiness they were worried about was the type that could and would be directed at people they might meet at dinner parties. The well-being of those who might be engaged on casual contracts to serve the food was considerably less of a concern.
It used to be the case that posh Tories and ‘working class kids done good’ would alike offer a patrician sense of civility and a front of small ‘c’ conservatism in their presentation of ideas.
The end of deference is over-discussed, but while it was largely a result of social loosening in the 1960s, there was a long shadow of a sense of how politicians were supposed to behave and act. For a long time, this was seen as a disadvantage to Labour - made up as it more often was then of working class MPs who had come up through the unions and didn’t know the secret and arcane rules drilled into the pupils of Eton and Harrow.
But with the rise of social media and the broadening (but not deepening) of TV Political coverage, many - though absolutely not all - politicians want to stand out not to their constituents, but to a wider audience. And to do so, many Tories are choosing to be utterly unconservative in their presentation.
This is not a Red Wall thing. Lee Anderson may be the current most obvious but, from the other end of the class scale, you have Jacob Rees Mogg.
Remember this?
Can you imagine a John Major a Ted Heath or an Alec Douglas-Home showing such absolutely appalling disrespect to colleagues in the Mother of All Parliaments and the constituents they represent?
So there is a thread between ranting about anyone he considers unworthy using foodbank and Mogg deeming the Commons unworthy of his conscious attention.
Both are considered elemental tools as part of the ‘culture war’. The leader who best indulged in this was, of course, Boris Johnson. Who took the fight over Brexit and used the not wholly unreasonable feelings of many who had voted Brexit that they were still being ignored by parliament as it got stuck in hideous stasis over what Brexit should actually look like and ran with them in a highly successful ‘us and them’ campaigns of the modern style also adopted by right wing politicians such as Trump and Bolsanaro.
I am trying to stay away in this post from the content of the offer of the Tories from the cakism of Johnson to the economic wrecking ball of Liz Truss to the Austerty 2 of Sunak. Becuase what I think is worth looking at here is the style.
Trump didn’t necessarily lose because he offered policies that were that unpopular - at least not in the states he could win. Personally I think they were awful - of course I do. But polling has suggested that many many Americans would like to opt for Trumps politics without his way of doing politics. Ron Di Santis, a man as right wing economically and culturally as Trump at his worst, but more coherent and less likely to attack diabled journalists or boast openly about sexually assaulting women is waiting in the wings.
In. a way, you can see the Tories trying to learn this lesson. Sunak is not presenting as a traditional conservative. He’s too much of a cross between a tech bro and a playschool presenter for that. But in his elevation is both an immediate panic to the inevitable consequences of the Tories getting everything the want economically in Truss then discovering everything they believed was a market destroying nonsense, but also a reputation of the anti-Conservative style of Johnson.
Sunak may have taken over from Truss, but his promise to restore integrity and honesty to Downing Street are an obvious rebuke to Johnson (Truss was honest - and in her own mad way, had integrity. She did what she believed then and still does now, to be right. That she was catastrophically wrong doesn’t affect the honesty of her beliefs). It is the shadow of Johnson that is being fought. It is the backbenchers still aligned to him personally and embued with his way of doing politics that mean that Sunak is too weak as a leader to get anything through his party. It’s why Raab is still in post and why he - disgracefully - reappointed Suella Braverman.
The Conservative style is deeply unfashionable among Conservatives the world over. They have instead moved almost everywhere to a style of grievance - despite frequently being those in charge. This worked well for them in the short term, as electoral catnip for those who felt they had been failed by traditional politics. But the problem with stoking grievance - especially when you’re in power - is that there is no real way of putting the genie back in the bottle.
Grievance politics is short term. It has to be because it can only work until you try to offer answers. Grievances however linger. Selling yourselves as antithetical to the traditional politician at elections and then running the government and doing the job - however well or badly - means you are not the thing the grievance was stoked against. This is a lot of what is biting Sunak in the arse with red wall voters who gave Johnson a try out of desperation for something different. They got the wrong different and far too much of the same.
Meanwhile, those more traditional conservatives have their own grievances about the way they have been shunned and expected to go along with a style of politics they find offensive in order to get tax cuts. They were pretty willing to make that bargain for a long time. But now, as far as they are concerned, taxes are pretty high and not coming down anytime soon. They accepted the devils deal of Boris because the alternative was Corbyn. Someone who offered a highly sharp antithesis to the Conservatives both in style and substance.
We will argue in the Labour Party until the cows come home and go out again about the substance of Starmer’s offer. We know that. But stylistically, I think it can be agreed that he does offer a small ‘c’ conservatism. Many worry that he doesn’t have the charisma of Blair or Boris. They’re right that he doesn’t. I have argued though that this quiet conservative approach is part of the strength of his offer. If you look at the transformation of our economy proposed by Reeve’s Green New Deal or the shake up of power laid out in the Brown proposals, these are huge changed to our country. But they don’t feel radical in their presentation by Brown, Reeves or the front man Starmer.
That won’t mean Labour hoovering up votes in the Home Counties. But it will mean a lot more voters being reassured they can probably sit this one out and not vote for a Conservative Party whose style they have become increasingly uncomfortable with (and believe that Sunak has done little to deal with). In marginal seats it will mean the soft Tories can vote Lib Dem where it might make a genuine difference without any idiotic pacts being made officially.
If, as seems increasingly inevitable, the Tories lose the next election, there will be many questions about where it all went wrong. The policy argument may boil down to whether they should pursue unpopular austerity politics or insanely unpopular (and just plain insame) Trussonomics.
But whatever policy choices they make, they should also be asking how they can stop being a party of grievance and return to a party that oozes stability - even perhaps as they opt for policies that would offer anything but.
We talk about politics as vibe a lot these days and it’s true. But the Tories are stuck in a vibe they can’t escape. And the putfrification is infecting all they do.
I run a political and communications consultancy called Political Human. Please get in touch if you are looking for political or media consultancy advice, strategic communication and campaign planning, ghostwriting, copywriting, editing, training or coaching.
You can read some lovely things that some of my clients have said here.
What I’ve been up to
We have recorded two editions of the House of Comments. One looks at Brexit three years on and the other covers Zelensky’s visit to the UK and the boring reshuffle.
We also recorded an episode of The Zeitgeist Tapes where, in a break with our usual format, I discussed my own play Triggered.
I have been on GB News a number of times (I will be on Dewbs and Co every Tuesday throughout February). Here’s me discussing masculity and how we should celebrate it while tackling the very narrow and toxic element espoused by the Andrew Tate’s of the world:
Questions, comments and arguments are very welcome. Insults will get you summarily blocked on every platform. Hit reply or comment or find me on Twitter at @EmmaBurnell_
The Brown proposals don't look like anything anyone is asking for. If you are going to represent the regions, why not have a regional devolution for England and extend powers in Scotland and Wales in a Federal model, as works well right around the world. It might prevent the break up of the UK. Then if they want more money for the NHS or whatever, they can raise it, rather than be micromanaged by the Treasury.
Brown's proposals put regional coverage into the Westminster bubble making it as distant as is our ridiculous adversarial public school knock off, we call the Commons.