At one point in the last century Benn was pro-Europe. He was Minister for White Heat, and Europe was the future. Imagine his disappointment when he discovered that it was a conspiracy between bureaucrats and capitalists all along.

My view isn’t that euroscepticism is by definition a rightwing position. Laurent Fabius split the French Socialist Party this year, pushing a platform very similar to Benn’s. But we were talking about Britain. Euroscepticism has not been a serious force on the left since Jacques Delors’ speech to the TUC in the late 80s. Around the same time, the last vestiges of Bennism were eradicated from the Labour Party and Tony Benn began his transformation into a national treasure. A coincidence no doubt.

In Britain, banging on drearily about Europe is rightwing in the same way that protesting the right to hunt foxes is. Or the right to shoot gypsy burglars. It’s something that for historical reasons resonates most strongly with a particular type.

Someone once said that Reagan won in America as a result of a conspiracy between the bosses & the workers against the rest. I think the Tories should aim for the same.

I also think they should very seriously consider a PR referendum for the following reasons:
1 It is the right & democratic thing to do.
2 You can’t really claim to be radical or pro-freedom or against overweening government while supporting a system that so concentrates unrepresentative power.
3 The Tory vote is less concentrated & less in declining old constituencies with low turnout thus FTPT makes it easier to get a Labour majority than Tory as Mr Blair’s 36% vote proves.
4 It is seriously unlikely that any one party is ever again going to attract a majority of voters & we should fashion our political system accordingly.
5 The Tories should seek to establish links with other non-Labour parties.
6 If they & the Lib Dems went into an electoral alliance based on PR victory would be virtually guaranteed.
7 If Labour loses the odds must be heavily on a hung Parliament in which case either they or Labour are going to have to give it anyway.

Uncle K,
I suppose I was under the mistaken impression that Thatcherism had pretty much shoved aside every other variant of Toryism,

No. (Her Ministers called Britain under her rule “the Occupation” and said “will they ever forgive us?”.) But I have an edgy feeling (based on no research whatsoever) that the younger MPs of both main parties are more Thatcherite than otherwise. Blair can take his share of the blame for that.

Mrs Tilton, my apologies for repeating part of your explanation. I plead stupidity.

Samchevre, civil liberties have become a big issue largely in response to Blair’s over the top anti-terror legislation. His opponents on the left are mad as hell. Interestingly though there’s a parallel with what you observe from America: David Davis, the rightwing candidate in the contest, has been among the most consistent and outspoken Tory critics. He bases his attack on a principled defence of the individual against the state. It’s one of his very few redeeming features.

Scalia on searches and seizures
The NRA on guns, campaign finance
McConnell on campaign finance
The National Review on drugs

Although some sections of the Republican Party are authoritarian, most of conservative America is extremely suspicious of government power.

The Lib Dem’s basic problem is this: I saw a poll where, on the same sample, something like 30% said they ‘planned to vote for them’, but about 10% ‘would like them to win’. They are more a placeholder for protest votes than a potential government.

Meanwhile, the tories have the same basic branding problem in moving to the left as McD’s would have in opening up a gourmet vegetarian bistro.

soru

p.s. for military metaphors, ‘countercharge’ would make much more sense: you see where your opponent is about to do, and try to do it to them first.

I have serious doubts however that Cameron will stake out this ground. Regardless of whether he would like to or not (still a hotly debated question), he is constrained by the internal realities of the Tory party. The ideological frenzy that tore apart the Major government has abated, but many of the principal elements remain in place: a majority of MPs voted for the two explicitly rightwing candidates in preference to Cameron; the party in the country, although chastened by the humiliating ineptitude of their previous leadership choice Iain Duncan Smith (current leader Michael Howard having been appointed by acclamation), remains overwhelmingly nationalist, chauvinist and culturally conservative to the point of backwardness.

The touchstone Tory issue, as ever, is Europe. A large section of the party views the EU with the same enthusiasm with which John Bolton views the UN. Since the trainwreck of William Hague’s 2001 Save-the-Pound general election campaign a truce – or more precisely, a self-denying vow of silence – has been observed. In the current leadership election however, there have been ominous signs that the “Little England” right have sized up their internal opposition and are keen to test their strength.

Where is Cameron on all this? Studiously, tactically vague. There have been many comparisons with Blair. Most striking seems to be Cameron’s similar ability to talk to a range of different people and leave each with the impression that he shares their views. But I think the most significant clear position he has taken, is his declared intention to withdraw the Conservative party from the EPP group in the European Parliament. In continental eyes this will place the Tories in the company of Jorg Haider and other exotics. But in British terms it is a clear signal to the Tory right that its power within the party has been noted and will be deferred to.

Convincing the Tory grassroots to embrace that model has long been the problem. And melding the libertarian streak with one-nation paternalism is another problem.

It’s an odd parallel, I think, to the German election, where—at least, to my understanding—you’ve got the main parties competing on a ‘reform and choice’ agenda that is generally distrusted.

The welfare states of Britain, France and Germany began as top-down aristo measures (admittedly here, by Whigs as well as Tories), a mix of paternalism and preempting discontent, also (here) creating the Working Class Tory phenomenon. One-Nation’s Disraeli’s term, apparently geographical (I’d thought he meant class).

That kind of Toryism isn’t Gaullist, still, I’m having a problem differentiating the various top-down welfare statisms. Any political historians here?

Disraeli (in a novel) once wrote about ‘two nations’, the rich and the poor. ‘One-nation’ tories turn that notion on its head and would aim to be a party governing on behalf of the entire nation, not one of its classes.

Aristos with a strong sense of noblesse oblige, if you will; scorned by the jumped-up barrow-boys of Thatcherism as ‘wets’. The notion is possibly not a million miles away from ‘compassionate conservatism’, except that one-nationism does represent a real historical stream within toryism, not a glib catchphrase somebody dreamt up for George Bush, and except that some of the one-nationists apparently really meant it.

Without knowing the details, I’d say that sounds strikingly Gaullist—not that I’d expect any British politician to ever express an ideological affinity with the party of Jacques Chirac… 8^)

Jayann, can you (or anyone else) refer me to a nice concise description of this “one-nation” Toryism? I’m intrigued.