Here’s a piece in today’s Guardian by Neal Lawson (the chair of Compass) arguing that Labour has something real to fear from a Cameron victory, and, more interestingly, that a smart unblinkered Tory (if Cameron is one) could reforge a kind of modern one-nation Toryism.
The bigger threat is that Cameron could outflank New Labour on the left. This would not be so hard, given the space that Blair’s march to the right has left vacant. On civil liberties, for example, it would be easy for Cameron to appeal to a progressive centre disenchanted with New Labour’s reactionary approach. In addition, Cameron and his Notting Hill crowd instinctively understand the “wellbeing agenda” and could play to the many voters who yearn for a better quality of life. Even on social justice, it would be possible to recreate a modern form of one-nation Toryism. At the last election New Labour was outflanked on the left by the Liberal Democrats. In four years’ time we could be outmanoeuvred on the left by the Tories.
Conjectural, obviously, but also interesting. Obviously Brits will be more interested than anyone in this, but Americans who read David Brooks’s column on Sunday, in which he praised Cameron for learning so much from that great conservative leader George W Bush, might also learn something. Or perhaps you already knew that Brooks doesn’t know anything about British politics.
{ 29 comments }
Brendan 10.27.05 at 8:47 am
Anyone who wants to know a bit more about what sort of great conservative leader George Bush is…or…to be more specific….what sort of forces that great conservative leader has unleashed …..
‘Harriet Miers, the US president’s controversial nominee for the supreme court, today announced that she had withdrawn her name from consideration…’
As People for the American Way (quote on Kos) put it:
‘Harriet Miers’ withdrawal from her Supreme Court nomination demonstrates that ultraconservatives are so determined to swing the Supreme Court sharply to the right that they pounded their own president’s nominee into submission, and now demand a nominee with unquestioned far-right credentials, said Ralph G. Neas, President of People For the American Way.
“It’s an astonishing spectacle. The unelected power-brokers of the far right have forced the withdrawal of President Bush’s own Supreme Court nominee, before a confirmation hearing has even been held.
President Bush’s complete capitulation to the far-right interest groups is astounding. The ultra-right wing dominance of Republican Party politics is complete,
and they have dealt a terrible blow to an already weakened President and his administration,†said Neas. “Right-wingers are openly saying they elected Bush to put a battle-ready ultraconservative on the court to replace the moderate Sandra Day O’Connor, and they’re demanding a new choice – bipartisanship, moderation and mainstream Americans be damned.”‘
If you want a guess: in the highly unlikely event that Cameron is ever elected he will drag the Conservative party off to the same outer reaches of the political solar system that the Republicans currently inhabit.
With the Republican party now wholly in the hands of the extreme right wing of the extreme right wing, there are scary times ahead.
And where are the Democrats?
Ted 10.27.05 at 8:47 am
Oh, c’mon, he knows as much about British politics as he does about American politics…..
chris y 10.27.05 at 8:48 am
his Notting Hill crowd instinctively understand the “wellbeing agenda†and could play to the many voters who yearn for a better quality of life
Possibly, but it will be very difficult, for historical reasons, for him to detach the Tories from the mantra of “choice” in public service provision, in spite of the growing evidence that service consumers would prefer guaranteed quality and ease of use in almost all circumstances. Apart from the point that such a change of emphasis would be seen as a repudiation of thirty years of his party’s ideology, to do it effectively would require (assuming we can rule out mass re-nationalisations) the introduction of a very rigorous contract management regime, such as no government in living memory has had the courage to impose on its contractors. There’s no reason to expect that Cameron would have any more stomach for a confrontation with the service industry lobby than Thatcher, Major or Blair, or that if he did, he would win it
jet 10.27.05 at 9:00 am
Brendan,
You believe that crap about Miers not being far right enough? Was there any doubt that the only issue the far right is concerned about, Miers would decide in their favor and was perfectly acceptable in that regard?
No, as much as the foaming at the mouth lefties would like to spin this as another example of righties pushing their agenda, this is just an example of nobody liking a mediocre SCJ. Miers was forced out not because she wouldn’t vote to overturn RvW, which she obviously would, but because you want a brilliant mind pushing your Constitutional philosophy and maybe changing some of the less brilliant minds’ votes.
[sarcasm]But alas, you and the People for the American way are probably right. Miers would not be able to wield the pen with enough manly(patriarchal) force to strike down RvW, thus the far righties in their white sheets and pointy hats had her removed. I’m overcome by the sheer logic of it.[/sarcasm]
ghengis von bladet 10.27.05 at 9:01 am
Outflank Blair from the left? Bah! That was _my_ plan!
Uncle Kvetch 10.27.05 at 9:20 am
At the last election New Labour was outflanked on the left by the Liberal Democrats. In four years’ time we could be outmanoeuvred on the left by the Tories.
Just wondering: Is it being assumed here that the LibDems can’t continue to be “outflankers” too? Or is the implication here that Labour could actually end up defining the right side of the spectrum against two center-left parties?
Brendan 10.27.05 at 9:20 am
Yes I noted the completely brilliant use of sarcasm. However the question remains: with his base turning against him, and with the American (and let’s not forget, Iraqi) people turning against his demented invasion, is it more likely that Bush’s next nomination for the court will be
a: a moderate centrist? or
b: a bug eyed, slack jawed, religion crazed, ultra right wing moonbat?
harry b 10.27.05 at 9:28 am
Hey, keep on topic please (a throw-away nasty comment abut Brooks does not a topic make!).
I agree with everything chris y says (though couldn’t have put it so sharply — thanks chris). But it doesn’t prevent them from *running* to the left (in some important ways) of Labour, only *governing* to the left. And even then — Labour faces the same problem (as you say), so they could (in theory) govern to the left of where Labour would govern.
jet 10.27.05 at 9:29 am
I feel bad about the hijacked thread, but not bad enough to stop. But at least this will be my last off-topic post.
Brendan,
A “a bug eyed, slack jawed, religion crazed, ultra right wing moonbat.” will stand zero chance of getting confirmed. And from what I’ve read Miers was rejected by those on the right for her lack of competence, not because she wasn’t “right” enough. The right is looking for another Scalia, not another Thomas.
Uncle Kvetch 10.27.05 at 9:29 am
Miers was forced out not because she wouldn’t vote to overturn RvW, which she obviously would, but because you want a brilliant mind pushing your Constitutional philosophy and maybe changing some of the less brilliant minds’ votes.
It’s not necessarily an either-or question, Jet (just as you don’t necessarily have to act like such a pompous jerk every time you want to express disagreement with someone). Just posted at the NYTimes:
I think qualifications and ideology were both involved here. That said, I’ll admit to being more than a little bewildered by the reactions of Harry Reid and PfAW this morning; Reid actually called Mier’s qualifications “excellent,” which is patently ridiculous. I think a “plague on both their houses” approach would have made more sense. But then, the Dems do a lot of things I find bewildering these days.
With apologies for contributing to a potential derailing of the thread…
Brendan 10.27.05 at 9:34 am
Incidentally, quickly putting the words ‘Miers’ and ‘Conservative’ into Google make it absolutely and completely clear that the extremist’s problem with Miers was that she occasionally touched down on planet earth. For example: this and this. Not to mention this .
Incidentally I should clarify: when I said ‘a bug eyed, slack jawed, religion crazed, ultra right wing moonbat’ I of course meant ‘intelligent, forceful and mature Conservative Judge who will treat constitutional issues with the respect they deserve and who will provide a leading light on moral issues of interest to Conservatives for years to come’. My mistake.
Uncle Kvetch 10.27.05 at 9:38 am
So, in the interest of attempting to “rerail” the thread:
Having read the Lawson article, and knowing about as much about UK politics as David Brooks knows about anything at all (i.e., not much), I want to ask again: Where are the LibDems in all this? Wouldn’t their positions on Iraq and civil liberties preclude any “outflanking” by the Tories?
Thanks.
jet 10.27.05 at 9:49 am
Uncle Kvetch,
Very good points. I might quibble with how much weight should be given to both reasons, but they were both there (there actually is a far-right that exerts real power). And while you are usually right about my tone, the Kos quote deserved some pompous sarcasm.
And since banning wouldn’t be out of the question for this continued hi-jacking, I don’t think I’ll come back to read responses as I’d just be tempted to further divert the more interesting thread on Cameron.
I wonder if there are any parallels between Cameron’s latest attempt to woo Muslims and Bush’s attempts to woo Latinos? Bush is now to the left of many Dems on immigration and Cameron could be positioning himself to move to the left of Labour on Muslims.
jayann 10.27.05 at 10:40 am
Where are the LibDems in all this? Wouldn’t their positions on Iraq and civil liberties preclude any “outflanking†by the Tories?
No. First the Tories remain the credible electoral alternative to Labour (insofar as there is one), second the outflanking would be based mainly on a paternalist social welfare (aka one-nation-Tory) platform. But I think chris y’s right about the choice mantra problem (an instance of Blair outflanking the Tories: would that it were the only one).
Uncle Kvetch 10.27.05 at 11:13 am
the outflanking would be based mainly on a paternalist social welfare (aka one-nation-Tory) platform
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.
Mrs Tilton 10.27.05 at 12:52 pm
Kvetch,
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.
jayann 10.27.05 at 1:29 pm
Uncle Kvetch, Mrs Tilton did it for me (thank you, Mrs T.; I might even overlook the spider pictures…). I’ll add that some of the one-nation Cons certainly did mean it; and say a bit more.
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?
Harry 10.27.05 at 1:44 pm
Read Esping-Anderson’s *Three Worlds of Welare Capitalism*, which makes all these distinctions quite nicely. Henry and Keiran can fill us all in…
Uncle Kvetch 10.27.05 at 2:43 pm
Thanks to Mrs. T. and Jayann for the clarifications. Not being a close follower of British politics, I suppose I was under the mistaken impression that Thatcherism had pretty much shoved aside every other variant of Toryism, with the only remaining debate consisting of nibbling around the edges (in rather sharp contrast to the French right). Very interesting stuff.
nick s 10.27.05 at 3:04 pm
There’s been room for the Tories to realign themselves as a kind of libertarian centre-right party, which allows for a degree of consistency — hands off business, less of the nanny-state — to distinguish themselves from Labour.
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.
bert 10.27.05 at 4:10 pm
It’s worth remembering where Neal Lawson is coming from. He speaks for the dispossessed on the left of the Labour party who have been thoroughly disenchanted by the rightward drift of Blairism. In prescribing an agenda for the post-Blair government of current finance minister Gordon Brown, he is fairly explicit, albeit at a generalised level: “Strategically, the chancellor has to take up the modernising left agenda that redefines freedom. This demands not just a greater equality of resources to set us free, but a new sense of collectivism to enable people to change the world around them.” It shouldn’t surprise us that someone like this looks out at the electoral landscape and sees territory to Blair’s left ripe for occupation.
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.
Andrew Leigh 10.27.05 at 8:30 pm
The “outflanked” metaphor seems to me to be out of place in politics. We know there are a bunch of problems with the median voter theorem, but it still makes more sense than a military metaphor in which what counts is getting a long way around the side of your opponent.
soru 10.28.05 at 6:47 am
Where are the LibDems in all this? Wouldn’t their positions on Iraq and civil liberties preclude any “outflanking†by the Tories?
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.
SamChevre 10.28.05 at 2:24 pm
What’s strange to me is the “civil liberties” is seen as moving to the left. In US politics, “civil liberties” have generally (though not nearly exclusively–the rights of criminals once arrested and the exclusion of religion from governmental fora are the main exceptions) been the province of the right. For example:
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.
bert 10.28.05 at 3:29 pm
Andrew, good point you make. Choose your metaphor with care. And after you’ve made your analysis, not before. Reading Neal Lawson, he’s not sure if Cameron is coming round the flanks or is a relief batallion.
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.
bert 10.28.05 at 3:32 pm
By the way, good to have it confirmed that the National Review is on drugs. I always thought that was the only explanation.
jayann 10.29.05 at 12:59 pm
Harry, many thanks for the Esping-Anderson reference: you’ve saved me a possibly fruitless trawl through the welfare state literature.
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.
Neil Craig 10.29.05 at 3:57 pm
The Tories should, at all costs, fight the idea that politics is about left & right. If euroscepticism is right then what is Tony Benn?
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.
bert 10.29.05 at 6:25 pm
Q: … what is Tony Benn?
A: A cabaret act, keeping provincial theatres ticking over outside panto season.
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.
Comments on this entry are closed.