Donal Blaney: Hire at least as many to the right of you as to the left of you

Every week the Co-Founder and Chief Executive of the Young Britons' Foundation, Donal Blaney, explains one of Morton Blackwell's Laws of the Public Policy Process. Morton Blackwell is the Founder and President of the Leadership Institute in Arlington, Virginia.

It has often been remarked that the Conservative Party is a broad church. Over the years the Party has managed to bring together under its wing those who believe in protectionism alongside free-marketeers, wets and dries, and in more recent years Eurosceptics and federalists.

The advice from Morton Blackwell under this week's Law is that any campaign, administration, committee or indeed government should comprise as many people who are to the right of the candidate or elected official as there are to his left.

There is little doubt that Margaret Thatcher was the clearest example of a conviction politician in the last century. She advanced the careers of those who were "true believers" and referred to them as "One of Us". Nonetheless she was not overtly factional in her appointments. While it may be the case that the likes of Norman Tebbit, Nicholas Ridley and Cecil Parkinson might not have held as high positions under other leaders as they did under Thatcher, the fact is that Thatcher also worked to include a number of people in her team who did not instinctively share her beliefs - Pym, Prior, Heseltine, Gilmour and, of course, Whitelaw.

Thatcher only began to encounter difficulties within the Party when she ceased to operate a "balanced ticket".

Major too was afflicted by such difficulties given that his cabinet was dominated by one particular wing of the Party (Hurd, Clarke, Heseltine and Rifkind) to the detriment of the Thatcherite Eurosceptic right. This imbalance left Major open to attack from his right flank and helped undermine his premiership.

The position of Tony Blair is particularly interesting. His cabinet has included a number of people who are "true believers" (it is hard to conceive of anyone who would be able to be to HIS right!) but it has been light on those whose views are radically to his left (with the exception, perhaps, of Prescott and Hain). Blair's strategy since 1994 has been to fight the left in his Party so as to show that he is a quasi-presidential figure who is able to sit above the fray.

This is a strategy that David Cameron seems to be wanting to duplicate. Whereas Blair took on the Labour left, Cameron's move to the centre is also being presented as an attack on the Tory right. There is an important difference for Cameron to bear in mind, however.

While the Labour left was rightly blamed for Labour's years in the electoral wilderness (which arose directly as a result of the failures of left-wing post-war Labour governments and the creed of Butskellism), the attempts of certain of Cameron's cheerleaders to denigrate the achievements of the Tory right is misguided.

The Tory governments of 1979-1997 (and in particular between 1979 and 1990) were successful: they were so successful that much of Thatcher's legacy is beyond the realms of political debate. It is also revisionism of the worst kind to say that the Party's defeats in 1997, 2001 and 2005 were because the Party ran on too right-wing a platform.

In 1997, the Party lost because of Party in-fighting, a weak message on Europe and (most importantly) because Blair had convinced the electorate that Labour had changed.

In 2001, the Party lost because the country wanted to give Blair another chance (and because the Party's main message - "Keep the Pound" - was made irrelevant by Blair's promise of a referendum).

In 2005, despite a sleazy government and an unpopular war, the Party lost because its message was weak, bordering in the eyes of some on the vacuous. It is therefore sloppy thinking to argue that the Party lost three elections because it was too right-wing and that therefore the Party needs to ditch anything that smacks of Thatcherism in favour of being more Blairite than Blair.

And before any unthinking Cameron-loyalists fire off posts haranguing me for advocating a "dog whistle" or "core vote" agenda, I am not. I am simply saying that modernisation (which I support insofar as I am able to understand what it means) does not have to mean the wholesale abandonment of long-held and electorally successful principles.

For "Project Cameron" to succeed, he needs to ensure that his team - and policy programme - are balanced. Wets need to be balanced by dries. Thatcherites need to be balanced with centrists. Moves to the political centre need to be balanced by offering reassurance to traditional Conservative supporters that the Party still has a place for them.

If the passengers on a boat all stand on one side of the boat at the same time, it will flip over and sink; likewise the Conservative Party. To win the Party needs to have a programme that excites and reassures. It needs to be a balanced ticket.

***

Previous entry in this series: You cannot make friends of your enemies by making enemies of your friends

Comments

[James Maskell]

Cant argue here. Ive said it time and time again, it cant be tokenism either. Its got to be balanced, otherwise groups feel marginalised and that just leads to internal tension and we know what happens next...

[William]

There are consensus politics.
There are conviction politics.
And there is triangulation.

The first is managing by not saying or doing anything to upset any faction.

The second is management by objectives - getting things done, even though that will always upset one group or another.

The third is building position - first creating a vacuum by not doing or saying anything, then waiting til others begin to fight each other over the gap, then finally taking up a position between the two opponents, and playing them off. It builds power but absolutely nothing is ever achieved, as each side sees any proposed change as a threat, so they all dig in.

Cameron is not a consensus politician. He doesn't mind upsetting his own supporters.

He's not a conviction politician. He prefers to test the opinion polls before setting objectives.

Is he a triangulator? I think he is trying to be - he is known to admire Blair - but the problem is that Conservatives have a long tradition of seeking consensus, and being loyal. They are slow to get into punch-up's.

It is hard to get them fighting each other.

Labour grew out trades unionism where fist fights are second nature. Tories are property owners. They don't like to get across the neighbours.

Conservatives expect more from their leaders than being told to pick up rubbish, and to 'trust people'. Cameron is as yet not leading at all. There is more evidence that he is choosing to follow.

His leaders are opinion polls, EU Directives such as on state funding of political parties and Gordon Brown dictating tax and spend priorities. Has Cameron discovered a new kind of politics - the politics of the cushion - taking up the shape of whoever last sat on him.

[Edward]

Eh, there's nowt wrong with "trust people"! I accept much of your criticism of "triangulation". The problem is that it dabbles in the dark arts. Done well, it will allow movement in one direction by going close to the centre between two points but always verging 10% more in the direction you want to go. The problem is that since the two points and, thereby the centre, are always potentially fairly fluid there is always the question of who has traction. He who chooses the middle way, or he who sets the parameters?

[Frank]

It seems the ERM that caused unemployment to go back to 3m is the great unmentionable in the Party-since nearly all the MP's in safe seats who survived the '97 massacre supported it. Gordon Brown was a true believer, lamenting that we had ever left it. Real change will occur when the incompetence and lies by Heseltine, Clarke et al are acknowledged and the culprits sacked-not dredged up yet again. How is it possible to dish UKIP and those LD voters who manage to vote them while consistently expressing EuroSceptic views without this action? But it will never happen.

[Alexander Drake]

But hasn't Cameron got his opponents for the leadership ballots, both to the Left and Right of him, in prominent roles, either in the shadow cabinet or leading policy reviews? Doesn't that count as making an effort to keep the tent big?

[John Hustings]

"Eh, there's nowt wrong with "trust people"! "

There wouldn't be if it was some sort of small government message; with Cameron, I've not a clue what it means. It just seems to be vacuous guff.

[Moralz]

Just looking at the personel list on your YBF Website, Donal, and I must say I can't see you adopting this "balanced" approach yourself. At most you've got 3 non-Thatcherite members, the rest are all dyed-in-the-wool hard liners (see http://www.youngbritonsfoundation.com/%20index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=40&Itemid=42).

[Donal Blaney]

Thank you for your concern, Moralz. But some are more right wing than I am and others are more left wing, so my point still stands. Maybe I would be able to include you, if you used your real name! :)

[Suggestion]

It doesn't matter, Donal. His point stands if you don't have significant numbers substantially to the left of yourself.

I strongly suspect you don't.

[Suggestion]

Also, what a huge number of women!

[David Sergeant]

I am past careing if a policy is right or left, wet or dry, Thatcherite or modernising. I just want to see the party come out fighting, just like every other party, its been asleep since Thatcher, Tebbitt and Parkinson left the stage. Where the hell are the leaders, the MPs and Central Office?

Nearly all there is to see are meaningless wingers and vindictive columnists who, frankly, seem to have psychological problems.

[Suggestion]

Um,, yeah. Except that since Cameron took office we are equal in the polls, often leading. And David Davis, Liam Fox etc are disciplined, loyal and on-side, unlike CH regulars.

We're going to win the next election. It'd be nice if this site supported that.

[Jon Gale]

Cameron consistantly talks about smaller government, increasing competitiveness/taxes are too high, leaving the europhile EPP, fixing society, more freedom for schools, using the private sector to improve the NHS, importance of family etc.

It therefore boggles my mind when some conservatives can come up with the weird idea that Cameron is a lefty (some actually say left of centre!) and talk such utter pap as "his leaders are opinion polls, EU Directives...and Gordon Brown" or "(trusting people would be ok )if it was some sort of small government message; with Cameron, I've not a clue what it means."

Try looking at what he actually says and does not what the Guardian or Daily Mail Opinion says he does.

[matt wright]

Donal, some of the points you make are correct but you go too far. I spent months canvassing in both the 2001 and 2005 elections and it was very clear to me from the people on the doors that many swing voters (in particular younger professionals, semi-professionals and women) regarded us as shrill and right wing. This isn't revisionism its fact. This was a key section of the public that used to support us but we lost,

Matt

[Chad]

John Gale wrote:
It therefore boggles my mind when some conservatives can come up with the weird idea that Cameron is a lefty .

Try looking at what he actually... does

Would a conservative (small c) propose turning independent political parties into state-sponsored vehicles?

This is such a big government, soviet-style idea, that I find it hard that a conservative could go along with, let alone publish their own proposals for exactly such a scheme.

[James Maskell]

Suggestion, do you place that much faith in opinion polls? I dont see the use of applauding opinion polls or dirising results. A snapshot of what a 1000 people think cant possibly tell us what the country thinks. At a local level its more useful as the electorate is smaller but not when the electorate is national.

Why the criticism of CH members? Do they not have a right to give their opinions on Conservative changes? I plan on standing proud as a Conservative in next years local elections, something I can only do if I am honest about what I believe. I do not believe in the policies proposed by Cameron. If conservatism is what is reduced to the pamphlet that Built to Last is, then I have a different view on what conservatism is.

I am a conservative, not a liberal.

[John Hustings]

""(trusting people would be ok )if it was some sort of small government message; with Cameron, I've not a clue what it means."

Try looking at what he actually says and does not what the Guardian or Daily Mail Opinion says he does"

So his approach to candidate selection demonstrates that he "trusts people" does it?

I don't read the Daily Mail or the Guardian.

[James Maskell]

I get the Daily Mail/Telegraph response from the local Labour Councillor. The Guardian I guess is a nice twist on it...

[David Sergeant]

"If conservatism is what is reduced to the pamphlet that Built to Last is, then I have a different view on what conservatism is."

Right. Please tell us what you will - specifically- be standing for. And you might add exactly what promises of Cameron you don't brlieve in. Lets have some specifics not vague rhetoric.

[Donal Blaney]

Am I the only one who finds it disappointing that those who make negative comments rather than constructive criticisms never use their real names (eg: Suggestion, Disappointed and Moralz)?

Moreover Disappointed has committed libel in relation to his defamatory comments on Morton Blackwell.

[Andy Peterkin]

"Suggestion" obviously didn't attend the last YBF Conference. As far as Im aware, there mere more women than men in the delegate body.

Perhaps "Suggestion" might care to disclose which groups he is a member of, so we can all scrutinise the gender balance of the organisations whose meetings he frequents?

[James Maskell]

I replied to each section of the Built to Last proposals, so you can see for yourself what I have said.

Local politics here doesnt rely so much on national politics. This ward has basically been abandoned by the local Councillors and local residents feel they have no representation. In fact the local Labour Councillor has refused to represent me because I am a Conservative (the other Councillor will not respond, despite being a Tory). Local residents have major local concerns and I am raising them to raise a profile, those issues if not dealt with by the election, will become the campaigning profile. I am already well known for bringing up a dangerous traffic junction where a fatal crash occured last year, and local residents understand I genuinely want to help them. Having worked in the ward for almost 4 years works rather well too.

The campaign would be local, not national.

[Chad]

Built To Last::Point 8
We believe that government should be closer to the people, not further away.

We want to see more local democracy, instead of more centralisation – whether to Brussels, Whitehall or unwanted regional assemblies – and we want to make the devolved institutions in Scotland and Wales work. Communities should have more say over their own futures.

This surely must include rejecting state-funded political parties?

Cameron has to step back and reject his proposals for state funding of political parties for his plans to have any basis in conservatism.

If he wants big government, he just just go and join labour instead of building his own blue labour clone.

No conservative can support state funding of political parties, surely?

If you are a Big C Conservative looking for election under the CamCons whether as a councillor or MP, and do not reject state funding of political parties, you are not a conservative, imho and you will be equally responsible for the negative impact it will have on democracy in this country.

The people of Britain will look back and your silence will mark your guilt.

If you are prepared to ditch conservatism and democracy for power, then you will not succeed.

[Moralz]

"Am I the only one who finds it disappointing that those who make negative comments rather than constructive criticisms never use their real names (eg: Suggestion, Disappointed and Moralz)?"

It seems so Donal! But I guess it's something to take up with the Editor, I presume he chooses to allow anonymous posting.

Of course this can be abused, I note that on another of your postings ("a well run movement takes care of its own" - http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/03/donal_blaney_a_.html) someone posted a vociferous defence of your position in relation to 2 Guardian articles under the name Anon using my email address without my consent.

Now how on earth could that have happened? ;)

[Anti-Cameron Tory]

Excellent article by Donal.

Support for Dave is simply draining away.

[Sarkis Zeronian]

A-C T,

Do you really think it is? Isn't Cameron obeying Donal's rule with the welcome (in my, though not Portillo's, opinion) inclusion of the likes of Hague, Fox and Davis in his Shadow Cabinet? I'd suggest that waiting until AFTER the May elections would be a better way of gauging Cameron's progress or otherwise, unless of course you could now suggest a viable alternative that most of the rest of us can neither see nor think we need.

[David Sergeant]

"Support for Dave is simply draining away."

Here we go again. Meaningless burblings (unless it's writen by a Labour supporter).

I havn't seen any attempt by the Cameroons (whoever they are) to denigrate the Thatcherite past policies. What I have seen, since about 1993 is a lack of any serious attempt by the Conservative party to laud the achievements of the Conservative governments. When did all these people winging at Cameron take on Labour when it was inventing a whole mythology about the 18 years?

The right lost the ideas battle in the electorate's mind post 1993 Cameron and everyone else has to recognise that. So you set up careful reviews to base your new (right) policies on.

As for government funding for parties. Cameron had to do something to avoid Labour flack and his proposals could lead to disconnecting Labour from union money. But that might assist the election of a Conservative government and we can't have that.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"The right lost the ideas battle in the electorate's mind post 1993 Cameron and everyone else has to recognise that. So you set up careful reviews to base your new (right) policies on".
It was the Left-wing John Major and co that lost the ideas battle in the electorate's mind. The Left - wing Cameron and co falsely and wilfully draw the wrong conclusions and blame the Right of the party for its demise. The Tory party needs to split and for its MP's to be true to their beliefs (if they have any apart from persuing power and perks). The Left of the party can join the Lib/Dems where they belong, the remained can form a genuine Conservative Party (I believe there are what I would regard as genuine Conservative MP's constricted by a misplaced sense of loyalty). The Tory party is not a broad church; it is an organisation to promote internecine political warfare. The divisions are too deep. It cannot even agree on the seminal questions whether of not we should be governed by Brussels, Immigration or crime and punishment, no doubt how to respond to an hysterical environment lobby will be next on the agenda.
The Tories should bite the bullet and split.

[Alexander Drake]

Do that, Dontmakemelaugh, and you are probably condemning Britain to being a near-permanent one party state, and probably having the Liberal Democrats as the party that would take on opposition status. There would be no party not of the Left in a position to form a government.

Is that what you really want? The Conservative Party isn't perfect, but it's the only thing we've got to provide an alternative.

[David Sergeant]

"The Tories should bite the bullet and split"

This is of course absolute rubbish. All parties, even Lib/Dems never mind tiny parties like Greens and UKIP, are plit many ways on many subjects. But it's necessary to wonder why anyone should even suggest it, after all the result would be left wing pro Europe governments almost for ever. Maybe that's what Dontmakemelaugh wants.

This site has seen many postings hysterically abusing Cameron just like some commentators in the papers. Most of the abuse is based on quite dishonest claims for Cameron's policies - thats so they have an excuse. And it is almost imposible to get then to be specific about what should be policies. Apart from leaving Europe (which I find appealing) all we have is things like "sack hundreds of thousands of public workers" or "end the welfare state". But you can't seriously suggest these, electors and other parties would kill you. So as people like me ask what should Cameron do, rather than have the guts to be specific there is a retreat to this nutty idea. Can't such people see they have hopelessly lost the argument and cooperate with the rest of us to get rid of Labour?

[Serf]

When did all these people winging at Cameron take on Labour when it was inventing a whole mythology about the 18 years?

Good question. We must all resist the demonification of past Conservative achievements.

[James Hellyer]

I havn't seen any attempt by the Cameroons (whoever they are) to denigrate the Thatcherite past policies.

I have.

Oliver Letwin has repeatedly described policies like the Pupil Passport as offering a liferaft to allow the few to escape failing public services.

Either Letwin knows that's a lie, or he doesn't understand policies that were held when he was Shadow Chancellor.

It's about building up a false bogeyman to create an impression of change.

[David Sergeant]

"Oliver Letwin has repeatedly described policies like the Pupil Passport as offering a liferaft to allow the few to escape failing public services."

David Cameron said that the Patient Passport gave voters the impression that the Tories were trying to subsidise middle classes opting out of public services. The difficulty was the perception.

"It's about building up a false bogeyman to create an impression of change"

It seems you agree with Cameron. I don't see what all the anti-Cameron excitment is about.

P.S. I havn't seen any party spokesman yet pointing how Brown's taxes etc have helped lose over a million jobs in industry and now Peugeot. Never understood why this wasn't pointed out about Rover in the election. So if we say nothing is it any wonder voters think the worst and get the wrong perceptions?

[James Hellyer]

So given the example of a senior Conservative doing what you said they didn't, you... talk about another example...

It seems you agree with Cameron.

No, I understand what he's trying to do. However, I think he's wrong, because it serves to reinforce Conservative negatives while boxing the party in further.

[David Sergeant]

"No, I understand what he's trying to do. However, I think he's wrong, because it serves to reinforce Conservative negatives while boxing the party in further."

It just seems to me that the problem having to be addressed is not Conservative negatives or positives but Conservatives promelgating themselves so people understand and accept. I think Cameron was right the way he put it but your reporting of Letwin suggests he is being somewhat cowardly and you are right.