What is 'one nation conservatism'?

Anthony Howard asks this question in this morning's Times.  It's a good question to ask.  Unfortunately Mr Howard responds with a circuitous (and not particularly helpful) history lesson.

It's a good question to ask because all of the leadership candidates are claiming to be 'one nation conservatives'.  David Davis has said that he is a one nation Tory but his one nation beliefs have so far focused on improving social mobility rather than addressing chronic and intergenerational forms of poverty.  Does Sir Malcolm Rifkind believe that DD is a real one nation Tory?  Surely the Shadow Home Secretary was one of the people that Sir Malcolm had in mind when he said that the leadership race was a choice between one nation and right-wing beliefs?

Sir Malcolm Rifkind gave a whole speech on the subject on Thursday night.  Addressing one thousand people Sir Malcolm said that he joined the Conservative Party because the one nation tradition reflected his beliefs, values and aspirations.  The expression derives from Benjamin Disraeli's time.  As conservativehome.com's definition notes, Disraeli introduced the idea in his 1845 novel, Sybil.  Disraeli wrote:

"Two Nations Between Whom There Is No Intercourse And No Sympathy; Who Are As Ignorant Of Each Other's Habits, Thoughts, And Feelings, As If They Were Dwellers In Different Zones, Or Inhabitants Of Different Planets; Who Are Formed By A Different Breeding, Are Fed By Different Food, Are Ordered By Different Manners, And Are Not Governed By The Same Laws."

The material squalor of Disraeli's time has been banished to the history books but other forms of poverty have emerged - as Iain Duncan Smith and other Tories have been increasingly arguing.  Sir Malcolm's speech emphasised four objectives for a modern day one nation conservatism:

1. The eradication of residual poverty within Britain: "While the country is more prosperous than ever before and while the old class divisions have been significantly eroded, serious social problems persist and poverty can be seen in many communities."
2. An end to racial discrimination: "Only when Asian and black Britons are as likely to vote Conservative as the country as a whole will Britain be able to assume that we have achieved true racial harmony and successful integration."
3. A United Kingdom: "One Nation Tories have always found it easier to accept the devolved Britain that now exists and to work for a healthy balance between the component parts of the United Kingdom."
   
4. The fight against poverty in the developing world: "The principles of One Nation apply with equal strength to One World and we have an obligation as well as an opportunity that we must not ignore."

Few Tories could disagree with these aims but, as always, the disagreement comes in discussing solutions.  In addressing domestic poverty Sir Malcolm emphasises (1) "radical simplification and reform of the tax system to take the poorest out of tax" and (2) "increasing use of voluntary organisations rather than the state's Job Centres to match people to available employment".  These are policies Labour are unlikely to imitate but other compassionate conservatives would also emphasise family strengthening, zero tolerance policing, harm avoidance approaches to drug use and school choice.  Where does Sir Malcolm stand on those issues?

More controversial criticisms can be made of his international aspirations - which he sums up in the attractive phrase of 'One Nation in One World'.   He talks unspecifically about "global injustice" and about the "the need to see the rule of law in international relations as well as in national affairs".  Is this a reminder of his opposition to the Iraq war?  Opposition rooted in the US-UK-led coalition's failure to get legal approval from enough of the dictatorships and compromised democracies that sit on the United Nations Security Council?  Sir Malcolm's leading role in the Major Government won't help his 'One Nation in One World' credentials either.  That administration displayed pusillanimity in Srebrenica, armed repressive countries like Suharto's Indonesia and made deep cuts in overseas development expenditure. 

Comments

[Wat Tyler]

I must say I've always had real problems understanding what One Nation actually means today, other than some kind of broad "motherhood" commitment to helping the losers as well as the winners.

So there's nothing much wrong with what Sir M says by way of aspiration, but- as you say Ed- what we want to know is what we're going to do about it.

Like public services reform- he says they nedd "radical and non-doctrinaire partnership between the public and private sectors."

Well, yes...but does that for example mean putting the spending power in the hands of the customers?

He says: "The electorate are not hostile to such reforms but they will always be suspicious of a Conservative programme for involving the private sector which appears to give precedence to ideology over results. One Nation Tories have no guilt complexes about pragmatism and are much more likely to be trusted by the public."

Meaning, presumably, "Davis can't do what needs doing because he's a right-wing ideologue, whereas I can because I'm a One Nation Tory."

If only life was that simple.

[Peter Littleton]

Sir Malcolm's four points don't really seem to say an awful lot about what he is standing for.

1) He talks about the eradication of poverty. But poverty is a relative term. Clearly poverty in the UK has little relation to poverty in the Sudan, or in the Indian sub continent. Therefore, short of evening out incomes across the country it seems to me to be a very unspecific aim.

At the heart of conservatism is an acceptance of class, and indeed conservatism emabraces this, inasmuch as it creates aspiration which is a driving force in society.

Also, he doesn't mention the 'deserving and the undeserving poor'. What about those who could work but choose not to. How does society elevate these people without literally increasing handouts?

2) Why a specific commitment to ending race discrimination. Doesn't it bother him that the over 65s are far more likely to vote Tory than the 18 - 24s.

Also, social and cultural reasons may exist why ethnic minorities choose not to vote for us, beyond the colour of their skin.

3) In the US both libertarian conservatives and compassionate conservatives fully accept and endorse devolution of power locally and at State level. Positions on this are more coincidental than ideologically attached to one nationism.

4) Once again, specifics are needed in how he proposes to promote global development. Does he focus on opening up of western markets or the distribution of generous aid packages.

Also, he seems to have a lot of faith in the international rule of law. Internation law, knocked out by the UN through a complex process of political maneuvering cannot genuinely be said to have the same legitimacy as English law, debated in Parliament by elected representatives of the people.

[James Hellyer]

Sir Malcolm's basic argument seems to be that as "a One nation Conservative", he could implement radical public service reforms whereas David Davis, say, could not. The supposed reason for this is that One Nation Conservatives are pragmatic rather than ideological, and would therefore only do such things because they work, rather than because they appeal to their pet policy wonk.

The key problem with this statement is that people neither know or care about what "One Nation" Conservatism is. Like it or not, Sir Malcolm is a Conservative, and that's how he'd be seen.

The "One Nation" tag is now an empty one. It's users speak only to our political classes, and even then they do without meaning. Even by Sir Malcolm's definitions, almost everyone on the Commons could lay claim to be a One Nation Conservative.

[Blimpish]

Bang on, James - "One Nation" is political class code for "a Tory, but without the nasty Right-wing bits - so you can keep inviting me to write in the Guardian."

[Sean Fear]

"Also, social and cultural reasons may exist why ethnic minorities choose not to vote for us, beyond the colour of their skin."

It seems most unlikely that the Conservative Party would ever support a foreign policy which would appeal to most Muslim voters in this country, for example, and why should it?

[malcolm]

Why not Sean? The Conservative Party has often adopted a more evenhanded approach to the middle east than Labour and could do so again.
I wonder how many voters of whatevever religion would have their votes swayed purely by foreign policy anyway.

[Sean Fear]

Judging by some of the results from East London and Birmingham, on May 5th, I'd say that quite a lot of Muslim voters are willing to vote on the basis of foreign policy.

As it happens, I think this government has adopted a reasonably even-handed approach to the Middle East, and I would certainly not want to see our foreign policy move further in a pro-Palestinian direction.

[true religion outlet]

LO LO LO LO.....Has been very quiet, to give you love has been very quiet, you say you love like a cloud, to float freely until beautiful.....

[replica louis vuitton]

standard quilted lambskin owning a vivid Chanel Totes