Peter Franklin: Home truths for the Right

“I’m not that pessimistic now, because I wasn’t that optimistic before.”

These level-headed words are by far the wisest I’ve heard on the recent ups and downs of the Conservative Party. They come from someone who would describe himself as belonging to the Right of the Party, but who is, in this context, atypical of his fellows, most of whom don’t know whether to hang their heads in despair or dance a little jig.

Gloom, not glee, is the more appropriate response. The setbacks suffered by Team Cameron have in no way advanced the standing of the Right with the electorate. Instead, the centre of political gravity has shifted to the Left, towards Gordon Brown. I hope that this is a temporary phenomenon and that the unpopularity which attached to Tony Blair will, like the fleas of dead dog, soon attach to his successor.

Of course, midway through a third term, Labour ought to be consistently unpopular. But can this really be blamed on David Cameron? After all, he has at least proven that a centrist Conservative Party is capable of benefiting when Labour is unpopular – something the Right has not managed in a generation. Before judging others, the Right – both within and beyond the Conservative Party – must ask itself why, after ten years of Labour Government, it remains on the margins of British politics.

Prevailing cultural conditions are unfavourable, but is the Right really so helpless to resist? Perhaps the root cause of its chronic weakness is internal. In which case, it is time for the Right to face up to a few home truths. Here are ten of them:

(1) Crippling self-indulgence. Politics is a hard slog. Territory has to be fought for inch by inch. You rarely achieve your objectives overnight. That is something the Conservative Party’s free marketers understood even in the statist depths of the post-war period. Through patience and discipline they built up the powerful position from which Margaret Thatcher was to eventually win the war against socialism. What the Tory rightwingers did not do was depart to found their own political party. What a contrast to so many of today’s rightwingers who have dribbled off to UKIP, Veritas and various other groupuscules. Other than getting a clutch of deeply unimpressive MEPs elected (thanks to the EU-imposed electoral system), the only impression these splinters have made is to ensure the survival of federalist Lib-Lab MPs in a number of marginal Westminster constituencies. Thanks a bunch.

(2) A limitless supply of useful idiots. Still, better an honest ’kipper than the sort of Tory who spills his guts to the media. Clearly, this isn’t just a rightwing problem. Indeed, the worst offenders have tended to be on the Left of the Party. Nonetheless there’s something particularly idiotic about the rightist variety. At least when the former feed the mainstream media’s appetite for anti-Conservative stories, they demonstrate a degree of ideological consistency. The latter, however, should not mistake the media’s flattery and attention with any kind of sympathy for the rightwing cause. The agenda is pure and simple: to do as much damage to the Conservative Party as possible. That is why useful idiots – right, left and centre – are always welcome at the BBC.

(3) The casual hypocrisy of rightwing opinion formers. To live with defection and betrayal (see above), it’s necessary to concoct some sort of moral justification. Hence, excuses along the lines of “it’s-not-me-that’s-changed-it’s-the-Conservative-Party.” The rightwing press are on hand to supply all the evidence required in op-eds lamenting the ideological perfidy of successive Tory leaders. Thus one can never be sufficiently Eurosceptic for the Daily Mail unless, that is, one is Ken Clarke, in which case a generous endorsement will be yours at every leadership contest. On economic issues, enthusiastic tax-cutters like Paul Dacre and Irwin Stelzer can be found sucking up to that enthusiastic tax-raiser, Gordon Brown. Compared to holding together any political movement larger than the English Democrats, holding to a consistent editorial line ought not to be that much of a challenge. Perhaps the rightwing press, and those whose opinions are informed by the rightwing press, feel they have no responsibility in this regard – certainly, they have demonstrated very little.

(4) A house divided. The indiscipline of the Right is demonstrated within the Conservative Party as well as outside of it. Tory centrists are accused of putting personal ambition before principle, but if the same is not true of the Right, then why has it repeatedly failed to unite around a viable leadership candidate? One only has to consider the contests of 1995, 1997 and 2005. A partial exception was 2001, when Iain Duncan Smith was elected more by accident than design. A non-exception is 2003 – a non-contest and essential prologue to the Cameron era.

(5) Where’s the talent? Like it or not, this is an image-conscious age. A serious political movement needs to plan for this, nurturing the media-friendly talent that can go out there and win people round. Good presentation doesn’t preclude meaningful content, but nor does it depend upon it. This is why good PR can beat good policy hands down. Those wedded to the politics of principle, including those on the Right, can either go away and sulk in a corner, or hit back – using the politics of presentation to fight for what they believe in. So where are the young standard bearers of the Right? In the years before the A-list, there were opportunities to bring fresh faces forward, but the Modernisers got there first with David Cameron.

(6) Ageing infrastructure. The failure to invest in the future takes several forms. It’s not just a case of leadership potential, but also of intellectual infrastructure. The Thatcher revolution was supported by a network of thriving, vigorous think tanks including the IEA, the CPS and the ASI. Those think tanks are still around today, but there is no equivalent of the intellectual ferment of the 1970s and 80s. Some fresh growth is provided on the Right by groups like Direct Democracy, Reform and the Taxpayers Alliance, but despite their good work these are tiny operations, dwarfed by their American counterparts. By far the largest of the new think tanks is Policy Exchange, but that had its origin in the Moderniser wing of the Party and is now politically unaligned. Rightwingers believe in wealth creation, but it seems the wealthy do not believe in the Right – at least not to the extent of investing in its capacity to shape the intellectual debate. As always there are exceptions, but not nearly enough.

(7) The 1980s re-enactment society. Such intellectual capacity that remains on the Right is not looking to the future. Its policy programme took shape in the 1980s and those entrusted with the task of taking it forward clearly see no merit in re-framing the debate. Their focus remains almost entirely on reducing the supply of government, even though the means of doing so, such as privatisation, are more limited than in previous decades. As David Brooks and others have suggested, a better approach would be to reduce the demand for government – using the resources of the state to support independence instead of its opposite. This is an agenda the Right has yet to get to grips with. The same can be said of the climate change agenda, with many rightwingers engaged in a campaign of active denial – effectively removing themselves from an area of policy development that could be used to promote market mechanisms, national security and decentralisation. The Right should keep its principles, but throw away its 1980s playbook.

(8) Failure to learn from success. It’s not all bad news. In some areas the Right has made progress. A good example is on family breakdown, where the assiduous, evidence-based approach of Jill Kirby, the Centre for Social Justice and others has moved the debate out of the futile prosecution of culture wars and into an arena where opinion formers are unable to ignore the facts. Further good news comes from the blogosphere, where British rightwingers have achieved a dominant position – as I described in previous column. However, I wonder whether the Right is capable of replicating its rare triumphs. The bloggers aside, the Right is remarkable for its disconnectedness. The various think tanks, campaign groups and publications seem quite content to continue down their own ruts, with very little reference to, or influence on, one another. In the US, the Right is continually getting together at conferences and other events to share ideas and information – but it doesn’t over here. 

(9) Failure to learn from failure. Does the Right ever ask itself why no one is listening? I ask the question, because I honestly don’t know the answer. I’ve never read an article or pamphlet that tackles the issue – but that doesn’t mean that they don’t exist. Of course, many Modernisers have written on the subject, and many rightwingers have responded with disquisitions on why it’s actually all the Modernisers’ fault. What seems to be in short supply, however, is a rightwing analysis of the Right’s evident failure to change the course of British politics since the fall of Margaret Thatcher. What, for instance, explains the widespread resistance to tax cuts? Why should so many parents be hostile to diversity in educational provision despite the state of our schools? Rightwingers will retort that people are just crying out for tax cuts and voucher schemes, and that it’s only wicked lefties (especially in the Conservative Party) who are getting in the way. However, as the years wear on the excuses are wearing thin. Tax cuts and voucher schemes may be great, but the message isn’t getting through, is it?

(10) Modernising isn’t just for Modernisers. The Right is being left behind. The 2005 intake of Conservative MPs is full of promising thirty and forty-somethings whose political outlook was forged in the tumult of the Thatcher years. Eurosceptics almost to a man and woman, they have very little truck with the old Left of the Conservative Party. Nevertheless there is real sense of discontinuity between this new generation, who will shape the Party for decades to come, and the older generation of rightwingers. This is true even within the ranks of the Cornerstone Group! What comes through very strongly, however, is a desire for a powerful reformulation of conservatism for the 21st century. Despite all the jibes about ‘Blue Labour’ and so on, there are very few Conservatives who just want to be better managers of social democracy. The Right, if it wants to survive in any meaningful form, now needs to articulate a lucid, comprehensive and electable alternative to the policies of Gordon Brown.

Comments

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper / delusional conservative]

If anyone can work out what this is all about would they let us know? I don't think Ukippers are any more honest than freedom-lovers who believe the best way to achieve what we all want is to stay in the Tory Party. If the writer is as open-minded as he pretends he will go to a speech by Nigel Farage or Philip Davies MP to find politicians who combine free-market commitment and presentational skills. Graham Brady was looking good until he slightly overdid it a couple of weeks ago. Mark Field is ace.

If some of us happen to believe (however wrongly) in a sovereign, small-government country, how can we support DC and his schoolchums/fags? What is the point of going in the wrong direction? Tax breaks for marriage are an excellent first step in the right direction. Back that up with handing the distribution of Welfare to mutual societies. Chuck in another ten sensible policies (school vouchers, Chilean pensions, closure of quangos) and I will be right behind this writer in his affection for the leadership.

[Bill]

And your meaning is?

[TomTom]

I live in a country where The Church of England is besotted with personal and staffing issues like a stagnant bureaucracy rather than an evangelising Church........the Conservative Party seems similarly self-absorbed with articles of this nature.

It really has become a golf club concerned about were the cakes are ordered and who drives what car. There is a country disintegrating such that large swathes of the population have given up on London and are disconnecting from the institutional structures.

Noone is particularly happy with Labour but dissatisfaction is stronger with voters than it is with Conservative politicians who are more concerned with themselves and using the media to score points over each other viz Peter Franklin above.

I don't care about the 1980s - they have caused the economic problems that will crush us - deindustrialisation coupled with debt-fuelled consumerism - just as the 1960s and 1970s produced the social problems that are destroying the welfare state.

Our major industries are foreign-owned, our infrastructure is increasingly foreign-owned, and loaded with debt from British banks which increases risk here and returns abroad.

The sale and leaseback of Whitehall buildings makes HSBC and RBS rich but saddles the taxpayer with leasing payments in perpetuity just as with schools, hospitals, GP surgeries, crematoria, swimming pools, etc.

The only things public money builds from taxpayer extractions are National Assemblies in Scotland and Wales, the GLA in London; the Olympic White Elephant.........

But all the Conservative Party can come up with is whether "The Right" or "The Left" is the cause of losing the next general election.

[jorgen]

Sticking your head in the sand, Mr. Franklin, and singing "tra-la-la-la"?

[JimJam]

Excellent article - there are some headbangers who would rather stick their head in the sand and bleat rather than knuckling down and fighting for the team.

[Tax Cuts Please]

"Reform and the Taxpayers Alliance, but despite their good work these are tiny operations, dwarfed by their American counterparts."

The TaxPayers' Alliance is quickly becoming a mass-movement grassroots organisation, developing local branches and it has over 17,000 members, hardly anything 'tiny'.

[Henry Mayhew - ukipper / delusional conservative]

If you don't understand my politics, Bill, how can you understand Dave's or this writer's?

At Point 2 he says: "better an honest ’kipper than the sort of Tory who spills his guts to the media."

At 10 he opines: "The Right, if it wants to survive in any meaningful form, now needs to articulate a lucid, comprehensive and electable alternative to the policies of Gordon Brown."

Eh? How do you do that without spilling your guts to the media or developing policy for UKIP?

My meaning, Bill: Let's get debating ideas without Dave or the writer calling innovators 'delusional' 'cripplingly self-indulgent or 'useful idiots'. Then they might learn something.

[Bill]

Henry

It wasn't referring to you but Mr Franklin.

I still don't "get" his piece. That may be because I am not sure what is meant by him and others by the term "Right". After all aren't we often told that terms like "Left" and Right" are so last century, and that we must look at people's views from many dimensions? I like to consider myself not only a strong believer in our ancient liberties but also quite a libertarian. Does that mean I am right wing?. I also believe in a small state. Is that right wing? Maybe it is if the centrists and the left (forgive the labels) believe in a grand state which redistributes wealth and controls our lives.
I also believe in the rule of law and democracy: which means the people elect their representatives to represent them and pass law on their behalf and which are then properly by a judiciary which respects parliament and the will of the people. I could go but if my views are right wing and therefore by definition to be deprecated:tough.

[Simon Newman]

"Tax cuts and voucher schemes may be great, but the message isn’t getting through, is it?"

I remember the 2005 election, when the supposedly right-wing Michael Howard refused to argue for tax cuts and deselected Howard Flight when he did. I ended up so disgusted I voted independent.

It's been many years since the Conservatives argued for tax cuts, and they've never argued for voucher schemes. If they had argued for tax cuts in 2005 they might well have won, but the party is so intimidated by the BBC's hostility they treat it as off-limits. That goes for most core Conservative values & policies.

[TomTom]

The kids are not alright
Politicians, not teachers, are to blame for Britain’s decline in education, says kenneth minogue

Why, in Britain's broken society, do bad things not only happen but tend to get worse? The reason is likely to be that we have become locked in a cycle, in which the consequences of one policy cause the next degeneration. Let me illustrate.

Few people doubt that the quality of education in Britain's schools has degenerated and that it has done so in almost exact proportion to the involvement of the Department of Education in telling teachers what they must do. The more directives, the more bureaucracy endured, the worse the results.

Many comprehensive schools have become engines for providing increasingly worse education for pupils, a decline no longer concealed by inflated exam results. History becomes propaganda about the evils of British life, geography the current affairs of climate change, social studies indoctrination in how to be multicultural.

A capacity to spell and write grammatically is no longer something teachers even try to teach their pupils. And a stream of directives comes from the DfES about teaching parenthood, better diet, equality issues, not smoking, how to deal with the increase in bullying and similar subjects. Employers despair at the quality of those applying for jobs.

Why does it happen? Let's ask the old Roman question: Cui bono? Who benefits? At first, one might think it would be the teachers, because teaching real subjects to pupils is harder than being a child minder.

But, no. The real beneficiaries are the politicians. Most politicians today have never had a real job. The only skill they have ever exercised is to talk vacuously and get out the vote. And so one reason for this dumbing down suggests itself.

Who would vote for these incompetents – except a generation of young people never seriously challenged by the demands of real education?

THE FIRST POST AUGUST 6, 2007

[Bill]

Simon

The Tories are in an utter mess. I look forward to a similar thread entitled "Home truths for the Modernisers, Cameroons, Centrists, the Left et al".

At least I know what a "groupuscule" is now though. I bet that goes down well on the doorsteps.

[Miss Tooty]

I may have a ham salad today, I'll keep you informed.

[powellite]

Great article Peter - I really hope the whingers on this site will read it and take note, but I'm guessing not...

"excuses along the lines of “it’s-not-me-that’s-changed-it’s-the-Conservative-Party.”

Sums it up perfectly - describes about 90% of ConHome posters. Having only been a wee lad during the 1980s, I didn't really know what it was like. given the obsession that people on this site have with fighting its battles, it must have been great - i guess it was bananarama which made it stand out...

[William Norton]

What an excellent article. Might I also refer people to my Platform piece from February 2006:
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2006/02/william_norton_.html

[englandism]

Deary me, is it fall on our own sword time already?

As we all know, Cameron is flirting with the centre in order to appeal to the marginal floaters based upon the false assumption that the electorate is essentially progressive as expressed in Franklin's 'Prevailing cultural conditions are unfavourable'.

The prevailing cultural conditions are not those perceived in the Westminster village filtered through the mediaocracy and shaped by rules of political engagement that deny the reality of inconvenient truth.

This false perception of the real political battlefield comes across as a patrician condescension toward the politically unsophisticated masses where even the discussion of issues that genuinely worry, disturb and actually motivate is dismissed.

Cameron's forte is PR where appearing to do the right thing in the right order with the correct soundtrack is enough. But what is the right thing? In marketing it is identifying, knowing, reaching and satisfying the customer and we are, simply, not doing that because of this false perception of the prevailing cultural conditions.

We are failing to satisfy the wrong customer.

[Andrew Ian Dodge]

So the solution is to have a party under David Cameron which is virtually indistinquishable from Labour or the Liberals? Surely that is denying Britons choice at the polls?

The attacks on UKIP are just pathetic and tired. At least you didn't call them racists as is the wont of some in the shadow cabinet.

[Bradford]

Today I had a chat with my Muslim taxi driver and we both agreed that no matter how hard you worked houses were always that much more out of reach......so which do the Conservatives propose to do - to let wage inflation rip to make houses affordable - or to have a housing crash to wipe out the Wealth Effect which makes it impossible to convert income into capital but easy to convert capital into income ?

[Matt Wright]

Good article that touches on the opportunity to have a positive agenda that unites different wings of the party. The tiny minority who want to create imgainary battles between either/or positions in the party are the real danger. The vast majority just want Cameron to succeed and desire a clear focused agenda about what Conservatives stand for in the 21st Century. This is not rocket science, we can get ahead of Brown,

Matt

[Tapestry]

It's only in the media that Gordon's doing well. The reality is that he hasn't got a clue. The media are terrified of him. I don't think Conservatives should be paying quite so many compliments.

Obviously the corrupt big cheque and big ego suporters will all flock across to get a bit of media. Let them go over. The quality of what we have is improving by the day, and the quantity of support, if you look at the details of the polling.

Brown's only making headway with previous non-voters, who are unlikely to atually vote. Cameron is doing well, keeping remarkably sane and level-headed through it all.

He shouldn't start any Brown-praising as is suggested on PB today. What is there to praise? The reality is dreadful in nearly every respect.
http://tapestrytalks.typepad.com/tapestry_talks/2007/08/gordons-putting.html

[Hmmmm]

Such a patronising, ignorant, arrogant and insulting attack on my politics and values from a party official demonstrates that it is CCHQ that is causing factionalism and splitting the party.

I was planning to go canvassing with my PPC tonight but I will go to dinner at my club instead. It is clear that the Party does not want the support of the tradional conservatives anymore.

Satisfied Franklin?

[Tory T]

Hear hear Mr. Franklin.

ukip have no principles, they actually stood a candidate against John Redwood and don't seem to care that their MEPs buy cars on Euro Parliament expenses. Talk about snouts in the Eurotrough.

In getting Labour MPs elected, they are the europhile left's best friend.

I liked the quote I read on another blog yesterday "So once again the Conservative Party faces off against its traditional arch-nemesis, the Conservative Party"

Tim's Tory Diaries this week are a welcome blast of sanity

[Henry Mayhew - Ukipper / Delusional]

Sorry Bill, egomania.

[powellite]

Hmmm "It is clear that the Party does not want the support of the tradional conservatives anymore"

What would be your definition of a traditional conservative, out of interest...?

[Dontmakemelaugh]

" The Right, if it wants to survive in any meaningful form, now needs to articulate a lucid, comprehensive and electable alternative to the policies of Gordon Brown".

So that is the job of the Right is it? So what is the job of Cameron's Modernisers?

Dear Mr Franklin we are forever being told that the Conservative Party is a "broad church", (but only as long as it agrees with Cameron and you apparently).
The Tories do not have a God given right to govern. First of all you will have to persuade the majority that the Tories espouse their aspirations and undersatnd their fears and hopes; are relevant (and in that respect the actions of Cameron are more important than words or PR); it is worth their while that the English get off their backsides and vote for you.

Outline your so called centralist policies - persuade me to vote Conservative - I am all ears.

[alex]

Team Conservative should remember it is just that....a team. The electorate punishes political parties that indulge in too much internal bickering and they don't care which side of the debate gets hurt (as Europhiles and Eurosceptics found out in 1997).

We do need to find as a party a more convincing user-friendly way of communicating our views to the public. I listened to some old speeches made by Mrs T the other day (yes, I am sad) and what struck me was that she used very clear, direct language speaking directly (often) to "the housewife" (a term you could use more freely in 1979 I guess!).

That contrasts with polticians today from all sides these days who too often lapse into "think tank speak" or ignore direct questions. We shouldn't be afraid of communicating the clear case for lower taxes, law and order, maintaining our sovereignty, tackling global warming, addressing family breakdown and improving standards in education and healthcare in plain English.