Peter Franklin: The struggle for Conservative values must begin with loyalty

There's nothing quite so pathetic as a cliché that isn’t true anymore. For instance, if you were to tell someone that loyalty is the secret weapon of the Conservative Party they’d laugh in your face. As secret weapons go, it’s got about as much chance of turning up as Saddam’s nukes – indeed since Margaret Thatcher was forced out of office by her own colleagues, only Michael Howard has received anything like the loyalty a Conservative leader deserves from his party.

I’ve no intention of using this article to name the guilty men. Rather, I want to identify the various justifications for the routine treachery that has done so much damage to us in recent years. Disloyalists are to be found across the Conservative spectrum, but Tory traditionalists might like to note the very modern attitudes that lie at the heart of each wretched excuse:

(1) Blind loyalty is a dangerous thing

There is no virtue that cannot be taken to destructive extremes. Contemporary culture rarely fails to remind us of that fact, but forgets that there has to be something virtuous to be perverted in the first place. The traditional virtues, in particular, only have to be named to evoke some negative image. This is certainly the case with loyalty, with its sinister associations of corrupt cliquishness and fanatical devotion. And yet loyalty – meaning respect for, and service to, a legitimate source of authority – is in normal circumstances a great and good thing. It is instructive that Lord Kilmuir, the Conservative Lord Chancellor who first remarked that “loyalty is the Tory’s secret weapon”, also led for the prosecution at the Nuremburg trials.

By blurring the distinction between virtue and its destructive extremes, we give ourselves the perfect excuse to behave badly, one which enables us to claim the moral high ground even in the depths of self-indulgence. Thus when a prominent politician takes an openly critical line of his leader he isn’t being disloyal, but is demonstrating freedom of thought and a spirit of independence. Of course, there may be times when one faces a genuine crisis of conscience, and must dissent from the party line. But such occasions should be marked by regret and restraint, not the distasteful sight of a politician hawking his conscience round the studios of Westminster.

(2) We’re the ones who’ve been betrayed

Of course, there are those unfortunate souls who find themselves locked in a permanent crisis of conscience – so affronted by the ideological infidelities of the party leadership as to necessitate a continuous effusion of outrage. They appear to forget that any political party of significance is a coalition and that at any one time not every component of that coalition can have a leader of their choice. They also forget that the Conservative Party elects its members by a democratic ballot of its membership. The two leaders elected under this system – Iain Duncan Smith and David Cameron – have each won fair and square, and have led the party much as they’d promised to. But that hasn’t stopped some very bad losers from undermining them at every opportunity. This has nothing to do with standing up for Conservative values, and everything to do with the emotionalism and immaturity of those who cannot accept that compromise is an inevitable part of the democratic system.

(3) This is revenge

It’s amazing how some people only discover their principles once they’ve been sacked or passed over for promotion. It is as if the tide of preferment recedes to reveal the rocks of conscience that were lying below – or perhaps what’s actually uncovered is a sticky ooze of resentment and frustration. What do you think?

No leader can reconcile every ideological position within the Conservative coalition, still less can they accommodate every personal ambition – but that doesn’t mean that their lives should be made a misery as a result. Sometimes, you just have to ring the changes on the front bench and that means some perfectly competent individuals have to return to the backbenches. Many, if not most, do so with grace and dignity. This even applies to those with a genuine grievance. For instance, Iain Duncan Smith could have kept up his profile by supplying the press with a series of negative quotes regarding his successors. Instead, he has worked hard to establish a positive cause for the continued public attention he has received. I hope that he will prove a model for those of his colleagues who may no longer have a place at the top table, but whose talent could and should be devoted to the wider Conservative movement.

Politics can be rough game, but if it becomes mired in an endless cycle of revenge it won’t be worth playing at all: time to add forgiveness to the list of values worth fighting for.

(4) We’ve been loyal for long enough

There was a time when you could lose an election and still stay party leader. Edward Heath lost three before he lost the leadership. Nowadays you only get one shot. Fair enough, but let’s at least give our leaders a sporting chance.

A winning strategy needs time to unfold, to weather the ups and downs, to learn from mistakes and make the appropriate course corrections. It’s bad enough with the Prime Minister able to call an election at a time of his choosing without self-appointed internal critics setting arbitrary deadlines by which our leaders have to prove themselves. 

(5) No loyalty for losers

If instant gratification is a modern vice that the Conservative Party can do without, then the cult of celebrity is another. Because, make no mistake, party leadership in the 21st century is a personality cult. Our entire hope for the future is invested in one man or woman – the extent to which the party succeeds or fails is regarded as the extent to which the leader succeeds or fails. Thus when things are going badly, then we focus our anger and disappointment on the top man, as if destroying him will sort out the underlying mess.

This system of human sacrifice is getting us nowhere. Indeed it is part of the problem, resulting as it does in a catastrophic disregard for the root-and-branch renewal required in the Conservative Party as a whole.

And not just the party. As I will keep pointing out until people start throwing things at me, our failure to regain power is a symptom of the intellectual and organisational malaise of the wider conservative movement. Putting this right is the work of a generation, something that conservatives everywhere ought to get on with without constant, obsessive reference to the party leader.

I’ll leave you with another cliché, but one that’s as true as it’s ever been:

There’s no ‘I’ in team.

There’s no ‘I’ in loyalty either. Disloyalty, however, is another matter.

Comments

[Tony Makara]

People really have to be realistic about politics and accept that they won't agree on every issue of policy or for that matter presentation. What matters is that people subscribe to the wider package, and compare that to the alternatives! Recognize and debate differences of opinion, but recognize and appreciate common ground too. As David Cameron says we are all in this together, as a party and as a nation. We may not agree on eveything but lets try to work together and make our country right again.

[Tony Sharp]

Is this kind of navel-gazing really doing us any good this week of all weeks? Do you not think your column would have been better used energising Conservatives to unite and step up to the fight against Labour in anticipation of a possible election?

I feel that reminding Conservatives of what unites us, what the alternative to conservatism is and why we should fight to defeat that alternative as presented by Gordon Brown and Labour might have been more appropriate.

[John Coles]

Not the sort of pious preaching needed at this critical time.
A potentially provocative bit of pontificating.
But then, he's young isn't he? Cool.

[Paul]

I think this message IS needed at this time. We have been catching up with Lab in the polls over the last few days because of the loyalty and unity shown at the Party Conference, so why attack Peter for encouraging such behaviour?

[Paul Oakley]

Hmmm. I'm with Tony and John on this. As an historical observation it's backwards and unhelpful. As a current critique it's wholly wrong. Blackpool was buzzing about inheritance tax; the referendum pledge; the broken covenant etc etc etc. There was not a whisper of dark skulduggery being afoot.