And theory of conservatism

The ‘And theory of conservatism’ believes that it is necessary for conservatives to fuse their 'core vote' beliefs with imaginative and compassionate responses to today’s quality of life challenges.

‘And theory conservatives’ – or total conservatives – sign up to ‘core vote’ positions on Europe, tax, immigration and crime. To this extent they are traditionalists – but, like other Tory modernisers, they realise that this isn’t enough. They realise that conservatives also need to have answers to inner city decay, environmental deterioration and today’s other problems.

Tender policies provide many voters with the leeway to support tough Tory policies

The 'politics of and' understands that tender policies don’t require an abandonment of tough policies. Breadth isn’t an alternative to depth – it permits it to happen.

For example, a tough policy on immigration is sounder (ethically and electorally) if it is accompanied by a strong commitment to international development. A strong international development agenda (adventurously promoted and not just treated as a one speech, tick box policy) reassures moderate voters who want to know that sealed borders don’t also mean a closed mind to the needs of the world’s poorest people.

A few examples of theoretical ‘Ands’

• A commitment to actively support healthy, traditional marriages and fair pension and inheritance arrangements for gay adults…
• A bigger budget for the armed forces and an end to the sale of arms to despotic regimes…
• Faster, longer imprisonment of repeat offenders and more care for the vulnerable children of prisoners...
• A willingness to confront the Islamic roots of global terrorism and and more opportunities for mainstream British Muslims to set up state-funded schools...

The ‘And theory’s ‘broader and deeper’ policies will allow the Conservative Party to narrow the shortfall between its own popularity and that of the tough ‘core vote’ policies it holds. The shortfall reflects the fact that the Tories aren't liked enough to be trusted to pursue tough policies on immigration and crime.

Good for me and good for my neighhbour

Launching his Centre for Social Justice, Iain Duncan Smith has explained the ‘And theory’ this way:

“The Conservative Party is at its best when it reaches beyond the safety of familiar constituencies. When Margaret Thatcher extended home ownership to millions of council house tenants she didn’t just do the right thing morally she did the right thing politically, too.

As leader of the Conservative Party I put forward policies that were designed to help people who haven’t expected help from the Conservative Party – or any political party – for a very longtime. Policies like visible, neighbourhood policing of Britain’s toughest estates... The right to choose for parents of children trapped in failing, inner city schools... Support for a more innovative voluntary sector... I’m glad that Michael Howard is keeping and developing these and similar policies. They’re right for people in need and they’re right for the Conservative Party.

Conservatives have the right policies on crime and immigration... The right policies on patient and parental choice... The right policies on tax. But that isn’t enough. Voters want a political party to be good for them and good for their neighbour. They want a Conservative Party that makes the nation stronger and brings it together. Core Conservative policies giving people the right to choose and making the streets safe must work for Britain’s poorest people.”

Related link: Ten point briefing on the 'politics of and'.

Comments

[Johnny]

I'm very interested in the notion of 'And theory', but surely it will be exposed as a front for typical Tory themes at the next General Election. For example:

I want to Make Poverty History AND I want a quota on immigration

I respect civil partnerships AND I still support Clause 28

I want to be a compassionate conservative AND I still think Peter Hitchens and James Q. Wilson have got a point.

I want a strong defence AND I don't care who I sell arms to.

[John Moss]

It really is time to try to reverse the old "safety net" theory and this is the way to do it.

Too often the safety net idea is translated - by unthinking conservatives - and presented - by opponents - as devil-take-the hindmost. Here's your welfare cheque, your council house etc, now get on with it. This is not only plainly a recipe for disaster socially, but also political suicide.

I believe that if you reverse the thinking behind the safety net theory, you end up with education vouchers - to use the easiest example so as not to bore you stupid. Every child gets a cheque, their parents get to take it to the school of their choice, irrespective of who runs that school, or how much they charge.

A safety net conservative stops here. They believe everybody will respond to this state largesse and automatically become committed, caring parents engaged in the school's life etc etc.

Obviously, they're wrong. Some children don't have parents, in extremis. Others have parents who you positively would not want to be engaged in school life. Others have special needs. The list goes on.

So thinking it through, an Education Voucher works for those people who already do OK. It probably helps a good number more people to do OK as well and, yes, the competitive spur will improve standards.

Great, say the safety-netters, we can leave that and move on. Wrong, say I. Now the people who are failing are even more visible than ever before and the state can do even more for them to address their problems as individuals, precisely because they have liberated everybody else and aren't wasting time and our money on trying to deliver for everybody.

To give it an "And". An Education Voucher for every child and even more help for those who really need it.