The 'politics of and'

During this 'first anniversary of ConservativeHome.com' week we'll be posting three special ten point briefings on three big ConservativeHome themes.  Today's first briefing focuses on the 'and theory of conservatism'.  Next we'll focus on the conservative movement's relationship with the Conservative Party and then the role of blogging.

(1) Shortly after the 2005 General Election, Iain Duncan Smith and Danny Kruger wrote a pamphlet for the Centre for Social Justice entitled ‘Good for me, good for my neighbour’.  The pamphlet argued that the Conservative Party needed to convince the British people that it would not only advance the material interests of its core voters but that it must also become a party that cared for society’s most vulnerable people and for quality of life issues like the environment.

(2) The paper was written in the aftermath of Michael Howard’s ‘dog-whistle’ election campaign.  Michael Howard’s policies on immigration and crime were popular with voters but he and the Tories were not trusted to deliver them.  When pollsters told voters that otherwise high-scoring policies were Tory policies their popularity fell.  IDS and Kruger argued that a compassionate agenda would give previous Tory voters ‘permission’ to return to the blue colours.  They were particularly concerned to win back those voters who deserted the Tories in 1997, even though they had prospered during the Thatcher-Major years.

(3) At the heart of the paper was the idea of a broader Conservative agenda. IDS wrote: “I have never believed that modernisation requires the jettisoning of Conservative euroscepticism, or of our belief in low taxation, or of our tough approach to crime. These principles remain enduringly popular with the public. My proposal for the modernisation of the Party is not to subtract from these core principles – but to add to them.”  IDS highlighted the issues of pensioner poverty, inner city decay and international hunger as examples of the necessary new Tory breadth.

(4) Kruger and IDS were effectively urging the Party to embrace the ‘And theory of conservatism’.  Examples of ‘Ands’ include:

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

(5) The ‘And theory’ should not be confused with Clintonian/ Blairite triangulation. Triangulators avoid the 'extremes' of both right and left.  They seek, for example, to dilute the right's emphasis on controlled immigration and the left's heavy taxation.  Triangulation or midpoint centrism (see here) is essentially managerial.  It is largely in tune with the steady-as-you-go voices of Britain's establishments.  Such voices include the public sector unions who oppose radical reform of schools and hospitals and the foreign office establishment that favours multilateralism and stability over pre-emption and regime change.

(6) An ideal application of the ‘politics of and’ will embrace the concerns that have most recently been associated with the left (on such issues as pollution and social justice) but will address them in an authentically conservative manner.  David Cameron is pursuing this ideal approach when it comes to social justice.  He has driven his political tank on to Labour's welfare turf but is determined to be distinctively conservative when it comes to finding solutions to poverty.  Hence his emphasis on stronger families and social enterprise.  On green issues, however, he has sought cross-party consensus and this has meant the adoption of the Kyoto approach (largely rejected by other conservative parties).

(7) David Cameron employed the “and theory” during the leadership election.  At the launch of his campaign he said: “And when the Conservative Party talks about foreign affairs it can't just be Gibraltar and Zimbabwe.  We have got to show as much passion about Darfur and the millions of people living on less than a dollar a day in sub-Saharan African who are getting poorer while we are getting richer.”  At the 2005 party conference Michael Gove MP, a leading Cameron supporter, told a Policy Exchange fringe meeting that the ‘politics of and’ should be a key component of Conservative politics.

(8) As leader – with rare exceptions (as on prisons policy) – David Cameron has eschewed the ‘politics of and’.  Where Michael Howard only emphasised crime and immigration and (belatedly and timidly) lower taxation, David Cameron tends to only emphasise greenery, social justice and other breadth issues.  His April 2006 speech to Spring Forum exemplified this perfectly.  Team Cameron believes that you may govern according to the ‘and theory’ but you campaign on the ‘change issues’.  They believe that voters already trust the Tories on crime, Europe and immigration and that all energies need to be invested in converting peoples’ perceptions on the environment and poverty.  They are happy for junior frontbenchers to address issues of immigration and Europe etc but the leader should be focused on the 'conversion issues'.

(9) There are two main problems with this approach:

(a) If Conservatives neglect tax, crime and immigration the voters that care about those issues will support other parties or will not vote.  The difference between winning 60% of those who are motivated by immigration, for example, and winning 66% is the difference between winning and losing seats in low turnout elections.  George W Bush wasn’t re-elected because he assumed religious conservatives would vote for him – his party machine invested enormous resources in maximising the number of Catholic and evangelical Christians who voted Republican.  CCHQ must do the same here to energise our core coalitions.
(b) Mr Cameron will inevitably have to deal with these core issues and when he eventually does the media will accuse him of flip-flopping on his change agenda.  If he had emphasised breadth and core issues throughout his leadership he would not be vulnerable to such charges.

(10) The least attractive thing about the “And theory” is its clunky name.  If readers can think of a better title please email [email protected].  ‘Balanced conservatism’ comes to mind.  What do you think?

Comments

[John Hustings]

My problem with this theory is that is a touch too Hegelian. It can be taken too far to the point where it tries to deny the trade-offs which *do* exist in politics. We have seen this during Tony Blair's premiership where he has taken the 'politics of and' to ludicrous extremes, and in trying to please everyone, often pleased no-one.

Sometimes there are choices to be made, and a compromise between two points isn't always the way to go. I like the examples given here (especially b and c, slightly nervous about d), but I don't think the principle could always be applied with success.

That said, I *do* like the general idea of "broadening" the Conservative Party's focus. This is what you see from Labour; they talk about Education, Health, Crime, the Economy, *and* the Environment. It leaves them looking balanced, even if they're policies are wrong. I think that is what we should look to do. We've been imbalanced for a long time.

[Chad]

I like simply calling it 'paired-policy' as that clearly shows that you are bringing two complimentary/overlapping ideas together and it can be represented as scales, for balance and easy visualisation.

With the two policies bound in this way as a 'paired-policy', it also facilitates the inevitable compromise John details above in a logical way.

I think policy pairs help explain the inevitable balance and give-and-take between different policies.

[Chad]

..and of course, framing the policy pairs in this way helps to force your opponent to focus in the same way, as they will seem to be giving only half an answer otherwise.

[David]

Of course the Tories can not campaign on immigration because most of it is from the EU.
In fact like all parties apart from UKIP, the Tory immigration policy is based on where people come from, rather than if they benefit the UK or not. This is of course racist.

[JackNevinson]

For a better name for 'AND Theory', how about 'Holistic Conservatism'? I know it sounds terribly nineties/green but it does fit: it's about seeing the hole picture, and all the parts of the whole picture matter. They matter in relationship to each other, not in separation. 'Holistic Conservatism' is about an approach to the whole world, not to one's little prejudices.

[Richard Bailey]

I really do believe in this process but the only bit that Cameron just hasn't attended to is creating our equivalent to John Prescott.

New Labour knew from the outset that their plan would only work if they demonstrably held up the left of their Party. God knows Mr Prescott is an unfathomably incompetent Minister, but he has done THIS job exceptionally well.

Cameron needs someone to hold up the right of the Party and the Tories will only become a team when Cameron organises this and when someone actually does it. Liam Fox is the perfect man.

We must become the embodiment of the phrase "Speak softly, carry a big stick."

[RobC]

I think this 'and theory' is merey saying that issues should be tackled using a variety of methods - not just one. By pairing (or grouping) a 'traditional' conservative policy with other policies the traditional tory policy is more appealing.

I think the 'and' should be more closely related. For example, in 4 c) you say "Faster, longer imprisonment of repeat offenders and more care for the vulnerable children of prisoners..."

Would it not be better to say "Faster, longer imprisonment of repeat offenders and more resources to help released offenders avoid re-offending"

(By the way, I'm not saying more care for vulnerable children is not important).

[Editor]

A few reactions:

I agree, John Hustings, that the theory can't cover every issue. Some issues can't be 'balanced'. It's a good general discipline, though, on party strategists. It reminds traditionalists that the party needs to be broader and it reminds modernisers not to neglect conservatism's core turf.

Jack: I like your idea of holistic conservatism where things matter because of their relationship with each other - the link between an active development policy and controlling immigration being a perfect example - but I'm not convinced by using the term as the title for the idea.

I hadn't thought of it in terms of personnel, Richard, until your post and Donal's latest law of the public policy process on appointing as many people to the left of you as to the right but 'yes', I agree and there isn't a right-winger like Liam Fox 'out there' assertively arguing for David Cameron. It's a weakness, you're right.

I like your alternative 'prisons and', RobC - yours is closer to the one deployed by David Cameron last week.

[Simon C]

Big Cake conservatism? You can have your cake AND....

More seriously, I am a fan of this approach, and have been for a while: see

http://ccfwebsite.com/world_display.php?ID=5&type=article

although I don't think "And Conservatism" was a phrase in vogue back then.

This is the right way forward (subject to acknowledging the potential for satire if you too often spell out too many examples like "This AND That").

The Editor's point 6 is really important. We need to accept that the left has sometimes been asking the right questions and identifying important issues. That emphatically does NOT mean that they have come up with the right answers.

I quite like "And Conservatism" as a name - it comes quite close to the mark, and it's not that clunky if you leave out the word "theory". But the point you are trying to make (as Jack Nevinson says above) is that Conservatives need to be interested in every aspect of human experience, not just a few traditional favorites. How about "Complete Conservatism" or "Total Conservatism"?

[Edward]

I thought Complete Conservatism too and was just going to post it when I saw you beat me by ten minutes, Simon!

[Editor]

Thanks, Simon. I quite like Complete Conservatism. Total Conservatism sounds a bit strong as in Total War and Total Politics!

[John Hustings]

If you really want a name for this theory, I suggest "dialectical conservativism".

Though maybe that doesn't have quite the right resonance.

[matt wright]

Its an intersting theory but as John says its risks being an averaging process which can lead to the lowest common denominator or indecision. The truly great leaders and thinkers do more than achieve compromises they rise above that and create real win-win solutions,

Matt

[Editor]

Did you read points 5 and 6, Matt? I'm rejecting that averaging, milk-and-water process. The And Theory isn't about splitting the difference but looking for bold positions on both traditional Tory beliefs (Europe, tax, crime etc) and breadth positions (social justice and the environment).

[Phil]

While better than Clintonian/Blairite triangulation, some "And" ideas seem to me to be fuzzy contradictions. Take "A commitment to actively support healthy, traditional marriages and fair pension and inheritance arrangements for gay adults…" If we are to support trad marriage with credibility, then surely we cannot support giving to gay couples the benefits associated with trad marriage - many think this could undermine the centrality and importance of trad marriage in society.

Also, how about "A willingness to confront the Islamic roots of global terrorism and more opportunities for mainstream British Muslims to set up state-funded schools...". Could the latter proposal help facilitate the teaching of that which the former seeks to tackle?

However the general "Ands" approach makes sense - if it addresses the concerns of all voters. That must mean maintaining our tough approach to crime, and I would add, also to drugs, Mr Cameron, as this is a driver in crime, and maintaining Euro-scepticism, as well as expanding Conservative interest to issues of non-core voters' concerns such as the environment and public services.

But we must continue to talk about all concerns voters have, perhaps particularly that criminals should be punished and deterred. Ah, those are old and unfashionable concepts! As it was said by someone (Simon Heffer I think?) in the Daily Telegraph recently, perhaps even the thug who beat an old lady to death might have been deterred if he knew he might end up on the end of a rope! I today heard on the radio that Mr Blair is going on about being tough on organised crime. That’s good, but is it the more unorganised thugs and vandals that make life a misery for so many who concern voters more?

But also "Conservative" doesn't mean only conserving the environment, but also must surely mean conserving what from the past is good and healthy for society. Not all that is “old” or “traditional” is bad and not all that is “modern” is good. We surely don’t have to cave into every PC idea the liberal metropolitan elite forces upon us.

[John Moss]

Joined-up Government?

If you give every parent a voucher for their childs education costs, you end the scandal of the families who pay twice, AND you get engaged, responsible parents driving the improvement of schools because they control the funding.

If we have insurance based healthcare, funded by compulsory contributions for those in work, but with the state still paying for everybody else, you get equality of access - (Stephen Dorrell Buzz Phrase warning) - AND standards are improved because competition drives out waste.

I could get to like this!

[Henry Mayhew]

Having given the Cameroon or Lib Dem tendency within the party a hard time on CH in recent days, I can agree that the politics of And could well make sense. After all, who's against motherhood or for that matter, apple pie? I love the stuff.

However, reading the above and thinking what nice people the LDs are, today I opened my mail to receive a very threatening letter from the Department of Work & Pensions entitled " agepartnershipgroup Targeting Employers ". This document reminds me of the new threat to my business that Age Discrimination legislation will bring in on 1st October. It is a loaded gun at every employer's head, treating them as criminals yet once more, and giving their money away to the disgruntled failures. I would like Mr Cameron to take time out of his busy day to focus on this issue. While he is at it, also to consider whether this country's employment and tax legislation prepares it appropriately for the emergence of China and India (we ain't seen nuthin yet, by the way).

All I am saying is that sometimes you have to focus on an unpopular issue like rolling back discrimination legislation (which may involve leaving European institutions). Once LDs start doing that I will be delighted to discuss organic nappies or whatever is on their mind.

Let's roll back discrimination legislation AND promote organic nappies.

[John Moss]

Given recent events, the theory could be applied to crime and punishment quite simply.

Yes, we will build 50,000 more prison places and yes, we will lock up more criminals, for longer, with nobody going to jail for less than a year. But, when they are there, though we will be punishing them by depriving them of their liberty and we will be protecting the public by keeping them off the streets, we will also run a prisons education service to make sure that no prisoner leaves without a pass in GCSE english and maths.

Similarly, no community sentence will be given which does not involve a significant element of education and training. This will take place in schools in the evenings and at weekends.

[Chris]

The Conservative party is now in the "Last chance saloon" if they do not get it right when in power extreme parties will gain ground which will be hard to recover.I net-work with over 100 people and all of us are unsure what David Cameron stands for, you can not be all things to all people! We want to see positive leadership and policies that reflect what the majority want, not what minority interest groups want!The fact is we want a stronger,independant Britain not shackled to Europe. Will the next Government have the courage to do what is right and hold a referendum, I doubt it!I am concerned that many like me are seriously thinking of voting UKIP which will split the vote and allow in Labour again, a disaster, but Cameron may leave us with no where else to go.Our future is in the hands of politicians who will do anything for political expediency,can Cameron be trusted to be different?