Call for papers on the Conservative Party

As the Conservative Party continues to make progress corporate affairs companies are increasingly hiring Conservatives, world leaders are increasingly keen to meet with the Conservative Party leadership, and academics are devoting more time to studying the Party and its beliefs.

In light of that, Professor Phillip Cowley, Dr Andrew Denham, Dr Steven Fielding and Dr Tim Bale are organising a one-day conference in Nottingham at the end of the year (Dec 12th) to discuss "how likely is a Conservative victory at the next election and how 'Conservative' is Cameron's party?".

They are interested in papers dealing with any aspect of the party's development, but especially those that place developments within the party in a comparative and historical perspective and those touching on the following themes: Ideology, Electoral strategy, Campaigning, Europe, National Identity and the Constitution, The Market and Social Justice, America and the War on Terror, Party cohesion and division, Financing, and Feminisation.

Paper proposals - a title, details of authors, along with a paragraph description - should be submitted by 1st September 2008 to Steven Fielding (Director, Centre for British Politics): [email protected].

Comments

[Christian May]

I'm just putting the finishing touches to my dissertation - David Cameron's Conservaties; the Process of Change. The most 'academic' piece is the chapter concerning how political parties construct the centre ground. This is based on Dr Andrew Hindmoor's theory of political space. Shame he's not speaking at the conference.

[Tim Bale]

Christian

Sounds very interesting. Andy H. probably won't be there because he teaches in Oz now, as I expect you know. The fact that you've picked up on his work and applied it to the Tories is very interesting - and you're not the first to see its relevance: it struck me when I read and reviewed his book for an academic journal and I know Jane Green (brilliant postdoc at Manchester) was struck too. I'd be very interested to read your dissertation if you ever have a spare copy: you can find me by googling me if you get a mo. And maybe you'll come to the conference anyway?

[Christian May]

Tim, I'll certainly be at the conference, and in the meantime I'll be sure to send you a copy of my dissertation. In a nutshell, it covers why the Conservatives lost three elections, Cameron's re-branding and the importance of political marketing, Hindmoor's political space theory, and what 'compassionate conservatism' really is.

I was lucky enough to have a few lectures from AH when he returned as a guest lecturer at Exeter. Our loss is Queensland's gain!

[Jimmy Mc]

I am hoping to my write my dissertation on something along the lines of:

‘How much has the agential influence of David Cameron had an impact upon the Structure of the Conservative Party?'

or potentially,

'Can it be argued that David Cameron is simply a post-modern politician?'

Be great to know your thoughts, I cited you considerably Tim, on this terms essay of,

'How successful has David Cameron's modernisation of the Conservative Party been?'

[Tony Makara]

David Cameron has shown himself to be the most pragmatic politician this country has ever produced. He has completely transformed one of the most stereotyped parties in history. Putting a party that was in the electoral doldrums on the point of power.

This has been political change undertaken at breathtaking pace, and it certainly fires my imagination and has me wondering how quickly a Cameron government might be able to change our country for the better? The thing that most impresses me is the way David Cameron is prepared to be pragmatic when need be, and that is exactly the sort of politics that our country cries out for. Here is a man who won't chase after lost causes, who won't lock himself into an ideological stance, who will do what works and disregard what won't.

The Nottingham conference must give time to the question of the new pragmatism that runs through the modern Conservative party. I believe it is the Key to Camronism and the key to a successful Conservative government.

[Michael Davidson]

Sorry, there seems to be a mistake. The comment above has clearly come directly from a Conservative CHQ press release, yet it says 'Tony Makara' underneath it?

[Nigel]

Re-read Tony Makara's post @ 21.43 substituting "Labour" for "Conservative", and substituting "Tony" and "Blair" for references to "David" and "Cameron".

Yep, it sounds just like a New Labour press release, circa 1996.

Is it all any more likely to come true this time around? I fear not. The wheel keeps turning...

[Tony Makara]

Michael and Nigel, the post above isn't party propaganda to promote David Cameron but represents my feelings on how the party has changed for the better. Of course there are still one or two areas that I'm not happy about, like Chris Grayling's plan to force the mothers of primary school children to look for work. However I can see that Mr Grayling is a man who genuinely wants to do something about welfare dependency and for that reason I support him.

The same applies to certain aspects of economic policy. I would like to see tax cuts and think it would be a mistake to stick with Labour's wasteful spending plans but I can also see that we have a cautious shadow chancellor in George Osborne who isn't going to make rash promises. I have no doubt that once in power the Conservative party will begin to cut taxes and eradicate wasteful public spending. Hopefully in a Reaganesque style!

I really believe a Cameron government could become one of the best this country has seen for many years. For a start there is a real hunger to produce change, a desire to be radical and cautious in equal measure, a will to deliver after the decade of broken dreams under Labour. I believe Conservatives should be getting very excited by what a Cameron government can achieve. We have already seen that David Cameron believes in working at a pace and often produces ideas that come way out of left-field, but please don't confuse left-field with left-wing!

[Janet]

Strange how everyone has been brainwashed by Blair and all his lies about the Conservatives. Even Conservatives conspire with him to acknowledge that the Tory Party was - well 'nasty' as Theresa May thoughtfully put in to words. The Tories got Great Britain back to work and made it possible for those union members to secretly vote that they did not want to strike etc etc etc - many marvellous policies that were totally necessary for the good of our country. Ok the government became tired and lacklustre under Major but it was never profoundly corrupt right up to the top as was Blair's government. Cameron would be doing well in the polls whoever or whatever he does it's a matter of letting Labour have enough rope to hang themselves and letting the intelligent voters see what incompetents make up this government. Cameron is watering down policies so that he can appear to be all things to all people, which has obviously worked well in the past but it is uninspiring especially when one of the main points of Conservative policy should be to encourage enterprise and hard work. One of the first things that Cameron did on becoming leader was to promise no more Grammar Schools so how does an intelligent working class child (yes, those who patronisingly presume that all grammar school children are middle class, the working and non working classes do have their smattering of intelligent children too) aspire to great academic success in a bog standard comprehensive. They seem to be the sacrificial lambs in all the parties' manifestos. Cameron's fondness for Green Matters is also a big con. We all know that politicians of all colours love 'Green' because it means that they can extract even more tax from us and anyone who complains is then 'not green' and highly politically incorrect, so I'd better not mention that any more.

[Tim Bale]

Jimmy Mc. Will be brief because came to this late (ie Monday and you may not be reading it now). Both are fine questions - the first because you can interrogate (though not necessarily overturn completely) the common wisdom (ie is there really that much change underneath it all), the second because I guess you could claim (if you established a clear definition of what you meant by postmodern) that DC is, given his enthusiasm for 'mashing-up' supposedly traditional and progressive themes. Second one is more risky because many of us see 'pomo' and reach for our revolvers. Up to you I guess. Here endeth the instant supervision, and thanks to CH for hosting!