“The point of saying we should describe ourselves as the Reform Conservatives was that it does not require the name of the Conservative Party to change: the Labour Party is still the Labour Party... They called themselves new Labour to indicate to the public that they had changed themselves and therefore were going to change the country. The public needs to be aware that the Conservative Party has reformed itself and is going to reform the country.”
Andrew Lansley proposes the 'Reform Conservatives' title in an interview for The Times.
The anti-Iraq-war Mr Lansley also advocates a liberal approach to sex education.
Whilst it is becoming increasingly clear that the Conservative brand is broken, it is far from clear that it can be fixed by a rebranding exercise alone.
It seems to me that rebranding works best after public perceptions of the brand have started to improve. In that way the rebranding builds on increasing public confidence and can even lead to a quantum jump in support.
Posted by: Cllr Graham Smith | 23 May 2005 at 06:40
I found Andrew Lansley as unconvincing on this as on many other issues. Increasingly, he seems a throwback to a rather condescending form of Butskellism. How can he describe himself as a liberal when he opposed the very steps essential to free Iraq from one of the most loathesome tyrannies of the post-war era? His comments on drugs and sex education also seemed to imply an authoritarian desire to ride roughshod over parents' ethical choices on these issues, while failing to get to grips with the underlying causes. How very New Labour.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | 23 May 2005 at 10:16
Not quite sure how to use trackback (if at all - I'm using Blogger with W.Bloggar) so just to let you know I have a comment on your post at http://www.peter-ould.net/blog/2005/05/reform-conservatives.html
Posted by: Peter O | 23 May 2005 at 15:46
His comments on drugs and sex education also seemed to imply an authoritarian desire to ride roughshod over parents' ethical choices
Well said. Nothing could be less conservative than this sort of proposal to strengthen the power of the state against that of parents.
Posted by: Peter | 23 May 2005 at 20:05
"Nothing could be less conservative than this sort of proposal to strengthen the power of the state against that of parents."
Far too many so-called "liberals" seem to think that they know better than anyone else and so go believe they can force their views on others. The irony is that these are the very people who would decry any attempt to promote marriage for those very reasons.
Posted by: James Hellyer | 23 May 2005 at 20:23
How utterly ridiculous and how utterly New/Blue Labour. Leave the Conservative Party name as it is, and stick to its principles, that might help win the next election.
Posted by: Jude | 23 May 2005 at 23:23
Lansley's piece is a timely reminder that the "modernising" wing of the Conservative Party contains quite a few specimens of that very modern type of politician: the "illiberal liberal". Labour and the Lib Dems are of course riddled with them. All worship at the altar of political correctness - the creed of those self-selecting elites who believe in their divine right to impose their own moral choices on others.....rather than letting them decide for themselves, which is what genuine liberals believe.
Posted by: Michael McGowan | 24 May 2005 at 12:39
Oh please...
The Conservative Party is not a packet of soap powder. You may as well revert to the old Conservative, Liberal and Unionist label!
Surely the point is that if we change and are distinctive enough then titles and names would make no difference.
Nobody voted labour in 1997 because they had changed their name. They voted New Labour because they were not the Conservatives. Nobody switched to the Lib Dems because they liked their name. they did not even vote Lib Dem because of their policies. They voted Lib Dem because they believed we were not ready for Government. Being ready for Government means being in tune with the desires and aspirations of a country that has changed so much in the past 20 years that the party has not noticed.
So let's not hear any more of the party spending time on rebranding when it is not the name on the washing powder that needs to change but a move away from "non-biological" policies and to be in tune with the more friendly "biological" policies that the people of this country need to see.
That's enough of that analogy, not even sure it works anyway!!
Posted by: Kevin Davis | 24 May 2005 at 13:39
Don't want to burst your collective bubbles but in the 1820s the party reinvented itself as the "Liberal Tories", in the 1900s the Liberals became the "New Liberals".
Nothing new here
Posted by: Edward | 24 May 2005 at 13:40
Lansley's emphasis on changing the name of the Conservative Party speaks volumes about the priorities of the modernisers. Name change alone will do little to satisfy the 67% of the electorate that failed to support the party at the election.
In addition, his comments on sex education and drugs do little to assure parents that politicians have their best interests at heart.
Posted by: Annie | 24 May 2005 at 15:50