Politics Of Contemporary Britain
Qs: - Is William Hague’s ‘Common Sense Revolution’ a route back to power or the road to nowhere?
The defeat suffered by the Conservative Party at the 1997 General Election was crushing and humiliating. The party only managed to win 165 seats, just under 31% of the vote and was completely wiped out in Scotland and Wales.
There is an enormous task facing William Hague. This essay aims to address the future prospects of the party and will outline effective routes back to power; ineffective routes; and the impact of the Common Sense Revolution.
The analysis of these areas will provide a conclusive view of where the party stands in the year 2000 and whether or not this is the best way forward.
After eighteen years in power and a massive defeat it is difficult to get back on your feet.
Some thought that the Tories were finished after May 1997, but the Labour party also suffered a big defeat in 1979 and bounced back. Many predicted Labour were doomed to extinction, yet they survived courtesy of their left-wing idealism.
By using a section of their party to help them, the Conservatives could soon be back on their feet. However the future of the party may depend on them defusing the Europhobia and contemplating entry into the European single currency at the first opportunity.
They are rapidly improving. William Hague consistently performs well at Prime Minister’s Question Time and appears cool when under fire.
He also has a strong hold over the Shadow Cabinet. There is a new, more ‘caring’ approach from the party. However they need to consider their position by remembering that New Labour’s victory was based on a yearning for change, a factor that has never been taken easily, but that could make the difference for them:
“…they prosper when they accept change and adapt it to their own purposes.”
Policy must be brought in line with public opinion and the laissez-faire attitude, coupled with the belief in middle England have to be cast off as relics of an unhappy interlude. According to Mark Garnett and Ian Gilmour, the choice could be worthwhile:
“…it will be well worth moving back to reality.”
By moving forward the Conservatives can try and move away from the Thatcher legacy.
They must get rid of Thatcher’s Euro-rejectionist stance that is still evident in party members. Her stance on Europe led to dismissal as party leader, but this didn’t stop her interfering in the Major administration, using beliefs that needed to be left in the past:
“…she indulged in romantic mythologizing about keeping the down-to-earth values of the Glorious Revolution safe from the utopian dreams of Europe’s Jacobin intellectuals.”
Thatcher’s European folly tore apart the party and led to the defeat that may deprive them of office for a generation.
The Iron Lady thought Britain had no place in the EU, but seemed oblivious that she was going against public opinion at the time, for example, in 1991 an opinion poll revealed that 62% were in favour of continued EU membership.
The party has been left with an untenable European policy and they need to free themselves of the Thatcherites to stand any chance of recovery.
Some believe the Tories would fair best considering where they went wrong and looking forward to the future. John Charmley is a strong advocate and sees evidence of this:
“The response of the new leadership:…let us recognise and rethink our policies.”
There is a requirement to reorganise, reform and recruit. Only the Conservatives can stop themselves coming back to power. For some, they have a rightful place in the heart of the nation. According to Reggie Maudling:
“Britain is a Conservative country that occasionally votes Labour.”
John Gray believes that Conservative belief has a positive strand. They measure achievements in; the avoidance of civil strife; the prevention of war; the mitigation of the arbitrariness of power through the institution of a rule of law; and the provision of a sound currency. They are cautious of innovations that have downside risks, hence their reasons for rejecting progress. According to Gray: progress presupposes that things will be improved, but the Tories recognise our inability to progress in human affairs . They will have to make progress themselves to return to the top however. Hague needs to address the membership: Conservative MPs are increasingly old, to ensure the Central Office is organised and to amend the party constitution in order to tighten the political instrument. They must show competence based on trust; unity, there are too many divisions, for example, over Europe; strong leadership and authority; concentration on the economy rather than the public service; and relinquish the tendency to rely on poor quality opponents, something they have been lucky with in the past. The cracks are starting to close up; they have distanced themselves from splits; devolution has provided an opportunity for Hague to gain back credibility in Scotland and Wales; and they are committed to change in the form of reforming the electoral system.
Hague knows what he must overcome. The constraint of the party record during their eighteen years in power; the Thatcher legacy, sleaze, splits. The lost public confidence in the economy, welfare, health, public spending and services. The leader also needs to distance himself from John Major, who left the legacy of a poor Prime Minister. David Willetts holds a strong belief that the Conservatives will be back before long. He sees the benefits of providing restatements of Conservatism combining the dynamism of the free market with a respect for those institutions that underpin and constrain market forces. The Party needs to provide a critique of Labour by offering their own version of identity politics and by showing how Gordon Brown’s ‘welfare to work’ scheme might face difficulties . He recognises that free markets cannot work by themselves:
“Conservatism is at its finest and its most distinctive precisely when it integrates a commitment to the free market into the core values and institutions which hold our country together.”
For Willetts, Britain has a long history of free market transactions and this distinguishes the Tories from free market liberals. The free market is the cutting edge of modern conservatism and has yielded much of the intellectual creativity of Conservatism over the past two decades. He also sees the value of teamwork and for enterprise participation, which is rewarded in the open and competitive market place:
“Modern management techniques are precisely about creating a sense of co-operation and teamwork within the enterprise…”
He sees three social changes capturing people’s worries, namely; the change of the traditional family; long-term unemployment and increasing crime. All of which are leading to the break up of families. In 1961 38% of households had married couples, this figure fell to 25% by 1996. There are a massive number of single mothers, rising from 80,000 in 1971 to 440,000 in 1991. This ties in with unemployment, because young men find themselves coming from unstable family backgrounds with poor educational achievements and resentment at earning low wages. In addition criminals turn out to have been poorly supervised by their parents and come from low income families. All of these factors are a problem for society; for example, unemployment can lead to crime and the traditional family being unable to be set up. Willetts believes this is a challenge for the Conservatives, to make troublesome young men into stable parents without doing too much damage to themselves or the rest of society. There needs to be a legal and institutional framework that helps these people come to adulthood :
“The crucial Tory insight is that a community has to be embodied in real institutions which are essential to sustain traditions, value, patterns of behaviour.”
The MP has a well thought out ideology that is on the right track, if the Tories want to aim for a quick return to power. He applauds de-regulation, private finance for public sector projects and opted-out schools . The way forward is to break down the government and to reduce the number of MPs for more effective rule:
“Big government undermines community.”
William Hague has a similar view on this, but his policies look to be steering the party the wrong way. His continued reference to European integration being a mistake is becoming tiresome: being in Europe is a reality. Hague considers limited participation to be viable, this had brought victories in the elections to the European Parliament:
“In Europe, not run by Europe.”
But he continues to show Thatcherite tendencies by supporting the anti-Europe view, as well as favouring the entrepreneurial society:
“…further powers and rights have been transferred away from this nation.”
“It is about restoring faith in politics by putting power into the hands of individuals…”
He wants to preserve the union of the United Kingdom, appearing oblivious to devolution. The Conservatives have no seats in the countries of devolved power, Hague should perhaps take another direction to help win back votes. John Charmley sights the fundamental problem facing the Tories:
“Conservatism always has a problem with change.”
This factor will always work as much against the party as it has for them in the past. Reform is a dirty word. Reform of beliefs should be the first stop. Divisions over Europe are hampering progress. But other problems leave the party in despair. It is hard to establish a credible leadership with a small number of MPs, especially against a massive Labour majority. The Conservative relation to public services needs to be re-established.
Other values have withered, for example altruism, justice and fair play. The intellectual hegemony of Conservatism remains in place, but it is cracking. It really is time to move on, but as Will Hutton rightly believes, after eighteen years of rule with more memorable downs than ups and a rejuvenated and electable Labour Party: what does the future hold for the Tories? The Thatcher legacy is one of the biggest obstacles and desperately needs to be overcome. The historian David Cannadine views Thatcher a contributory factor to the party’s decline:
“The confrontational and destabilising policies of Thatcherism had undermined deference, tolerance, decency, fair-mindedness, public-spiritedness and all established institutions, including the Tory Party.”
People became worse-off under the Conservatives in the 1980s. A family with two children on average earnings was worse off for fourteen out of the eighteen years the party held office. In addition, taxpayers were worse off for two-thirds of this period. Mrs Thatcher encouraged change on a massive scale. She was committed to strengthening the traditional values that enabled people to live fulfilling lives without being a burden to others. She was more committed to conservatism than economics . However, ultimately she failed. She failed to roll back the frontiers of the welfare state and comprehensively failed to win the battle of ideas concerning the relationship between competitiveness and the welfare state. Thatcher saw the state as being a threat to the benefits of individual freedom, but despite spending more money, dependency on the welfare state increased along with crime. The tax burden rose as well. Thatcher couldn’t see the wood for the trees and in 1996 proclaimed that the limitation of government remained the great issue of British politics and that the main challenge came from the European Union . With the other parties facing up to the reality of European integration, Mrs Thatcher refused to give in, leaving the UK in the precarious position over Europe it currently faces.
Due to her inability to face the realistic option, she left a poisonous legacy for social cohesion and welfare spending, due to her attempts to recreate an enterprise culture during the 1980s. There are now more people dependent on welfare, for example, spending on social protection benefits increased by two-thirds in real terms between 1980 and 1994 and spending on the sick and disabled tripled in real terms to £20 billion between 1981 and 1995 . Years after her displacement as party leader, she still clings to her values, for example in 1996 she championed the “…free, enterprising…responsible individuals that Britain needs”, as well as holding Europe at arms length, claiming the activity of the European Court to be undermining the judicial system. Her ideology remained the same:
“Self-government, limited government, our laws, our Parliament, our freedom.”
This anti-Europe stance and laissez-faire attitude leaves the Conservatives in the difficult position they face today. Some believe Hague is the wrong man for the job: party policy is right, but the messenger is wrong. It waits to be seen whether his commitment to Europe will benefit the party. Perhaps a more articulated leader would put them on the right path. Hague doesn’t give a good impression, the media made a mockery of his attempts to gain the ‘youth’ vote, for example wearing caps emblazoned with the legend “Team Hague” and visiting an amusement park. The ageing membership and extremist policy ideas are only working against the party. What is Hague’s response?
The Common Sense Revolution is his answer. Five guarantees; the Parents’ Guarantee, giving the power to change school management; the Patient’s Guarantee, allowing waiting time to be based on the need for treatment; the Tax Guarantee, allowing tax to fall as a share of the nation’s income; the Can Work, Must Work Guarantee, leading to benefit claimants who can, but don’ work losing their benefit; and the Sterling Guarantee, opposing entry into the Single Currency. This aims to restore faith in politics by having fewer politicians, government closer to the people, transparency in government and English votes on English laws . A set of bold promises, but can the party honestly hope to implement all of these? They can afford to be radical because they have no realistic chance of power for a long time. Promises, guarantees and objectives. It is not unrealistic to expect most of these promises to be watered down or abandoned by the time a realistic chance of power emerges. Hague has a simple message, but an extraordinarily humongous task with his current manifesto:
“Come with me and I will give you back your country.”
There are still conflicts in party ranks. Mrs Thatcher still considers unemployment due to trade union power in pricing members out of jobs, whereas David Willetts blames the collapse of the family, long-term unemployment and rising crime. The divisions need to be sorted out: unity is a primary priority for any party looking to govern. The Conservative Party has a long way to go before it has a chance of returning to power. Over time people might adhere to the Common Sense Revolution, it needs time to develop. Yet it could be so long before the party returns to power, that the ideology may have been abandoned or the leader replaced. The party needs to consider change, abandon its anti-Europe and Thatcherite tendencies and to rid the party of those who believe these ideals. Perhaps then they could get back on the ideal route to power. They are on the road, but it is the start of a long, hard road back to power.
- BIBLIOGRAPHY:
- PERIODICALS
- JOHN CHARMLEY- The Conservative Defeat: An Historical Perspective. In: - Political Quarterly 69, 1998
- JONATHAN CLARK- The Tory Debacle: Is Thatcher to Blame? In: - The National Interest, number 50 winter 1997/1998
- MARK GARNETT AND IAN GILMOUR- The Lessons of Defeat. In: - Political Quarterly 69, 1998
- DAVID WILLETTS- Conservative Renewal. In: - Political Quarterly 69, 1998
- SECONDARY TEXTS
- ALAN CLARK- The Tories, Conservatives and the Nation State. 1922-1997 (BCA, 1998)
- ALAN DUNCAN AND DOMINIC HOBSON- Saturn’s Children-How the State Devours Liberty, Prosperity and Virtue (Sinclair-Stevenson, 1995)
- JOHN GRAY- Beyond the New Right. Markets, government and the common environment (Routledge, 1993)
- WILL HUTTON- The State to Come (Vintage, 1997)
- DR MAURICE MULLARD AND SIMON LEE (ED.)- The Politics of Social Policy in Europe
(Edward Elgar, 1997) - MARGARET THATCHER- The Downing Street Years (Harper Collins, 1993)
- DAVID WILLETTS- Civic Conservatism (The Social Market Foundation, 1994)
- DAVID WILLETTS- Modern Conservatism (Penguin, 1992)
- MISCELLANOUS
- WILLIAM HAGUE- Listening to Britain
www.tory.org - WILLIAM HAGUE- Speech to the Conservative Party Conference at Blackpool. 7th October 1999
www.tory.org - WILLIAM HAGUE- ‘Common Sense, Common Ground and Conservatism’. Speech to the Centre for Policy Studies. 24th January 2000
www.cps.org.uk - THE COMMON SENSE REVOLUTION- The Conservative Party, 1999
www.tory.org
(All websites accessed 13th April, 2000) - THE RT. HON. THE BARONESS THATCHER LG OM FRS- The Keith Joseph Memorial Lecture: Liberty and Limited Government. (Centre for Policy Studies) 11th January 1996
