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
|
