The natural affinity of Liberal Conservatism
Bubble — By Rene Kinzett on May 16, 2010 7:00 am
The great adversaries of 19th Century British politics: William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli
THE NEW Liberal Conservative Coalition Government has put forward its proposals for a far-reaching programme of constitutional reform and the restoration and protection of civil liberties.
Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have historically been opposing forces in British politics, disagreeing on issues such as electoral reform, devolution and House of Lords reform over the past 100 years or so. To observe some of the ways in which those who articulate the starkest differences between the two parties behave, one could be forgiven for thinking that the lines of conflict as drawn down by William Gladstone and Benjamin Disraeli are as relevant now as they were in the 1850s. Gladstone described the fault line in Victorian politics thus:
“Liberalism is trust of the people tempered by prudence. Conservatism is distrust of the people tempered by fear.”
For his part, Benjamin Disraeli could never resist the temptation to get under the skin of his more straight-laced opponent:
“The difference between a misfortune and a calamity is this: If Gladstone fell into the Thames, it would be a misfortune. But if someone dragged him out again, that would be a calamity.”
But Disraeli also had a serious mission on his hands: to make the Tory Party electable, to seek new supporters among traditionally anti-conservative groups and to prove that the Party was capable of representing and understanding the interests of the whole of society. Sounds familiar? Much like the reforms, re-branding and ‘decontamination’ mission of David Cameron, Disraeli’s efforts were based in the basic principle of the protection of the vulnerable and the desire for both social mobility and improved conditions for the poorest in society. One of Disraeli’s most powerful quotes comes from his novel Sybil which studied the horrific conditions of the English working classes, published in the same year as Engels’ The Condition of the Working Class in England in 1844. The novel was also known as “The Two Nations”:
Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other’s habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets. The rich and the poor.
Sybil gave us the term ‘One Nation Toryism’ and Disraeli set his sights on transforming the forces of conservatism (which he had famously derided by describing the concept of a Conservative government as “an organized hypocrisy”) and creating the new movement of Refoming Toryism. His battles with Gladstone over the Reform Bills of 1866 and 1867 ended with Disraeli’s Government finally getting a Reform Act onto the statute book in 1867, a more radical package of measures than proposed by his Liberal counterpart. Disraeli’s social and industrial policies were also welcomed by the embryonic representative organisations of the working classes.
David Cameron has used his own journey to ‘liberal conservatism’ to press for a realignment in British politics and soon after he was elected leader of the Party, he reached out to Liberal Democrats in a speech in Bath, a call which I had already answered having made the switch myself from the Lib Dems to the Conservatives four years ago. Ironically, it was Tony Blair who had originally set himself up as the architect of a ‘new politics’ and set up a joint Labour-Lib Dem Cabinet Committee to look at issues like electoral and Lords reform. Blair’s dream of a Labour-Liberal Democrat realignment (wanting to make the 20th Century the “radical century”), based on his previous discussions with Lord Jenkins and others, was broken up on the rocks of Labour’s unexpectedly huge Commons majority in 1997 – he simply did not need the Lib Dems and his party told him so.
Cameron, for better or worse, is not in the same position as Blair in 1997 and needs the Liberal Democrats in order to provide the nation with a strong, secure government. However, I am somewhat taken with the idea that Cameron is not displeased with this situation as it really means that he can head the Liberal Conservative Government with the kind of policies and approach to the key social, political and economic questions he was promising as party leader. I note that my colleagues on the right of the party are keen for Cameron to nip this kind of argument in the bud, but I rather think there is a lot of truth in the assumption that the new Prime Minister can get more of his own agenda through the party as part of this coalition government than he could in a Conservative minority scenario. Simply put, the Prime Minister is not a prisoner of the right of the party and he is clearly relishing the prospect to be one of the most reforming national leaders in the last 100 years.
Thus far, the criticisms from the left have been obvious and predictable. To believe some of the worst cant and hypocrisy from left-wingers, one might imagine that the 1997-2010 Government was a paragon of reform and that the 2010 Labour Manifesto contained further steps towards a utopia. When, in the last 13 years of Labour government, was it acceptable to liberals or socialists that ID Cards should be brought in? When has it ever been in the Liberal handbook to extend CCTV and collect DNA samples for a national database from the innocent?
The Liberal-Conservative coalition can hold its head high with such proposals as the extension of the Freedom of Information Act, the ending of storage of emails and internet records without good cause, the protection of the principle of trial by jury and the restoration of historic freedoms for the right to peaceful protest. The erosion of ancient liberties and the encroachment of the surveillance state have been some of the worst aspects of the Blair and Brown years. Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are able to agree on so much with regard to civil liberties as we approach the issue with similar principles, centred around the rights of individuals, a rejection of top-down government and a recognition that society and the state are not the same thing.
Historically speaking, the partnership between Conservatives and Liberals in Parliament may at first glance seem odd, almost impossible. But a greater study of the development of the Conservative Party, a deeper understanding of the principle of reforming One Nation Toryism and the approach to politics and society taken by David Cameron over the past five years, clearly shows that this Liberal Conservative Coalition has every chance of making a lasting impact on British society and the body politic.
Tags: coalition, Conservatives, constitutional reform, David Cameron, Disraeli, Gladstone, Liberal Democrats, political thought
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
11 Comments
Interesting premise Rene. Alas career politicians will not sit quietly and watch a bloodletting.
I’ve often referred to myself as a Demotarian. (Democratic) Left leaning in terms of the need for a robust social safety net and (Libertarian) fiscally conservative meaning pay for what we need as we go and what goes on in your household is none of the government or anyone else’s business.
Still cannot see Kirsty and Jonathan holding hands on the floor of Cardiff Bay and singing Kumbaya. Charles Kennedy’s revelation he was not for the marriage is yet another crack in the bromarriage wall.
All best,
Rubbishman
(Seems to be getting a lot of word/name-play, everyone who disagrees is rubbish much more polite than BS, see Peter Hain’s reply to our new Welsh Secretary…. from England.)
A very topical article, Mr K, and beautifully written as ever.
“The Liberal-Conservative coalition can hold its head high with such proposals as the extension of the Freedom of Information Act, the ending of storage of emails and internet records without good cause, the protection of the principle of trial by jury and the restoration of historic freedoms for the right to peaceful protest. ”
Clearly shows an area of mutual engagement with few areas of disagreement.
Not quite so sure about total synergy in the wider programme though
Thanks for the comments, chaps. Any problems concerning the “wider programme” can be dealt with through a variety of mechanisms – such as the option for LibDem MPs to abstain on university fees. But I think the attraction of being in government and the very real prospect of LibDem polices jumping from manifesto to statute book for the first time in over four generations will help this progressive coalition to see through its full five-year term.
Great analysis, Rene! Beautifully put. Thank you.
Superb article Rene. I think you’re on the hopeful wing of the party: its refreshing to hear a well articulated advocacy of the coalition, one with a good sense of perspective, historical or otherwise. I think your assessment of Cameron is a little generous but I do hope the government works. I might not be in agreement with its policies but the country needs a stable government, irrespective of colour.
Can I point out that Rene was a Lib Dem before he defected to the Tories?
Degwm, thanks for pointing this our. Meant to in my comment then forgot to! Which made Rene the ideal author for a column on this topic. He did not let us down.
It’s all very nice but the assumption that socialists supported 13 years of Labour rule is misguided. Socialists generally regard what Rene calls “the 1997-2010 Government ” as a colossal sell out, which saw some of the largest political demonstrations against government by working class people since the poll tax. A revealing statistic would be the collapse in Labour membership (allegedly down 250k from 1997) and the historic disaffiliation of several unions from Labour. The failure of a UK-wide party to the left of Labour to crystalise during that period (though there were unfulfilled suggestions of breakthrough from all sorts of ‘socialist’ parties like the SSP, Respect and the Greens, not to mention the consolidation of the celtic nationalist parties as parties of government) shouldn’t con people into thinking Labour’s tenures under Blair and Brown represent anything particularly progressive.
I do think that so-called “progressives” are unfairly writing off the constitutional potential of this new liberal coalition, it promises more political reform than Labour did, and that is probably because of the inclusion of the Lib Dems.
For me, the scale of the fiscal savagery is what will decide whether these reforms are worth the economic cost. The absence of STV from any of the constitutional reform suggests to me that there won’t be a striking enough change to justify the pain that this coalition will likely inflict on ordinary people through cuts to the services they depend on. There is also the Welsh context. I’m not sure at all that the early signs have been good, with Gillan’s appointment when there are several easily qualified Tories sitting in Welsh constituencies. Maybe that wasn’t yet a major test, but the devolution referendum will be.
The devolution referendum will not be a test at all. Both parties in the Coalition will want a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum even if it is for different reasons. The Liberal Democrats have always wanted more lawmaking powers and you would expect them to campaign for a ‘yes’ vote. Even amongst the Tories only those on the extreme right of the Party would oppose a ‘ yes’ vote. Ideologically it chimes in well with the Tory tradition of strong local government. If Wales is also given the same powers as Scotland with regard to tax raising a la Calman it also increases accountability which all Tories would support. It will also go some way to end the nonsense of representation without taxation. There are other advantages in an Age of Austerity. One of the ways to reduce public hostility to the cuts to come is to devolve more responsibilty for services to the devolved administrations and local government in England. 5 out of the 7 threatened cuts in the Labour leaflet featuring the red and blue horses are the responsibilty of the Assembly. If they are cut it will a decision of the Assembly government not the Westminster government. Finally it will allow the Coalition to implement its policy of reducing the number of MPs with the biggest loss of representation being in Wales. Given the fact that all the election results show that there is no appetite in Wales for independence, for the Tories supporting and campaigning for a ‘yes’ vote in the referendum is frankly a no brainer. The only party that it will harm ironically at a UK level is the Labour Party which with the loss of probably 12 Welsh constituencies by 2015 will find it even harder to return to government. At the moment Cameron and his friends are playing a blinder!
And over on ClickonWales, David Melding writes about the new government being created by Disraeli’s children http://www.clickonwales.org/2010/05/we%E2%80%99re-all-disraeli%E2%80%99s-children/
excellent article by David Melding, thanks for posting that on here, Daran.