The end of Iain Duncan Smith s first year and the eve of Tory conference was greeted with rumblings of discontent from within a party that now seems permanently febrile. Leading the chorus was the loose grouping that has earned itself the sobriquet of modernisers , who say that Iain Duncan Smith is failing to implement the modernisation agenda with the requisite speed and rigour.
This is a group born out of Michael Portillo s doomed Tory leadership attempt last year. They are seeking to push forward the modernising outlook championed by Portillo whilst their leader-across-the-water remains in a state of self-imposed purdah. To further their aims, the mods have established two organisations to agitate for change a campaigning arm called C-change, and a think-tank to drive policy innovation named Policy Exchange.
The tradition of Tory modernisation is a powerful one. Its capacity to renew itself explains why the Conservatives have been the most electorally successful of all western democratic parties over the last two centuries. Every time the Tories have found themselves out of kilter with the spirit of the times, they have maintained electoral dominance by pragmatically and successfully accommodating themselves to the prevailing mood.
Peel s Tamworth Manifesto marked an acceptance of the radical settlement arising from the Great Reform Act. With a characteristic mixture of chutzpah and cunning electoral calculation, Disraeli recognised the unstoppable momentum behind greater enfranchisement and introduced the Second Reform Act himself, as well as ushering in a tradition of working-class Toryism. Rab Butler s policy renewal after Labour s 1945 landslide was the platform on which the Tories staged the remarkable fight back that led to thirteen unbroken years of government. Even the Thatcher-Joseph period of renewal rode a wider intellectual tide signalled by Jim Callaghan s brave 1976 conference speech that read the funeral rites for Keynesianism.
The current crop of Tory modernisers have rightly identified that a similar period of relocation with the beliefs and values of mainstream society must now form the basis of the Tories route back to power. The main focus of the Portillista agenda is an embracing of social liberalism. Their central premise is that the Tories need to look like Britain, sound like Britain and, above all, be like Britain if we want Britain to vote for us again . A string of modernise or die articles from Francis Maude have laid out the touchstones by which a cultural change in the party s direction should be judged.
The Tories selection process for future candidates needs to be overhauled to ensure the Tories are truly representative. This may require affirmative action, however much it offends the purists . Section 28 should be immediately repealed and there should be an acceptance that non-married couples ought not to be excluded from adopting children . Racist elements must be purged and a review of the rights of homosexual partners is called for.
So far, so good. If the only legacy of the modernisers is that the Tory right is no longer able to push the button marked prejudice for a guaranteed electoral boost, then it will be a noble one. The psephological reasoning underlying this push for change is also indisputable. A recent poll showed the Tories had support from only ten percent of voters under 25. Unless the Tories take the measures Maude correctly proffers as necessary then the strange death of Tory England may well beckon.
But these moves can only be the first step if the Tories are serious about regaining power. Whilst the adoption of these measures would be revolutionary in terms of the traditions of the Conservative Party, they only involve the Tories playing catch-up with the rest of society. Internal cultural change is only a pass to get back in the race.
To give themselves a chance of winning it, the Tories must address serious policy. The modernisers aim should be to confront their own party with the long and painful process the Tories need to undertake to establish themselves as a party that can be trusted with schools and hospitals. Unfortunately for the prospects of a sustained Tory revival, the modernisers are offering no such analysis. The potency of their reflections on the need for party reform is not replicated by a similar understanding of what the Tories need to do to regain the trust of voters.
In fact, the Tory modernisers seem to offer hardly any new clear policy thinking at all. The newspaper articles which make up the Tory modernising canon offer nothing that begins to chart a new policy direction. The output from C-change and Policy Exchange comprises a call for more elected mayors, a critique of central planning, and a suggestion that the Inland Revenue be abolished. This is hardly a blueprint to win over the millions of voters the Tories have lost.
The vacuum in their analysis is best explained by Francis Maude s conclusion in one article that policy is the easiest bit . This betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of how difficult true modernisation actually is. If this is what Portillo, Maude and co honestly believe then the Tories really are in trouble. As a piece of strategic thinking it is as inept as it will be electorally damaging.
If the Portillistas are serious about modernisation they will be urging the Tories to confront the real policy challenges they face: their attitude to the economy, investment in the public services, and to the redistribution of wealth. Crucially, it means beginning the hard slog of constructing a coherent and compelling narrative based on mainstream values and which represents a significant break with the discredited policies with which the Tories have become associated.
This must start from where the voters are. Quite simply, voters want better schools and hospitals, recognise that this must be paid for, and by and large want this to be done on an equitable basis through general taxation. But, ludicrously for a party wanting to win power, Tory modernisers and traditionalists alike continue to insist on going against the grain of the values and common sense of voters on the issues of most importance to them.
The Tories face a similar credibility gap on their new concern for the poor and vulnerable. At the moment, voters find the concept laughable and the gap in credibility won t be bridged whilst the Tories remain committed to abolishing the measures Labour have introduced to alleviate poverty and get people back into work.
If they are to be worthy of the title, the modernisers should be confronting their party with these harsh facts and pointing the way forward. This is not simply a matter of a Hague-like crude and superficial pledge to match Labour s investment. A modernising Tory narrative would ally the need and desire for investment in public services with Tory principles of choice and decentralisation. A substantive and credible policy approach on the poor and vulnerable requires a recognition that the Tories wish for diversity of welfare provision must be properly and credibly balanced through substantive redistribution of wealth. All this within an economic envelope that addresses why the Tories got it so wrong before, and not just what went wrong.
Modernisation is difficult. It took more than ten years for the Labour Party to do it. But the Tory modernisers seem not to recognise the fact. They appear to think it is enough to look modern and sound modern. The consequence of this absence of a modernising policy narrative means that the Duncan Smith agenda of cuts in public spending, top-up vouchers and the withdrawal of the state from welfare is going unchallenged within Tory ranks. The modernisers failure is a disservice to their party.