Has Conservative modernisation stalled? Patrick Diamond and Ryan Shorthouse go head to head
Dear Ryan
Past Conservative leaders have demonstrated a ruthless ability to reinvent and modernise their party as times changed. Defeat in 1945 heralded ‘the forward march of Labour’; many expected Clement Attlee’s party to govern for a generation. By 1951, however, the Tories were back, dominating much of the postwar settlement by accepting fundamental pillars of Labour’s egalitarian social and economic programme. No equivalent Tory modernisation project is evident in contemporary times. Despite David Cameron’s initial instinct to reposition the Conservatives in the centre-ground, seizing the mantle of Harold Macmillan and Rab Butler, his party has yet to come to terms with its Thatcherite legacy.
Embracing liberalising social reforms updated the Tories’ image, but on the central questions of the role of the state, the relative balance between the public and private sectors, and the distribution of income and wealth, the Conservatives have remained in the shadow of Thatcherism. Voters in the middle-ground do not believe the Tories will tax and spend fairly, nor do they trust them with public services like the NHS. The Conservatives are a long way from identifying a project that will shift the gravity of politics towards the centre-right.
Best wishes
Patrick
——————————————————————
Dear Patrick
Tory modernisation is about responding to the prevailing issues and spirit of the age with Conservative principles and insights. It is not about being a bit more like the Labour party.
During the 1950s, the Tories positioned themselves as defenders of freedom and free trade against encroaching socialism – for example, introducing legislation to weaken restrictive practices in industry and erode rent controls. Margaret Thatcher does not haunt us; we are her proud children. She implemented radical and generally successful reforms to address Britain’s main problem in the 1970s: economic malaise. In the mid-1990s, with the public sceptical of Tory management of hospitals and schools, modernisers argued for Conservatives to demonstrate they could be trusted with overseeing and improving public services. Hence the development of ambitious policies on education and welfare, which are now proving effective and popular.
Britain now needs to respond to problems such as the persistence of low pay and poverty, an ageing population and the impact of climate change. Fiscal resources will remain constrained. Cameron’s ‘big society’ rightly argues such problems cannot be fixed solely through individual agency or benign government. And in The Modernisers’ Manifesto Bright Blue proposes imaginative ideas beyond simply asking the state for more money.
The modernising centre-right is offering credible ideas to address contemporary challenges. Labour under Ed Miliband, meanwhile, only seems to trumpet tired methods and playground politics.
Best wishes
Ryan
——————————————————————
Dear Ryan
Past generations of Tory modernisers were vehemently critical of Thatcherism – and for good reason. Thatcherism radicalised British Conservativism to the point where the party was profoundly out of touch with the mood of the country. Liberal reforms of the economy left a long-term legacy of social failure, particularly the deindustrialisation of Britain and the high concentration of worklessness in parts of northern England, Scotland and Wales. Moreover, Thatcherism severely strained the boundaries of the British constitution by ruthlessly centralising power, imperilling the very foundations of the British state – hardly a propitious record for a Conservative prime minister. It was the imperative of moving beyond Thatcherism that led Cameron to declare soon after becoming leader, ‘there is such a thing as society’. So I am surprised today’s generation of modernisers wish to attach themselves to the Thatcherite mantle, although it certainly explains why the Conservatives lack a national project likely to command support from a broad spectrum of Britain.
All best wishes
Patrick
——————————————————————
Dear Patrick
Thatcher’s economic reforms and her views on society were much more sophisticated than you suggest. GDP per capita and labour productivity improved significantly, for example. New Labour certainly thought so, adopting much of her fiscal policy and deregulatory reforms.
But, yes, deep problems did emerge in the 1980s which Conservatives at the time lacked a sufficient response to: high unemployment, rising poverty and escalating inequality. Hence the modernisers’ cultivation of a distinctive Conservative agenda beyond Thatcherism since the 1990s: civic conservatism or the ‘big society’, which stresses the importance of strong institutions and flourishing communities underpinning and complementing a market economy.
So, today, Tory modernisers are at the forefront of developing innovative policy approaches to tackle contemporary social, economic and environmental problems when public money is limited: behavioural insights, payment by results and social investment, to name a few.
Tory modernisers do not seek to reject or replicate Thatcherism. We have moved on from the Thatcher years, in our focus and methods. It seems the left under Miliband has not, which may be one reason for Labour’s continuing decline in public support.
Best wishes
Ryan
——————————————————————
Dear Ryan
I agree that ‘civic conservatism’ was a genuine attempt to update and modernise the Tories’ ideological appeal – not least because it explicitly rejected the atomised view of society which the Thatcher governments had promulgated in the 1980s. The focus on the role of autonomous institutions in underpinning a dynamic economy and a just society is emphasised by a number of political traditions on both left and right. But the ‘big society’ is not a terribly successful incarnation of that project, chiefly because, as I have argued before, Conservatives (including Tory modernisers) do not have a coherent view of the role of the state. They oscillate between accepting the case for higher public spending (for example, on the NHS) but at the same time they urge a radical structuring and pruning back of the state. So the ‘big society’ falls apart as the very community institutions that embody its social philosophy face massive reductions in public resources.
Austerity has been bad for Tory modernisers, allowing the party to slip back to the free-market, small-state ideological comfort zone which prevents the Conservatives from re-emerging as a majoritarian force in British politics.
With best wishes
Patrick
——————————————————————
Dear Patrick
Our approach to the state is pragmatic. So, as you say, the NHS budget has been raised in response to increased demand from an ageing population and the growing costs of drugs and treatments. And modernisers have recently campaigned strongly for more apprenticeships, which are shown to boost productivity, and a higher national minimum wage, since the evidence demonstrates it does not harm job supply if raised sensibly. Here are just a few examples of the state being called upon to fund and regulate more: we are hardly state-slashing ideologues.
But the reality is that the state generally has to be both more efficient and effective. We have called for creative solutions such as a greater role for alternative providers in the funding and delivery of schools and hospitals, and expanded loans-based funding for universities. These approaches have been proven to raise quality and unleash additional resource, crucial to maintaining free-at-the-point-of-use public services in the long term. But Labour opposes them.
When it comes to the state, modernisers offer a coherent approach and credible answers; it is the modern Labour party which is straitjacketed by dogma.
Best wishes
Ryan
——————————————————————
Dear Ryan
I am sure we would both agree that, first and foremost, politics is about ideas. The party that dominates the next phase of British politics will be the party best able to offer a coherent synthesis of economic efficiency and social justice. The Tory modernisation project has sought to shift the Conservative party to the centre in strategic areas of policy as a reaction to electoral unpopularity and three successive defeats after 1997, but it still lacks a really compelling governing prospectus for the future. In any case, that drive for the centre-ground has been undone by the overly enthusiastic embrace of austerity since 2010. In the 1980s and 1990s, Labour’s modernisation was a hard-fought and bitterly contested process which, nonetheless, laid the foundations for Labour’s post-1997 domination of the political landscape. There is little evidence the Tories are prepared to undergo such a radical process of organisational and intellectual renewal.
With best wishes
Patrick
——————————————————————
Dear Patrick
Tory modernisation has been broadly successful. In 2010, Conservatives won their first general election for nearly 20 years, achieved a swing from Labour similar to Thatcher in 1979, and gained more seats than any time since 1931. Despite four years of difficult but necessary fiscal consolidation, voters trust the Conservatives to manage the economy more than any other political party.
Modernisers have fought and won key arguments within the Conservative party, from income taxation and the minimum wage to childcare, school reform and same-sex marriage. We have not always got our way. But look at the big picture: the most senior positions are all occupied by modernisers largely pursuing a modernising agenda, unlike in the Labour party where the successful New Labour project has been abandoned. This is because our modernisation is not about jettisoning key conservative beliefs, but ensuring the offer from the Conservative party is relevant and compelling to the whole electorate.
I have enjoyed our exchange. We both passionately want politics to principally be about ideas, focused on building a stronger market economy and a fairer society.
Best wishes
Ryan
———————————
Patrick Diamond is lecturer in public policy at Queen Mary University of London. Ryan Shorthouse is director of Bright Blue