When ‘conservative’ is only a word…
The Conservative Party leadership contest isn’t just about choosing a conservative leader - it’s about whether conservatism itself is the Conservative Party’s preferred ideology. The current contest’s declared runners include at least one - a frontrunner, no less - who is not recognisable as a conservative in any meaningful sense of the word.
A central problem for the Party - and one for which I can come up with no immediate solution - is that although the party’s name contains the word ‘Conservative’ there is, in fact, no compulsion on anyone to actually be a ‘conservative’. Whether there should be compulsion is, of course, a different matter. But wouldn’t it be useful if the Party’s rules stated that one must be at least aligned to a set of broadly defined beliefs? I wonder if it’s unreasonable for the Party to have an identity, an ongoing manifesto that describes the basic principles for which the organisation stands?
In this way, the leadership contest transcends basic philosophy because the basic philosophy of the Party formed one of the entry conditions to the Party in the first place. If you don’t agree with the broad philosophy of the Party don’t join.
Then, instead of having a leadership contest that determines whether or not the Party is conservative we would have a leadership contest between people who were certainly conservatives and we, the members simply have to choose whose particular brand of conservatism - and whose presentation, ideas and so on - best suits.
The timeless ideals of the Conservative Party live on regardless.
What should those “broadly defined beliefs” be? Such beliefs do need to change over time and must not be set in stone.
Tony Blair joined a Labour party with a philosophy he quite clearly disagreed with. Why else would he have created ‘New Labour’?Would it have been better for Labour if he had not been allowed to join?
Comment by Snafu — October 3, 2005 @ 1:48 pm
Snafu,
Labour was a party whose policies were artificial constructs based on opinions on what might - or might not - be good for society. These theories - for that is all they are - are forced from above onto the people below.
Conservatism by definition accepts what people themselves choose as the good life and, in its purist form, seeks only to support these choices. Therefore it’s a bottom-up philosophy.
A conservative world-view cannot be conservative unless, for example, it:
values national sovereignty;
acknowledges family as the foundation of civil society and heterosexual marriage as the foundation of family;
believes there is clear right and wrong and seeks to punish the latter;
believes private enterpise - not just in business but in all aspects of life - provides, on the whole, better outcomes than government action can;
refutes the idea that there can be equal outcomes from unequal inputs.
I think if a person seriously argued against the few examples I’ve just mentioned then I would suggest they aren’t thinking what we’re thinking (to coin the phrase).
It is from our basic values that our policies are derived. There could be much debate over policy but there should be very little over values. If we can’t agree our basic values then we aren’t really much of a political party, are we?
Comment by Gary Monro — October 3, 2005 @ 3:07 pm
Gary, that’s a really good set of beliefs.
I was quite impressed by Liam Fox on radio 4 this morning defending the importance of families.
Comment by Snafu — October 4, 2005 @ 12:38 pm
What Tory doesn’t give lip service to the family?
Comment by DE — October 4, 2005 @ 3:34 pm
DE,
What is the basis of your insinuation that they don’t really mean it?
Comment by Gary Monro — October 4, 2005 @ 4:42 pm