CONFERENCE 03: Whither Conservatism?
Welcome to the darkness
This speech was heard by the lucky souls who attended the Freedom Association's conference fringe.
Mr Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, Montgomery famously had a picture of Rommel in his caravan. He explained that he did this in order to enable him to know his enemy. He was quite right. It is important to know your enemy. We need to know and understand Mr Blair and the Labour Party.
Mr Blair is a charming, rootless chameleon. A radical, determined to weaken and undermine our institutions. He has a weak grasp of history. He once described Britain as a new country. He must have thought he was back in Australia. He has described the 20th century as a conservative century. He was wrong again. The 20th century was a collectivist century. Collectivism took an extreme form in Germany with the National Socialists, I prefer to call them by that title rather than Fascists, and in Russia with the Soviets. In Britain collectivism took a more moderate form but was still the dominant creed and embraced by both the main political parties. It was only towards the end of the 20th century that the tide started to turn. In the 1970’s the failed policies of both Labour and Conservative governments became apparent. Intellectuals and thinkers were able to advance alternatives. This gave a Conservative government the confidence to start rolling back the State. However, the greatest setbacks for collectivism occurred on the international stage, with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The Labour Party’s response was The Project or as it is more commonly known, modernisation. Quite simply it meant the acceptance of the market economy. Collectivism, however, could go on by more subtle means. Labour knew that it could not win general elections if it remained an overtly Socialist party. It was not a decision to move to the right or to the middle ground but to accept the inevitable. Because Labour has accepted the market economy, it does not mean that the Conservative party has to retreat from market solutions. Competition and consumer choice are the only ways to reform the public sector. Because Labour has abandoned Clause 4 we do not need to change our philosophy or abandon our principles. Mr Blair has sown confusion to mask Labour’s retreat and he has disorientated Conservatives, some of whom think we should now make ourselves more like Labour.
The Conservatives lost power because they hurt their supporters – high interest rates, negative equity and rising taxes are a powerful concoction that lead to electoral defeat. For years following our defeat, many people thought that the Conservatives were the party of high taxation and not Labour.
Labour learnt the lessons of all of this. Their primary objective in the 1997 – 2001 Parliament was to keep tax down. They followed Tory spending plans, which even the jovial former chancellor Kenneth Clarke, admitted that the Conservatives would not have done. Watch what Mr Blair does, not what he says. Schools and hospitals were not his main priority in office. Against this background, it’s strange that Tory spokesmen find it hard to answer the question whether they prefer low taxes or high public spending. Countries with low taxes grow more quickly and people respond when hard work is rewarded.
Mr Blair has invaded our territory. That is why our poll ratings consistently disappoint. He likes people to think that he has conservative values. Wasn’t it interesting to see him at the Labour Party Conference expressing his concerns about crime and asylum seekers as if it wasn’t his responsibility. We do not know the true level of immigration because of the large number of illegal immigrants, but it’s certainly in excess of two hundred thousand people a year. In recent months it was the discredited former Labour cabinet minister, Stephen Byers, who first raised this issue and once again it reflects how unsure of themselves the Conservatives are if they cannot take the lead on these issues.
Trust is important to Mr Blair. Radicals who have wished to undermine institutions have always sought to obtain the trust of the people in a charismatic leader so that he can go about his work. When someone says ‘Trust me: I’m a politician’, it’s time to start counting the spoons. People should place their trust in their institutions, not their politicians and judge their politicians according to whether they follow their principles. We will never out-charm or out-act Mr Blair. We might out-punch him.
We can learn something from Labour – how to conduct an opposition. In opposition they were relentless, anticipating, undermining and they got personal. Too often the dead hand of ministerialism still seems to influence the inner counsels of the Conservative party. The response that is required from an effective opposition is not necessarily that which a senior civil servant would approve of. I recently heard an American congressman being interviewed about his political tactics and he said ‘You know, we fire real bullets here!’. I know a bit about real bullets. I’ve had a few fired at me, but I’m still standing.
Gordon Brown is a Socialist who has mismanaged the economy. How I long to hear a Tory spokesman say just that. His reputation rests on one thing – granting the Bank of England independence. It’s not true independence as he’s still free to move the goalposts and change the targets as the Governor of the Bank of England has recently pointed out. He granted the bank independence in his first week in office. How much better off we would all have been if, after writing his letter to the Governor he had got up, left his office, locked the door and never returned.
He does not believe in the merits of low taxation. He courts the unions. Their members have been the biggest beneficiaries of increases in public spending. Independent research shows that over half of the spending increases have been wasted. Of the £110 billion spending increases that he is implementing, over £55 billion will be wasted. Labour’s second term has seen a return to its traditional mix of policies. It looks as if we are entering a period of lax monetary policy and big spending deficits. Big deficits equal higher interest rates. The economic outlook under Labour is far from good.
Whatever happened to welfare reform – Labour’s big idea? Well, Gordon didn’t like it. Social Security spending is the highest element in our national budget. Labour still pursues a policy of redistribution. Rather than tax rates rising to 80% the inter-action of tax credits, benefits and taxation mean that at the margin people can still be paying a 60% tax rate.
We still have a tax system that discriminates against the single earner family. Gordon Brown introduced the Minimum Income Guarantee, which leads to state dependency for over half of us in our old age. It’s simply not worth over half of the population saving for retirement because they would lose benefits if they did. Anyone that advised them to do so might face prosecution by the financial authorities. The state cannot be trusted to provide pensions. We need a funded basis for all pension arrangements. Security in old age will only come through a requirement to save during our working lives with cuts in taxation and national insurance contributions being used to support that requirement.
Don’t let anyone tell you that Gordon Brown is a Eurosceptic. He wants the Euro too but when he’s Prime Minister rather than Mr Blair. It’s amazing that the Conservatives have not been able to draw attention to Labour’s plans for making the Euro work. They are contained in this document and include a wealth tax on homes, a capital gains tax on the sale of homes and higher stamp duties when people move home. Who said that Socialism no longer guides Labour’s thinking?
Let nobody forget that it is not governments that create prosperity but successful businesses that do. Governments need to get out of the way of businesses. This country needs a Tory chancellor.
The language of politics is important. Conservatives should not adopt the language of their opponents. If we adopt the language of the left we will be on the defensive and increasingly fighting on our opponents’ territory.
Compassion is a fine virtue for individuals. I know that many members of the Conservative party show their compassion quietly and unobtrusively. Many support and work for voluntary organisations and help those in need. However, compassion is not a quality for governments. Governments cannot create happiness. Compassionate government is unlimited government. The therapeutic state’s work is never done. There are no limits to the possibility of pain and the need to ameliorate it. The state would need unlimited resources to embark on such an approach. We Conservatives believe in limited government. We know that governments can often make problems worse.
Tolerance is also a fine quality. I am pleased that we live in one of the most tolerant countries in the world. But tolerance does not mean neutrality. We should respect the other man’s point of view, but we are free to exercise our judgement and oppose changes, of which we do not approve.
Too often, the Conservative party does not appear to have a point of view. Let me give one small example. When Mr Blair decided to abolish the office of Lord Chancellor we complained that there had been insufficient consultation. I think that we should have vigorously opposed this change, which was just another attempt to impose political correctness. I want judges to be experienced, learned and wise in the difficult decisions that they have to make. Their appointment should be based on these qualities rather than on the criteria of political correctness.
Traditions should be defended by Conservatives. A tradition has usually survived because it has proved to be a successful way of doing things. As the American say ‘If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it’.
Where is a Conservative revival likely to start? It should come from where it has always come. Not in the leafy suburbs, where the middle classes have usually created a buffer for themselves to guard against the effects of failed government. People often live in more expensive districts to obtain better state education and health care. Don’t let anyone convince you that health and education in this country is free. A revival is unlikely to come amongst the residents of sink estates. Unfortunately, they are too mired in the culture of state dependency. The first people to feel the effects of failed government lie somewhere in between. They do not feel that they have been denied compassion but rather denied opportunities. They have been denied the rewards of their endeavours, endeavours to maintain standards, values and the fruits of their labour. They may have neighbours whom they consider ‘milk the system’ or engage in petty crime. They respond to a robust conservatism. I met many of them when I represented Milton Keynes as a Member of Parliament. They want a Conservative party that is tough on crime full stop, tough on handouts, tough on immigration. They want to be allowed to keep more of their own money. When we have previously been on course for government, by-elections have been won in Acton, Ilford, Walthamstow, Woolwich and many similar places around the country.
People expect the Conservative party to stand up for the national interest. Great Conservative leaders, from Disraeli to Thatcher, have done that. Unless the Conservative party stands up for the national interest, it is nothing. The price of daring greatly is certainty of powerful opposition. The Conservative Party needs to oppose the European constitution and explain why it is opposed. I am afraid that I have not had as much time as I would have liked to study the constitution, as it is a long and complex text. However, it is the job of the Conservative party to do that work and to explain to the people the dangers that it poses. It is not just another treaty, it is the end of treaties. The United States constitution ran to only fifteen pages. Even with the advantage of a common culture and a common language the issue of state’s rights and the power of the Supreme Court eventually led to conflict. The European constitution establishes the supremacy of the European court beyond any doubt. That changes our system of law. The constitution creates ambiguity as to the control of borders and our own foreign and defence policy. There are even provisions to suspend the constitution. When we were last in opposition, the thoroughness of our approach meant that there were 95 policy study groups in action. However, even then the black hole was Europe. There was no study group struggling with that issue. Now, even more than then, there is the need for the Conservative party to develop a coherent strategy on Europe.
Conservatives by nature are often not activists. Sometimes they are content to defend the status quo. At other times Conservatives have to be about change and rolling back the state. Today we also have to be about restoring democracy and that is a huge issue. We will never outact Mr Blair. We need to convince people of our case. Believability is a great virtue in election campaigns. Sometimes, Mr Chairman, Conservative leaders have to rescue their own country. That will happen again. Today we need to be proud to be Conservatives again.
Barry Legg has been elected to parliament, run a FTSE-100 company, was chief executive of the Conservative party, organised a successful leadership campaign, and isn't ashamed of the 1980s — some people struggle to do one out of five.
Barry Legg, October 7, 2003 01:15 PM