A senior Conservative Minister, Francis Maude, whose father, Angus, was a Minister in Mrs. Thatcher’s Government and one of those who modernised the Conservative Party after its 1945 defeat, and who has been at the forefront of recent attempts to ‘detoxify’ the Conservative Party, has warned that the ‘Conservative Party must modernise of face extinction.’ His views are worth analysing as they point to the malaise which afflicts conservative politics in the UK and the USA.
Maude warns that the party risks “electoral oblivion” if it failed to keep pace with new “social norms”. It has to be, he tells us, a genuinely ‘contemporary party’ if it is to succeed electorally. ‘We can’t’, he said, .look like we want to turn the clock back to an imagined golden era. “We should not assume that society will be willing to conform to our own expectations if they’re out of kilter with the mainstream,” he said.’ He went on to conclude that: “If we fail to keep pace – fail to understand and influence the spirit of the age – we will be rightly punished by the electorate.”
My response would be to ask him in what degree such a conservative party differed from the Labour or the Liberal-Democratic parties? His answer would relate to economic policy, tax rates, welfare reform and the like; but he misses, as all modernisers do, the point: these things are means, not ends. If a Conservative Party is not willing to make the case for prevailing social norms then what is its point? What sort of society does this Conservative want? He doesn’t know, he’s happy to go with whatever flow is going – as long as he is in power.
This is a natural point of view for a politician, who earns a better living if he is in power; but it marks a dangerous division between him and many of those who vote Conservative. It may well be that his own electoral prospects will vanish down the gap he opens up.
There is an assumption here that there are no real norms, no standards other than those of the market, and that all that matters is success in electoral and financial terms. Were those views widely shared then there would probably be no Conservative voters. Most people, including myself, vote Conservative because we wish to keep the best of what is. We are sensible enough to know that change happens, but we wish to make it as difficult as possible, to ensure that only essential change happens. The itchy fingers of liberals need a balm, and we are it.
But what are we to make of a Conservative Party which brings in a bill to legalise same-sex marriage? There was no evidence that anyone much wanted it, and even in the manifesto, the furthest the party went was to say it would consult on the issue. The consultation has shown that many people do not want it. But our Conservative leaders will bring it in any way. That way they show how ‘modern’ they are.
Well, it may be that they win some new voters that way. But are these new voters fiscal conservatives? When push comes to shove will they really vote for a party they have always hated? On the other hand there are those, of whom I am one, who have worked and and voted for the Conservative Party for decades. They will not be getting my vote. If that brings in a Socialist Government all well and good. I expect Socialists and liberals to want to move with the times and the new social norms, and would rather they did it than so-called Conservatives.
In the end, as the cynic said, it does not matter who you vote for, the Government always gets in.
A Happy 2013 to all Jessica’s readers!
All Along the Watchtower 
Pingback: Westward look, the land is bright? « nebraskaenergyobserver
You have hit upon some very cogent points C: politics is no longer informed by our values and principles but by an attempt to pander to the marketplace. That seems to me to be a misunderstanding and misuse of the freedom afforded us in the “free world”. My morals and politics, in fact my entire value structure, is informed by my faith. Capitalism is only a useful method in regards to economics: supplying what is needed and what is desired at the lowest cost – responding to the changes in the market and pandering to their whims. Such a method is death to a country that places that method to work in politics. Values and ethics are essential to a government that wishes to remain free and to be unobtrusive to the individual which it is sworn to protect. That which is right is always right even if the whole world says it is wrong.
In our Catholic Church the return to Traditional (Conservative) Catholicism is growing faster than any other segment of the faith. People look for values and to heroic virtues to wean them from the candy of the libertine world: they seek holiness. I really think that the same thing is true of politics: moral values, integrity, honesty and a commitment to freeing people from the shackles of totalitarian governance and the preservation of the country is the holy grail. If the tide is to turn it will need to turn in our Churches, our families and and educational institutions – and it is vitally important that they all are singing the same tune; for that is the difference between chaotic noise and a beautiful symphony.
LikeLike
Yes, we are in agreement. Our politics – that is the black arts practiced by those who rule us – have become fixated on means and not ends. This is why so many people feel alienated from the process. It is also why our political class is so despised.
LikeLike
And yet, in the US we have just reelected over half of the incumbents at a time when the Congress has its lowest approval rating of all time. Go figure! We seem to be the most ignorant people of all time or we simply sell out to the highest bidder for our vote.
LikeLike
I agree —
— but then, I think it quite foolish to assume that Conservatism and Orthodoxy should ever be considered as synonyms.
The values that the current generation of conservative politicians wish to conserve are those that have been foisted upon us by 50 years worth of liberalism …
LikeLike
Agreed. My use of the word is more in keeping with the idea that politics should be (though we know it isn’t) informed by a properly formed conscience and is not for sale: the same way I view orthodoxy in the Church as a conservative position as opposed to the those who seek novelty.
LikeLike
I couldn’t agree more, part of being conservative is being resistant to change (especially for change sake). I’ve of course been rather out of touch but what little reading I’ve done in the last couple of weeks indicates that your Conservative party is doing a wonderful job of recruiting for UKIP, and our Republicans are simply suicidal.
Nobody thinks that that Liberal and liberal-lite are different answers-not even liberals.
LikeLike
I have no problem with real socialists and real liberals. If they believe what they say they do, well I think the less of their mental processes, and they no doubt reciprocate. What is unwise in any polity is for there not to be a Conseravtive Party which balances the incessant craving for novelty which is the natural state of the Left.
LikeLike
I agree with you. The real lefts theories don’t work out in practice but, I have no problems with opinions held in good faith.
The balance of two parties which we both had permits ideas to be worked out without going way too far, sort of a limit on the tiller of the ship of state which prevents us from being taken all aback. It’s a necessary function, and one that cannot easily be written into law.
LikeLike
I agree. That is why there is danger in the Conservative Party abandoning its traditional role.
LikeLike
And the same with our Republicans, it’s a dangerous path to tread.
LikeLike
1 out of 8 in Britain is on welfare(plus the government workers employed in admin), while the aim was noticeable, the results are horrible. It takes money out of the pockets from those who could start a business and traps those too frightened to lose their benefits to risk the market place. Here I wrote resumes for people who had been assigned to their jobs by the government, never done a job interview, never had to fear being fired for non-performance. This not healthy for a society. Peter was right, take care of the widows and orphans, but those who do not work do not eat. If the path is wrong, no matter how long you go down it, it will still remain the wrong path.
LikeLike
That is very true Tom.
LikeLike
I think you’re missing the point C451. In a democracy, it is the people who decide what government gets in. Yes, the psychology and operation of democratic politics is complex, but nevertheless the key question is: of the people who will ‘get in’, do I want those in power to be ‘my people’, or not ? Being the ‘stand firm’ on ‘standards’ might mean that one can sleep with a guilt-free conscience at night, in the knowledge that one has been ‘true to ones values’, but I ask – has one ?
By not paying attention do data gathered from the people as to how to retain power for people who are more ‘my sort of people’ (even if they aren’t exactly) means that one is in danger of the ‘sour grapes’ label later on when the ‘other lot’ get in and do things, with relish, that I would rather not see done.
Francis Maude is right. A vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour, and all the baggage that comes with a Labour government. Only the weak willed will rationalise a UKIP vote as ‘a vote for principle’ as opposed to a vote making it more likely that the new government will implement policies even more to my dislike than otherwise might be the case. Politics is complex, and pretending it isn’t is childish behaviour.
LikeLike
In mosr democracies it is the anfractuosities of the electoral system which moderates the effects of sheer numbers; so although ‘the people’ have a say, it is not necessarily the case that the majority wins.
I am certainly not advocating a vote for UKIP – unless one is foolish enough to believe that they should get in.
It is bad for politics if there is no effective conservative voice – and the current Conservative party is not properly fulfilling its role.
LikeLike
I think the current Conservative party is fulfilling it’s role – the role of making sure that the other rogues don’t get in. Because of Labours mass immigration policy, and Labours in-built gerry-mander that the LibDebs have refused to remove (in a fit of pique as their Lords whims won’t be passing), the Tories have to look at where to get votes and act accordingly.
S
LikeLike
It is precisely on that last point that we diverge. I hope you are correct, but my own reading is that Cameron needs to do more to keep his core vote happy.
LikeLike
I am still not sure. You mention that “There is an assumption here that there are no real norms, no standards other than those of the market,” and in a limited sense I agree (even if it is a half-hearted caricature!). Conservatives, a category some have placed me, do “wish to keep the best of what is.”
What I’d contend is that the question of whether the government *should* regulate the finer, moral aspects of society will soon be a moot point. I am of the mind that, soon, it *will not* have the ability in the first place. First and foremost, regardless of who is running the federal/state/local apparatuses, we must reconcile itself to its declining ability to regulate an economy and society with regulatory models and instincts rooted in the past. The boundaries of the world are going to get more and more porous. Divisions will be less and less odorous.
I sincerely doubt that voters will continue to accept the shoddy services that government provides along the current models. Demands for more user-friendly, customer-oriented approaches will soon outweigh any finer considerations, if they haven’t already. In some ways this will be good for the small government types. The arrogant lifetime bureaucrat at the Department of Motor Vehicles is going to have to turn into the Starbucks barista offering service with a smile. The collapse of the older model of lines, and rules and ‘one pidgeonhole fits all’ will extend beyond the economic sphere. No one is going to want be treated like they’re being treated now, and were treated like this last generation. That is, every branch will pander. The same way corporations deal with the tricky questions of gender, orientation, race and so on will leak into government (like it already has!).
In other words, deregulation will finally hit Main Street. The government will throw up its hands and declare both sides equally at fault. Maybe I’ll be running around with a perfectly legitimate marriage license from the Church of England, which I got over the internet, or something equally obscure. Maybe the government will give up on issuing marriage licenses and turn it over to a private body (or bodies?) that actually care about the subject.
I have a hard time believing, then, that any branch of the government will want to take painful stands for or against any social norm. We can elect a President who says differently, but in my mind the large apparatus that he nominally controls will deal with his efforts like they have in the years past.
LikeLike
You may well be correct; it will be interesting to see.
LikeLike
Pingback: Tory party leaders have forgotten what a conservative outlook is all about | CatInfor.com
Pingback: Swivel-eyed loons? | All Along the Watchtower