For all its manifold weaknesses I will mourn the Conservative Party when it has gone. The most successful electoral fighting machine in democratic history has looked to be intent on tearing itself apart, and now Boris Johnson has decided to campaign against David Cameron on the EU this fate seems certain to occur.
I may be wrong (the Conservatives have, maybe, survived other such challenges, but not in the modern era of politics) but I cannot see how a party so viscerally divided on an issue so fundamental to the perception of political concern amongst so many of its members can survive as a cohesive unit when open warfare will be so readily permitted for such an extended period with the outcome so significant to the fate of the country it thinks it has a natural right to govern.
It is not the campaign, as such, that I see to be the threat, but the aftermath. It seems likely that this fight will be close. It may well be that the votes of Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland could be critical. All this could be crucial to the perception with the Conservative Party as to just what their politics is for. This is already pro-inequality (just looks at the policies on inheritance tax and social security), pro-banking (look at the EU negotiation and recent moves on the FCA), pro making the UK a tax haven (the corporation tax changes) and pro-England (look at the Smith Commission and EVEL). A vote that divided the country, and lead to Brexit, perceived to be lead by a Tory opposed to the Prime Minister would undoubtedly lead to his fall and a massive swing to the right in politics that a significant part of the Conservative Party would, I hope, find hard to stomach.
If, more likely (and I genuinely think this is the case at present), Brexit is rejected then many in the Conservative Party will reflect their anger back on their leadership, who unsurprisingly will be unwilling to leave office in that situation, and the chance of a party split seems very high.
Brexit should not be a debate about the future of the Conservative Party: it is so much more important than that. But that is what it is likely to be.
I sincerely hope people vote without taking this into account but as an observer I cannot help but take interest in this other issue. And, to be candid, to also worry about it. I have differences with all political parties. A period of disruption at a time of economic uncertainty may not be what the UK needs in the short term. But given the uncertainties that I think will be created it would be irresponsible not to have concern about where this will lead, even when many in the Conservative Party do not seem to share that sense of responsibility.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Interesting post, although my sense is that the Tory party’s focus on power for the sake of wielding it will survive this tumult. I also wonder about the new intake who seem nominally more right wing, but in actual fact share the relativist tendencies of their leader.
If the Tory party makes a formal split, and with Labour at sixes and sevens, maybe the time will come quickly to ditch first past the post elections and (finally) accept some form of PR. Which, in the aftermath of Brexit, would be wonderfully ironic.
I don’t think the Conservative party will utterly collapse, nor will there even be a sizeable split. But in the situation you describe as most likely (remaining in the EU) there will be intense pressure from the majority eurosceptic conservative members on the upper echelons of the party, and you will probably also see an increasing awkwardness from the most zealot MPs (Peter Bone et al) that will make parliament difficult for their leaders.
I was thinking something very similar the other day- it’s hard to see Cameron surviving the EU vote win or lose. If it’s 60/40 to the winning side (whichever that is) then not only are the 40% going to be out for blood, they’ll probably find it very easy to find 11 out of the other 60 Cameron has wronged in some way and oust him between them.
I can’t really see it really affecting the wider party, though. The press is clearly on their side and any minor differences in the party are not going to be overblown as great destabilising rifts like they have with Labour- and they can always wheel out Comedy Character Boris if they really need electing.
The press owners, in their pretence of neutrality, are the ones who also own the conservative party.
In the old days of labour much was made, by the press, of union leaders having beer parties at N10. Not so much in the press about N10 occupants being summoned to a murdoch gathering though..Call-me-Dave is going anyway soon, sincehe is not going to be fighting to stay.
I would say that the Conservative Party is now a party of London and the the South East. There are “affluent”,mainly rural, areas in the other parts of England that return Tories but Scotland and Wales has rejected them. Northern Irelanad remains a law unto itself.
De-industrialisation left the UK a “one city”, service based economy; the lauding of “Boris” by London based journalists illustrates this perfectly.
How will the In / Out debate this parlous state, I suspect that the debate will unfold in and around London as will the future of the Conservative Party.
It will only take a handful of Tory MP’s to defect to UKIP or elsewhere as a result of these divisions and a no-confidence vote in the government will be imminent. There are certainly plenty of signs already about how contentious this is at the grass roots level of the party.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/feb/21/how-tory-grassroots-split-eu-party-constituency-cameron
Johnson would take any position in order to be at the helm his ego is enormous and he is a sort of Etonised Trump who loves the sound of his own voice -what worries me is that the populace is so supine and servile at present they could go for him because they find him ‘amusing’ and a ‘good laugh.’ I’ve actually heard people say this!
Sorry, I will NOT mourn the split of THIS Tory Party, and would not mourn even its TOTAL demise.
I already mourn the Party of Peel and Disraeli, of the Chamberlains (even Neville, who, prior to being PM, oversaw one of the most intense periods of housebuilding in UK history), and above all of Churchill, Macmillan and Heath.
That One Nation, paternalistic but “noblesse oblige” Tory Party was killed – terminated – by Thatcher, who replaced Tory communitarianism with rampant ego-centred, “to hell with anyone else” individualism and worship of the market, at the cost of empathy and social solidarity.
And the REAL irony is that Thatcher wasn’t even a Tory: she was an updated version of a 19th century Manchester Liberal, with their uncritical worship of markets and “free trade”. (Orange Book Liberals are their direct descendants).
And the form her update took was to become a Right Wing Maoist, with all of Mao’s contempt for experts and their expertise, as fetters on the freedom of the market, to which she ascribed the same ” magical” powers of problem-solving, that Mao ascribed to “radical equality and Communist consciousness”.
I’m still (vainly? Certainly folornly!) waiting (hoping?) for that old Tory Party to emerge, phoenix-like, from the ashes of the current, deeply illiberal, neo-feudal and incipiently neo-fascist current Tory Party.
Can others still recall the paeans of welcome from the likes of Henry Porter at the fall of Gordon Brown in 2010, welcoming in “the new dawn” after the illiberality (real – the 90 day detention without charge and ID cards, for example) of New Labour. Well, clearly New Labour were mere amateurs, kindergarten children, at the game of illiberal legislation, by comparison with the current Government,with its gerrymandering boundaries and numbers of MP’s, fixing the Electoral Register, banning intellectual dissent, gagging laws, seeking to disempower all other Parties, constraining local democracy, and so much else.
No, I will NOT mourn the passing of THIS Tory Party. Indeed, I would go so far as to say its demise is ESSENTIAL to the rebirth of democracy in the UK.
On this I agree with you entirely, Andrew. And your explanation as to why is faultless.
Well said Andrew
Well put Andrew and full marks on the historical bit -the modern Tories have nothing to do with the Tory Party of old (cf. Samuel Johnson) but are more akin to the Whigg capitalists and free traders of the early 19th Century. Thatcher was a ‘stand on your own two feet’ ‘self-reliance’ person of Methodist leanings that has led to what the Americans call YOYO (You’re On Your Own). This led to one of the most vulgar, uncultured, vapid societies that one can imagine full of spivs, wide boys, grift and graft which the present Tories exemplify to the nth degree.
I loathe this Government to the extent that I’m tempted to vote for Brexit just to contribute to their downfall of these bastards – but won’t as don’t want racism and xenophobia, petty nationalism and the further crushing of the vulnerable to be helped in any way.
“Sorry, I will NOT mourn the split of THIS Tory Party, and would not mourn even its TOTAL demise.”
Well said.
Nor me! The “Neos” (Neo Liberals and Neo Conservatives), as John Ralston Saul calls them, need to be routed out from both parties if we are to have any hope of a decent, moral, caring UK and EU society!
Oh, bloody well said. It’s why I shall be voting Out – ‘I,Claudius’ and all that…’Let all the poisons that are in the mud rise up.’ If we want to restore the Republic and overturn the hated Emperor and the ruling family we have to first to engineer the appointment of Nero…er, Boris!
Completely agree Andrew, a party that has produced a government so contemptuous of democracy, so craven in pandering to the financial sector elite, and following an economically illiterate policy of austerity, is one I’d love to see the back of as soon as possible. The combination of ever shriller English nationalism from the anti EU crowd, and the attempt to undermine and suppress any opposition is, as you say, incipiently neo-fascist.
If there are any old school pre Thatcher MPs and party members left, what are they doing to stop this? If all the Conservatives are going to do is move further to the right, why don’t such people leave and join the Lib Dems? Whatever their faults (being in coalition with the party the Conservatives have become was a mistake), they are at least pro the EU, and actually believe in freedom of speech, not in trying to gag it through all sorts of underhand means.
I don’t see how the Tory party can avoid a split over something that so many of its membership see as an existential threat. But equally so, I don’t see the mechanism for a split to take place. The experience of the SDP still casts a long shadow over British politics (see also: Labour members unhappy with Jeremy Corbyn). Interesting times ahead.
The party that Ian Gilmour (Dancing with Dogma) lamented the passing of is long dead anyway. When the Earl of Stockton (Harold Macmillan) spoke of his own Tory party ‘selling the family silver’ – that is when we knew there had been a substantial change in the party and a break with its own past.
This modern iteration of the Conservative party is an insult to the trades description act and for that I would like to see it consigned to the dust bin of history rather like Andrew Dickie. In fact, Thatcherism is actually dead now – it has come to an end if we are honest about it. It hasn’t really worked since 1979 and we have enough evidence now to say this with confidence. It’s over.
But Richard makes a huge point: What will fill the vacuum?
Something wicked this way comes…………………
As history constantly shows us, the people need an establishment crisis to effect major political change.
If an EU out vote causes a constitutional (and/or economic) crisis then so be it – it’s about time some things in this country were seriously shaken up and re-organised.
Starting with economic and political democracy from the very top down. Perhaps it really is time to call out the sham of the UK constitutional monarchy and the uncomfortable union between its member states for what it really is – a non-democratic protection system for hereditary financial interests across all these lands.
Perhaps it is better to embrace change and get excited about the prospect for real democracy, rather than worrying about minutiae of economic and political gobbledegook that we will be subject to having to put up with over the next few months.
I’m starting to think that whatever short term pain may be caused by an EU out vote, if this can be the trigger for serious democratic reforms then why should we continue to argue for “more of the same” within an EU that is no better if not worse than our own corrupt state of affairs.
As you can tell, I’m now somewhat conflicted – just like Bojo!
Keith ,I think you’ve got this badly wrong. If the out vote wins, it won’t be through them making a properly argued case, it’ll be through the triumph of right wing nationalism and lies on an epic scale being told about the EU. And I can’t see any hope of progressive reform from the triumph of such people; the opposite in fact.
You should read Richard’s later post over why he’s voting to stay in, despite issues like TTIP, and banking. The EU has positive aspects re labour rights, human rights and environmental issues that the out crowd on the right can’t wait to get rid of.
Even if this choice is simply the lesser of two evils, I’ll be voting to stay in. Better an imperfect EU than a UK run by the hard right market fundamentalists of the British (or should that be English) political right. And as for Johnson, all he cares about is his chances of replacing Cameron as leader. If he thought that was better served by staying in, that’s what he would have declared for.
Sure the EU helps keeps things as they are, but there is little *progress* being made.
This is what I don’t understand.
The EU has been taken over by corporatist entities and no amount of ‘up the revolution’ talking is going to stop that.
Which means that nothing will actually change for the poor and others in the UK until agreement is reached across 28 nations, and that means never.
It’s almost as though the struggle is far more important than solving the problems for the voters here in the UK now – not in several decades time.
This is like reading the Green party position on the EU – we love everything about the EU except for the treaty, all the rules, and the way it is run.
“Better an imperfect EU than a UK run by the hard right market fundamentalists of the British (or should that be English) political right.”
Make the case for left wing government in the UK.
My point was more subtle than taking a particular position on OUT or IN – as I mentioned in an earlier blog I really don’t care too much either way. The British people will be led like “sheeple” (a new term I have learned today) to a conclusion which some of us will either like or not.
That’s not my issue. Progress towards true economic and political democracy, come what may, is my interest and concern.
For example, I would not have voted for the financial crisis to happen in 2008, likely or not as it may have been, due to the enormous pain it would cause to ordinary people. But when capitalism has one of its inevitable spasms as it always does, those who criticise it and seek changes should be ready and prepared to act for the benefit of economic democracy and social progress.
I was therefore saddened and shocked by the apparent lack of foresight, readiness and contingency planning amongst left leaning academics and politicians for what they should do should such an event happen on the scale it did. Knee jerk reactions are not what I expect from people who have control of and influence over our country.
This is at the heart of my comments with regards to the EU referendum. If the OUT vote wins what should we do, or if the IN vote wins what should we do?
I don’t really care and certainly have no control over which one wins, I just want to see a very clear and positive plan by the left as to how they will respond for the benefit of all those they represent. Sometimes impartial and rational thinking is better than (or at least as necessary as) emotive wishes for one result or another.
For Labour (New Labour as it was then) to have left the underlying UK financial and banking system virtually unchanged during 2008-2010 when they had the chance to make significant democratic changes to the financial fabric which controls so much of our society by permanently nationalising all financial institutions that failed and starting them on a new direction and purpose, shows to me the complete lack of creative and reforming thinking that became too prevalent in the dominant left wing party in this country.
It should not be so complacent this time about the likely outcome of the EU vote. It should be prepared for either eventuality and how it will take advantage of the situation for the benefit of the population of the UK as a whole.
I wonder if we will return to the 14th century if we opt-out of the EU?
Back to the wars between England and Scotland over independence?
England departs the EU, Scotland tries to depart the UK but is not “allowed” to?
Wales looks to be leaning towards Mad-Dog Galloway and Mad-As-A-Hatter Farage in a rush to leave the EU. Funny if England decides to stay in, with Scotland, but Wales wants out; wouldn’t that be embarrassing!
Personally, after due consideration, whatever happens it marks a turning point. Not only with our UK/EU relationship, which is certain to be damaged beyond repair, but also with the relationship/s between other member states, who are certain to resent the UK being given “special” status.
Camerons legacy may well be a return to European instability…oh well.
I think that Cameron is getting a bit weary of being PM and will soon bow out.
yes…I’ve always had the sense of both Cameron and Osborne being rank amateurs who are good at having their strings pulled.
In both their cases the rhetoric has barely risen above the guff of the Eton refectory and has verged on the infantile:
‘ bunch of migrants’
‘calm down dear’
‘those that don’t get up in the morning’
‘terrorist sympathiser’
Could it sink lower than this?
Whenever I’ve thought it couldn’t-it does!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35633740
Egomaniac Boris/sociopath Osborne will be a mite worse I guess than the hapless Cameron-I have some sympathy with Keith’s argument that voting out might nudge things a little worse and get the REAL debate going my faith in reform from within is limited because the global neo-liberal plan is a scorched earth one which means it will (is) going for broke any way. But I’ll probably vote ‘in’ because of the flag waving crap of the ‘out’ campaign.
I do not see much chance of a split. We will vote to stay in, Cameron wins, BoGo and GoGo will both go, and its pretty much business as usual.
The challenge is to shift the mind set in time for 2020!
The con parties backers will never allow them to split.
There are many billions of all currencies behind them, a “leader” of “national” unity has probably already been selected….even if they do not know it!
The debate on this matter seems to be generated by the context of the in out referendum on UK (as currently constituted) membership of the EC (again, as currently constituted). As such the focus so far appears to be about what the referendum might well do to the Conservative and Unionist Party, along with the possibility of political realignments within these islands. Some of the more interesting observations have been around historical themes, definitions of what is, was, and may well be, a Conservative/Tory and the different strands of Conservativism.
However, there are other themes within the wider context which are pertinent to the debate as well as other relevant contexts which frame the discussion. Not least amongst these contexts is the argumental framework which explicitly acknowledges that:
a) In terms of Party Politics, both within the UK (mimicking the situation in the USA) and to (possibly?) a lesser extent in other EC member states (and even non member European states), that the main opposition parties of both traditional left and right ( New Labour/Orange Book Lib Dems/UKIP) have been effectively captured by the neo liberal economic framework and the neo con political framework to the extent that the only real difference between THE UK political parties is one of branding of what is effectively the same product.
b) In terms of Europe in general and the EC in particular, that what was sold as the vision of Delores of a social and political union of high standards, the sort of EC equivalent of the mixed economy, has been subject to the same capture. Hence the concerns over TTIP, the Troika behavior towards the periphery (Ireland) and the Southern EC economies (Greece, Spain, Portugal and Italy), and the general derailing of the Project.
c) The concern that a number of threads running through the development of political culture, producing larger gaps in economic, political, and social inequalities, is evidence of a general drift, if not deliberate project, toward a form of neo feudalism.
These are not side issues in their own right but are in fact parts of what might clumsily be referred to as a meta context. As arguments and concerns they raise relevant and pertinent questions and themes to the context of the referendum debate and impact on questions such as whether focusing on the potential demise of the Conservative and Unionist Party is the main issue (which I’ll come back to)
All three points above (a,b,c) are not separate but linked, and this is where the historical theme needs further elaboration. What is currently the British State, but is in reality the English State centered around the ancient City of London Corporation, has a long history, even before the Union with Scotland, of pursuing a policy towards the European Continent of ensuring that no State within that Continent becomes too big and powerful.
At any one time the English, and later the British, State and Establishment has been in temporary alliance with other European States to stifle the rise of any other European power becoming too powerful. Spain, Holland, France (particularly under Napolean), Russia, Germany (under the Keiser and Hitler’s Reich) were all subject to this consistent policy of the English and later British State. The EC is no different in this regard. A point recognised by De Gaulle and surely underlined by what can only be described as a deliberate undermining of the European Project by the British State policy of using its membership to succesfully argue and lobby to broaden membership rather than deepening and embedding the existing membership relationships after 1992.
This raises a number of issues and questions which are at least relevant to the discussion if not requiring consideration and answers:
– If it is accepted that the long held policy of the British/English State, as outlined above, has significantly contributed to the undermining of the Project and it’s progress both in the UK and across the wider EC Zone than it has to be accepted that continued UK membership, in a context in which we have negotiated special dispensation to act outside of rules and regulations, will serve to act as at least a break if not a total veto on resurrecting the Project away from economic neo liberalism, political neo conservatism and social neo feudalism.
Bearing in mind also that continued UK membership under such special dispensation arrangements may well lead to other member states seeking the same deal for themselves which further cements in place a neo liberal, neo conservative and neo feudalist Europe. An outcome which may well be a policy aim of the BritishState/Establishment.
Such a conclusion places an onus on progressives within the UK who argue that the Project needs to be resurrected of presenting a case in which continued UK membership will aid such a venture rather than hinder it or kill it stone dead. In this respect we have a responsibility not just to ourselves but other progressives across Europe and the EC. If we cannot change the way in which the British/English State and it’s establishment operates (and the record is not exactly steller here) then the logic is that resurrection in such a context is a forlone hope.
The potential of the referendum to tear apart the Conservative and Unionist Party whichever way the result goes might well provide some light at the end of the tunnel here. However, such a view is dependent upon the assumption (I did say I would come back to this) that the Conservative and Unionist Party is the British/English State/Establishment rather than a convenient vehicle through which that State/Establishment operates, for the moment or at any one time.
The logic of the contextual argument that the Loyal Opposition, along with the other main UK parties, have been captured (at least up until the election of Corbyn, which has still to played out to its end game, meaning the outcome is still up for grabs and could go either way) and are essentially different brands of the same or similar neo liberal/con/feudalism, suggest the latter.
Which is why that argument represents a key part of the context to the discussion. Because what that logic suggests is that the demise of the Conservative and Unionist Party may well be necessary to make progress in resurrecting the Project from within but it will not be sufficient because the real stumbling block is the continuity across policy areas, approach and time of the British State and it’s Establishment.
The issue then becomes a question of the most effective way not of resurrecting the Project but of first tackling the pre requisite of nullifying, by whatever means and methods are most effective, that continuity. On that question it would seem reasonable to anticipate that one argument which may well be put forward is that a UK exit would not only tear the current vehicle used by the British/English State apart (The Conservative and Unionist Party) but also the constituent parts of the British UK Superstate and with it the British State and Establishment as Scotland and Wales, and possibly even parts of the North of England seek to maintain EC membership by whatever means possible.
Tackling such questions and issues and addresing them head on are prerequisites for winning any argument for continued UK membership in the present climate and contexts. My own gut feeling, based on the fact that Galloway is appearing with Farage, along with the number of different No/Out campains there are, is that a majority at least of the British Establishment, if not the British State in its entirety, wants to stay simply in order to totally finish off the project from the the inside. If that is the case, the result may well be close to stay in but, for progressives, it will be a phyricc victory.
What makes anyone possibly imagine that the result of the ‘Referendum’ will be *allowed* to be anything other than ‘Remain in the EU’?
I feel unable to share your “concerns” about the Conservative Party.
It will be alive and well (and sometimes unwell) long after you and I are gone.
The “Common Market”, EEC and now EU has cross-cut across both Conservative and Labour Parties without any lasting detriment to either.
Only the Liberals have been consistent and undivided on the issue.
I rest my case.