05.03.1998

Tories flounder

As New Labour continues its implementation of far-­reaching constitutional changes, the Conservative Party has fallen back on its most reactionary chauvinistic instincts.

Last week Tory leader William Hague gave a major speech on the constitution to the Centre for Policy Studies in which he came out strongly against the abolition of hereditary peers in the House of Lords. He also appeared to sug­gest that his party should rule out in principle Britain’s membership of European economic and mon­etary union (Emu).

While Tony Blair has set his sights on winning a new consen­sus for capital’s hegemonic rule - and in the process establishing the Labour Party as the main party of the ruling class - Hague can only cling to the constitutional status quo. On devolution, pro­portional representation and reform of the House of Lords the Tories insist that everything was fine as it was. Similarly they are digging in their heels ever more firmly against the major and over­riding strategic necessity for Eu­ropean capitalism - economic and political integration.

Blair’s aim is to repackage the state. In Scotland and Wales he ap­pears to have succeeded for the moment in heading off growing discontent with the Westminster political system - discontent that had become more and more fo­cused around the national ques­tion. In Ireland too a new consensus looks more than a pos­sibility. By replacing first-past-the-­post with an electoral system that allows more varied representation Blair hopes to win a new accept­ance throughout the UK. The abo­lition of heredity in the House of Lords is the first step towards the establishment of a less blatantly undemocratic second chamber.

The Tories’ reaction has been to claim that these essentially tink­ering changes from above foretell the destruction of the UK state it­self. Nevertheless, having warned that a Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly would inevitably result in the break-up of Britain, the Conservative Party has now been forced to acquiesce in the setting up of both bodies by the reality of the referenda results.

Hague claimed in his CPS speech that Blair’s reform of the Lords was “potentially the most damaging step of all”, describing the hereditary peers as “the main independent element”. He added: “Labour’s plans could lead to a House almost entirely composed of nominated peers. This would be a huge and dangerous extension of prime ministerial power.” It did not seem to occur to him that there could be better ways of ensuring that members of a second cham­ber are “independent” of govern­ment patronage than through leaving a degree of legislative power in the hands of a “gang of drooling, property-owning aristo­crats”, as The Independent put it (February 26).

Nevertheless, Hague did pin­point the risk that New Labour is running with its package of con­stitutional reform: “Mr Blair’s jus­tification is his dislike of the hereditary principle, although he sees no contradiction in also pa­rading himself as the protector of the monarchy.” However, the La­bour leader has calculated that he can get away with this contradic­tion through the ‘modernisation’ of this most ‘archaic’ of all estab­lishment institutions. The monar­chy is indeed essential to his vision of the new constitutional order, although the commitment to introduce politically correct ‘equal opportunity’ for female de­scendants of a single exclusivist family is not a little ironic.

Yet Hague’s position on the Lords is also contradictory. De­spite opposing the abolition of rights for current hereditary peers, he went on to say that the Con­servative Party was “open to sug­gestions about how membership of the Lords might be changed, too, and whether the hereditary principle is the right one to em­ploy when choosing members for the House”.

Only over the Northern Ireland ‘peace’ process have the Tories gone along with New Labour - so far. While Hague has up to now maintained the traditional biparti­sanship over Irish questions, a Carson-style unionist rebellion against a settlement would strain this approach to the limit.

Hague’s general opposition to constitutional change now ap­pears to have found its reflection in the hardening of Conservative hostility to Emu. Promising a fur­ther speech on the “far-reaching constitutional implications of Brit­ain’s membership of the European Union”, he stated that British mem­bership of a single currency could mean that “we could well find our­selves way down the road to a United States of Europe, with all that entails for national sover­eignty and accountability”.

This effectively represents a shift away from the Tories’ rejec­tion of entry for the next decade because ‘the time is not right’ - in favour of outright rejection in prin­ciple. The Tory trade and industry spokesperson, the ultra­-Eurosceptic John Redwood, is­sued a press release at the weekend - with Conservative Cen­tral Office approval - stating that “a single budget leads to a single government”.

The Conservatives continue to lose ground to New Labour as the preferred party of the bourgeoi­sie. Last week The Independent bemoaned the fact that Hague was “apparently oblivious of any re­sponsibility to think construc­tively about the destiny of this country”. It asked: “What have the Tories to lose by joining the hunt for new forms by which the popular voice can find expression, new methods to secure people’s assent to political decisions?” (editorial, February 26). Particu­larly as, in this period of low class combativity, Blair’s constitutional reforms have the luxury of a clear run, without pressure from below.

The Independent warned that the Conservatives were destroy­ing their reputation as “a progres­sive, pro-property, anti-taxation, right-of-centre party”. Unfortu­nately for the working class. New Labour has already stepped into the Tories’ shoes.

Alan Fox