31.01.2002

Tories regroup

After two damaging election defeats and a bruising leadership contest, questions were raised about the very survival of the Conservatives as a party of government. Now the talk is of a possible revival. Hope springs eternal. The Tories' first twitches of life began with their proposals on House of Lords reform. There was widespread disquiet even on the government's back benches at Lord Irvine's white paper - The House of Lords: completing the reform Iain Duncan Smith was quick to pounce on the opportunity, with his call for an 80% elected second chamber, to be named the senate. Though his proposals have subsequently provoked opposition from Tory peers, Duncan Smith has so far held firm. Having outflanked the government on Lords reform from the left, Duncan Smith used a keynote speech to the great and the good of Birmingham's business community to further galvanise his party. September 11 had cast a shadow over the Conservatives. The party was unable to do much more than express bipartisan support and solidarity while Blair stole the headlines with his mixture of globetrotting diplomacy and warmongering. The Tories struck a cautious note over the deployment of British troops on the ground in Afghanistan. The war was primarily aimed at punishing the Taliban and Osama bin Laden - not exporting democracy. And in that they are closer to American thinking than Blair. They did not feel the need to embellish the goals of the 'war against terrorism' with Gladstonian flummery as Tony Blair did. Indeed, IDS is determined to play Disraeli to Blair's Gladstone. He used his speech to express his 'concern' that "there are some who say a new global settlement should be the principle of the government". Attempting to appeal to the large sections of society alienated from 'official politics', IDS expressed his disdain of "grand schemes and elegant theories" with a promise that his policies "will result in less politics in people's lives, whereas the government wants more". Against 'centralising tyranny', the 'creativity of the masses' is invoked. Duncan Smith's speech is peppered with such language, especially when it comes to foreign policy: "Instead of aiming for an all-encompassing consensus built on a vision of a new world order, my instincts are always to build from the bottom up." As the 'third way' frays at the edges, IDS thinks 'anti-ideological' posturing will get results. Some perceive this as a bad move: "A party leader who avoids an ideology - coherent objectives set out in a moral rank order - is heading for the rocks" (The Guardian January 23). However, such a 'pragmatic' approach has historically been the Conservatives' greatest strength. Though Thatcherism has been officially retired by Duncan Smith, essential tenets of the Thatcherite credo were all present and correct at Birmingham. A commitment to a weak, minimal state, low taxes, the individual and 'consumer choice' were coupled with a touching faith in the free market's ability to work miracles - summed up in the 'five principles' of "independence, freedom, choice, security and enterprise". Unsurprisingly the Tories' chief acolyte, The Daily Telegraph, was impressed. It eulogised about a "masterly" speech which had "reinvented the Tories as a people-friendly party" (January 18). However, some liberal commentators, such as Malcolm Dean, writing in The Guardian, hardly bothered to hide their contempt: "It is hard to remember a more vacuous, incoherent and asinine policy speech" (January 23). The paper's editorial writers were more generous: "There are signs of reviving Tory effectiveness" (January 15). The Tory leader was widely criticised for the way in which he raised the Addis NHS scandal. But in truth he lost or gained little. Frank Field was forced to concede that Duncan Smith had won the exchange "on points" (Daily Telegraph January 28), but few will be convinced by the Tories' sudden conversion to what IDS calls a "public service ethos" - any more than they will have been taken in by Blair's new-found concern for healthworkers. The Tories' policy is, for the moment, incoherent. Michael Howard had previously seemed to indicate that the funding of public services must take priority over tax cuts - standing neo-liberal orthodoxy on its head. But Duncan Smith himself reasserted the orthodoxy: "If we get less government, people will have to pay less taxation, but they will have more to spend on the services they choose" (Financial Times January 16). IDS has calculated that public services will be the Achilles heel of the Blair government. In his first term Blair was able to harp back to the dreadful record of the previous Conservative administration, but, as memories of that period fade, it will no longer be a viable strategy for Labour. Delivery will be expected and failure harshly punished. Indeed, the Tory right is hoping that the very notion of public services will be so discredited that a future Conservatives administration would be able to carry through large-scale privatisation. Together with the about-turn on public services, the party leadership also looks set to review a whole raft of their social policies. Tory treasury spokesman John Bercow wrote in a new year's message to his constituents: "We are seen by many voters as racist, sexist, homophobic and anti-youth." In other words, out of step with mainstream politically correct opinion. Oliver Letwin, something of a rising star in the Tories' dull firmament, captured both the extent and the limits of this shift in outlining the Conservatives' opposition to the Civil Partnerships Bill. Acknowledged was the fact that same-sex couples "encounter a number of real problems", which "few of us today would regard as reasonable or even humane". This did not prevent Letwin from plainly stating: "We must do nothing to undermine the institution of marriage" (The Daily Telegraph January 25). Nonetheless the fact remains that, although Duncan Smith has proved himself capable of incorporating large chunks of the Portillo agenda - he also moved against the far right Monday Club early on in his leadership - he has not adopted it in its entirety. He was after all elected by a traditionalist electorate and his sympathies clearly lie more in that direction. But he has brought prominent 'Portilloistas' - including Bercow himself - into his shadow cabinet. The Tories' feeble attempts to begin the process of reestablishing themselves as a credible opposition must be seen in the context of their current impotence. Parliamentary irrelevance means they are effectively reduced to fighting a guerrilla war against Blair. But an alternative government will not be needed for four years - hence the current lack of detailed policies. It is at the polling booths that the real test of the revival will come - and the May local elections are now approaching. The determination of the electorate to give the government a bloody nose and their willingness to vote Tory to do so will be tested for the first time since the political focus shifted from the 'war against terrorism' to more domestic concerns. Problems remain for the Tories, not least over the thorny question of Europe - not mentioned at all in Duncan Smith's speech. Though the pro-euro wing has been very much marginalised over recent years, Ken Clarke's 40% showing in the leadership contest shows that it has not gone away, and the issue remains the Conservatives' bête noire. A referendum will undoubtedly see leading Tories campaigning on rival platforms, with the divisions on this central issue for British capital coming into the open again. This scenario will test the strength of Duncan Smith's leadership to the full. Similarly the Conservatives' ultra-reactionary wing is not going to take a wholesale rewriting of social policies lying down. The prospect of a 2005/6 general election returning a Tory government remains remote - opinion polls have yet to register any rise in their support. The Conservatives still seem to be relying on the old adage that governments lose elections rather than oppositions winning them. But a revival of the Tories would pose problematic questions to our comrades in the Socialist Alliance such as the Socialist Workers Party. Only an untheorised break has been made from automatically voting Labour that was the content of these organisations' electoral interventions for decades. Any prospect of a Conservative government could throw these comrades into crisis once more. Would we have to vote Labour again to keep out the Tories? If IDS is successful in 'rebranding' his party, he could cause problems not just for the likes of Blair. James Mallory