There is a heated debate raging throughout the blogosphere and written press about the Conservative Party and the apparent contempt that the Cameron leadership has for the party and its beliefs. This analysis ignores the history and nature of Conservative political thought, which demonstrates that pragmatism and adaptability are key tenets of any Conservative political belief.
Conservatism is pragmatism in a political form; applying core principles in a modern setting. Russell Kirk’s magnum opus The Conservative Mind puts it succinctly: “Conservatism is not a fixed and immutable body of dogmata”. Cameron’s Conservative Party is applying our core principles to a different environment that presented itself in 1992, 1979 or earlier.
Indeed, the Conservative Party has shown throughout its history that pragmatism trumps idealistic fervour. In previous eras the Party was against Catholic Emancipation before being for it; against repealing the Corn Laws before becoming a Free Trade party; against Parliamentary reform before enacting it etc. Conservatives have favoured gradual change over the radical alternative but the operative word is change.
The Conservative Party did not win the 2010 General Election because we lacked a clear and definitive message and series of attractive policies. Since the electoral arithmetic was against us, it demanded that we act as flexibly as possible to the changed circumstances. This is why the Coalition is important: it demonstrated our flexibility and willingness to negotiate. This pragmatic approach is in direct comparison with Labour’s fixed body of dogma.
Tim Montgomerie is correct to point out that the Prime Minister’s leadership decisions have been imbalanced in favour of the Lib Dems. The PM has acted unfairly to Tory MPs because we expect more from our side of the Coalition. Liberal MPs are not accustomed to being held responsible for anything. As no one expected them to be in Government, their strategy was dictated by local constituency demands rather than anything approaching a proper platform. They have managed to remain virtuous throughout successive parliaments because they were neither powerful nor considered a future government. As only the impotent are pure, so too do the Lib Dems find it tough making decisions and being held to account (they are more used to protesting than being the subject of protests).
This is why we must be flexible with our Lib Dem allies. It is far better to get 70 per cent of our platform across in legislation than getting none through our own intransigence. Yet I agree that the Prime Minister should be wary of upsetting Conservative MPs. His advisors tend to suffer from unanimity of thought and intransigence on their part is just as damaging as if it comes from the backbenchers, many of whom are highly intelligent and eloquent.
Pragmatism must now dictate how No. 10 and No. 11 acts towards the backbenchers. If we accept that our Lib Dem allies can broaden our thinking on political issues, then so too can Conservative MPs. Backbenchers tend to have their ears to the ground and can pick up on voter discontent and discord. This can be fed back to decision-making in Downing Street and hence improve our governing process. This is a natural evolution towards what ConservativeHome calls “mainstream” Conservatism, but which does not forget the importance of the administration’s liberal bent.
The Conservative Party has historically been pragmatic and will continue to be so. Unlike our opponents, we do not use the levers of power to dictate to people how the world ought to be; we understand how things actually are and seek to apply this understand to modern settings. So long as the present administration continues this tradition, the Party will not die: it will emerge as a stronger and broader political force.
The post What next for the Conservative Party: conservative Conservatism appeared first on TRG.
