From time to time the question surfaces on Samizdata: how come the British Conservative Party is doing so badly? One of the most coherent and convincing answers I’ve come across lately is to be found in Free Life, the (now all electronic) journal of the Libertarian Alliance, from Manchester based libertarian historian Steve Davies, responding to a piece by Sean Gabb. Davies explains how the British electoral system now hurts the Conservatives. But, he says, their problems go deeper.
… Simply, the electoral coalition put together in the 1920s has split into two sharply distinct and increasingly hostile groups of voters. This happened between about 1989 and 1997. So the split in Conservatism today is not just a matter of divisions within the Parliamentary Party or the wider Party. It’s a split in the electorate. That means the issues facing the party are much more profound than a matter of who the leader should be. It also makes everything far more problematic, given our electoral system.
The two groups of ‘right wing’ voters today can perhaps called Tories and Whigs. To use stereotypes, Tories are older, of either below average or well above average income, live in seaside resorts, rural areas and older industrial areas. They are Daily Mail and Telegraph readers, they are strongly socially conservative, very hostile to the EU, dislike multiculturalism and favour very strong controls on immigration, are supportive of the war on drugs. They are hostile to socialism and much of the welfare state but support some parts of it such as the NHS (for now). Although they generally favour free markets this is becoming less true all the time. They increasingly do not like globalisation and dislike large corporations. Whigs are younger, average to above average income, and live in suburban areas including suburbanised parts of the countryside. They are economically liberal, often very much so. They hope that the government is going to sort out the welfare state but suspect it isn’t and are becoming increasingly hostile to it. They are very socially liberal, much less bothered about immigration and dislike anti-immigrant campaigns. They favour relaxing laws against drugs or outright legalisation, they are very relaxed about homosexuality. They don’t like the EU particularly but don’t have the visceral hostility of the Tories and they don’t like appeals to nationalism because they have a very different sense of national identity to the Tories. They like and support many kinds of multiculturalism. Many read the Telegraph but they are also Times and Independent readers. They absolutely hate and despise the Daily Mail.
… The problem is that, increasingly, Whig and Tory voters just do not like each other. Policies and, above all, rhetoric that appeals to or inspires one group of voters will alienate the other. So having a campaign concentrating on attacks on asylum seekers, family values and national sovereignty will inspire the Tories but alienate the Whigs. Emphasising personal liberty via ‘hot button’ issues like homosexual rights and drug liberalisation will please Whigs but enrage Tories.
Davies goes on to speculate about how all this will play out. As far as the Conservatives are concerned, he reckons they’ll be captured by the Whigs, and won’t actually split.
As a general analysis goes that’s very… err… general. In fact I wonder if Mr. Davies has any research to back his feelings about this distinction between Whigs and Tories, or whether they’re simply based on his own social observations?
I wonder, because I find myself in neither camp – nor do I recognise such clear and precise distinctions among right-wing or libertarian friends and colleagues.
I should add, perhaps, that I don’t think Davies is wrong in saying there is split, but I doubt it’s anything like as clinical as he is suggesting and, if anything, is more likely to be based on mere age than anything so profound as bedrock ideology.
It seems inevitable that the Conservatives will choose the path of the moderates or become politically irrelevant. Barry Goldwater’s campaign is just one example of the problems of political radicalism in a bell-curve political distribution.
Oh, dear. It would seem I’m a Whory. Or a Tig. That just doesn’t sound good at all.
I’ll have two from Column A and three from Column B, please. And I side order of pork fried rice.
In a tenuously related issue, I find American liberals amusing when they claim that the country is undergoing a rebirth of conservatism. Liberalism is winning and has been winning for a century. Just look at what constitutes a mainstream conservative opinion about, say, homosexuality. It used to be conservative to say that homosexuality is evil and homosexuals should be punished. Now it’s conservative to say, well, we should keep them from being open in the military because it’s bad for morale. Come on, people.
G Cooper:
Steve Davies is a professional historian, who well understands the difference between historical evidence and a ring round amongst his friends or a talk in the pub. If you follow the link in my intro to the quote, you’ll find the whole piece, and a reference to a Nuffield study.
Second, note that Davies is referring not to Conservative activists, but to Conservative (potential or not as the case may be) voters. “It’s a split in the electorate.” These are not, on the whole, the sort of people who even read something like Samizdata, let alone comment on it.
I’m afraid I’m still wholly unconvinced, however he arrived at his opinions. Call me a reductionist but there are far simpler explanations for the decline in the Conservative vote and, as ever, my vote is with William of Occam.
“Second, note that Davies is referring not to Conservative activists, but to Conservative (potential or not as the case may be) voters”
As was I. Heaven forbid that my friends or colleagues knew I hung-out here – I’m in enough trouble for my opinions as it is.
Davies is right about the trends in Toryism (weren’t the Whigs kind of, well, LibDems?)
But it still means they are looking for their own Tony Blair to capture a broader vote. So the question of who is to lead is the most pressing one. Such a leader will operate from “conviction” and be “a niceyoung man” with a bit of steeliness about him. For such a man, my old auntie, a working-class Tory, would happily vote “Whig”.
I have to wonder if the Conservative Party has also suffered from the lack of strong (if polarising) leadership. I don’t think the Whig/Tory split suddenly came into being ‘about 1989’ — but neither Major, Hague (both nice but dim) or Duncan-Smith (whose sole advantage was a new election process dominated by backwoods Tories who thought Maggie was a wimp) managed to pull off Thatcher’s balancing act.
Craig Ranapia says: “…Hague (both nice but dim)…”
I really don’t think you are right about Hague. He is actually rather bright for a politician and was very capable on his feet in the HofC against Blair and his legion of zombies.
Hague’s problem was one of image – he was systematically crucified for his physical appearance – naturally, by those very same people who tell us that such things do not matter. This was compounded by his ‘Tory boy’ past, brilliantly capitalised on by the air-headed Harry Enfield (whose comments in the Sunday Telegraph on why he attended the march were priceless by the way, in case anyone has a copy sitting around unread).
Hague aside, I am sure you are right on the money about the lack of a charismatic leader. All parties are fragmented by their natures and require an Alpha male (or Maggie) to woof at them loudly enough to command respect and obedience. Look at the ragbag of disparate socialists Blair managed to herd into line once they sensed he might lead them to power.
I agree with this assesment and have been saying this for over a decade. The older Tories don’t like letting the ones near power because they quite rightly fear they will take over (they will). The Tory Grandees are deathly afraid of Thatcher’s children (Whigs) taking over the Tory Party…trouble is the grim reaper says they will. It wasn’t the media who scuttled Hague and IDS, it was the wets/Tories.
I don’t think there will be a split either.
The trouble with what Dr Davies is saying is that it is not true.
There are a group of people in the Conservative party who call themselves “modernizers” who Dr Davies may be thinking of when he uses the term “Whigs” – but they do not have the opinions he says they do.
They are not free market people. They tend to be like Chris Patton (or Mr Portillo or Mr Maud – sorry for any spelling problems here), – they talk about freedom, but support ever higher taxes and ever more regulations.
Even on the “social issues” Dr Davies has simply got it wrong. A libertarian would not be in favour of a law attacking any group of people on the grounds of their race, sex,…… but a libertarian (or even just old Whig) would not be in favour of laws AIDING people on the grounds of the race, sex……..
That is exactly what the “modernizers” are in favour of – endless “antidiscrimination” laws and “equality policies”.
Now what Dr Davies calls the “Tories” may be no good either (that is a seperate argument), but the modernizers are no friends of liberty – they are its foes.
They would complete the process by which British politics is turned into a total farce – with three “caring” P.C. political parties (Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the modernized Conservative party) facing each other in pretend argument – and with their backs turned on everyone else.
We have been here before – the “modernizers” of my youth were Edward Heath and Peter Walker.
“They tend to be like Chris Patton (or Mr Portillo or Mr Maud – sorry for any spelling problems here), – they talk about freedom, but support ever higher taxes and ever more regulations.”
Absolutely! I have been casting around for a UK version of RINO (Republican In Name Only), specifically to apply to Chris Patten, whom I regard as the second most traitorous senior Tory in the past thirty years (Heath still commanding pole position, of course).
I also share (more or less) your objections to the original categorisations of Conservative flavours. I simply do not recognise any such consistency of views.