Sep 29 2007
Traditionalist or moderniser?
By the late 1990s it was becoming clear to all but Labour spin doctors that the Conservative party was the most united party on Europe, united around saying more than enough power had already been transferred and we should oppose all federalist plans. We signed up to opposing the Euro, opposing a European army, opposing a common foreign policy, and against a common criminal justice policy. We sought the repatriation of policies like fishing that had gone so badly, and united in Parliament to vote against both the Nice and Amsterdam Treaties.
I felt happy that the party had united around a Eurosceptic position, and thought we could at last put behind ourselves any label that we were split. We could sit back and watch the obvious huge rows of the Blair/Brown years, as Labour knocked lumps out of themselves by being Blairites or Brownies.
I was very suprised to be told one morning that a new Tory split had apparently opened up, between Mods and Rockers, and even more surprised to learn that in the first cut I had been placed with the Rockers. This bore no relationship to any reality I knew. There were no Rocker dining clubs, no Mod lapel stickers. Most of my Parliamentary colleagues whom I asked hadn’t a clue which they were or how you defined the difference. I was certainly not about to go about and buy my leathers and a Harley. It seemed to me to be pure michief making, to keep alive the notion that the Tory party was divided.
Someone has stuck at trying to make this division credible. Even today I hear of stories that the modernisers are not going to give ground to the traditionalists - yesterday I read that the modernisers wanted to move towards the traditionalists. It still does not reflect the reality of the modern Conservative party.
I am both a moderniser and a traditionalist, and so are all sensible Conservatives. Like the bride, we think it is best to combine something old and something new, something borrowed and something blue. Yes even something borrowed in the post sub-prime world, there’s inclusiveness for you.
I am glad we have a leader (voted for by more than two thrids of the party) who wants us to join in modern debates about green issues and third world poverty. We need to respond to the agenda of the day. I am glad he wants to use the latest methods of communicating, presenting ourselves and campaigning. We need to move with the times.
I am also glad we maintain our beleif in some eternal values that will always be Conservative. We are the party of lower taxation, and of more freedom. We are the party that believes the state should do less and do it better, and that people and communities can and should do more for themselves with appropriate state help or encouragement where needed. Above all we are the party of a democractic Britain, who would give people a referendum on the EU Constitution - and give English people Enbglish votes on English issues in Parliament.
John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College...
Certain left-wing forces in the media work overtime to create the appearence of division in the Conservative party. What Conservatives see as healthy democratic debate, the media hacks try to portray as schism. One only has to read an article in the media, and particularly on the BBC website, to see the way that hyperbole is used to give a story an entirely different meaning. The reality is that a broadly-based party will have many divergent opinions and not everyone will agree on everything. That is not division, that is democracy. The Labour party is driven by ideology, which means it is not free to think outside of party dogma. Thank heavens the Conservative party is a place where opinion flows freely and is criticized freely. On the subject of Mods and Rockers it might be worth bearing in mind the words of Ringo Starr when the press asked him if he was a Mod or a Rocker, Ringo simply replied…”I’m a Mocker”
Reply: Exactly! I want to belong to a party where there is political debate about how and when, within the context of agreement about the general principles and direction.
[Reply]
“Exactly! I want to belong to a party where there is political debate about how and when, within the context of agreement about the general principles and direction.”
But Mr Cameron has already stated that in HIS party (David Cameron’s Conservatives) he will not allow views that don’t fit his agenda. Him putting his name on the ballot paper just showed the arrogance that many people perceive he has. This reminds people too much of Mr Blair.
I do not believe he would have got 2/3rds of the members’ vote had he stated more of his planned agenda for the party while he was canvassing support.
I agree the party must move forward but, in my view riding roughshod over all the things we Conservatives held dear and moving ever closer to the centre is not the way. We need to distant ourselves from Blair type politics, spin and image driven policies and get back to the basics of what made us Conservatives different. After all, we governed for nineteen years and left Mr Brown with one of the healthiest economies on the planet. It must have been good as it has taken him ten years to ruin….usually Labour achieve this much faster!
Reply: I agree we need to show we are post spin - people are sick and tired of politics based on a series of PR stunts the Blair way.
[Reply]
Agree with you on the EU. Watching last Thursday’s Question Time, when Nick Clegg dismissed a referendum on the Treatstitution and said “…Ming Campbell is right to ask for a referendum on our continued membership of the EU”, if I had been Ed Vaizey on that panel I would have shouted him down: “NO! Ming is completely wrong! ‘Being in the EU’ means being both in a political EU and the economic EU. Voting against the Treaty is not a blunt ‘out’ vote, it is purely aimed at stopping the drift into undemocratic supra-parliamentary rule of Britain by overpaid civil servants in Brussels. It’s not about the economic side of things, because what have a common EU foreign policy, etc., really got to do with the economic well-being of Britain? Either Ming is stupid or lying or has never heard of the ’straw man argument’ to conflate these two issues and ask solely ‘in or out’. It is not a coincidence that the ’stay in’ side could easily beat us all into submission with economic scare stories - the only argument in favour of the political side of the EU, as far as I can tell, was that voiced by a Question Time audience member: ‘the Europeans were really happy when we finally joined in 1972, we don’t want to disappoint them now’!”
Apologies for the rant John! I also speak as a young man (22), which I only add because I am told that the young, even in the Conservative party, are all ‘europhiles’.
Because you are so very good in responding to our questions, may I ask, given as you say that the party is now mostly Eurosceptic, do you think CCHQ will do anything to reach out to UKIP? I confess I don’t know much about UKIP, but I understand that even the ultra-eurosceptic Bruges group approves of inter-European free trade and argues rather against political intergration (as dichotomised above). Surely this is a strong, sensible and appealing argument, and better than a situation wherein, as James Delingpole wrote in ‘How to be Right’, that to most people the term “anti-Europe” or “eurosceptic” suggets that you hate French wine, Italian food and the sight of donkeys standing under olive trees in southern Greece, while the blue mediterranean softly laps against the shore…
Reply: No I don’t think the leadership will do anything more to reach out to UKIP. UKIP keeps shifting the goalposts whatever the Conservatives say about the EU. We are now committed to opposing the Constitution, never joining the Euro, repatriating powers, rejecting federalism and opposing a common foreign and security policy. That’s not a bad start.
[Reply]
The key to the differences between the parties seems to me between centralising (Brown) and localising (Cameron). Mod and Rocker, moderniser and traditional seem more like fashion statements than of policy substance.
Brown’s persona, to my mind resembles that of Edward Heath, big on centralising, jealousy of others who shine, appointing and attracting minnows who are no threat (Quentin Davies!), losing good people (in Brown’s case, Reid and Clark), expecting Unions to accept pay rises below inflation, lying about Europe, hoping growth will come from others taking risk, but not controlling money and allowing inflation to get a hold, and (looking likely) holding a general election, of which the main theme will be ‘who governs Britain?’
Cameron represents balance, common sense, willingness to address new issues and be open to new ideas. Brown’s machine power politics is a little scary to be honest - as was Ted Heath’s.
[Reply]