Skip to main content

New Conservatives

As the unedifying spectacle of the Conservative party conference grinds on, with the main halls half empty and the fringes full of the manic cheerfulness of the Weimar Republic, it's instructive to take a look at how the party is positioning itself in the face of the challenge from a resurgent Labour.

It isn't.

Rarely can a conference have offered up such a paucity of ideas. In the aftermath of Boris going wildly off piste before insisting that nothing of the sort occurred, and David Davis cheerfully denying that he's cheerfully admitted that he'll be long gone before the Brexit negotiations are concluded (leaving them all to the emperor of tact, Johnson himself) the message seems to have been shut up, hold tight and hopefully this will all blow over. It is Mayism in its rawest form, insist that everything is fine. Do nothing. It is this torpor which allows those who make the most noise, the Johnsons, the Rees-Moggs, to cast themselves as major players, the curious inertia of May and Hammond provides a petri-dish in which a toxic right-wing Toryism, even more repellent to the electorate than this current farrago, can grow unchecked.

The intellectual death of the Conservative party is nothing new, thinking was banished to the sidelines in favour of soundbites many years ago, for which you can thank the Cameron Osborne axis, who learned all the wrong lessons from Tony Blair. Johnson seeming to think that inappropriately quoting Kipling makes him the heir to Disraeli, Amber Rudd grasping desperately at Lynton Crosby to save her skin, they show all the signs of the end days of the Major government, when an outmanouevred Tory dinosaur, mired in sleaze and bereft of philosophical heft was easy meat for Blair's younger, faster, slicker, New Labour. It says something when the only person who hasn't recently dropped a clanger is Michael Gove, and even he's reading George Monbiot these days.

That it is an even older brand of politics which is doing this to them will hurt all the more. In no sense can Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell be accused of youth, but they have succeeded where younger politicians have failed, by galvanising a young vote which has been ignored and patronised since 1997. The initial New Labour landslide was a classic example of diminishing returns, as the Labour party shored up power with a rightward lurch designed not to scare the horses, and it's taken Corbynism to reignite the Labour Party's capacity for radicalism, and for policies which speak to people.

The Conservative response to this has been tepid, at best. Some lip service paid to tuition fees, some guff from Hammond about ensuring the next generation will be wealthier than their parents, no energy to speak of. This is not surprising. Hamstrung by Brexit, and fatally riven by infighting they are unable to concentrate on anything but mere survival. The chancellor is spending his time fighting fires and limiting damage, unable to expend any energy on promoting growth, the Prime Minister is stuck between her own common sense and the baying right, unable to move. If an election were called tomorrow, it wouldn't be pretty.

So it seems reasonable to suggest that the next Conservative prime Minister is somewhere on the back-benches, or possibly not even in parliament yet. If we've learned anything from this conference it is that the Conservative party is terrified of the future. David Willetts' bleak assessment of their future electoral prospects as their voter base dies off has HQ running scared. The aforementioned lip service to tuition fees is the first shot in a war for the soul of the party. Whilst the dogmatic right currently hold sway, it isn't far-fetched to suggest that a centrist lurch from a younger crop of MPs may soon be on the cards. Much as Blair repositioned the Labour party, it isn't inconceivable that even now some bright eyed wonk on a sub-committee somewhere is dreaming up the "New Conservatives", that sound May hears in the distance is the sharpening of knives.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Inedible

"He says it's inedible" said my front of house manager, as she laid the half-eaten fish and chips in front of me, and instantly I relaxed.  Clearly, I observed, it was edible to some degree. I comped it, because I can't be arsed arguing the toss, and I want to make my front of house's lives as simple as possible. The haddock had been delivered that morning. The fryers had been cleaned that morning. The batter had been made that morning (and it's very good batter, ask me nicely and I'll give you the recipe some time). The fish and chips was identical to the other 27 portions I'd sent out on that lunch service, all of which had come back more or less hoovered up, we have have a (justified, if I do say so myself) very good reputation for our chips. But it was, apparently, "inedible". When it comes to complaints, less is more. If you use a hyperbolic word like that, I'll switch off, you've marked yourself as a rube, a chump, I'm not g...

Chop chop

I was completely ignorant of the fuss over the edited Trump speech in an edition of Panorama until, one moment later, I wasn't. And the reasons for my ignorance are instructive. I had no idea that the story was even brewing until the surprise Sunday night news of the resignations of Tom Davie and Deborah Turness. As I'm sure you are by now aware, this was occasioned by a clumsy edit in an old edition of Panorama, which has already been on the iplayer for a year. It's a non-story. Except people decided to make it a story. The reason I'd heard nothing of it until the resignations was that I'm not on X, where, apparently, it was all the media classes had been talking about for a week. It was an obsession of the unholy right-wing trifecta of the Mail, Telegraph and Times (who, given that they sent a bloke just last week to interview the wrong Bill di Blasio, you'd think would wind their necks in over factual inacccuracy). It was big news on GB news, all self-contain...

Creepy old men

I note, somewhat wearily, that creepy old men are back in the news, being creepy. Creepy old men, and their apologists and enablers, who argue that their creepiness is somehow the natural order of things. Old men would have you believe that it is difficult to not be a creepy old man. That it is a task of epic proportions. It is not that difficult. It is a matter of intention. As yet more of the grimness of Epstein unfolds, creepy old men are, sadly, a flaccid topic once again. Whether it be pursuing students thirty years their junior, or simply not asking too many questions about the background of the probably legal young woman who you've just been introduced to by your good pal Jeff. To be clear, I am not referring to criminal creepy old men, the ones who actually committed statutory rape, the ones who fucked trafficked hirls. That is not something which is allowed to get away merely with the contempt of the observer.  That deserves prison.  No , I'm referring to the hinterla...