Conservatism vs. Toryism

Recently we have had a lot of tiresome articles in the "right wing" press around the theme of "uniting the right" prior to the next general election.

As you would expect, there was a lot of  nonsense about formal pacts with the Conservative Party: let us not even bother with that. However, what was most risible was an article in the Spectator by Toby Young suggesting that the differences between the UKIP and the Conservative Party were essentially petty, and that both parties were conservative with a small 'c'.

It is amazing the extent to which the dwindling band of Conservative Party supporters delude themselves about the true nature of their party, and why it is now is such steep decline. In am article of rare insight, Tim Stanley nails it in the Telegraph, explaining current Conservative Party troubles in terms of the fundamental split between proper small-c conservativism and toryism.

The fact is that at the core of the Conservative party is toryism. The Tory Party was of course  the ancient predecessor to the Conservative Party, originally formed to protect vested interest and the status quo during the reign of Charles II. The party  adopted the mantle of conservatism much later under it's leader Robert Peel, whose maximum was the much more progressive idea of reforming the bad but preserving the good in society. Peel's subsequent repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 led to a major split in the party.

However the Conservative Party has never been able to get rid of the canker of Toryism, and throughout it's history an inner core of aristocratic or well-born Tories have always cynically used the party as a very effective shield for the preservation of elite interest. This has been especially true since extensions of the electoral franchise meant that the numerically small number of high-born Tories were vastly outnumbered by the total voting population. The strategy always adopted by the Tories within the Conservative Party has been to co-opt various small 'c' conservative sections of society under the party banner in order to remain in power and see off the threat of socialism.

Throughout the 20th Century this was surprisingly electorally successful, but the underlying presence of toryism within the Conservative Party has nonetheless caused a lot of harm. One very damaging consequence was the continued association in the minds of many people of capitalism with the exploitation of the workers by the aristocracy. Another was that benign institutions that deserved conservative support such as the grammar schools were left undefended because their destruction was actually helpful to elite Tory interests.

The modern age has seen an ever-widening and unbridgeable gulf between the interests of conservatism and those of toryism, and this is perhaps the central reason for the Conservative Party's long term decline. Perhaps the dominant reason was and is the rise of the European Union and the new international elite, which pitted the Tory lust for power and position directly against the conservative desire to preserve and nurture national institutions: "Conservative" governments have proved enthusiastic supporters of signing away our sovereignty in a way that truly "conservative" governments would never countenance.

The diametric opposition between conservative and tory goals is manifest in a multitude of other ways, too. Consider:

A conservative is in favour of grammar schools, whereas a tory sees their destruction as helpful to the preservation of their own public school educated dynasties.

A conservative believes in the wealth-creation of free market capitalism, whereas a tory is happy with corporatism, better preserving as it does the old boy network. 

A conservative would support traditional marriage, whereas a tory sees little value in doing so, as the breakdown of marriage damages the poor far more the than the rich.

A conservative would help the traditional family in the tax system, whereas a tory sees the lower orders as mere units of production to be sent out to work.

A conservative would believe in limiting immigration, not least because of it's impact on local communities, a tory has no interest in doing so and just sees another source of cheap labour.

A conservative would support meritocracy, whereas a tory would be quite happy with gender quotas, knowing how these can be subverted to create an elite of extremely wealthy power-couples and concentrate wealth still further.

A conservative would support a feee market in energy, whereas a tory supports wind farm subsidies, as they transfer resources from the taxed poor to those with landed estates.

A conservative has set principles, whereas a tory is a Vicar Of Bray.

The sad fact is that, whatever deluded conservatives like Toby Young think, the Conservative Party only believes in conservative ideas fitfully. Moreover, the suspicion is deeply lodged within the minds of large sections of the electorate that it only ever adopts conservative positions when it helps the inner tory elite. This has had the tragic effect of estranging vast chunks of the electorate from conservative ideas. Quite obviously, as Dr. Stanley says, in many ways under the blue-blooded leadership of the Cameroons this is a decidedly tory government rather a conservative one.

UKIP may not be an out and out small-c "conservative" party, but it certainly contains strong elements of conservatism within it. What it certainly is not is a "tory" party, and it should have nothing to do with a Conservative party that is forever deeply tainted with a tory cynicism and selfishness that has hobbled the progress of this country for so long.

At the end of the day, you cannot touch pitch and not be defiled.

A UKIP - Tory Pact? Five Reasons why not.

The current death spiral of the Tory party, fast draining members, support and morale under the inspired leadership of "Agent Cameron", has led once again to talk of some kind of electoral pact with UKIP.

Many would say that the growth of UKIP and the eclipse of the Tory Party amounts to a major split on the right of British politics in the same way that Labour and Liberals split in the early 20th Century. Just as that split ushered in a Tory dominated century, this split would ensure the domination of the Left in British Politics for the foreseeable future. By this analysis how to deal with the 'Tory question' is the most important strategic issue UKIP faces.

However, there are reasons to be extremely cautious of a pact with the Tories for the following reasons.

1. UKIP is developing its own unique identity and, if it is to have any hope of power, must look to appeal to voters beyond the Tory base. For example, Many UKIP policies appeal to people who would consider themselves 'Old Labour' types. Many such people would never dream of voting Tory for atavistic tribal reasons of class prejudice, and will not support UKIP if it is seen as being tainted by association and just a Tory mini-me. UKIP's position in Northern England and Wales, where we may shortly overtake the Tories in  popular support, would be particularly damaged.
   
   But it's not really about "stealing" votes from other parties: the biggest prize in British politics is to appeal to the huge percentage of the population who no longer vote or never have done, utterly alienated from the political process. The LibLabCon are rightly seen as part of an  inward-looking Metropolitan clique totally out of touch with the average person. There is a huge opportunity for a party that continues to stand resolutely outside the tired old politics that have clearly failed the country.
2. The Vision Thing.  UKIP has a clear, unique and progressive vision for this country which chimes with the instincts of the British people. The eternally myopic Tory Party does not and never will have. The lack of a coherent alternative vision over the last 20 years has allowed the PC Left to dominate the debate and advance their interests almost without opposition, particularly in matters of culture. Irrespective of whether we ever hold formal power, it is vital our vision and message is clearly propagated to the British people as a viable alternative to our current wretched condition. On no account must that be diluted or subsumed.
3. A huge realignment of British Politics may be coming. The rapid decline of the Tory Party may be followed by collapse of the Labour Party, many of whose suporters only continue to vote Labour out of hatred of the Tories. At that point the whole situation will be in flux and UKIP must have maximum mobility and freedom of action to exploit the situation.
4. Although the Tory Party contains many decent people, historically it has always been dominated by a ruthless and careerist elite who believe in power at any price. A pact with such people is likely to end in tears and bitter betrayal.
5. Many UKIP activists would feel uncomfortable being in a pact with a party whose leadership has repeatedly smeared us as racist.

For these reasons, a pact with the Tories is better left alone. We have struggled mightily over the years to get where we are by going it alone. Even greater achievements will be ours if we continue to do so.

Should UKIP aim to destroy the Conservative Party?

Previously I have argued that the rise of UKIP represents the long-term de-merging of the classical "19th Century" liberal and conservative strands of thought within the Conservative Party, artificially conflated as they were after Liberal Party splits in the early 20th Century and held together by the threat of Socialism thereafter. There is some evidence for this analysis, most notably the number of libertarians joining Young Independence, who may drag UKIP in a progressively more  Libertarian direction in future. 

Shorn of it's Thatcherite minority, in such a scenario the Conservative Party would return to being properly "conservative", in the sense of defending what Burke called "the organic state" and, in Peelite expression, of using power for 'reforming ills while conserving the good'.

However, this leads to another question. Namely, is the dominant tradition within the Conservative Party today "Tory" rather than "conservative"?  If so, does the Conservative Party really deserve to continue to exist at all, and can it even survive? Should, therefore,  the ultimate aim of UKIP be to destroy and replace the Conservative Party?

To analyse these questions it is necessary to go back  to the formation of the modern Conservative Party. It's antecedent, the original "Tory" Party grew out of the English Civil War. Essentially reactionary, it was made up of people  who wished to preserve the status quo, largely to their own advantage. The more sophisticated - and altogether more noble - "conservative" tradition emerged later between  the end of the 18th and early 19th Centuries.


The major problem for the Conservative Party is, of course, that older and more cynical Tory tradition never really died, and has always remained a powerful force within the party. Unsurprisingly, when 'reforming the ill' clashed with Tory vested interests, as happened most notably under Sir Robert Peel and repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, a major party split ensued. However, for much of the Conservative Party's later history,  it has proved perfectly possible to reconcile the two traditions. Consequently it has proved difficult to know which tradition actually had the upper hand and the true motives - noble or cynical -  behind Conservative Party policies. 


But all that was before the European Union arrived on the scene. The reason that "Europe" is such a toxic issue for the Conservative Party is that not only does it directly pit the Tory lust for power and position against the conservative, Burkean tradition in a way that no other issue can, but it has proved impossible for the party to ignore. 


And, sadly,  Europe has illuminated for us in bright, neon capitals that it is the cynical Tory tradition that is dominant within the Conservative Party.  At every juncture, despite principled objections from true conservatives, the Tory faction has won out, with ever more sovereignty lost and national institutions ever more damaged. The consequences to the Conservative Party itself have proved nothing short of disastrous: over the last 20 years, the increasing revulsion felt by activists with the "Tory" nature of it's leadership has lead to the haemorrhaging of membership and fuelled the rise of UKIP. It can be argued that this process will lead to the Conservative Party entering a death-spiral, as the cynical and unappealing face of an ever more dominant Toryism within the party makes it less and less electable. Arguably these effects are already apparent under the Prime Ministership of the very Tory David Cameron, with his advocacy of coalition government policies such as gay marriage, the replacement of the House of Lords (not 'reform' as is so disingenuously claimed) and destruction of the Armed Forces: all policies which could never remotely be called "conservative" and profoundly alienating to much of the electorate, particularly the Conservative Party core vote.


So where does leave UKIP? If the Conservative Party is weakening and both it's activist and voting base increasingly up for grabs, where should we pitch ourselves in order to achieve our ends? Should we seek to inherit the mantle of the classical liberal right wing, become essentially libertarian in outlook, and leave the mainstream "conservative" tradition struggling within the Tory-controlled Conservative Party? The advantage of this strategy is that UKIP can be philosophically more coherent and a fount of radical new Libertarian ideas, although unlikely ever to wield power except as a minority partner in a coalition. However, by 'pissing in' rather than 'pissing out'  of the Conservative Party tent, we would probably be more effective than the Conservative Party right-wing currently is in promoting Libertarian policies.


Alternatively, should we go the whole hog and seek to acquire both the classical  liberal and conservative strands, destroying and replacing the Conservative Party in the process?  The advantage of this option is that it would hopefully weaken the thoroughly malign Tory tradition of power at any price which has so disfigured our politics, and at the same time keep the Right of British politics united. It isn't outlandish to claim that, following a complete Conservative Party collapse, one day we may even get to form a government ourselves.


What is not in doubt is that huge opportunities are opening up for UKIP that may see us break through as a major political force and our response to them will define the future identity of our party in the decades to come. 

Abit of New Years Fun