The dilemma for the Tory right: reply to Simon Heffer
Posted on Wednesday 19 May, 2010
Filed Under Conservative Party, Labour Left
ONLY a Tory without principles would demonise the right, argues Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph this morning. And David Cameron demonises the right. Simon doesn’t quite fill out the syllogism, but let’s just say that therefore Socrates is mortal.
Once one cuts through the customary Hefferian hyperbole, today’s tirade is basically an extended complaint that those ghastly milquetoast moderates that make up the Tory leadership perpetually ignore those that lean to starboard.
Even viewed from what is perhaps the worst point on the entire political spectrum from which to observe the affairs of the Conservative Party, the contention seems indisputably true. What is more, the reason for this is obvious.
It is patently not the case – as Simon wants us to believe – that there exists huge latent support for coherent rightism, and that vast swathes of the public would rally to its standard bearers if only it were given organisational expression.
Such an attitude eerily parallels those socialists who insist that ‘the masses are to the left of Labour’, a contention difficult to reconcile with the desultory scores secured by various flotsam and jetsam candidates two weeks ago. It might be a comforting thought, but it isn’t true.
The basic glitch in the models of the ideological purists of both persuasions is that ideological purism is not currently a saleable commodity. Third Way insistence that elections are won from the centre ground is not wrong, and that is why Cameron has followed Blair’s lead in placing himself firmly there.
I’m a Labour leftist myself, for Heaven’s sake. I am well aware that there are few takers for Marxism, in either watered down or full-on format. Even trade union-based Big State social democracy is a hard sell in the present climate.
Our task is to win widespread acceptance for these ideas; and while the Tory right is not as far out on a limb as we are, at least in numerical terms, it must come to terms with the same strategic landscape.
True, as far as the mood of the man or woman in the pub can be read, left ideas such as pulling out of Iraq or the renationalisation of the railway system or taxing the rich are uncontroversial to most. But buy them another drink and they will call for the return of hanging and a tougher line on immigration. These themes are merely populist, and not distinctively leftist or rightist as such.
Yet Heffer evidently likes his conservatism sound or not at all, and subtly warns Dave that the hard right awkward squad haven’t gone away, y’know. ‘That’s a nice looking coalition you’ve got there, Mr Cameron,’ he seems to say. ‘Wouldn’t want anything nasty to happen to it, would we?’:
Our new Government is obsessed with image and manifestly finds policy problematical. The wing of the Conservative Party that Mr Cameron and his friends would call “Right” comprises the people most likely to cause the coalition to fall …
To keep the “Right” – itself a coalition of Hayekian liberals, Powellite souverainistes and social conservatives – in its box, the process of insult, begun in opposition, will be used to seek to have them ridiculed, marginalised, soiled and, eventually, rendered pointless.
The thing is, Simon, the Conservative Party did not go to the electorate presenting themselves as Hayekian liberals, Powellite souverainistes or Mad Mels tanked up on miaow miaow; the Cameroons stood as ecofriendly progressives, and such mandate as they have has been extended to them on that basis.
If the Powellites and Hayekians don’t like what is on offer from Cameron, they could always decamp to UKIP, or even set up their own sideshow. You can just imagine the dialogue on the doorstep.
Activist: ‘Sorry to bother you madam, but I’m canvassing on behalf of the Monster Raving Hayekian Liberal and Powellite Souverainiste Alliance. Can we count on your support next Thursday?’
Elderly voter [stares blankly into space]: ‘You wot, luv?’
Both the Tory right and the Labour left implicitly accept the trade off that it is better to have limited influence inside the tent than none whatsoever outside it, and maybe tug the mainstream a few inches over to either direction. So sorry Simon, it’s like it or lump it.
<<Go back
Comments
11 Responses to “The dilemma for the Tory right: reply to Simon Heffer”
Leave a Reply
-
- Yemen: an unfinished revolution
- Comment Is Free: An honours system for those who fight to make Britain a better place
- Democracy crushed; elected President arrested; World wrings its hands
- Fabians change policy on unpaid internships
- Kamal al-Fayoumi arrested as Egyptian regime retaliates to strikes
-
-
Meta
-
Any chance of coming out of orbit and writing coherent English?
The language is surely in danger of disappearance up its own arse when the reader has to read back through the sentence and the allusion a couple of times to discover what is being said.
Socrates, for fuck’s sake.
Seemed pretty straightforward to me. Then again, I’m a reader…
Ludicrously, the BNP proclaim themselves in favour of bribing Third Worlders to pack and leave.
Just such a program seems to be signally unsuccessful in Denmark:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/05/refugees_scoffi.php
Again, American Renaissance is an interesting site; several of the articles featured are not written by the insane.
First problem with this article is it assumes the centre ground is some fixed position set in stone for eternity. Clearly the centre ground economically is further to the right than it ever was, though the social ground has moved a little to the left. (If we ignore immigration and include that in the economic category). To liberals the latter always matters more than the former.
Second problem is that in my opinion Cameron is further to the right than this article suggests (for he knows it’s the economy stupid!) and all Heffer is doing is bemoaning the presence of the Liberal democrats and setting them up as the fall guys should things go wrong. So I think ultimately Simon will like it rather than lump it, though if the policies prove unpopular they will be ready and armed to blame the Liberals.
“left ideas such as pulling out of Iraq or the renationalisation of the railway system or taxing the rich are uncontroversial to most. But buy them another drink and they will call for the return of hanging and a tougher line on immigration. These themes are merely populist, and not distinctively leftist or rightist as such.”
So which is it, is pulling out of Iraq a left idea as you say to begin with our are they populits ideas as you assert at the end?
Here’s something from one of our favourite commentators:
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/johann-hari/johann-hari-islamists-their-victims-and-hypocrisy-1977424.html
Much though we love Johann Hari, a sneaking little suspicion remains. A conversation in Pakistan or Iran or Afghanistan or Somaliland might well go like this:
“It’ll never work. They can’t be that gullible.”
“They are but just saying ‘Me refugee’ at the airport doesn’t work any more! Just show up and tell them at the airport that you’re a persecuted Christian convert. Or that you’re fleeing Female Genital Mutilation or a Forced Arranged Cross-Cousin Marriage. Or that you’re a Lesbian. Or even a Satanist. They’ll let you in no bother.”
“Get away! They’re educated people in a civilised country. They can’t be that daft.”
“They are! They are! Look, others have done it and got away with it! If the Brits see through it, try the Norwegians or the Finns.”
“And if I pull it off, what then?”
“Save most of the money they give you as welfare and you can come back here on holiday. Others have done that, too.”
Does Bill Corr literally just spout the same racist bullshit without even the faintest reference to the main article?
The thing is, I think the majority of people are pretty left wing economically (because left wing economics benefit the majority of people) and increasingly on social issues such as womens’ and gay rights tilt to the progressive side. True the right might more accurately portray the public’s opinion on immigration, but this is so tied up with an economic system that squeezes the poor and turns worker against worker, that while we should never give up our anti-racism agenda, we must be aware that steps towards a more just economic system will likely predate a sea-change in public opinion towards immigrants.
ScurvyDom grasps that “most people” want nice lefty summat-for-me policies so long as they are of benefit to us and people like us and, by a slight margin, “most people” are tolerably liberal on progressive issues so long as gay Ministers of State do not engage in silly stunts like displaying themselves in their undies on promiscuous gay websites but at the same time “most people” are also in favour of real school discipline, corporal punishment for miscreants included, and – shudder – “most people” are still very much in favour of capital punishment.
I realise that howling for the noose and the cat will never attract the spineless and gutles LibDems or even many of the present-day Parliamentary conservatives so I’d suggest a compromise:
Every month, readers of the ‘Sun’ would have a phone-in to decide which convicted murderer – one a month – they’d like to see executed AND they’d be able to choose the mode of execution, too.
Executions would be televised live at midnight on the last day of the month.
Just one a month. A fine British compromise.
And, yes, O ScurvyDom, I have seen a public execution with my very own eyes and know whereof I speak.
Plus, ScurvyDom, my guess is that “most people” would heartily approve of hunting down and expelling illegal immigrants and, probably, offering cash rewards for turning them in [an aspect of law enforcement practiced in Saudi Arabia which could usefully be adopted in the U.K.]
But the truly wonderful news of the last two days concerns Diane Abbot; I laughed so much that my old broken rib started hurting …
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/19/diane-abbott-labour-leadership
Scurvy Dom- you’ve only just noticed? I had hoped if he was ignored he would go away, but he seems to have too much time on his hands and a complete lack of interest in connecting with others.
THe proposals that have come out to allow government ministers into the 1922 committee do suggest that there are some elements of toryism that Cameron is afraid are popular, over Europe for example.
Any chance of coming out of orbit and writing coherent English?
Any chance of actually acquiring some sort of education?
Read a book, for fuck’s sake.
“True, … left ideas such as pulling out of Iraq or the renationalisation of the railway system or taxing the rich are uncontroversial to most. But … they will call for the return of hanging and a tougher line on immigration. These themes are merely populist, and not distinctively leftist or rightist as such.”
Populism – that which I disagree with… Actually parties are vast electoral coalitions and we don’t have to agree with every policy to join up or vote for that party.
Controlling the supply of labour comes over as fair enough in these days when 80% of the jobs created under Nu-Labour went to foreigners. I don’t agree with murderers having to take the old 8.00am stroll, but if the price of a collectivised economy is old rope, then I can sign up to that – can you?
Let’s look for areas where we can work with other people to create a big coalition. Let’s give them the rope if they give us a nationalised railway system.
The left of course will not go along with this because the left does not want to win. So many leftists are really just folk striking a posture and being ideologically pure at heart.