Conservatism isn't an ideology: it's a disposition.

I was reminded of this acute and perceptive insight into the nature of British Conservatism, from EHH Green’s superb book, “Ideologies of Conservatism”, on reading Polly Toynbee in the Guardian today (2nd Oct 2006). Sceptical of a Tory transformation, have a look at what she wrote:

“This is not just an eternal divide between progressive and conservative politics; it reflects the two sides of the human brain, two human impulses in constant conflict, needing to be kept in constant balance . . . The parties will always be in a fundamental tug-of-war; most people identify one way or the other.”

Most people on this island are conservative as history proves, but to be a Conservative is perceived to be something different, something at odds with human decency. Thatcher has a lot to answer for in attaching an ideology to arguably the most pragmatic party in the entire history of party politics. The question is to what degree are we conservative, the more so identify with the Tories, the less so identify with Labour / Liberals (for even the most radical Liberal wouldn’t seriously contemplate the removal of the monarchy – as one example – on gaining office). This is the simple argument propounded by Ms Toynbee, and in a crude way serves a purpose.

Being a “Conservative” shouldn’t inspire connotations of sleaze, regressive politics or authoritarianism any more than voting Labour. Let it not be forgotten, that until the Thatcher accident, the Conservative party had a proud history of governing from the left (Churchill was a former Liberal for example). As The Times leader commented today “to aspire to transform an image is no vice” and Cameron has successfully executed such a transformation in the style of the Tory brand over the last year.

He has launched his own blog, http://www.webcameron.org.uk/, and harangued interviewers on the importance of “social responsibility” and the need for economic “stability” over tax cuts. He has steered the ship in a greener direction and the sheer presence of commentators such as Shami Chakrabarti, head of Liberty, at a Tory party conference is evidence that the party has indeed made an effort not only to change its image but its policy direction.

Yet as Max Hastings said in The Guardian (01/10/06) “Some Tories, far from being grateful to Cameron for making them look electable, are sounding dangerously suicidal again”. This is Cameron’s conundrum. It is difficult to change fundamentally that which believes proudly in constancy. However, substantial progress has been made and it would be wrong to cast the party to political oblivion just yet.

The Tories will realise, as they did under Macmillan when he dismantled the Empire under the “Winds of Change” speech, that adapt they must. It was remarkably what the Party used to do best.

I recall an instance at the Oxford Union at debate with Douglas Hurd. When asked by a member of the floor whether or not the Tories could possibly be relegated to third party status and never again hold office, he replied candidly, “oh no my dear boy, the Tory Party’s immortal”.

Bring on the Party conference.

Link