Don't tell Disraeli (Leon Neal/Getty Images)
It was inevitable that this week’s NatCon conference in London would be met with the usual mix of mockery and outrage. To some, the very concept of national conservatism is anachronistic and ludicrous; to others, it is all-too modern and sinister. The truth, however, is far more prosaic: national conservatism has been an essential part of Toryism for as long as the modern Conservative Party has existed. It remains as necessary as ever for its survival — and yet, it must be much more than what has been on display this week if the Party wants to secure further electoral victories.
According to its leading exponents, national conservatism is simply the opposite of liberal internationalism. It believes nations are distinctive and should seek to protect this distinctiveness instead of pursuing universal ideas such as global free trade, human rights, international law and the like. It believes that conservatism entered into an alliance with liberalism in the Seventies in order to defeat socialism, but took its eye off the ball in the Nineties, allowing liberalism to then triumph. This, in its view, has led to the erosion of national institutions, Western culture and even morality itself. In short, they argue, it is time for conservatives to rediscover conservatism.
The phenomenon of conservatives criticising the failures of conservatism is not new — it is a recurring theme in the Party’s history, flowering whenever there is a feeling of national drift and failure, as there surely is today. In the 1840s, Benjamin Disraeli relentlessly mocked the new-fangled “conservatism” of Robert Peel, who had won power by accepting the Great Reform Act of 1832, even though he had once opposed it. In his great novel, Coningsby, the future prime minister wrote that Peel’s about-turn was an attempt to “construct a party without principles”. It called itself conservative but what did it actually want to conserve? “The prerogatives of the Crown, provided they are not exercised; the independence of the House of Lords, provided it is not asserted; the ecclesiastical estate, provided it is regulated by a commission of layman. Everything, in short, that is established, as long as it is a phrase and not a fact.”
Similarly, in the Seventies, Margaret Thatcher railed against those conservatives who had forgotten their convictions. “For years now in British politics, this word consensus has reared its head,” she said. “I often think that when you’re going for consensus that those who believe as I believe tend to give in to the Left wing and steadily move further and further Left.”
In a sense, both Disraeli and Thatcher identified the same problem inherent in conservatism: without an idea of what it is actually trying to conserve, of the kind of society it believes in, conservatism is little more than an ineffectual brake, unable to stop the drift towards the type of world it ultimately opposes. And yet, a conservatism that retreats into some kind of romantic defence of lost causes does not win power and conserve anything either.
The Conservative Party has spent a fair amount of time out of power, watching as reforms it once opposed were introduced: between 1846 and 1874; 1906 and 1915; 1997 and 2010. Each time, the party was forced to reinvent itself, accepting the reforms of its opponents. Despite his mockery of Peel, Disraeli did exactly this, dragging his party back to power by not only accepting the Great Reform Act he once opposed (as well as the repeal of the Corn Laws) but actually authoring a second major expansion of the franchise himself, having the genius to see how the lower classes might actually prove allies of the conservative cause rather than radical opponents.
Disraeli, as a result, is often criticised as a typical Tory, unmoored from principle. But this caricature seems unfair. Here was a Tory ultra who rebuilt the Conservative Party as an electoral force not simply by accepting electoral reality, but by helping to change that reality. In doing so, he gave the Conservative Party much of its essential character today — and much of that character is what we might call national conservatism or what has also been called Tory democracy.
Almost every Tory leader after Disraeli has been able to paint his or her opponent as divisive, factional, unpatriotic or somehow a bit foreign, even after the moral disaster of appeasement. Disraeli presented his opponents as “Venetian Oligarchs”; Churchill dismissed the party of Attlee as “Labour weaklings”. Thatcher played the patriotic card during the Falklands; David Cameron did the same to Ed Miliband; Boris Johnson to Jeremy Corbyn. Whenever the Conservative Party has been successful, it has built a broad coalition of support among cutting across all classes, uniting all those opposed to radical reform and supportive of those whom they see as the party of order, property and the national interest.
National conservatism has also been the Tory answer to the problem of change ever since Disraeli. “The great question is not whether you should resist change,” he argued, “but whether that change should be carried out in deference to the manners, the customs, the laws, and the traditions of a people, or whether it should be carried out in deference to abstract principles.” Disraeli described these options as being between a national system and a philosophical system, with the Conservative Party as the party of the former.
What did conservatism amount to beyond this, though? In a Punch cartoon from 1872, Disraeli is asked to define his Conservative programme. He responds: “Ah, yes! Quite so! Tell them that we propose to rely on the sublime instincts of an ancient people.” It is impossible to read this and not think of Boris Johnson, 150 years later, yet its sentiment — trust the people — echoes throughout the party’s history.
Just over a decade after that cartoon was published, Lord Randolph Churchill argued that the difference between the two great political parties of England was that the Tory party clinged “with veneration and affection to the institutions of our country” while their radical opponents regarded them “with aversion and distrust”. The Tory Party, he summarised, must always “trust the people” — a motto which would later be adopted by his son, Winston. Even this week, when I asked one Conservative MP who attended NatCon if he could define the essence of conservatism, he replied: “Trust the people.”
The most glaring problem with the national conservatism on display this week is that it’s not entirely clear it still does. National conservatism is not inherently ludicrous or sinister, as its critics argue. It is perfectly reasonable to differentiate between conservatism and liberalism, which are distinct philosophies, and to argue that more conservatism is needed. The problem is that, beyond this analysis, what does British national conservatism amount to? Listening to this week’s speeches, it all feels so inchoate and, ironically, alien from the people.
The convention is a spin-off of similar NatCon events in the US, established by an Israeli-American conservative who believes a return to religious education and scripture is necessary to save Western society. While part of its appeal is that it correctly identifies a latent frustration among voters that national politicians and parties do not seem to like them or their opinions very much, yet they surely risk doing the very same thing themselves.
National conservatism is not going away. But if the Tory Party is to remain a potent force, it will have to evolve into something more than what is on display this week in London. It will, to put it simply, have to answer a centuries-old question: does it trust the people or not?
Tom McTague is UnHerd’s Political Editor. He is the author of Betting The House: The Inside Story of the 2017 Election.
TomMcTague 
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribePhilosophical navel gazing is what the left do. Just do stuff, competently!
Pretty clearly the people want less immigration. So lower it.
The people need more housing, so build some.
Actually doing those two things alone would win elections.
Tory house owners do not want more houses to be built. They would reduce the value of their existing properties.
Agreed, but let’s sort the immigration issue first, as we then might find that we need to build fewer houses.
Ah, but Big Biz Plc rather likes cheap foreign labour. And that’s who the Tory Party work for.
Whilst everyone else likes expensive labour and paying more for their goods and services?
Whilst everyone else likes expensive labour and paying more for their goods and services?
We built 250k new homes last year. That is a lot of homes for a country where only 28k more people were born than died in the year.
You might want to consider the slightly less simplistic points that an increasing number of people are in rented accommodation, the cost of the houses that have been built, the stagnation in wages, the amount of people still having to live at home, and also ask were the homes built to make a profit or meet demand in the areas they were most needed.
The best thing we could do as a nation is get every young married couple into a home of their own where they can raise a family.
I can’t think of a higher political aim.
How it is done is another question. Inevitably it requires some controls on demand (immigration), increased house building – maybe even done by local authorities themselves, some changes to the market to stop investors snapping up the property, land-banking etc, some repurposing/replacing of redundant commercial property with residential, support for poorer people to get on the property ladder, leaning into remote working so people aren’t forced to live in the cities and probably many more things.
Totally agree that available, affordable housing is a key deliverable in any functioning society. And I agree with many of your suggestions on how we can improve the supply. Where we maybe disagree is that I see immigration as a red herring, used for years by politicians and their media supporters as a key reason for not providing that housing. I see it as a distraction.
It is entirely the opposite way round. While there are major supply side issues – inclduing that a large proportion of voters always oppose new housing near them, quite how net migration of a staggering 600,000 per annum, three times the annual house building rate, cannot impact on housing demand is beyond me.
The the overwhelmingly elite left liberal – and free market Conservative message is to always talk about supply, and never demand.
It is entirely the opposite way round. While there are major supply side issues – inclduing that a large proportion of voters always oppose new housing near them, quite how net migration of a staggering 600,000 per annum, three times the annual house building rate, cannot impact on housing demand is beyond me.
The the overwhelmingly elite left liberal – and free market Conservative message is to always talk about supply, and never demand.
Totally agree that available, affordable housing is a key deliverable in any functioning society. And I agree with many of your suggestions on how we can improve the supply. Where we maybe disagree is that I see immigration as a red herring, used for years by politicians and their media supporters as a key reason for not providing that housing. I see it as a distraction.
The best thing we could do as a nation is get every young married couple into a home of their own where they can raise a family.
I can’t think of a higher political aim.
How it is done is another question. Inevitably it requires some controls on demand (immigration), increased house building – maybe even done by local authorities themselves, some changes to the market to stop investors snapping up the property, land-banking etc, some repurposing/replacing of redundant commercial property with residential, support for poorer people to get on the property ladder, leaning into remote working so people aren’t forced to live in the cities and probably many more things.
Great perspective – I had to check your figures and they’re good.
You might want to consider the slightly less simplistic points that an increasing number of people are in rented accommodation, the cost of the houses that have been built, the stagnation in wages, the amount of people still having to live at home, and also ask were the homes built to make a profit or meet demand in the areas they were most needed.
Great perspective – I had to check your figures and they’re good.
Ah, but Big Biz Plc rather likes cheap foreign labour. And that’s who the Tory Party work for.
We built 250k new homes last year. That is a lot of homes for a country where only 28k more people were born than died in the year.
Entirely agree.
The most puzzling thing about the Conservatives is that they think they can pick and choose who votes for them.
Anyone under the age of 40? They were encouraged to get degrees, they graduated up to their ears in debt, they took precarious and low-paid work because that’s all there was, and they could not find affordable homes to buy. So, their votes aren’t wanted. They’re not good enough for the Conservatives.
The people of Northern Ireland? Nope, their votes aren’t good enough either.
British Muslims? Their votes certainly aren’t good enough!
Farmers? Again, no: the farmers get screwed over regularly by the supermarkets, and the Conservatives are fine with that.
It’s not exactly an election-winning frame of mind, is it?
The people of Northern Ireland cannot vote Conservative even if they wanted to. The party does not put up candidates in the province.
Also people in low paid jobs don’t repay their student loans. The poor old taxpayer does.
It seems kind of odd not to distinguish between the NatCons, who the article are discussing, and the Conservatives, who are the party of government. They are not the same thing, so while your analysis seems to have something to it, you haven’t shown how it is relevant to the NatCons.
The people of Northern Ireland cannot vote Conservative even if they wanted to. The party does not put up candidates in the province.
Also people in low paid jobs don’t repay their student loans. The poor old taxpayer does.
It seems kind of odd not to distinguish between the NatCons, who the article are discussing, and the Conservatives, who are the party of government. They are not the same thing, so while your analysis seems to have something to it, you haven’t shown how it is relevant to the NatCons.
Excellent point. There is no vision from political leaders on either side of the aisle. The left want to protect the neo-globalist order by tearing down down the west and the freedoms that made it great. The right simply want to push back against the progressive ideology that is used by the left to achieve this end. This is a noble cause, but the right needs a plan to rebuild the west – a vision that will unite people.
Tory house owners do not want more houses to be built. They would reduce the value of their existing properties.
Agreed, but let’s sort the immigration issue first, as we then might find that we need to build fewer houses.
Entirely agree.
The most puzzling thing about the Conservatives is that they think they can pick and choose who votes for them.
Anyone under the age of 40? They were encouraged to get degrees, they graduated up to their ears in debt, they took precarious and low-paid work because that’s all there was, and they could not find affordable homes to buy. So, their votes aren’t wanted. They’re not good enough for the Conservatives.
The people of Northern Ireland? Nope, their votes aren’t good enough either.
British Muslims? Their votes certainly aren’t good enough!
Farmers? Again, no: the farmers get screwed over regularly by the supermarkets, and the Conservatives are fine with that.
It’s not exactly an election-winning frame of mind, is it?
Excellent point. There is no vision from political leaders on either side of the aisle. The left want to protect the neo-globalist order by tearing down down the west and the freedoms that made it great. The right simply want to push back against the progressive ideology that is used by the left to achieve this end. This is a noble cause, but the right needs a plan to rebuild the west – a vision that will unite people.
Philosophical navel gazing is what the left do. Just do stuff, competently!
Pretty clearly the people want less immigration. So lower it.
The people need more housing, so build some.
Actually doing those two things alone would win elections.
Excellent commentary about the meaning of Conservatism.
The proper role of conservatives in a healthy society is to sit in sceptical, critical judgement of liberal progressive reforms. I don’t want to live in a world without liberal progress, but a world without the stabilizing foundation of conservative tradition and historical censure is unlivable (see France 1789, Russia 1917, China 1966, genital mutilation of children right now etc.).
It’s ok for “conservatives” to not have a radical progressive agenda. If they did, they wouldn’t be conservative.
The problem is that the UK has undergone a massive political revolution since the 1990s which has wiped out most of what ‘Conservatives’ wanted to conserve! The Technocratic Devolved Tax Devouring Welfarist UK State of 2023 is unrecognisable from the pre Lisbon EU UK of Thatcher and the1980. And all of its traditional values has similarly been obliterated by left wing progressive law. The Tories since Cameron & May bought into this radical Leftist new vision of the State – and this is why the Party is all at sea. It sits atop and governs a Blairite EU-shaped country with all its State enforced Equalitarian and identairian obsessions. It is embedded in and smothered by a radical new type of State hostile to all the principles of national conservatism.
You are so right. “Eqalitarianism” has meant that fatherless working class people like me have been able to go to university and obtain a degree. This has resulted in me taking the sort of job that should be reserved for those who were privately educated.
We have moved beyond the rightful pursuit of equality of opportunity now. Working class access to university was first undermined by progressives in the 60s with their war on grammar schools. Now the Blarite social engineering project to get 50% + to university sees armies of poor working class kids force marched into shabby unis, saddling them with 60k debt for zero gain. Equalitarianism like its twin the identity mania is now out of control and warring on meritocracy. Even wealth generation and enterprise are now scorned as somehow discriminatory.
What’s the big deal? Soon half the population will have obtained a university degree – but at what cost and to what real standard?
What ‘sort of job’ is reserved for the privately educated these days? It sounds like that old Lefty trope of a country where the aspiring working classes are crushed by Tory Toffs. Anyway, if the working class are to have their hopes and aspirations broken it will be at the hands of the virtuous, moralising, planet-saving, equity-loving legions of Woke. Sucking up to their ideals will be far more of a career booster than a private education.
We have moved beyond the rightful pursuit of equality of opportunity now. Working class access to university was first undermined by progressives in the 60s with their war on grammar schools. Now the Blarite social engineering project to get 50% + to university sees armies of poor working class kids force marched into shabby unis, saddling them with 60k debt for zero gain. Equalitarianism like its twin the identity mania is now out of control and warring on meritocracy. Even wealth generation and enterprise are now scorned as somehow discriminatory.
What’s the big deal? Soon half the population will have obtained a university degree – but at what cost and to what real standard?
What ‘sort of job’ is reserved for the privately educated these days? It sounds like that old Lefty trope of a country where the aspiring working classes are crushed by Tory Toffs. Anyway, if the working class are to have their hopes and aspirations broken it will be at the hands of the virtuous, moralising, planet-saving, equity-loving legions of Woke. Sucking up to their ideals will be far more of a career booster than a private education.
You are so right. “Eqalitarianism” has meant that fatherless working class people like me have been able to go to university and obtain a degree. This has resulted in me taking the sort of job that should be reserved for those who were privately educated.
The current UK Conservatives are not in any way conservative. They’re English nationalists inhabiting an outdated label.
Common-sense.
The problem is that the UK has undergone a massive political revolution since the 1990s which has wiped out most of what ‘Conservatives’ wanted to conserve! The Technocratic Devolved Tax Devouring Welfarist UK State of 2023 is unrecognisable from the pre Lisbon EU UK of Thatcher and the1980. And all of its traditional values has similarly been obliterated by left wing progressive law. The Tories since Cameron & May bought into this radical Leftist new vision of the State – and this is why the Party is all at sea. It sits atop and governs a Blairite EU-shaped country with all its State enforced Equalitarian and identairian obsessions. It is embedded in and smothered by a radical new type of State hostile to all the principles of national conservatism.
The current UK Conservatives are not in any way conservative. They’re English nationalists inhabiting an outdated label.
Common-sense.
Excellent commentary about the meaning of Conservatism.
The proper role of conservatives in a healthy society is to sit in sceptical, critical judgement of liberal progressive reforms. I don’t want to live in a world without liberal progress, but a world without the stabilizing foundation of conservative tradition and historical censure is unlivable (see France 1789, Russia 1917, China 1966, genital mutilation of children right now etc.).
It’s ok for “conservatives” to not have a radical progressive agenda. If they did, they wouldn’t be conservative.
What a wrong in every way article
”when I asked one Conservative MP who attended NatCon if he could define the essence of conservatism, he replied: “Trust the people.”
”Trust the People” used like this is sheer babble masquerading as meaningful. Conservatism always basically believed in the 10 commandments, the tenets of the Bible – it always instructed the lower classes in how they should act. It was against ‘Gin Lane’ and ‘For the Family’.
Liberalism against ‘The Family’, and for ‘Gin Lane’. It tells everyone to trust their base instincts and go for it……
You do not ask a good parent how to have a successful family and they say ‘Trust the Children’ FFS! Teach the Children in how to be Successful and Moral is the right answer. Stop them from destructive behaviors.
Read Lord of the Flies to see where Liberal Parenting leads – same as Liberalism produces the Chicago lawlessness, the San Francisco homeless addicts destroying the city, illiteracy, poverty, broken families, drug addiction, crime, loneliness, mental dis-health – that all is Liberalism’s Fruits.
Conservatism teaches the opposite. That with Rights come Responsibility, Thrift, Work, Self Reliance, Family, Abstinence, Patriotism, Meritocracy, Duty, Rule of Law…
But you modern folk – like you cannot even say what a Woman is – just as you cannot say what a Conservative is, you just have no idea what is what…..haha…
Civilization will be finished by 2025 when Chat GPT takes 1/5 of all the jobs and your economy based entirely on ever increasing Debt and Deficit – collide Head On with the Moral Sickness of modern Liberal/Left society and the Global Depression Looming…..Because you forgot what a Conservative is…..
”Trust The People” FFS……………
Hear hear. Politicians of all hues need to re-commit to the principles of a representative democracy, and cut out this plebiscite democracy virus. Politicians should lead, not be mere ciphers for every passing fancy.
Oh well said!!!
What you see happening in the west has nothing to do with liberalism. It’s anything but liberal. More like progressivism.
James Lindsay writes that Woke is Marxism evolved like a virus to destroy the West as we have known it. It may appear to wear the cloak of progressivism but it is anything but. Gender theory, Critical Race theory etc all species of the one genus.
We have seen Maoism, Leninsim etc which were Chinese and Russian versions of Marxism. Woke is the American version and it is extremely successful.
James Lindsay writes that Woke is Marxism evolved like a virus to destroy the West as we have known it. It may appear to wear the cloak of progressivism but it is anything but. Gender theory, Critical Race theory etc all species of the one genus.
We have seen Maoism, Leninsim etc which were Chinese and Russian versions of Marxism. Woke is the American version and it is extremely successful.
Trust the people? Way too late for that…. after you’ve put half of them through the academia sheep-dip. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
Hear hear. Politicians of all hues need to re-commit to the principles of a representative democracy, and cut out this plebiscite democracy virus. Politicians should lead, not be mere ciphers for every passing fancy.
Oh well said!!!
What you see happening in the west has nothing to do with liberalism. It’s anything but liberal. More like progressivism.
Trust the people? Way too late for that…. after you’ve put half of them through the academia sheep-dip. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/
What a wrong in every way article
”when I asked one Conservative MP who attended NatCon if he could define the essence of conservatism, he replied: “Trust the people.”
”Trust the People” used like this is sheer babble masquerading as meaningful. Conservatism always basically believed in the 10 commandments, the tenets of the Bible – it always instructed the lower classes in how they should act. It was against ‘Gin Lane’ and ‘For the Family’.
Liberalism against ‘The Family’, and for ‘Gin Lane’. It tells everyone to trust their base instincts and go for it……
You do not ask a good parent how to have a successful family and they say ‘Trust the Children’ FFS! Teach the Children in how to be Successful and Moral is the right answer. Stop them from destructive behaviors.
Read Lord of the Flies to see where Liberal Parenting leads – same as Liberalism produces the Chicago lawlessness, the San Francisco homeless addicts destroying the city, illiteracy, poverty, broken families, drug addiction, crime, loneliness, mental dis-health – that all is Liberalism’s Fruits.
Conservatism teaches the opposite. That with Rights come Responsibility, Thrift, Work, Self Reliance, Family, Abstinence, Patriotism, Meritocracy, Duty, Rule of Law…
But you modern folk – like you cannot even say what a Woman is – just as you cannot say what a Conservative is, you just have no idea what is what…..haha…
Civilization will be finished by 2025 when Chat GPT takes 1/5 of all the jobs and your economy based entirely on ever increasing Debt and Deficit – collide Head On with the Moral Sickness of modern Liberal/Left society and the Global Depression Looming…..Because you forgot what a Conservative is…..
”Trust The People” FFS……………
A good theoretical article. A good breakfast read. And that’s all it is.
In the hurly-burly world of politics today it won’t make a blind bit of difference how the Conservatives (big ‘C’ or small ‘c’) label themselves. They won’t win the next election.
When they are in oppostion they will say and do anything to get votes. If they wanted to work with Australia they would even stand on their heads during the discussions. This is what the word ‘politician’ means.
If a tough Margaret Thatcher clone came along they would be silenced by accusations of bullying. There are so many vociferous minoritirs around today thay politicians can’t be tough.
See the reaction to Macron recently. Last year he was a wimp. Then he won his election and is now telling people what to do. Wrong, whichever way he goes. Everybody wants a tough politician as long as they agree with him personally. Otherwise, he is pilloried in every part of the media.
A good theoretical article. A good breakfast read. And that’s all it is.
In the hurly-burly world of politics today it won’t make a blind bit of difference how the Conservatives (big ‘C’ or small ‘c’) label themselves. They won’t win the next election.
When they are in oppostion they will say and do anything to get votes. If they wanted to work with Australia they would even stand on their heads during the discussions. This is what the word ‘politician’ means.
If a tough Margaret Thatcher clone came along they would be silenced by accusations of bullying. There are so many vociferous minoritirs around today thay politicians can’t be tough.
See the reaction to Macron recently. Last year he was a wimp. Then he won his election and is now telling people what to do. Wrong, whichever way he goes. Everybody wants a tough politician as long as they agree with him personally. Otherwise, he is pilloried in every part of the media.
My definition of conservatism lines up with Thomas Sowell’s, who said, essentially, that it’s doing what works, not what sounds good.
I live in the state of Florida, where the governor is doing what works, and people in the “sounds good” dystopias are fleeing them to move here.
Ron DeSantis isn’t interested in being charismatic or entertaining for the media, who are gearing up to hate the living h*ll out of him for public consumption. His job is to make life safe and prosperous for Floridians. He should be the model for all people in leadership positions. Don’t talk. Show.
My definition of conservatism lines up with Thomas Sowell’s, who said, essentially, that it’s doing what works, not what sounds good.
I live in the state of Florida, where the governor is doing what works, and people in the “sounds good” dystopias are fleeing them to move here.
Ron DeSantis isn’t interested in being charismatic or entertaining for the media, who are gearing up to hate the living h*ll out of him for public consumption. His job is to make life safe and prosperous for Floridians. He should be the model for all people in leadership positions. Don’t talk. Show.
Good article; thanks! Part of Margaret Thatcher’s genius was not so much “trust the people”, but listening to a sufficient number of floating voters in a sufficient number of marginal consituencies to secure a comfortable majority in a general election. This approach meant that she could afford to be divisive when it really mattered.
The SDP splitting the centrist labour vote helped more than a bit in her winning
That meant that in some marginal constituencies, it was only necessary to appeal to a smaller number of floating voters, whilst some other hoitherto marginal costituencies ceased to be marginal.
That meant that in some marginal constituencies, it was only necessary to appeal to a smaller number of floating voters, whilst some other hoitherto marginal costituencies ceased to be marginal.
Up to a point. She pointed out what was wrong and offered a coherent plan for improvement.
The SDP splitting the centrist labour vote helped more than a bit in her winning
Up to a point. She pointed out what was wrong and offered a coherent plan for improvement.
Good article; thanks! Part of Margaret Thatcher’s genius was not so much “trust the people”, but listening to a sufficient number of floating voters in a sufficient number of marginal consituencies to secure a comfortable majority in a general election. This approach meant that she could afford to be divisive when it really mattered.
In order to ‘trust the people’ you have to be honest with them first, so that what you get back from them on their preferences more informed. Trusting the people when you’ve been feeding them falsities going to come undone at some point isn’t it.And here we are today.
And that’s the issue – there are trade offs, whether we are talking Brexit, immigration, housing, Govt spending etc. On virtually every issue Tories avoided honest discussion on trade offs.
UK needs a strong, sensible Conservative party. Plurality in our politics is crucial. But it’s got to get honest with itself and then with the public.
The Left keep going on about having “honest” conversations while hiding behind a number of argumentative fallacies.
Is the “Left” a dalek?
.
I could call them Utilitarians instead if that makes you happy.
.
I could call them Utilitarians instead if that makes you happy.
Is the “Left” a dalek?
The Left keep going on about having “honest” conversations while hiding behind a number of argumentative fallacies.
In order to ‘trust the people’ you have to be honest with them first, so that what you get back from them on their preferences more informed. Trusting the people when you’ve been feeding them falsities going to come undone at some point isn’t it.And here we are today.
And that’s the issue – there are trade offs, whether we are talking Brexit, immigration, housing, Govt spending etc. On virtually every issue Tories avoided honest discussion on trade offs.
UK needs a strong, sensible Conservative party. Plurality in our politics is crucial. But it’s got to get honest with itself and then with the public.
I want a political party which espouses the case for capitalism, freedom of choice and a small but efficient government which is strong on defence, rule of law and protection of the vulnerable. However all that is on offer ( under Conservatism and all the other main brands) is socialism, restriction of individual rights and large intrusive ineffective and inefficient government frittering away our money whilst stupidly pretending it can somehow “ fix “ everything for everybody. The truth however is they can’t even maintain the roads. One shudders to thing what condition all the other vital national infrastructure is in. Maybe the National Conservatives could start by focussing on that clear and obvious problem.
I want a political party which espouses the case for capitalism, freedom of choice and a small but efficient government which is strong on defence, rule of law and protection of the vulnerable. However all that is on offer ( under Conservatism and all the other main brands) is socialism, restriction of individual rights and large intrusive ineffective and inefficient government frittering away our money whilst stupidly pretending it can somehow “ fix “ everything for everybody. The truth however is they can’t even maintain the roads. One shudders to thing what condition all the other vital national infrastructure is in. Maybe the National Conservatives could start by focussing on that clear and obvious problem.
Interesting article, but the key point raised about ‘trusting the people’ assumes the people are largely culturally homogeneous and settled. This is less true by the month and so ‘the people’s’ instincts, commitments and desires may have little resemblance to the imagined and increasingly lost British ones. This will further unravel if Starmer does extend the franchise to EU immigrants and 16 year olds (the latter of which cannot even accept the body they are in never mind the country they are in). Half of the problem is that people who reflexively think of themselves as liberal/left often have unconscious conservative values that they do not recognise as such and so would in principle never vote for a right wing party even when it may be in their interest. I’m not sure what the solution to that problem is but it does seem that the increasing excesses of wokery are helping people see the limits of their own liberalism.
Interesting article, but the key point raised about ‘trusting the people’ assumes the people are largely culturally homogeneous and settled. This is less true by the month and so ‘the people’s’ instincts, commitments and desires may have little resemblance to the imagined and increasingly lost British ones. This will further unravel if Starmer does extend the franchise to EU immigrants and 16 year olds (the latter of which cannot even accept the body they are in never mind the country they are in). Half of the problem is that people who reflexively think of themselves as liberal/left often have unconscious conservative values that they do not recognise as such and so would in principle never vote for a right wing party even when it may be in their interest. I’m not sure what the solution to that problem is but it does seem that the increasing excesses of wokery are helping people see the limits of their own liberalism.
As I previously mentioned, a visit to Stansted, Gatwick or Luton airport and immersion into the vast hoardes, of appallingly dressed, slovenly, i phone obsessed human detritus is a neo satanic shuffling advert for the repeal of The Great Reform Acts.
Back to 1832? I’d been wondering whether 1867 or 1884 might work. (Clearly 1918 was a false step.)
Back to 1832? I’d been wondering whether 1867 or 1884 might work. (Clearly 1918 was a false step.)
As I previously mentioned, a visit to Stansted, Gatwick or Luton airport and immersion into the vast hoardes, of appallingly dressed, slovenly, i phone obsessed human detritus is a neo satanic shuffling advert for the repeal of The Great Reform Acts.
The heart of the problem is that The People; The Brits; The Elites; The right/left wing ; Ethnic Minorities; The Gays.. etc do not actually exist in the way that are usually talked about – as monolithic blocks of shared coherent opinion. They continue to be conceived as such because it is useful for politicians, journalists, and arm chair warriors.
what about other minorities such as landowners, Old Etonians, Foxhunters, ex Guards and Cavalry Officers? Why don’t they have the same special rights of expression as lgbt/eco zealot/racism obsessoids?
The first old Etonian I met was a Eurasian who took my friends to a gay nightclub and gave us all LSD.
You were fortunate that you weren’t buggered.
That just rather perfectly proves my point… prejudice, fear, insecurity…
You were fortunate that you weren’t buggered.
That just rather perfectly proves my point… prejudice, fear, insecurity…
The first old Etonian I met was a Eurasian who took my friends to a gay nightclub and gave us all LSD.
what about other minorities such as landowners, Old Etonians, Foxhunters, ex Guards and Cavalry Officers? Why don’t they have the same special rights of expression as lgbt/eco zealot/racism obsessoids?
The heart of the problem is that The People; The Brits; The Elites; The right/left wing ; Ethnic Minorities; The Gays.. etc do not actually exist in the way that are usually talked about – as monolithic blocks of shared coherent opinion. They continue to be conceived as such because it is useful for politicians, journalists, and arm chair warriors.
There’s a short story by Edgar Allan Poe called the ‘Masque of the Red Death’, about the attempt by a Prince and his friends to avoid a deadly plague devastating the country by hiding in an Abbey and holding a masquerade ball, but a mysterious stranger enters, who turns out to be Death, and kills everyone.
I couldn’t help but think of this when checking out the two conferences, the Boris Johnson Fan Club and Culture Wars ‘R Us, and seeing that virtually nothing they talked about had any relation to the real world and people’s real concerns. Sure, immigration came up but most people want a well managed, rational system and have seen through Suella Braverman’s performative nastiness. Otherwise, does anyone seriously think parents at the school gates are discussing ‘Cultural Marxism’ rather than food prices or the cost of childcare. While the idea that millions yearn for the second coming of Johnson is frankly delusional.
It points to a larger problem for conservatives in that their big ideas; austerity, Brexit, levelling up, have failed, fairly spectacularly, to deliver, and most people see it as a time for change.
“Sure, immigration came up but most people want a well managed, rational system”.
That ended with New Labour’s 2nd term.
Here’s Gus O’Donnell Blair’s civil servant “[w]hen I was at the Treasury I argued for the most open door possible to immigration … I think it’s my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare”.
Maybe people have forgotten about Beverley Hughes’ resignation due to Eastern European visa scandal in 2005.
Sure, let us have that “honest” conversation about a well managed immigration system.
Or you could fall back on insults again.
I have no interest in a conversation about immigration with you. And I think, only think maybe, that you meant looney lefty as an insult? I’m not, as it happens, but I don’t think demonising and dehumanising migrants is a path to a well managed immigration system designed to get maximum buy-in.
Currently, a significant number of visas are issued for people to come and work in the health and care sector. That’s because we don’t train enough of the resident population and the pay and conditions are not sufficient to recruit or retain enough staff. This is largely in the government’s gift to change, but there is a cost involved. They don’t want to meet that cost. As with Brexit, immigration involves a trade off between overall prosperity and ‘control’.
Anyone who pretends this is simple is lying, or motivated by the xenophobia, casual racism and white grievance that too often colours this debate.
More insults and fallacies, with the well worn myths and buzzwords thrown in for good measure.
You say you want a well managed system without offering anything to support it. Mass immigration is good because you simply say it is and anyone who disagrees can only be racist.
You haven’t addressed any of the points because you can’t.
You really need to read what people actually post before coming back to them. I haven’t said any of the things you seem to accuse me of, except in your imagination. Was I supposed to comment on something Gus O’Donnell said? Why? Was I supposed to design a well managed system in a post? You should have told me….
If you want a better reply then post something remotely coherent and I’ll try to oblige.
Oh please, the usual sophistry with the added deny, deflect, dismiss, discredit. You’ve been using a motte (well managed system) and bailey (Utilitarianisn) and you got upset when I called you out on it.
I don’t except a better reply from you going by your previous efforts.
What does this even mean?!?
What does this even mean?!?
Do you think New Labour increasing the immigration rate five fold when there was no evidence to support it, or hiding it from the electorate was well managed?
Do I think New Labour managed immigration well? No. But what’s your point?
Just carrying on being obtuse, go look it up.
Look what up?!? This is like a conversation with The Major in Fawlty Towers after he’s been on the gin.
Clown, it’s like debating with a child.
Here’s a reminder of your level of debate:
“Oh, go on, put on the robe and the pointy hood and go and burn a cross on someone’s lawn. You’ll feel better in no time”.
He was a gunner, so his views were inconsequential
Clown, it’s like debating with a child.
Here’s a reminder of your level of debate:
“Oh, go on, put on the robe and the pointy hood and go and burn a cross on someone’s lawn. You’ll feel better in no time”.
He was a gunner, so his views were inconsequential
Don’t waste your time on Murray, he came from Twitter and should return there.
Not out cottaging, Charles?
Too old, what about you?
run out of Waitrose bags to put my bugerees feet in..
run out of Waitrose bags to put my bugerees feet in..
Too old, what about you?
Not out cottaging, Charles?
Look what up?!? This is like a conversation with The Major in Fawlty Towers after he’s been on the gin.
Don’t waste your time on Murray, he came from Twitter and should return there.
Just carrying on being obtuse, go look it up.
Do I think New Labour managed immigration well? No. But what’s your point?
Oh please, the usual sophistry with the added deny, deflect, dismiss, discredit. You’ve been using a motte (well managed system) and bailey (Utilitarianisn) and you got upset when I called you out on it.
I don’t except a better reply from you going by your previous efforts.
Do you think New Labour increasing the immigration rate five fold when there was no evidence to support it, or hiding it from the electorate was well managed?
You really need to read what people actually post before coming back to them. I haven’t said any of the things you seem to accuse me of, except in your imagination. Was I supposed to comment on something Gus O’Donnell said? Why? Was I supposed to design a well managed system in a post? You should have told me….
If you want a better reply then post something remotely coherent and I’ll try to oblige.
This is not very UnHerd. Maybe if we trusted Government to explain the trade-offs, the pros and cons and provide a strategy for solving problems, there would be less of an issue. We could agree that some immigration is good and too much is hard to manage and there’s a consensus zone we could aim for. But we don’t trust the honesty or competence of those in charge and become more fractious as result.
Agreed. It’s a complex, nuanced subject and you’re right, we don’t trust the competence or honesty of those in charge. Which I guess was my point so apologies if I didn’t express it too well.
Agreed. It’s a complex, nuanced subject and you’re right, we don’t trust the competence or honesty of those in charge. Which I guess was my point so apologies if I didn’t express it too well.
More insults and fallacies, with the well worn myths and buzzwords thrown in for good measure.
You say you want a well managed system without offering anything to support it. Mass immigration is good because you simply say it is and anyone who disagrees can only be racist.
You haven’t addressed any of the points because you can’t.
This is not very UnHerd. Maybe if we trusted Government to explain the trade-offs, the pros and cons and provide a strategy for solving problems, there would be less of an issue. We could agree that some immigration is good and too much is hard to manage and there’s a consensus zone we could aim for. But we don’t trust the honesty or competence of those in charge and become more fractious as result.
I have no interest in a conversation about immigration with you. And I think, only think maybe, that you meant looney lefty as an insult? I’m not, as it happens, but I don’t think demonising and dehumanising migrants is a path to a well managed immigration system designed to get maximum buy-in.
Currently, a significant number of visas are issued for people to come and work in the health and care sector. That’s because we don’t train enough of the resident population and the pay and conditions are not sufficient to recruit or retain enough staff. This is largely in the government’s gift to change, but there is a cost involved. They don’t want to meet that cost. As with Brexit, immigration involves a trade off between overall prosperity and ‘control’.
Anyone who pretends this is simple is lying, or motivated by the xenophobia, casual racism and white grievance that too often colours this debate.
“Sure, immigration came up but most people want a well managed, rational system”.
That ended with New Labour’s 2nd term.
Here’s Gus O’Donnell Blair’s civil servant “[w]hen I was at the Treasury I argued for the most open door possible to immigration … I think it’s my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare”.
Maybe people have forgotten about Beverley Hughes’ resignation due to Eastern European visa scandal in 2005.
Sure, let us have that “honest” conversation about a well managed immigration system.
Or you could fall back on insults again.
There’s a short story by Edgar Allan Poe called the ‘Masque of the Red Death’, about the attempt by a Prince and his friends to avoid a deadly plague devastating the country by hiding in an Abbey and holding a masquerade ball, but a mysterious stranger enters, who turns out to be Death, and kills everyone.
I couldn’t help but think of this when checking out the two conferences, the Boris Johnson Fan Club and Culture Wars ‘R Us, and seeing that virtually nothing they talked about had any relation to the real world and people’s real concerns. Sure, immigration came up but most people want a well managed, rational system and have seen through Suella Braverman’s performative nastiness. Otherwise, does anyone seriously think parents at the school gates are discussing ‘Cultural Marxism’ rather than food prices or the cost of childcare. While the idea that millions yearn for the second coming of Johnson is frankly delusional.
It points to a larger problem for conservatives in that their big ideas; austerity, Brexit, levelling up, have failed, fairly spectacularly, to deliver, and most people see it as a time for change.
Sorry, there was zero evidence in this article of where the NatCons do not trust the people. Methinks it was all a straw man argument with no foundation in fact. Must try harder.
Sorry, there was zero evidence in this article of where the NatCons do not trust the people. Methinks it was all a straw man argument with no foundation in fact. Must try harder.
I don’t understand the article – you’d think an UnHerd writer – a political editor no less – might be a little more sympathetic to themes that are often discussed here. What is incompatible with trusting the people and democracy in an idea that Government serves the interests of the community as a whole and that culture, belonging, place, identity matter? That makes for a society that is more content and more prosperous as well. Anyway, at least it is good to have the questions out there and a dialogue. I shall look forward to the writer’s exciting reports on this year’s party conferences and their solutions for more of the same of whatever they’re doing that has been so successful.
I don’t understand the article – you’d think an UnHerd writer – a political editor no less – might be a little more sympathetic to themes that are often discussed here. What is incompatible with trusting the people and democracy in an idea that Government serves the interests of the community as a whole and that culture, belonging, place, identity matter? That makes for a society that is more content and more prosperous as well. Anyway, at least it is good to have the questions out there and a dialogue. I shall look forward to the writer’s exciting reports on this year’s party conferences and their solutions for more of the same of whatever they’re doing that has been so successful.
Yesterday’s star turn at the National Conservatism conference was Michael Gove. A Cabinet Minister almost continuously since 2010, Gove is the father of the present state-funded education system in England. Who is falling for any of this rubbish?
I am told that Tim Stanley was good. “The Conservative Party is not a serious party. It considered Penny Mordaunt as its next Leader because she successfully carried a sword at the Coronation. As a Scout, we did that with flags all the time. The most I could hope for was a badge.”
There would be no such conference, just as there would be no Conservative Democratic Organisation, unless it were taken as a given that the Conservative Party were going to lose the General Election. On Saturday, Priti Patel launched her campaign for Leader of the Opposition. On Monday, it was Suella Braverman’s turn. Those two despise each other, so let the games begin? They already have.
Stanley aside, yesterday seems to have been the day of the Great Replacement Theory, as endorsed by Keir Starmer when articulated by callers to LBC. The money for this conference comes from the United States, which was built on a Great Replacement, and the intellectual inspiration comes from Israel, which is vigorously engaged in at least the attempt at one. Spanning three continents, some might call that “globalism”. But it is quite happy with talk of “Cultural Marxism”, of how the Germans had merely “mucked up twice in a century”, and of “inducing fainting fits from Hampstead to Hackney”. Imagine, just imagine that, well, you know where I am going with this one.
Yesterday’s star turn at the National Conservatism conference was Michael Gove. A Cabinet Minister almost continuously since 2010, Gove is the father of the present state-funded education system in England. Who is falling for any of this rubbish?
I am told that Tim Stanley was good. “The Conservative Party is not a serious party. It considered Penny Mordaunt as its next Leader because she successfully carried a sword at the Coronation. As a Scout, we did that with flags all the time. The most I could hope for was a badge.”
There would be no such conference, just as there would be no Conservative Democratic Organisation, unless it were taken as a given that the Conservative Party were going to lose the General Election. On Saturday, Priti Patel launched her campaign for Leader of the Opposition. On Monday, it was Suella Braverman’s turn. Those two despise each other, so let the games begin? They already have.
Stanley aside, yesterday seems to have been the day of the Great Replacement Theory, as endorsed by Keir Starmer when articulated by callers to LBC. The money for this conference comes from the United States, which was built on a Great Replacement, and the intellectual inspiration comes from Israel, which is vigorously engaged in at least the attempt at one. Spanning three continents, some might call that “globalism”. But it is quite happy with talk of “Cultural Marxism”, of how the Germans had merely “mucked up twice in a century”, and of “inducing fainting fits from Hampstead to Hackney”. Imagine, just imagine that, well, you know where I am going with this one.
Truss always struck me as peculiarly un-British. This weird US think tank world is her milieu. Explains a lot about her.
And why on earth are Brits taking lessons from Americans on how to run their country?
After all, socially, the US has largely fractured: https://theweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene/1021173/is-america-headed-for-a-national-divorce
I think we are all trying to learn from what doesn’t work in the US.
I think we are all trying to learn from what doesn’t work in the US.
Truss always struck me as peculiarly un-British. This weird US think tank world is her milieu. Explains a lot about her.
And why on earth are Brits taking lessons from Americans on how to run their country?
After all, socially, the US has largely fractured: https://theweek.com/marjorie-taylor-greene/1021173/is-america-headed-for-a-national-divorce
I seem to remember a philosophy called, ‘National Socialism” about 80 years ago. That didn’t end terribly well. Let’s be careful.
You’ve made a good effort to keep up with technology: impressive. When is your 100th birthday? We could all help you celebrate.
You’ve made a good effort to keep up with technology: impressive. When is your 100th birthday? We could all help you celebrate.
I seem to remember a philosophy called, ‘National Socialism” about 80 years ago. That didn’t end terribly well. Let’s be careful.
It trusts the people more than it trusts the neoliberal elites ( who certainly do not trust the people ).
It trusts the people more than it trusts the neoliberal elites ( who certainly do not trust the people ).
Reminds me of the American saying (to paraphrase) Conservatives “are Progressives driving the speed limit”
Those are not Conservatives then, they are the other half of the Uniparty, the controlled opposition.
Nat Con is about returning to and re-finding the distinct principles of actual conservative thought.
The basic problem of conservatism is illustrated in Burke’s dictum of society as ‘a partnership between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.’
What does politics and “change” have to do with that? Nothing.
The fact is that politics is about dishing your enemies and gifting your friends, and that is all.
And most of us just love dishing our enemies and being on the take from taxes imposed upon our enemies.
National Conservatives? The Party has and still is fighting an Internicine war. That sadly makes them useless.
It’s not as if the consensus of the last 13 years has been a great success. As the Party drifts steadily towards the giant waterfall, some people are urging a change of direction. They may jump ashore first or grab the driftwood from the wreckage.
Yes, ascertaining what any of the major parties really stand for and what sort of society they are trying to create, I find impossible. This article unfortunately does nothing to enlighten me – lots of vague statements, ifs, buts and maybes which I can get from any politician.
Conservatism needs to rediscover itself, and put aside attachment to particular institutions. At its core, it seeks to conserve civil society, and protect it from hostile invading forces, from the state and the market, from Left and Right. There is nothing particularly conservative about protecting particular institutions – they come and go. The monarchy, the House of Lords,the Church of England, may pass, but the task of protecting and conserving civil society will be perpetual.
Hear hear! Beyond sentiment, any political movement must show what it intends to do and accomplish in the real world.
Thank you for the history lesson.
In the US, we circulate money that declares “In God we trust.” To balance that out, we have an infamous Constitution that begins with “We the People . . . in order to form a more perfect union ”
So, we have the best of both worlds?
I don’t know; it’s not looking too good. Our former conservatives seem to be turning fascist, under the influence of one clown demagogue.
I get the impression that you Brits are doing better. Maybe it iss because you have a King?
We shall see. We’ll be watching you, hoping to learn something from our parent empire.