X Close

The Conservative Party needs a hero Thatcher alone won't rescue them

Cleverly, Tugendhat and Jenrick all chose different figures (Tom Tugendhat, Facebook)

Cleverly, Tugendhat and Jenrick all chose different figures (Tom Tugendhat, Facebook)


August 22, 2024   5 mins

When the six MPs vying to be Conservative leader were recently asked some quick-fire questions by party HQ, their interrogation was mostly limited to the light-hearted: “What’s the first thing you do when you wake up in the morning?” But one question stood out, inadvertently revealing more than any other about how they would likely lead the party: “Who is your number one political hero?”

The most striking thing about the answers is how American they were, with half of the candidates naming US presidents. Former Lieutenant Colonel of the British Army Tom Tugendhat picked a fellow military man turned politician, Dwight Eisenhower. Mel Stride plumped for John F. Kennedy and invoked his call to do things “not because they are easy, but because they are hard”. And James Cleverly opted for Margaret Thatcher’s transatlantic partner at the end of the Cold War, the sunny and optimistic Ronald Reagan.

Along with its Atlanticism, the other obvious feature of the honour roll was its recency. Politicians labelled “Tories” can be dated back to the 17th century, yet all of the named heroes were alive within living memory. Of those who offered British politicians, Priti Patel chose — without hesitation — Thatcher. Robert Jenrick said the same, adding her ideological guru, Keith Joseph, and most dynamic Chancellor, Nigel Lawson, for good measure. Only one candidate gave a British answer that caused eyebrows to rise (and Wikipedia pages to be searched), but it didn’t demur much from the theme. Kemi Badenoch plucked Airey Neave, the former leadership campaign manager for Thatcher and Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, who was assassinated in 1979.

As aspiring leaders of the world’s most successful political party, the exaltation of so many American Presidents — more than British prime ministers, of which the Conservatives can claim 22 since the Great Reform Act — is a surprise. It’s also unlikely to be fruitful. Developments in the conservative traditions on both sides of the Atlantic, which have often interacted or been in one another’s slipstream, have led them to very different places. British and American conservatisms just don’t sound like songs from the same hymnbook anymore — and when they have, most recently in the libertarianism of Liz Truss, it hasn’t ended well for the Tories.

Harking back to the Thatcher years, as three of the candidates did, is a more promising path for the next Conservative leader. Britain’s first female prime minister won three elections on the bounce, two of them with three-figure majorities, and reshaped Britain more decisively than any prime minister since Clement Attlee. But the Tory tradition is much older than the 50 years since Thatcher became leader of the party — and much richer, too. If Conservatives limit themselves to drawing inspiration from the Thatcher years — or worse, the myths that have grown up around them — they will only be scratching the surface of their party’s history and its canon of “heroes”. Instead, they should look further back. But to whom?

After the worst election result in their history, the Tories need a hero of reinvention. And as such, the next party leader could do far worse than put Benjamin Disraeli on the hero’s pedestal. In so many senses an outsider (he was descended from Jewish immigrants from Italy), Disraeli climbed the greasy pole through a process of personal and political reinvention. He transformed himself into a beacon of Victorian Britain — an Anglican, friend of the Queen, and cheerleader for the Empire — and remade the Tory Party in his own design. By the time he died in 1881, Disraeli had set the Conservatives on the path to dominate the next century of British politics.

“After the worst election result in their history, the Tories need a hero of reinvention.”

The test of any reinvention, though, will be success at the ballot box. Here, aspiring leaders could draw upon the record of another Tory icon, Winston Churchill. On the face of it, Churchill is an unlikely hero of electoral recovery. The man widely labelled the “Greatest Briton” for his wartime efforts never won the popular vote in a general election. But after the Conservatives were reduced to 197 seats in the 1945 election, he kept buggering on as leader of the opposition. Five years later the Tories gained 90 seats and were on the brink of returning to power. No other post-war Conservative leader would make as many gains in a single election until David Cameron in 2010.

Yet if the party is to have any hope of returning to power, the next Tory leader will need to double Churchill’s success and then some. Once again, then, they will need to build a strong shadow cabinet and give its members the chance to shine. Churchill’s top team represented a broad range of Tory thinking and talent, and featured two future election-winning prime ministers.

Few, in Churchill’s team, were as able as Rab Butler, whose efforts in the 1945-51 parliaments made him a hero of the party rebuild. As head of Conservative research and policy, Butler re-established the intellectual foundations of the Conservative offer. He set about attracting the best and brightest on the centre-right to engage with the party, educated the grassroots about political issues of the day and created a comprehensive new agenda to take the Conservative Party into the second half of the 20th century.

Butler’s great insight was to recognise that the new context in which the Tory Party would have to survive and thrive was wholly different from the country it had governed before the war. To follow his lead today would be to avoid redeploying the playbooks of the Eighties or the 2000s, but to look with fresh eyes at the challenges of the 2020s. This is a much harder task. It requires analysing the mistakes the party made in office and the challenges it failed to confront. But, as Butler knew, this tougher road is the one back to office.

Then, as now, homebuilding and homeownership were high on the agenda. And here, the present crop of aspiring leaders could find inspiration from the largely forgotten Noel Skelton. A Scottish Unionist MP and icon to many young Tories in the early 20th century, Skelton pioneered the concept of “property-owning democracy” in conservative thought. In The Spectator in 1923, he called for Conservatives to set out a vision for the country as “master of its own life, made four-square and secure and able therefore to withstand the shrill and angry gales which, in the new era’s uneasy dawn, sweep across the world”. He was very much addressing the challenges of the interwar years, but his ideas have had a permanent resonance in Tory politics, especially in a country that today has too much precarity, too little home ownership, and too few people who feel they have something worth conserving.

What Skelton set out in the pages of a magazine, Conservative politicians refined and helped make a reality later in the century. Chief among the stars of this story is Harold Macmillan — a hero of delivery. In 1951, Churchill asked Macmillan to “build the houses for the people”, warning it would “make or mar” his political career. His job was, as many Conservative leadership candidates claim to recognise, to deliver on what the party said it would do. It said it would build 300,000 homes a year; and he did so. Even Thatcher, whose own views weren’t always aligned with her predecessor, praised his record: “He didn’t say ‘no, this can’t be done or this will be blocked by the civil service’. He did overcome. He dominated his civil servants — they didn’t dominate him.”

If the Conservative Party wants to dominate again, its next leader must dig deep within the conservative tradition — to Thatcher, yes, but on to Macmillan, Butler, Churchill, Skelton, Disraeli and scores more, as well. A party as old and successful as the Conservatives can find ample inspiration for its future in the heroes of its past. It just has to look for it.


Lee David Evans is an historian of the Conservative Party and the John Ramsden Fellow at the Mile End Institute at Queen Mary, University of London.

LeeDavidEvansUK

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.

Subscribe
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

32 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
David McKee
David McKee
3 months ago

Excellent piece, Dr. Evans. Personally, my hero is Andrew Bonar Law. He inherited from the cerebral Balfour in 1911, a party split by faction, and unable to overthrow a deeply radical Liberal government.

He became a formidable leader of the opposition, choosing political issues which united his party and divided the Liberals. Relentless, ruthless, even unscrupulous, he used Liberal mistakes to batter the government senseless.

Only the German invasion of Belgium saved the government from complete collapse. He made it to Downing St. in 1922, only to succumb to cancer a few months later.

j watson
j watson
3 months ago

Part of the period of reflection the Tories and Right must have.
The focus in this Article is how much damage the Tories/Right have done to that model of a property owning democracy. Thatch wanted to move that on towards a share owning democracy too, checking it’s stocks regularly and engaging much more with a vibrant capitalism. It hasn’t happened and for so many it’s gone into reverse. The fundamental challenge for the Tories is to grasp why.
The temptation of some will be land the fault at migration. Migration, well managed, can drive innovation, growth and renewal and has always been the case. Too many Tories/Right have a racial reflex though that prevents them getting the balance right. They will need to overcome this to be a force in the mid 21st Century.
The questions the Tories must ask, and maybe it’ll take a heroic form of leader to do it, is why has British capitalism created increased inequality and a greater North/South divide? Why do we have one of the greatest differences in wealth inequality out of OECD nations? Once it’s starts to ask itself these it’s got a chance.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
3 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Reasonable comment. But your last paragraph assumes good faith. There’s surely no doubt, after 13 years that these people didn’t go into politics for the good of the nation.

Andrew R
Andrew R
3 months ago
Reply to  j watson

“Migration, well managed, can drive innovation, growth and renewal and has always been the case. Too many Tories/Right have a racial reflex though that prevents them getting the balance right”.

It hasn’t been well managed, has it. Primarily because of the numbers, this should be obvious to anyone but an idiot. “Racial reflex” (eyeroll), do you think you or anyone else would be happy if immigration was well into the hundreds of thousands each year, if it was only “white people”. You really do write a lot of nonsense.

The disparity in wealth is partly down to MASS immigration, which increases the value of assets, keeps interests rates low, suppresses wages especially in a part-time low skill service economy. It stifles innovation and creates a burden on public services and infrastructure through sheer numbers. No wonder the Tories are so keen to embrace it.

This has been pointed out to you time and time again. Why do the Left have a zealous belief in this failed ideology other than it being some ridiculous Article of Faith.

j watson
j watson
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew R

I strongly suspect if the migration was all white, and of a similar background to us, many would be much less visceral on the matter. You’re in denial if you think otherwise.
Migration will remain important to the UK economy however heated you get on your keyboard.
The point about growing inequality – for sure some migration into low pay areas has driven that but you place too much emphasis and I see it as more the symptom of neo-liberal economic policy than the cause of the problems. I also see it as where the Right has become trapped in wanting low cost labour and weakened workforce collective bargaining but then screams about the imported labour it encourages to deliver that. That’s where we have a difference.
Illegal migration a separate discussion. Never too sure if your points lump both legal and illegal together.

Andrew R
Andrew R
3 months ago
Reply to  j watson

The electorate should decide on the levels of immigration, not big business, not NGOs, Left wing keyboard warriors or op-ed commentators. If the majority of those immigrants are “white” what exactly is the issue: they’re are adding to econmic growth (according to your analysis), RIGHT. Perhaps you think the “Global Majority” should take precedent in ever larger percentages (why)?

You see, to you it’s absolutely nothing to do with economics but some some absurd utilitarian utopia which you disguise it with this constant bait and switch/motte and bailey approach.

This imbecilic ideology has caused immense damage to the economy and society as a whole. Why do “you” still pursue it?

Allison Barrows
Allison Barrows
3 months ago
Reply to  j watson

When white Europeans moved to Africa, India, and the Middle East and improved the economies of those lands, were they praised as necessities? Or were they disparaged as rapacious “colonizers”?

Au Contraire
Au Contraire
3 months ago

But that is the point! They did move in as “rapacious colonisers” unlike present day migrants in the UK! If you can’t see that difference what hope is there for any sensible analysis?

JR Stoker
JR Stoker
3 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Why down vote this? It’s precisely the point

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
3 months ago
Reply to  j watson

why has British capitalism created increased inequality and a greater North/South divide?
In 1997, the year that New Labour took power, a factory worker, fork lift driver or paramedic could quite reasonably expect to enjoy a degree of job and financial security, get on the housing ladder, have kids, get those kids into reasonable schools with manageable class sizes and get a GP appointment the same day.
In 2010, when New Labour left power, that was all gone. Meanwhile you and everyone you know had become millionaires or multi-millionaires – or at least significantly richer – without doing anything at all to merit it. The next batch of Blairites did nothing to remedy any of the bad policies that created what has become the largest upward transfer of wealth in British history.
Capitalism created the equality, Blairism destroyed it.
I think your refusal, like that of so many people I know, to acknowledge any of this, despite seeing the evidence all around you, arises not just from a blind acceptance of media narrative, but also from a fear that if you confess that most of what you have has been taken from someone else by a government that you elected, you might be opening the door to some kind of restitution.

j watson
j watson
3 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

That ‘Blair-fiaxtion’ ailment you got not getting any better is it HB. 14 years my friend. I know that is v uncomfortable and sends you into these spasms.
However back to the point – the article was on Tory leadership going forward and what it has to do to ready itself for the future.

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
3 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Wouldn’t it be better, since you’re quite unable to challenge what I’m saying – since you know it’s true – not to respond at all? This kind of facetious evasion does you no credit.

Norfolk Sceptic
Norfolk Sceptic
3 months ago
Reply to  Hugh Bryant

I’ll pick out ‘a blind acceptance of media narrative’ from your post because it cements in every mistake made from 1997, and many before. Politics can be very fluid, and an underlying weakness, encouraged by the BBC monopoly, that encourages it to escape from Reality is the misunderstanding and disrespect of the Scientific endeavour in favour of soundbites.

Why do we have so many in government responsibe for STEM projects, that include all the Energy and NET Zero policies, infrastructure projects and Health matters, devoid of any STEM knowledge and experience? At least Andrew Bridgen knew he was talking about, and was engaging in Informed Discussion.

Why do we have so many in Westminster and Whitehall that don’t understand Business, Markets, or even what Customer is? Haven’t they heard about Group Think, or Planning? It’s all about Tactics, little about Strategy and the Good of the Nation.

And, to be leading the way forward in ‘Saving the Planet’, while the Rest of the World looks on in bewilderment, isn’t the smartest of moves, especially when everything is held together by appealing to Authority, the authority of global, political organisations.

Is this more important than knowing the lives of numerous PMs, or presidents?

Hugh Bryant
Hugh Bryant
3 months ago

Why do we have so many in government responsibe for STEM projects, that include all the Energy and NET Zero policies, infrastructure projects and Health matters, devoid of any STEM knowledge and experience?
The last government IT project I was involved with was overseen by a charming man who had no computer or laptop and wouldn’t have known what to do with one if he had. If he wanted to send an email he would ask his PA to do it and then print it out along with the reply. Admittedly this was back in the 00s – but I can’t imagine anything has changed since.

Jeanie K
Jeanie K
3 months ago
Reply to  j watson

Since Lady Thatcher, we have had some Tory govts but none from the Right. We have had New Labour Tories.
The country has been destroyed by globalist corporatism not capitalism.

Anthony Roe
Anthony Roe
3 months ago

Hilarious. We will have a Council of the Elders (mullahs to you and me) before we have a Conservative government.

Martin M
Martin M
3 months ago
Reply to  Anthony Roe

Nah, the Tories will be back.

Graham Cunningham
Graham Cunningham
3 months ago

This article seems to leave out of account the profound transformation of Western electoral democratic pluralism since the days of all these potential Tory heroes. Most of them would in 2024 have been woefully unequal to the immense task of reining-in the entrenched, vastly expanded Lefty-groupthink Civil Service. Only Margaret Thatcher would have had that kind of strength.
The thirty-odd years since the Thatcher 1980s have not been a happy time Toryism despite having been allotted plenty of years ‘in power’ by voters wanting them to fight their traditional corner. They certainly did not vote for the cultural dismemberment that actually happened in those years. More than thirty years since she fell from power, Mrs T’s record as an interrupter and repulser of that progressive leviathan is unequalled in any major Western nation – a counter-revolutionary template. Of course a putative Tory counter-revolution cannot simply invent a Thatcher just because it needs one. But it can recognise the template.
She died before the Western liberal establishment had begun to convulse itself over such things as whether our culture was ‘transphobic’ and whether young people needed to be protected from harm ‘triggered’ by its great works of literature. She missed out on having her say about much of the cultural transformation effected in the 21st century West by its university-‘educated’ progressive  clerisy. What would she have had to say had she been in her prime? She would certainly have called a spade a spade, loud and clear and damn the consequences. She would not have fallen into the rhetorical rabbit hole of trying to frame arguments against ‘identity politics’ using its own tendentious terminology. Asked to discuss issues relating to the LGTB+ community she would probably have told the interviewer to stop talking such nonsense. She would have said it insistently and would not have shut up however impolitic the subsequent verbal joust became. Asked to comment on ‘systemic racism’, she would have wagged her finger and asserted that Britain was the least racist society that had ever been and how crazy to have lurched – in a couple of generations – from racism against coloured people to racism against white people. https://grahamcunningham.substack.com/p/mrs-thatcher-and-the-good-life

Au Contraire
Au Contraire
3 months ago

It is Thatcherism that has brought the Tory Party to its current state of affairs. Virtually all aspects of her legacy have unravelled, not least the privatisation of state utilities and railways, disengagement from Europe, destruction of the British manufacturing base and overwhelming focus on the financial sector and services for wealth creation. The Tories need to attract the younger population if they are to recover electorally and not hark back to the elderly dying breed who are more enthused by Thatcherism and xenophobia. The British society has moved on in so many ways Thatcher would not have understood and its votaries risk alienating the younger part of the voter base.

Graham Cunningham
Graham Cunningham
3 months ago
Reply to  Au Contraire

“British society has moved on in so many ways” that it will oneday come to bitterly rue.
Regarding Margaret Thatcher (not to be crudely equated with ‘Thatcherism’ by the way)….. you mistake the contingent 1980s economic policy agenda (one that was made necessary by the mess that British delusional sentimentality about its manufacturing prowess had got the country into in the1970s) for the deep and abiding conservative instincts of the woman herself.

Caradog Wiliams
Caradog Wiliams
3 months ago

When a decisive, strong, enigmatic, forceful new Conservative leader is found we will then have the Guardian using a ‘f’ word a lot more. F*ascist, that is.

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
3 months ago

The Tory party is dominated by cheap suited, corfam shod, polyester shirt wearing, often beardie, and ” reound veowel seounded” central casting identikit aspirantissimo petit bourgeois non achieving, inferiority complex driven, fake ego displaying human detritus…… exactly like the Labour and Liberal Democrats.

Lancashire Lad
Lancashire Lad
3 months ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Yesterday, there was an article on Led By Donkeys with the header showing the group involved and the author describing how typical they appeared – he had an inkling what they’d look like before he even saw them, and he wasn’t disappointed.
Similarly with this header photo. Whilst there mightn’t be a photo showing all the current leadership candidates together, the photo is selective in a way that illustrates both something true about the Tories, but also something biased by whoever selected it.

Andrew Fisher
Andrew Fisher
3 months ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Silly comment, as well as, naturally, being an achingly snobbish one! What on Earth is wrong with being “petty bourgeois in any case”?! Typically British, certainly. What is fascinating is that you might well get exactly the same kind of content free ad hominem dismissal from figures on both the Left AND Right.

Francis Turner
Francis Turner
3 months ago
Reply to  Andrew Fisher

give me working class every time, not those who are so pleased about being one or two generations from it, and have a pathological fear of going back… and don’t give a damn about our working classes… that is real snobbishness. These type of people would not last 5 minutes in a pub with my former Guardsmen.. or dare enter one, or one from their home town… whereas I would .. and can, because I am not a snob.

Martin M
Martin M
3 months ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

I would be intrigued to know what home town you are from, so if I am ever there, I can enter a pub, and see how I go.

Martin M
Martin M
3 months ago
Reply to  Francis Turner

Don’t beat about the bush! Tell us what you really think!

Jeanie K
Jeanie K
3 months ago

A better, more accurate Heading for this article:
The Conservative Party needs some conservatives.

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
3 months ago
Reply to  Jeanie K

I was thinking the same thing myself. Needing a hero is a very American thing and a bit distasteful I think.
Having a Conservative Party that is staffed by conservatives is not to much to ask. If they refuse to do this, maybe start a campaign to get them to change their name, under false advertising!
As for the snivel serpents, I can’t understand why they don’t just do a Regan and say all those who will not follow government policy will be sacked.
Sometimes you just have to say no!

UnHerd Reader
UnHerd Reader
3 months ago

Good to see Dissy mentioned: possibly the greatest Conservative leader of all.

Simon Blanchard
Simon Blanchard
3 months ago

“27 comments” but only 15 visible. Pretty sure I commented on this piece a day or so ago and mine is one of those MIA.

Andrew R
Andrew R
3 months ago

Yes. J Watson’s (heavily downvoted) original comment and all the responses to it, including mine.