Credit : Leon Neal/Getty Images

There are two important things to remember about the new Tory majority. First, the class-party realignment represented by Tory victories in Bolsover and Sedgefield, and Labour ones in Canterbury and Putney, has been happening over a long period of time. Second, it is not just about Brexit but about a whole values/worldview divide — at least partly summed up in my own Anywheres/Somewheres labels — which has afflicted almost all big centre-left parties in Europe as they have come to primarily represent the interests and priorities of their liberal graduate members, activists and MPs.
Brexit did, of course, hasten this realignment. And spare a thought for the Theresa May/Nick Timothy strategy in the 2017 election which was widely ridiculed at the time, because it narrowly failed, but which can now take a bow as a necessary prelude to the breath-taking Tory advances made into historically hostile territory on Thursday.
Brexit, rather like immigration in the past couple of decades, has become an “emblem” policy. Support for Brexit is not so much about the details of EU regulation, rather it has become part of a wider, defensive reaction to the radicalism of the post-Cold War “double liberalism” of free market and cultural opening, represented in the EU by the two central post-national policies of the Euro and free movement.
The challenge for the Tory party now, as Mary Harrington lays out in her election night piece, is to represent aspects of this defensive, national reaction without turning its back on the attractive aspects of the economic and social openness of recent decades. There is no reason why this cannot be accommodated under the canopy of the “One Nation Conservative party” that Boris Johnson talked up last night and throughout the campaign.
On immigration, for example, Johnson has already been shaping policy to appeal to both wings of the new Tory coalition. While the overall stress is on control and a return to more moderate levels, there has been selective liberalisation — over post-student work opportunities, for example.
It is not even impossible that Johnson, pressured by the Spectator magazine’s enthusiasm for it, could announce an amnesty for those illegal immigrants who have been here 10 years or more and who are never going to be deported anyway. Such a gesture to the liberal end of the coalition could be balanced with something for small-c conservatives such as the introduction of a citizen identity system (ID cards in the old language) which would, incidentally, make illegal immigration much harder.
There will also be genuine conflicts of interest between different parts of the new Tory coalition. The small-state, low-tax Toryism of the affluent suburbs has hardly been in the ascendancy in recent years. But it will have to concede further ground to the new Tory voters who want quite high public spending and good public infrastructure. How much ground it will have to concede will be the stuff of battles to come.
Housing is another potential battleground. The interests of younger people and lower income renters not on the ladder are potentially in conflict with those who are already happily housed and worrying about the impact of a massive building programme both on the value of their home and its effect on the green belt.
Meanwhile, in post-school education, the over mighty universities, long institutions of the middle-class Left, may find themselves less favoured, as investment into the battered Further Education sector is prioritised. Yet universities should also be on the front line of a rejuvenated Tory industrial and regional strategy which tries to spread good jobs and economic success more evenly around the country.
So new priorities need not always conflict with old ones. But one interesting thing to follow will be the changing tone and accent (literally) of the Tory party as the proportion of privately educated Tory MPs falls to an all-time low, possibly as low as one-third. The new generation of Tory MP, such as Eddie Hughes the working-class Birmingham man who won Walsall North for the Tories in 2017, do not have a noblesse oblige interest in decent public services for the masses because they have spent their lives depending on them.
People such as Eddie Hughes and the new generation of less middle-class Tories might also have an interesting impact on the party’s attitude to family, gender and race issues. In recent years, British Conservatives have not really offered any kind of alternative to liberal metropolitan thinking in these areas. This could be about to end. Fairness and opportunity for minorities and women need not take the often sectarian and hyper-liberal form of recent years and can better accommodate the priorities of small-c conservatives, in family policy for example.
The fact that Johnson has promoted ethnic minority Brits to leading positions in his cabinet and No 10 also bodes well for more balance in the area of race and minority rights and a willingness to challenge the assumption that any departure from perfectly proportional ethnic representation must always be down to white discrimination.
Is it possible that fresh thinking in these areas, thinking that is closer to what the decent average person thinks, rather than the average university administrator, might even filter through to younger people who are overwhelmingly under the sway of the Left? That is unlikely to change in the short term but if the Tories push back intelligently against ‘woke’ culture, they might find a surprisingly receptive audience among young people.
A significant section of educated Britain has been suffering from Brexit derangement syndrome in recent years. It might be seen as a less alarming version of the 1930s flirtation with communism. But, as in the 1930s, the sophistry and fundamentally undemocratic instinct of many of those wanting to overturn the Brexit vote has come up against the decent common sense of the new Tory voters.
As John Gray put it in a recent A Point of View talk on BBC Radio 4:
“Those who have studied to degree level and beyond have often embraced ideas and projects that many less educated folk instinctively recognise are dangerously absurd. Something like this happened in Britain in the 1930s — much of the intelligentsia was ready to junk democracy in Britain for a new order that they felt was coming into being somewhere else.”
The EU is not the Soviet Union but the quasi-religious embrace of the EU worldview does seem to have driven many people, some of them my best friends, slightly crazy!
This election result is a big blow to the confidence and cultural power of educated, left-liberal Britain. A new coalition of people from many different backgrounds, by no means all Tories, now has an opportunity to push back against the extremes and pathologies of that cultural hegemony.
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.
SubscribeThe biggest problem with the current state of BBC satire is that it has taken sides.
Pick any comedy panel show – be it HIGNFY, Mock the Week, The Now Show, Last Leg, any terrestrial channel comedy panel show, and try and find any that goes against the ‘liberal’ orthodoxy. There isn’t a single one.
One or two comedians dare to kick against the traces – but only in stand-up and only once they’ve made an unassailable name for themselves, because they know it comes at the cost of a lucrative TV career. It seems you can only build a successful stand-up career at the moment by establishing your name on such comedy panel programmes.
If a guest-booker actually had the b***s to book a comedian who came out with a whole anti-EU schtick, or made fun of Joe Biden, or possibly mocked any aspect of identity politics or the current accommodations towards “woke” culture wars – they would guarantee firstly that the guest never got booked again for the show and secondly that the booker would be hauled in front of the commissioning editor the next morning for an interview without coffee.
Neither the booker, nor the guest – if they value their careers – dares to step outside the liberal consensus. To do so would be to get a flavour of what it would be like to be accused of heresy.
Another strange thing is that we all still refer to this as the “liberal consensus”. It is, surely, the very antithesis of “liberal” thought. What could possibly be more authoritarian than promoting a narrow worldview and punishing and shaming anyone who dares to think outside it? One of the Left’s favourite insults when castigating the Right is “Orwellian”, do they honestly not see that the tag could be far better applied to this insistence we all adhere to the orthodoxy or face the consequences?
Geoff Norcott is always wheeled out as the comedian who disproves that all BBC comedy is leftist – but GN, as funny as he is, is essentially playing a character. The audience is invited to laugh at (not with) his observations because he is depicted as an unreconstructed Faragiste, a cartoon Brexit untermensch, a figure of fun because his opinions are SO outrageous (despite them actually being the majority view the last time we asked).
Even a man like Ian Hislop, who made a career out of having a dig at the establishment, has become – since the referendum – the sneering face of on-air remoanerism. Once a satirist has picked sides and only attacks the ‘Other’ he ceases to be in any way relevant. It has made HIGNFY unwatchable and Private Eye unreadable.
The satirists of the 1960s, 70s and 80s would hang their heads at the neo-puritanism, the homogeneity of today’s crop of comics. Actually none of those people would even get the gig nowadays. The head of BBC Comedy Commissioning proudly stated that the Python crew would never be hired today, because who wants more ‘Oxbridge educated white men’? … Right on! Who cares if they’re funny, just don’t let them be well-educated and white!
The current panel show regulars who infest our screens may tick all the right boxes, might fulfil all the right quotas, might make fun of all the approved targets and avoid making fun of all the ‘protected victim groups’, but some of these ‘comedians’ (to stretch the definition almost to breaking point) fail in one rather important area – THEY ARE NOT FUNNY. (Has anyone, honestly, ever actually belly-laughed at anything Nish Kumar or Ellie Taylor have ever said? Or a hatful of – evidently forgettable – others)
The 3 most dispiriting words to hear in the English language are supposedly “Replacement Bus Service” though I’ve personally found no three word combination saps my will to laugh more than “…….. featuring Nish Kumar”.
When he announced he was off to “break America”, I was delighted he’d be off our screens for a while, but a quick look at the trailer for his US show (which I seem not to be allowed to link to) …. and it was glaringly obvious that it wouldn’t / couldn’t last long.
Not one ‘joke’ that ventured to say anything other than “I hate Trump”, “I hate Britain”, “Anyone who doesn’t think I’m funny is a racist and a bigot”.
HOW did this man ever have a career? Oh yes, the BBC.
Don’t get me wrong, there are plenty of comedians who are talented, plenty who are funny, but for all their supposed “edginess” there isn’t one on mainstream channels who’d dare admit to an unapproved political viewpoint.
Your comment is better than the article!
One of The Mash Report’s biggest (of many) flaws is that it just tries so damn hard to be funny.
A significant portion of comedy is in the delivery. As everyone and anyone who has seen someone try tell a joke but fail because they have been unable to tell it without finding themselves hilarious in the process.
Secondly as the article correctly points out – its humour thinks itself edgy when it’s in fact at barely sixth-form level satire. As many comedians have said, good comedy should always “punch up” not down.
Yet they are too blind to see that they are well-educated metropolitan types sneering down at anyone who doesn’t share their world view.
I’ve never seen the thing, though I have heard of it. I’ve got a vague recollection of someone once telling me they gave it a try – they lasted about ten minutes.
Still, I’ve learned something today from this article – that weird phenomena of an audience signalling approval but not actually properly laughing at supposed comedy. I never knew it had a name, clapter. It fits, and I look forward to using it …… inappropriately if I can.
I think it was canned laughter from a US show – British people don’t woop!
Now Andrew Lawrence has been cancelled, there’s even fewer comedians out there challenging the consensus
Anyone miss Alf Garnett, or Steptoe?
Yup. (To both.)
I gave up on BBC pseudo-satire several years ago. The reason was their perverted notion of what constitutes “balance”. A programme such as The News Quiz would have some riffs satirizing the Tories and some satirizing Labour. The Tories were satirized for being too right-wing of course. But Labour? Well Labour was also satirized for being too right-wing! That is the BBC definition of “balance”
The world is 100% on an unsustainable economic debt cycle, and all Politicians just vote for more un-funded spending as they out bid each other to buy more votes, even as it kills the nation, and will destroy the poor ultimately……
I watch a lot of finance on Youtube – instead of sick streaming cr* p.
Dalio is the founder of the world’s largest Hedge fund, so is one of the ones who created modern finance, and does Youtubes on money and the state of the world, I believe out of social conscious, and I very much recommend this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0XKG2hdu2qg
The main reason is he always gives the basis of the world getting through the coming chaos as being dependent on income fairness (equity), justice in finance, prudent government finance, AND that we all, as citizens, try our best to get along and be good citizens first. That if we are not good citizens first, the system cannot last.
That it takes a ferocious Billionaire Hedge-fund manager to tell us what everyone should be saying, but do not, is sad.
This sort of disgusting sneering Liberal hate show is the very opposite of that. It is out to divide and make anger and attack that which is morally correct and decent. (I have never seen it, but seen other stuff like it is described) This insidious dividing people and belittling of the Nation and culture and great swaths of the people will destroy us all. The BBC has a great deal to answer for.
The sketch about “Women everywhere telling everybody to just f-off” has long since lost any comedy value but is still doing the rounds on social media. It’s just tedious.
It’s just not funny. Smug, self satisfied and sneering. No wonder Nash Kumar got bombarded by bread rolls when he tried that patronising line with a bunch of cricketers and their backers in London.
Never seen it.
Keep it that way is my advice.
Have deleted this comment – it was the same as my other post on this page.
Posted this first and it was in “Pending” limbo, so removed the link and reposted.