Old habits die hard?
The example of the New Labour project illustrates better than any other the extent to which a party, and in particular its senior membership, can change. It would be ludicrous to claim Peter Mandelson’s political instincts are still those of a radical communist, simply because of transitory affiliations in his youth, as much as it would be to denounce Blunkett, or even Blair, for the ‘socialism’ they espoused in earlier times. People change. Labour changed. But has David Cameron and his party really changed? A case can certainly be made for a cautious ‘yes’. As New Labour was fundamentally about accepting the new economic landscape entrenched in the 1980s, so Cameron has made clear that he seeks to adjust the Conservative Party to the post-1997 social settlement. There is nice symmetry to this narrative of political ‘paradigm shifts’; a sign of deep, structural change which might just convince us of Cameron’s sincerity. The question is, how deep have the changes been under Cameron?
To start with, much of Cameron’s strategy to illuminate the Conservative social conscience has been based around simply pushing social issues to the fore – saying lots about society’s ills in a tone sympathetic to the disadvantaged automatically makes you look nicer, regardless of a lack of clear policy. When we do gain a flavour of Conservative social policy, it is often couched in language Tories both ‘new’ and ‘old’ could feel very comfortable with – their ‘Responsibility’ agenda being the case in point. More importantly however, Cameron’s job is made much easier by the fact that the underlying economic consensus in this country is much more in tune with traditional Tory principles than ‘old Labour’ instincts; free markets, private enterprise and low taxes are the order of the day (I accept that the last is slightly more contentious). Save for the odd groan of disgruntlement or defection to UKIP, Cameron has faced nothing like the convulsions experienced in the Labour Party between 1979 and the mid-1990s, from the SDP split, to mass expulsions and fundamental disputes about the nature of capitalism. New Labour emerged at the end of a long and arduous process, as a root-and-branch response to a country and world which had changed drastically over the previous two decades. By contrast, the Conservatives main challenge, it seems, is simply to convince us of a new emphasis on ‘soft’ social issues, even if they don’t really convince themselves. I must state, in no way do I regard social policy as mere ‘window dressing’, and the Conservatives should be lauded for any progress they make towards accepting and building a more just society. However, I remain suspicious of their intentions, a) because they still have much to prove on this front and b) because I doubt that the kind of instincts displayed by Cameron in his 2002 article have deserted him, or indeed much of his party, entirely.
Had Labour been elected in 1997 only to tax the rich till the pips squeak and nationalise the top twenty-five companies, the party would have been thrown swiftly from office, never to return. By contrast, given the underlying economic consensus in Britain, I think the next Conservative government could have considerably more room for manoeuvre, and the opportunity to revert to some old habits on social and economic policy, particularly if Labour leave office deeply discredited.
I still think Will Hutton was broadly right when he suggested in last Sunday’s Observer that the pendulum has not yet swung in favour of the Conservatives. But we would do well to remember that our era was very much forged during the Thatcher years.
Tom Barker, tombarker86@hotmail.co.uk