It is a measure of how things look for the Conservatives that many of the party’s leading lights are already planning for what comes next. Tory think-tanks are running projects on the future of Conservatism, MPs publish pamphlets on the right way forward. Now into this mix comes a troubling import.
Next week London hosts the National Conservatism conference, an event organised by the Edmund Burke Foundation, a group led by American and Israeli rightwingers dedicated to building a new movement across the western world. Viktor Orbán, the authoritarian Hungarian leader, spoke at a previous conference, as did Giorgia Meloni, the populist Italian premier.
Alongside belief in the nation state and free enterprise, the project’s 10 founding principles also include a central role for religion and family values. They warn against “the unconstrained individualism . . . that encourages ever more radical forms of sexual license and experimentation”. No nation, they add, “can long endure without humility and gratitude before God”.
Even support for free enterprise is tempered with warnings against globalised markets and transnational companies that allow “hostile foreign powers to despoil America”.
A number of British Conservatives, including Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Lord David Frost and Michael Gove are due to speak at the event. Not all participants share the NatCons’ agenda. But speakers also include prominent culture warriors who depict their nations as victims of a godless, globalist liberal agenda.
One can overstate the importance of a conference, but this one is timely because many Tories are thinking about a post-election repositioning.
The financial crash and fraying of the liberal economic order destroyed the Cameron-era modern conservative open model of global free trade bringing prosperity for all. Brexit offered a rival story of national self-renewal and many prominent Tories see a permanent future in a populist model built around nationalism and defence of traditional values.
Yet while it may appeal to many MPs and activists, importing the US NatCon model is a dead end for two significant reasons.
The first and most obvious is that the US is a superpower. It can unilaterally alter the global terms of trade and stand apart from multilateral bodies without risk to its influence. Britain does not enjoy this luxury.
The second is that the religious right is not a force in British politics, nor is it likely to become one. In the latest census of England and Wales, less than half the population, 46 per cent, classified themselves as Christian, while 37 per cent said they had no religion. The nations where the NatCon agenda has taken root mostly boast a powerful religious identity or a leader who is able to mobilise a religious vote. The UK, in contrast, has kept matters of religious conscience largely away from partisan politics — although, as the recent Scottish National party leadership contest showed, this separation is becoming harder to sustain in progressive parties.
The lack of a strong religious caucus limits the scope of culture wars. There is room for conservatives to push back against what can be depicted as progressive over-reach in social policy, but Britain is not polarised in the same way as the US and does not wish to be. The right to an abortion, for example, enjoys overwhelming support in the UK, even among conservatives.
The UK is hardly immune to racial injustice and public opinion backs limits on immigration. But Britain’s divisions cannot compare with the US, whose politics to this day remain scarred by the Confederate cause. A carefully calibrated nod on immigration can work, but overplaying racial politics risks losing centrist voters. Conservatives need to be the voice of the comfortable as well as the angry.
Patently, a British NatCon offering will vary. It is possible to see mileage in greater support for families, but this cannot be restricted to the nuclear kind. A tough line on immigration can also work with target voters. Yet Tories already know all this. Even so, some strategists believe the party’s new voter base demands a deeper embrace of culture wars and nationalism.
But the insular NatCon model proposes no solution to the disconnect between free-market Tories and the more active state demanded by newer supporters. It has little to offer on climate change or the impact of new technology. The rejection of multilateral institutions is also tricky for a post-Brexit UK. More important is the danger of snarling prioritisation of issues that matter less to voters than household incomes, housing and the state of public services. Pathways to economic growth are where Tories need to focus.
Mainstream Tories should therefore be very wary of grafting on US-style cultural conflicts, especially those espoused by a movement with a blinkered view of freedoms and an undue regard for leaders with a shaky record on democracy.
A degree of social conservatism aligned to pro-growth policies can be electorally attractive. But historic success has been built on balancing the old with adaptation to the new.
Moving from this proven approach of mild modernity to angry reaction is a dead end for conservatives in a country which is ever less religious, ever more tolerant of non-traditional lifestyles and which mostly wishes to find the centre-ground rather than to scorch it.
robert.shrimsley@ft.com
Credit: Source link
