Does Nigel Hastilow represent the 'soul' of the Conservative party, its lunatic fringe or something in between? Your answer probably depends on your political affiliations but prior to his resignation I was ready to post the following today:
What do we actually mean when we talk about the 'soul' of a political party? The normal understanding is a solid, immutable core, fixed in principle and impervious to events. In a world of near-constant political cross-dressing and regular rebranding this makes the concept of a party's soul a meaty target for political opponents. It's the ideal vehicle to let you tether the image of your opponents to an unpopular set of beliefs or historical outcomes – 'at heart they haven't changed' is a potent line of attack. So how do we apply the concept to the two main UK parties?
Trying to identify the 'soul' of the Labour party is an interesting game a decade and a half into 'the project'. Supporters adopt the 'traditional values in a modern setting' line, maintaining that Labour values of fairness and equality remain constant even if the means of application have changed. Depending on whether or not you're a supporter that explanation will bear weight but the description comes perilously close to a set of banal universal platitudes that no modern party would dissent from (the Tories aren't 'against' fairness or equality). You're also up against the distinction between 'soul' and 'values' and that tends to descend into semantic arguments that lose most people. Supporters would probably contest thisand it's not meant as a criticism but I think the Labour party have successfully exorcised the idea of a party soul – the collectivist socialist wing is now a comical rump and in the public consciousness Labour is defined more by the solutions it advocates rather than the outcomes it seeks. I'd content that's a healthy place for a party to be.
The Conservatives 'soul' is no less complex an idea. Small state, low-tax Conservatives would be one formulation but in an age where all the main utilities & transport companies are in private hands and the main income tax rate is about to hit 20% it becomes difficult again to sustain this idea as something completely unique to conservatism. The real danger for Conservatives is that their 'soul' is viewed in terms of social rather than economic terms – valiant though his efforts have been Cameron's party still carries unpleasant associations when it comes to race and sexuality and yesterday's events serve to highlight this. The disgraceful remarks by Nigel Hastilow and the chilling unqualified support from his constituency chairman demonstrate the gulf that still exists between the Cameron modernising set and elements in the wider party. Yes the leadership handled this with more aplomb than they've done before (Mercer, Winterton etc.) but that speaks to superficial, administrative changes – it says nothing (or perhaps everything) about the party's soul and where it sits in relation to the immigration question. Conservatives can't duck awkward question about the depth of Cameron's reforms if idiots like Hastilow still make their way onto PPC lists. I purposively didn't read many other blogs on the Hastilow row because I've been blogging long enough to know how the reaction pans out -absolute libertarians are probably banging on tiresomely about freedom of speech, ignorant simpletons are probably just saying 'he was right' and higher-profile, more moderate Tory bloggers issue a standard denunciation and then quickly move onto the 'reaction' itself and how the media 'didn't help'. Meanwhile out in the real world tens of thousands of apolitical moderate voters who'd been thinking positively about Cameron decide he may be OK but he's leading a bunch of idiots – the mountain that Cameron had almost scaled has suddenly doubled in size again.
It might herald a duller political age with debate revolving around competence rather than principle but I'd quite like to see the death of the concept of the 'political soul' – I suspect David Cameron is in a similar place today.
"If David Cameron doesn't expel Hastilow immediately then I don't care if come the next election Brown has flattened the Commons, signed sovereignty over to Brussels and nationalised my knob and leased it back to me once a month at exorbitant rates, the Tories will not get my vote"Thankfully he has resigned and spared me that intemperate and very atypical reaction on this blog. Now for a more considered discussion…
What do we actually mean when we talk about the 'soul' of a political party? The normal understanding is a solid, immutable core, fixed in principle and impervious to events. In a world of near-constant political cross-dressing and regular rebranding this makes the concept of a party's soul a meaty target for political opponents. It's the ideal vehicle to let you tether the image of your opponents to an unpopular set of beliefs or historical outcomes – 'at heart they haven't changed' is a potent line of attack. So how do we apply the concept to the two main UK parties?Trying to identify the 'soul' of the Labour party is an interesting game a decade and a half into 'the project'. Supporters adopt the 'traditional values in a modern setting' line, maintaining that Labour values of fairness and equality remain constant even if the means of application have changed. Depending on whether or not you're a supporter that explanation will bear weight but the description comes perilously close to a set of banal universal platitudes that no modern party would dissent from (the Tories aren't 'against' fairness or equality). You're also up against the distinction between 'soul' and 'values' and that tends to descend into semantic arguments that lose most people. Supporters would probably contest thisand it's not meant as a criticism but I think the Labour party have successfully exorcised the idea of a party soul – the collectivist socialist wing is now a comical rump and in the public consciousness Labour is defined more by the solutions it advocates rather than the outcomes it seeks. I'd content that's a healthy place for a party to be.
The Conservatives 'soul' is no less complex an idea. Small state, low-tax Conservatives would be one formulation but in an age where all the main utilities & transport companies are in private hands and the main income tax rate is about to hit 20% it becomes difficult again to sustain this idea as something completely unique to conservatism. The real danger for Conservatives is that their 'soul' is viewed in terms of social rather than economic terms – valiant though his efforts have been Cameron's party still carries unpleasant associations when it comes to race and sexuality and yesterday's events serve to highlight this. The disgraceful remarks by Nigel Hastilow and the chilling unqualified support from his constituency chairman demonstrate the gulf that still exists between the Cameron modernising set and elements in the wider party. Yes the leadership handled this with more aplomb than they've done before (Mercer, Winterton etc.) but that speaks to superficial, administrative changes – it says nothing (or perhaps everything) about the party's soul and where it sits in relation to the immigration question. Conservatives can't duck awkward question about the depth of Cameron's reforms if idiots like Hastilow still make their way onto PPC lists. I purposively didn't read many other blogs on the Hastilow row because I've been blogging long enough to know how the reaction pans out -absolute libertarians are probably banging on tiresomely about freedom of speech, ignorant simpletons are probably just saying 'he was right' and higher-profile, more moderate Tory bloggers issue a standard denunciation and then quickly move onto the 'reaction' itself and how the media 'didn't help'. Meanwhile out in the real world tens of thousands of apolitical moderate voters who'd been thinking positively about Cameron decide he may be OK but he's leading a bunch of idiots – the mountain that Cameron had almost scaled has suddenly doubled in size again.
It might herald a duller political age with debate revolving around competence rather than principle but I'd quite like to see the death of the concept of the 'political soul' – I suspect David Cameron is in a similar place today.
Labels: Politics
7 Comments:
It's worth noting Hastilow suffered a swing against him in 2001 when he sttod in Edgbaston.
He's hardly a stunning candidate.
No matter what his electoral performance the article said all you need to know about the man...
A school of thought has it that the old left/right divisions are no longer applicable and that it is now statist v liberty.
I can only assume by your comments in the Kabour Party you have never met anyone who is a member of it . The fact it is very much alive is one of the keys to the Blir era whn there never really was New Labour . Thats why Frank Field was chucked out , thats why Brown and so on and so on.
The Conservative Party is a little different in that has comnpeting souls .I find your reaction to Hasiltow odd for anyone who is supposed;y a Conservative. I am not a great fan of Enoch powell but I am horrified about immigration as are many inside and outside the Conservative Party .
oops sorry in a hurry.
Overall I think your reaction is very much behind the underlying immigration debate . Nick Clog recently asked whether the Liberal Party should try to catch up .He concluded that they had no place in the debate unless they showed an understanding of real and proper concerns.
We understand why Mercer and Hasiltow should be gone but the territory is opening up for the first time now.
The problem, dear friend, is that Mr. Hastelow is more typical of the Conservative Party than is the dreadful Cameron. This, of course, is why the tories won't be elected at the next election or the election after that because everyone knows that Cameron is being used as the "acceptable electoral face" of conservatism and if they were ever elected again the vicious, class ridden hatred that is the real conservative party will once again wreak it destruction upon those who work to deliver the wealth of this country.
I will-
The Conservative Party can hardly be blamed for class hatred as they do not acceot the definition of men by classs to the same extent the socialists do.Speaking fro personla experience I find there is a mix in the Conservative Party which is far more small c Conservative than the Libertarian blogasphere.
Labour activists are usually out and out trots .
Basically you are wrong
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home