The New Generation Society

Andrew Sawdon

Andrew Sawdon is an NGS member and first year History/Politics undergraduate at York. In his article he highlights the strengths of conservative policy in the face of key problems facing the New Generation. With this solid ideological foundation, he argues, the future of the right is brighter than that of airbrushed and re-branded New Labour left.

The political ‘right’ is at last emerging under David Cameron as a force that the public will listen to. Yet, the principles that would underpin a government leaning to the right remain unclear. Conservatives today find themselves confused, ambling towards office and yet longing perhaps for the days of Cold War moral clarity, when fierce defence of individual economic and social freedom from government intervention offered a sharp, simple doctrine to counter the socialist vision. Today though, modernisers in the Conservative party rattle at traditional Tory sensibilities, seeking to enforce reformation and apply some Blairite public relations sparkle to an unconvinced party and public. Parallels have been cited to the Labour Party of the early 1990s, when Tony Blair urged the dropping of the sacred Clause Four of the Labour Party manifesto, on the road to transforming the once-socialist Labour party into a formidable flexible political force. The ‘Clause Four moment’ has been cited as the transition from Old Labour to New Labour. Perhaps David Cameron deems himself poised to do the same, to shake the party out of its occasional libertarian dogma, as well as its preoccupation with the EU, crime and immigration. He has certainly negotiated these traditional Conservative concerns through the morally dubious stance of non-comment. But on what grounds can such a ‘New Conservative’ transformation really be made?

There is no Tory Clause Four equivalent, no glaring falsehood in mainstream Conservative ideology such as the former commitment on the left to mass nationalisation. The gut Conservative instincts of efficient and focused public spending and the preservation of individual liberty and opportunity remain as relevant today as ever. These are core conservative values – if David Cameron or any future leader embarks on a predictable PR campaign to downplay the conservatism of the Conservative Party to voters then he will rightfully earn their mistrust. As for those who through tribalism and prejudice will forever keep the Tory party as the ‘nasty party’, no amount of re-branding will convince them to accept the best efforts of the right to improve society.

The message to the Conservatives then is clear: ideology is not the problem. What is needed is a reinvigorated approach, with freshly thought and freshly put arguments, using this principled core ideology of conservatism to guide, but not dictate, policy. This includes being frank and honest on immigration and social cohesion, and developing serious thought on issues where the party has tended all too easily to be aloof, such as on the issues of environment, poverty and education.

An example of an honest and unflinching conservative core spawning progressive thinking can be given on so-called social cohesion, of the challenges faced by a culturally and religiously divided nation, with high profile alienation in the Muslim community especially. The Conservative Party cannot claim to approach these issues from a morally pure standpoint historically. The 1964 campaign slogan ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour’ marked the lowest depths to which the party has sunk on the issue. But rather than quietly sidestepping past right wing racism and seeking to avoid debate on this sort of controversial issue, the new right has to tackle it head on if it is to emerge as a heavyweight political and intellectual force.

The legacy of multiculturalism we inherit could cause Britain, in the words of Trevor Phillips, to ‘sleepwalk towards segregation’, through a well-meaning over-emphasis on sensitivity, minority interests and religious and ethnic identities. The right innately believes in nationality, not race, religion, sexuality or class as the most significant factor in a person’s allegiance, and this makes them best placed to make the UK a country not divided by government along ethno-religious lines, but as a nation of British individuals free to blend whatever cultural influences they choose, with overarching common loyalty to liberal democracy and the British institutions that shape this. To remain a united nation, an inclusive patriotism, composed of common language, values, history and traditions, needs to be formed. This may require compulsory history or citizenship lessons for all at A-level, and stricter language and citizenship tests for migrants, such as in the Netherlands, that canary in the mine for European liberalism. Most important is a change in government approach, away from the politics of group identity. In particular, the government should not presume a division of mono-cultural communities in Britain. When they are address the Muslim community, for example, through consultation with the Muslim Council of Britain, this does not speak for British Muslim individuals: for gay or lesbian Muslims, atheists of Muslim family heritage or Muslims who view the Iraq war as a just war spreading democracy and freedom, those people whose individuality is stifled and who need the government’s moral support. To assume that these people do not exist in a hegemonic British Muslim enclave is wrong. The right can fight to strengthen the bonds of common nationality among all of its citizens, and to recognise individuality beyond ethno-religious bounds, rather than to embrace the limiting, stereotyping identity politics of the left which plays into the hands of extremists on both sides.

Social cohesion is just one area in need of a bold, freshly thought out and articulated conservative position. Another concern for our society – that spreads beyond the borders of the UK – is global climate change. The problem of transforming the energy foundation of our society requires massive government investment in renewable energy and infrastructure. Conservatives hesitant to commit to such massive intervention need not resort to ethical arguments about our responsibility as humankind to the planet; the justification for intervention is provided on the familiar conservative basis of rational self-interest. The world’s fossil fuels are finite, and demand looks set to keep on rising, and as fossil fuels reach a level of scarcity which makes it crippling for economies around the world to rely upon them as their economic foundation, investment made in alternative energies will easily repay itself, while British renewables firms can export their expertise to those countries who demonstrate less far-sightedness. The conservative appeal for government action on climate change is therefore on the familiar basis of maintenance of a strong and prosperous nation. What has to be acknowledged is that ideological and ethical Puritanism, such as that provided by the left, cannot necessarily solve tomorrow’s problems, but a flexible, reasoned, approach to policy, with conservative bedrock to it, can.

These two very different examples of challenges to the UK demonstrate that the right wing can have the right foundation of principle; that of a burning desire collectively to make Britain the strongest and healthiest country it can be, and a commitment individually to individual freedom, which should not be forgotten. The Conservative Party need not engage in tiresome, superficial New Labour-style re-branding to capture the public’s imagination. It can only be reinvigorated, substantive thoughts and ideas that can convince people of the principled case for the right.