Tories must stop panicking and rediscover the virtues of loyalty
Whether it is a matter for nostalgia, comfort or reassurance, one point is worth remembering, and even when Tories lose sight of it wise Labour supporters never forget it. The Conservative party is the most formidable electoral machine in all history. Its ascent to that eminence was rarely trouble-free. In 1832, the party opposed the Great Reform Bill, with an obvious risk of being marginalised and declining into a Carlist rump. Robert Peel had other ideas. The Corn Laws came along to impede his progress. He could have coped, but for Disraeli. That mountebank kept the party out of power for twenty years, before steering it in the right direction. Was that inadvertence, opportunism – or prescience? We shall never know.
In 1906, for a range of reasons, the party appeared to have put itself on the wrong side of history. History had other ideas, abetted by war. In 1945, war – or rather, post-war reconstruction – worked against the Tories. “We are the masters now” said Hartley Shawcross, and back then many Tories feared that he was right. Instead, the Tories established themselves as the heralds of post-war prosperity, while Lord Shawcross himself began a political journey. An enthusiastic sailor, it led him, and his progeny, into a safe Tory harbour.
There are conclusions to be drawn from this complex tale. First, the Tories should never put themselves on the wrong side of England and of history. This does not mean submitting to every passing fancy. “When it is not necessary to change” said the great Falkland, “it is necessary not to change.” There is a risk. The elegance of that aphorism can conceal its unrelenting intellectual difficulty. How can we establish when it is necessary to change? That is the Tories’ endless task and national duty.
Second, the Tories have undergone a benign evolution, which has assisted their fortunes, marching in step with the national interest. They have moved from Church and King to the Crown in Parliament, the bedrock of constitutional stability. Third, another benign evolution, they have transformed themselves from the days when they were an aristocratic faction to the present day, when they defend the interests of another bedrock, the British middle classes. Support for that splendid tribe is not an exclusionary creed: look at the current Tory front bench. But there is one creed which Tories should stand by, in all circumstances: aspiration.
Fourth, Tories must hang together, or they will hang separately. A colleague with whom you happen to disagree is not an Amalekite, to be smitten hip and thigh. “Damn your principles: stick to your party” may be too cynical for tender political ears but a party wishing to win or retain power must understand that politics is a team game, or it is nothing. For a start, voters tend to have an understandable prejudice. If you cannot agree among yourselves, they will say, why should we take you seriously? Politics is a team game or it is nothing.
“Loyalty is the Tories’ secret weapon” declared Rab Butler. In recent years, it is often been so secret as to be invisible. Equally, Tories would regard themselves as the sort of chaps who will be steady on parade. These days, Corporal Jones seems to have taken over: “Don’t panic”. They often do. In the 1980s, David Steel once advised his fellow Liberals not to approach every problem with an open mouth. Surely Tories would not need to be given such elementary advice? They often do.
There is a sort of excuse. The party has been afflicted by that grievance of grievances, Europe. One might have thought that the referendum would have settled the question. But the blood stream has not been purged of poison. Many of the Brexiteers have been bad winners, constantly looking out for Remainer plots. Partly because of the resulting instability, some Remainers have been emboldened to believe that after all, their defeat might not be final. There are not enough sensible middle-grounders to insist that everyone should now rally round, roll up their sleeves and make Brexit work.
There is further exacerbation, from the ECHR. This has its ironic aspects. We virtually invented the damned thing, as a means of helping war-shattered countries to rebuild their judicial systems. We did not need to rebuild ours. The Common Law had served us well for centuries. Although Lord Kilmuir, who played a crucial role in drafting the ECHR, was a federalist, this put him in a small minority among English lawyers, most of whom believed that although the ECHR might be all well and good for foreigners, it neither would nor should apply to us.
No good deed goes unpunished. We helped to liberate the oppressed peoples of Europe, so that they might be able to enjoy freedom under the rule of law. We, who already possessed those freedoms, found that our ability to protect our liberties under our laws was under threat from foreign judges.
It is true that the latest judgment from the Supreme Court was based entirely on English law. But once a statute is drafted which deals with the Law Lords’ points, the true supreme court, the High Court of Parliament, ought to prevail. Eminent lawyers have argued that our judges ought to be satisfied. As for the ones in Strasbourg, our ministers seem bent on thwarting their attempts to interfere. So they should.
It is time to clarify the issues and assert the principles which ought to prevail. First, no illegal immigrants should be allowed to enter this country. Whether it be Rwanda, a barge or a disused army camp, there should be no possibility of moving beyond that and settling here: no route from a smuggler’s small boat to residence in the UK. Second, there can be no right of political asylum for those arriving from France, which is a safe country. Third, conventions on asylum which might have been sustainable in the immediate post-war years can no longer work given the chaos that engulfs much of the world, which is in no way mitigated by the ease of air travel. Fourth, the ECHR is at best an irrelevance and all too often a confounded nuisance. It would not be easy to dispense with it altogether: that would create problems with both the devolution arrangements for Scotland and the Belfast Agreement. But it should at least be defanged.
Finally, there is a good Ulster injunction which ought to be more widely heeded. “Catch yourself on” – ie, get a grip. The Tory party ought to catch itself on. It is perilously late in the day yet Sir Stumbler is hardly an inspiring figure. He may have got a grip: to what end? “You hate the Tories” he is saying, “and anyway, it is our turn to run the Government, but don’t worry: I won’t change much.”
Will that be enough? If enough Tory MPs are determined to raise their rifles to their shoulders, form a circle, turn inwards and then open fire, it will indeed be enough. Yet if enough Tories stop panicking and rediscover the virtues of loyalty, then at least they will still be in the game. There was another character in Dad’s Army whose catchphrase, delivered with considerable relish, was: “We’re a’ doomed.” The Tory party is not yet doomed…not yet.
Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life