From Free Life No 39, November 2001

Sir,

Usually I read your articles with much interest and value many of the points you make. However on this occasion, rather than have any objective viewpoint on why we in the Conservative Party lost (I was the Conservative candidate in the target seat of Stretford and Urmston) you embarked on a ludicrous rant about William Hague. ("Why Did the Tories Lose the General Election?", Free Life No.38, July 2001)

For what it's worth I think the Conservative Party lost for three principal reasons. Firstly William Hague was not seen by the electorate at large as Prime Minister, no matter what policies we had people just didn't see William as leading the Country. This is extremely sad as he would make a far better Prime Minister than Blair, and indeed many others who went on to hold the highest office. However the electorate cannot be bucked.

Secondly, we fought on completely the wrong grounds. The European issue is hugely important. To me the keep the Pound message is right, for all time not just for the next parliament. Similarly we should be looking beyond the EU and towards true internationalism (if I can borrow a phrase) which has always been the UK's historic mission. Asylum again is a hugely important issue and we were on the right lines.

Where I differ with the Party is the tactics. These are not General Election issues and we were outflanked completely. On no occasion was Europe or Asylum raised to me on the doorstep or during walkabouts. I spoke to literally thousands of people and yes when prompted they all, or the vast majority, wanted to keep the pound and for Britain to be a safe haven but not a soft touch.

In spite of this the Party became monomaniacal, almost a single issue pressure group. We had innovatory policies on schools and hospitals, where they would have been freed from municipal control and the deadening hand of the state. Yet we chose to fight not on these issues but in the last week on Europe, which was not the ground staked out for this election. History tells us that elections are won and lost on economic issues and public services. Even John Major's famous Save the Union election of 1992, was fought on economic grounds and not constitutional.

Thirdly, there is the British sense of fair play. The thought that they had 18 years we'll give the other lot another four years and then judge. Do not under estimate this point, it was a powerful message which came over.

Where does the Conservative Party go from here? Well I think we are on broadly the right lines. We are talking about freeing the individual which is true Toryism, allowing people to determine their own way in life. Personally I would wish the Party to be less feeble on the tax agenda (you cannot free individuals when the state continues to tax and spend almost half of GDP), more robust on Europe, explain that education and healthcare as currently delivered is a disaster and only the introduction of the private sector, using the state a revenue providers will give Britain the public services we deserve. Finally we need to preach less and liberate more. Become Liberal Tories in the true context of laissez faire.

The leadership election will determine which way we go, although there is one candidate who I feel is acknowledging the agenda of tax cuts, and liberalisation. If he is elected I am confident that at the next election we will be returned.

I look forward to your future articles when you have regained some of your usual equilibrium.

Best wishes,

Jonathan Mackie
jonathan@mackiejd.freeserve.co.uk

Sir,

I echo Chris Tame's comment that this is a brilliant analysis ("a href="fl38elec.htm">Why Did the Tories Lose the General Election?", Free Life No.38, July 2001). More relevant is whether there is truth in it. As Sean Gabb knows, an intelligent observer from the Left could construct an equally fascinating but quite different analysis of late 20th century British politics. Such 'histories' are very useful for justifying and motivating a particular political ideology, but they rest entirely on acceptance of the political 'labels' they use. Some people, rightly or wrongly, wouldn't recognise them.

And that is where the problem lies in reversing what I agree are the negative political trends we have all witnessed over the period covered. Academics can construct, in hindsight, a plausible Machiavellian theory of political history. But how can we get the public to recognise, accept, and act upon such theories? Even if they did recognise them, it seems the majority can willingly give their support to the "Enemy Class" and the "Quisling Right". I sense an underlying feeling from the article that Sean would like us to get a new public. After all, the lines of Blair's legitimising plastic army behind him in the Commons are now largely unthinking MPs drawn indiscriminately from the ordinary 'plebs' [my phrase].

While acknowledging much of Sean's objections to political policy over the years, its characterisation into a perpetual war between 'them' and 'us', what is evil and what is not, is dispiriting.

There are a variety of political ideologies. Sean says the Conservative party much of the time has been following the wrong ones. But it is a little harsh to condemn the party as a whole, particularly if there is no conspiracy. Surely disappointment with 60 years of Conservative policymaking must bring into question what "Conservative" really means, or at least "Conservative Party". Can a party be in denial for so long? If there is no grand conspiracy for "quislings" to run the Conservative party then perhaps the Conservative party is "just what it is". Given Sean's eloquent description of how the party has departed from the policies he favours over so many years I doubt that such policies are 'necessarily' the province of the Conservative party, it is just that it is the party most likely to adopt them at times.

The problem seems to be that Sean sees the Conservative party as the only practical (electable to government) vehicle for the policies he favours; his disappointment is that it hasn't followed them. His belief is that only these policies reflect true Conservative ideology. I suggest this isn't necessarily true. I agree there are many within the party's "broad church" who believe fundamentally in Sean's ideological principles. But perhaps there aren't enough at present to share Sean's ideas of which policies are "right" and which are "wrong". I'm quite happy with entryism to rebalance the party toward the ideological policies that he favours (I might favour some such policies too). But getting people to join the Conservatives, or any party, that's an uphill struggle.

Sean 'might' draw some comfort from the candidate's statement from Iain Duncan Smith today (or is he a "quisling quisling quisling Right"?)

I would also be interested to know where Sean places Gary Streeter in his description of how the Conservative party failed to win the last general election.

Jeremy Stanford
euroscep@dircon.co.uk