By Lord Cruddas.
It would be a disaster for the Parliamentary Conservative Party, as they have previously done, to foist a new leader on the party.
It would also be a disaster if the candidates who put themselves forward have a plan which amounts to nothing more than shuffling the same old pack of cards.
It all needs to start with an overhaul of the selection process of the Leader of the Party and then Parliamentary Candidates.
The prospective new leader needs to present themselves as a candidate for change and what exactly the Conservative Party stands for – its values. The Parliamentary Party needs to listen to the members. It also needs to be able to deliver and execute those values.
Its failures over the last 14 years can in some instances be explained mainly by supporting the development of a system of bad legislation and the embedding of anti-democratic ideology, which has suppressed true conservative values.
What the Conservative Party needs is to re-establish a proper connection with our members and potential new members. It is called democracy.
What the Conservative Party needs is to re-establish a proper connection with our members and potential new members. It is called democracy.
Over these last few days many senior ex government ministers and senior party members have said that the Conservative Party is a broad Church. That we need an open door for a wide spectrum. Whether they are deliberately missing the point or not affects the size of the problem.
Back in the 1970s the Conservative Party had not been challenging enough about the prevailing left of centre philosophy which had its roots in division and resentment and not aspiration and freedom of choice. It heralded the failure to deliver goods and services as well as the destruction of some industries.
Democracy was thrashed by the unions with the express and tacit support from successive governments. It was the attitude which was rotten and corrupting. Today we again have a very rotten and corrupting attitude which has also, like then, pervaded just about every institution.
This problem goes back to 2005. With the election of David Cameron as leader of the Conservative Party and then becoming Prime Minister in 2010 of a Coalition Government with the Liberal Democrats.
Under Cameron it was the idea of One Nation Conservatism. This created a big philosophy gap with true conservatism. The same can be said about all successive conservative governments rather than just lay the whole problem at his door which would be unfair. None of them addressed the real issues which, like in the 1970s, had evolved in pernicious and disingenuous ways. These issues will now become highly energised under the new Labour Government. The issues have many derivative branches. It will result in the suppression of individual freedoms and the interference of the state in personal matters and choices of individuals which should not be its right.
Conservative Prime Ministers since 2010 would each in their defence say that they were firefighting with specific problems at the time, whether a coalition, economic, austerity, wars, Brexit or Covid etc. The truth is there was no acknowledgement by them of what had been going on since the days of Blair and Brown.
The Parliamentary Conservative Party had become more akin to a European Social Democratic Party. In spite of the clear direction from the people in 2019 the Parliamentary Conservative Party squandered its clear mandate. Not just by the continued shenanigans, of large numbers of the Parliamentary Conservative Party over the details of Brexit, but also by some of the ridiculous but serious infringements of personal liberty that occurred on an unprecedented scale during Covid and an inability to tackle the core of the immigration problem.
The Parliamentary Party seems to have a different understanding, than the general public, of what Parliamentary democracy is. In simple terms modern political power in this country, as clearly contemplated by our constitution, resides with the people and not a supposed technocratic elite of so-called experts.
The Parliamentary Party seems to have a different understanding, than the general public, of what Parliamentary democracy is.
Since 1997 there has been a great deal of exceptionally loose and open-ended legislation which has led inexorably to highly intrusive and divisive consequences upsetting the balance and equilibrium of society both individually and corporately.
This legislation (a) undermines how businesses can go about their business in an efficient and fair way and (b) has also resulted in the perverse victimisation of large sections of society by minority activist groups who are given special rights which they didn’t need. The whole of society has extensive human rights already protected by the Common Law. Examples of this damaging legislation are, the Human Rights Act 1998; the Devolution Legislation of 1998; the Constitutional Reform Act 2005 (which amongst other big changes led to the introduction of the Supreme Court in 2009); some provisions of the Companies Act 2006, and The Climate Change Act 2008.
Unequivocally the ECHR and its enforcement by its court in Strasbourg is a major problem. Not because its original objectives were wrong or that there is no place for human rights. It was at the Congress of Europe in the Hague in 1948 that a declaration and pledge was issued. That was in the context of a Europe ravaged by war where many European countries had not long escaped the clutches of Nazism, but even prior to the War they had not been very democratic or democratic for long. We didn’t need to sign it at that time because our own Common Law provided protection but did so to take a supporting lead as one of the liberators.
We didn’t need to sign it [ECHR] at that time because our own Common Law provided protection but did so to take a supporting lead as one of the liberators.
The broad intent and thrust behind the ECHR was to protect the individual from undue interference with their personal freedom by the state. But it has been extended by the Strasbourg court into areas which are quite clearly beyond its original aim. These are often questions which are really cultural issues for society to decide, reflective perhaps of their religion or history. Too many issues are being made legal issues when in truth they aren’t and shouldn’t be. This is a common failing of the left; to help them enforce control that curtail liberty. The ballot box and the political arena is the right forum.
Lord Sumption, former member of the Supreme Court has explained in many articles and debates why the UK should repeal its accession to the European Convention on Human Rights. His views are easily found on the internet. He is not a rabid popularist or of the right but exercises the best of reason, logic and empirical evidence. Sadly, if others expressed his intellectual arguments, they would be dismissed by many in hostile and insulting terms.
Some minorities seek to subordinate the rights of the majority in favour of their special rights. The Labour Government don’t see this as a problem. Making upsetting comments or offending someone a crime is very perverse, divisive and dangerous. It happens every day in many ways – it is called life and human nature. There are existing laws to deal with incitement of a breach of the peace by hate speech.
Though the last government didn’t wish to, in effect, read the riot act to the police to get them to enforce our laws on many Saturdays in central London.
Parliamentary power and the voting public’s influence has been diluted by the contracting out of powers. By, devolution; through treaties and to NGO’s which in effect frame policy for the sitting Government who just accept what they are fed. Astonishingly, some of the major policy suggestions by NGO’s aren’t even costed as to implementation or consequences let alone consideration being given to endangering national security. For example, creating energy dependence on third party countries by closing down our existing energy sources when we haven’t and won’t have, for some time, enough alternative energy sources.
Into this mix one only needs to see the shocking politicisation of the civil service which started in 1997 and the sweeping of this left leaning approach into many of the NGO’s.
Into this mix one only needs to see the shocking politicisation of the civil service which started in 1997 and the sweeping of this left leaning approach into many of the NGO’s.
There has also been an increasing emphasis on following a more European approach to the introduction of laws and regulations. The Civil Codes in Europe operate more on a top-down approach. In the UK the majority of our laws have evolved through the Common Law. Where the laws develop from the bottom up and take account of subtle nuances and aim for fairness. The Civil Law approach isn’t compatible with the basics of democracy in this country. It amounts to the disintermediation of our laws where the people are being increasingly cut out of having a proper input into that process and what they should be. It is how the Council of Europe and the European Parliament operates.
Collectively, all of these changes of approach to our law making and the operation of Parliament are very troublesome.
CONCLUSION
If there isn’t now a fundamental re-setting of conservative values by the Parliamentary Conservative Party then, in future General Elections, there will be a flight of further conservative support to other parties. It isn’t about moving to the right or left as a matter of philosophy of intent, it is about not alienating people and allowing the people to have a greater and real input into the policies the leaders are to pursue. Supported by a clear mandate from the people.
It is about showing respect for the voting public and not dismissing them as ignorant or popularist or labelling them far right. It is about stopping the erosion of Parliamentary democracy and the freedom of the individual. Shamefully the conduct of many conservative MPs on the question of their role in Parliament and the freedom of the individual has been lamentable.
These problems will become even more embedded over the next five years under labour. Having a new Conservative Party leader who just fudges the issues and problems by hiding behind the banal statement of being a broad church would not just be a disgrace but a death warrant for the Conservative Party.
A leader is needed who is prepared to produce an agenda which will stop the erosion of parliamentary democracy and reset the very clever and special workings of our constitution. That means a clear programme of repealing highly damaging legislation and re-asserting the will of the people.
Lord Cruddas is the President of the CDO and is a former Conservative Party Treasurer.
I wholeheartedly agree with what you are saying, however I do feel that some ex MP’s like Hesitine, Major and Cameron have sought undermine the Brexit vote. In my opinion they should have either voluntarily shut-up or be disowned by the party i.e. removed from the party. I am sure if someone in your business did that to you, you would have shown them the door. At the moment I don’t see much potential in the MP’s as leaders, I hope you can find one.