The name ‘Tory’ derives from a word in the Gaelic languages meaning an outlaw or a robber. By comparison, the modern ‘Conservative’ is a far more comforting word. It suggests solidity when it comes to those values often held to be ‘British’, such as respect for others, support for legal institutions, maintaining law and order, financial competence, respect for parliament and even old-fashioned respect for others. But in the general election of 4 July 2024, the party of ‘responsible government’, despite claiming to represent all those things, crashed and burned overnight.
Old lefties and liberals were not surprised at this turn of events, having watched the political drama unfold from the Brexit vote in 2016 to the time of the election. Had it been a TV drama, it might have been very funny. And any incoming government would surely do better than the combination of Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak, not least in handling the massive task of saving the planet?
Aside from the lies, corruption and incompetence, the legacy of the Tories before the general election was a clear reduction in economic performance, and the UK economy may now be some 5.5% smaller than it would have been had Brexit not occurred – we really must repair relations with our nearest neighbours. As I write, with the Tory Conference receding into the political fog, we await the election of a new leader – a role for someone who will be a successor to the likes of Neville Chamberlain, Winston Churchill, Edward Heath, and Margaret Thatcher.
Into the wilderness of defeat
Even the most avid Telegraph, Mail or Express reader must have reflected on Boris Johnson’s lies, his contempt for normally urbane British diplomatic conduct, and the wrecking of the economy as he partied with his chums in Number 10 during lockdown. Observing a record like that, indulging in a little schadenfreude about their defeat is justified. But now the dust has settled, can we explain what happened? What of history? How did the Tories get to this point?
After all, it’s not the Tories’ only encounter with chaos in recent years. As the party stages yet another leadership ballot, many readers will remember the Tory leadership pantomime following the 1997 election, when John Major was followed in short order by William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard. Finally, in December 2005, the ill-fated David Cameron became leader.
Throughout this time, the party was broadly pro-European, although it is no secret that ‘Eurosceptics’ gave John Major a hard time when in prime ministerial office. Europe would wreck them again; even if one regards Cameron as mild by recent Tory standards, his hubris in conceding where Major stood his ground, and granting the 2016 referendum, caused pain for all.
The longer history of the Tories
The origins of Tories and Whigs (later Liberals) lie in the 17th century. While both were essentially in favour of the institution of monarchy, Whigs were more inclined towards the constitutional model.
In 1800, the Tories represented broadly landowning interests, the monarchy and the Church of England (‘Throne, Altar and Cottage’). In opposition, the Whig party, whose name is almost as uncomplimentary as ‘Tory’, became a force for reform, favouring the mercantile classes, and later, manufacturers, against entrenched aristocratic interests. They may be seen as ‘progressive’, although there is no easily defined class basis for this.
Recall that before the Reform Act of 1832 (promoted by the Tory Sir Robert Peel and brought in by a Whig government), very few had the right to vote, and these were all men, and of some substance. The Tories of the day saw themselves in general terms as resisting reform, but despite these electoral changes the Tories were returned to power as soon as 1841.
Even after 1832, tenants who could vote might have felt obliged to vote for a Tory candidate (who might be a landlord, or other employer) because there was no secret ballot to protect them. This changed in 1872, when the outdated hustings system was abolished. To preserve Tory power, Benjamin Disraeli (who served as prime minister in 1868 and again from 1874-1881) was keen to out-radicalise the Whigs and gain the support of emerging middle-class voters.
By implication the Whigs were driving the agenda. In the 19th century, the Whigs – and their successors, the Liberals (precursors to the LibDems) – tended to support the industrialists as well as protestant non-conformists. Ironically, looking at later economic ideas favouring free markets, the Tories were protectionists, favouring the Corn Laws to protect domestic land-owning interests, although these were repealed in 1846 under Peel’s reforms.
Those reforms would split his party and lead to a long period of Liberal government. As the economy industrialised, the Liberal Party’s – and later the emerging Labour Party’s – support changed towards the emerging urban working class. The Tories, advocates of the class system, had to move towards gaining the urban and new suburban voter.
Historical Tory flip-flopping
In the 19th century Tory interests could flip-flop. While it is easy from a modern perspective to see them as inconsistent, to think so underestimates the more fluid nature of the politics of the day. To see Whigs and Tories as polarised is untrue and a modern back projection; for example, the Whigs supported Peel in reforming the Corn Laws. Other bones of contention addressed by Peel were working conditions in factories and mines. Another issue, related to the repeal of the Corn Laws, was Ireland, where independence and landlordism wove a complex thread both before and after the Great Famine of the 1840s. The Tories were to downplay the need for Home Rule in Ireland.
Fast forward, and the Conservative government of Stanley Baldwin, including Winston Churchill, opposed the General Strike of 1926. This involved control of reporting in certain newspapers, especially the Daily Mail. They would go on to pass legislation aimed at preventing future general strikes by industrial workers.
The Tories under Baldwin, and later the Liberal defector Winston Churchill, came to oppose Nazism and fascism. This is unsurprising, as those movements constituted an existential threat to Britain. Yet, there was always opposition to the emerging reforms sought by the Labour movement.
The need to re-build Britain after the second world war created an uneasy ‘post-war consensus’ that remained until the election of Thatcher in 1979. The miners had brought down the Heath government in 1974, and the Thatcher years would see a revenge attack in the closing of the British coalfields and the widespread community destruction and despair that followed.
The Tories have always favoured private industry over public ownership. This was clear from their opposition to the nationalisation of the steel industry in the 1960s (though ironically, they were responsible for the 1973 Water Act, which created the publicly owned water industry before they decided to privatise the industry in 1989).
Chancellor Nigel Lawson’s de-regulation of the City of London saw a vigorous attempt to promote London as a financial centre, yet may well have paved the way for the crisis in international capitalism in 2007. By now there could be no doubt that support for free markets, the triumph of private property, obscene wealth accumulation and the cultural acceptance of personal greed were established as indelibly Conservative.
So where are they now?
The Tory party played a strange game somewhere between supporting the aristocratic interests of rural English landowners, courting the emerging middle classes, promoting Disraeli’s paternalistic ‘one nation Conservatism’, and seeking to remain in power, come what may. Their appeal was jingoistic, appealing to voters who supported imperialism, tariffs on imports (protectionism for industry), the established church, the armed forces, and a hierarchical society. Even if the inevitable social, economic and political changes over more than 200 years had been sometimes recognised by them in promoting essential reforms, one cannot say they ever really supported the interests of the ordinary man or woman, unless there were votes in it.
Tory motto: have tool kit, will travel
The Tories could move with the times if necessary, but progress was always three steps forward and two steps back as far as significant reform is concerned. In effect Tories would come to support the captains of industry and the city and would retain a voice in the House of Lords for large landowning interests. This historical success represents adaptation by the party to a country that has not been invaded, nor experienced a domestic revolution for almost 400 years.
Technological advances drive social and economic change, and unchecked this exacerbates inequality. The post-industrial boom in information technology has led to the rise of the digital economy and developments in artificial intelligence suggest that many livelihoods and, according to some, humanity itself, are under threat. Where are the Tories in all of this? Digital industries have historically only made a limited contribution to Tory funds, although Frank Hester’s is more significant.
As we look at further Tory splits and anticipate a ‘lively’ leadership battle between the remaining two candidates, tech donor confidence, already lacking, may continue.
There will also be One-Nation Conservatives who are repelled by the far-right populism and climate change denial of Reform who introduce an unpleasant reminder of early 20th century ideologies masked behind a pint of beer clutched by a smiling Nigel Farage. And if that is not enough, recall the chaos in the markets caused by Liz Truss’s efforts to budget for swingeing – but unfunded – tax cuts. ‘Tory ideology 101’ still tells us tax-cutting per se is an article of faith.
Shifting identities and polities
The future of the Conservative Party is unclear. Faced with a strongly resurgent Labour administration and increases in Liberal Democrat and Green representation in parliament, the balance has certainly shifted away from the party that was once a lynchpin of the British establishment. What is more pertinent for their long-term future (if indeed they have one) is the resurgence of hard-right populism in the form of Reform UK Limited, whose fortunes were boosted by the ever-opportunistic Farage replacing Richard Tice. Will a Tory shift to the right send them into oblivion? Will a split between centre-right and hard-right factions send even more money and support towards Reform?
None of this bodes well for the future of the Tories – as we might imagine them historically, at least. Will a credible opposition party even exist in a year’s time? Which interests will they support? Will many people really care?
There are plenty of new tech industries out there, as well as the all-embracing financial markets; what is fairly certain is that they are still inevitably in hock to free-market think tanks, private healthcare, and fossil fuel interests. While the Conservatives took more than £800,000 from private health firms, the British Medical Association warns us that relying on the private sector threatens the “sustainability of the NHS”, which has suffered from “a decade of underinvestment”. Oil and gas firms have also forged links at the highest levels of the party, further undermining the chances of future generations to move toward a sustainable and liveable future.
Hiding behind a façade of populism?
Overseen by attempts to conceal indecent levels of Tory party funding from hedge funds and the aforementioned others, it is not difficult to speculate that a new look Conservative opposition will seek to appear as ‘hard-right culture warriors’ in the mould of a Trump or an Orban. Elite-funding and a little black book of exorbitantly wealthy donors are a not good look for Kemi Badenoch and Robert Jenrick – both attempting to appeal to hard-bitten, left-behind communities.
Populism has been picked up by Reform and this poses the risk of shifting UK politics ever more rightwards. Big issues such as human rights, fair rewards for working people, the alleviation of poverty, and the future of the planet itself also have their champions. The Tories may do well simply to continue to speak out for the very rich, no matter who they may be, and continue as a kind of inverted Robin Hood – currently their future electoral prospects seem to be becoming ever dimmer.
More from Hadrian Cook
We want to hear your views. Please send any comments to editor@westenglandbylines.co.uk
