Wrecking the Party Part II: The Tories Strike Back

My post on damaging the chances of a Conservative win by not voting for them has created some debate. Matt’s Musings on the subject have caught my eye, and, indeed, the Devil’s ire.

Matt starts:

“Jackart, DK and the Nameless One are in a fight over the UKIP again.”

Really wouldn’t classify it as a fight, Matt. More of a debate – a semantic difference I know, but important nonetheless. Broadly speaking I would say that the Dude, DK and I agree on a great deal, and it is more the details that we debate and disagree on. I would say that we save the fighting for the likes of Terry Kelly…

Matt comments on how the Tory Party develops their policies:

“This assumes that the Conservative party's policy comes down from on high and that members should passively take or leave the opinions of the parliamentary party.”

Yes, that is pretty much how it happens in my experience. The Built To Last document (or Pile of Arse as I would rather call it) was put to a vote within the party, but there was zero consultation with me as a (then) party member prior to sending out the document and was presented very much as a fait accompli. At a local level I was able to express opinions but I never laboured under the delusion that, under the sheer weight of Tory membership and party bureaucracy, my voice would be heard.

“The actual challenge for someone with a view outside the political mainstream (the position we share on climate change is another example) is, in the end, to find the party whose approach to politics is most compatible with their own and then try to convince them of the merits of their position.”

Two things – firstly, I would say that I am not outside of the political mainstream. Sure, I have some fairly rightwing views on the EU, but I am not alone in those views in this country. I don’t have any polling data to hand, but I reckon membership of the EU is not massively popular in this country – and likely to get less and less popular as time goes by (and would get far worse if the media actually managed to get round to reporting the impact of EU influence on day to day life in the UK). Nu Labour and the Nu Tories are representing the middle ground – a small part of the spectrum of British Politics. The fact that I am not in that narrow centre ground does not mean that I am not in the political mainstream.

Secondly, I found the party that was most (but not entirely) compatible with my own views and thinking. I was in broad agreement with Michael Howard’s Conservative Party. However, I feel that the Tories have changed so much under Cameron that they are not longer compatible with my views and I cannot, on points of principle (I realise principles in politics are unfashionable in this post Blair era), remain a member. And in terms of finding another party that fits my views – well, UKIP is the closest.

“If you do not like the leadership's position on the European Union then convince the membership and, at the next leadership election, you can get the kind of leaders you want.”

Yeah, um, think you are over-estimating the impact one Tory party member can have. I spent a lot of my time trying to persuade other members of the validity of my positions but it did not stop the party from electing the ideological vacuum that is David Cameron as party leader. Sure, you could argue that, as a Davis supporter at the last leadership election there is an element of sour grapes seeping into my thinking. But I find the assertion that a member can influence the vast array of people in the party enough to influence the outcome of a leadership election staggeringly naïve.

“As such, the only reason to leave the Conservative party is if you think its members aren't those who will be easiest to convince of your position (they're easily the most Eurosceptic portion of the population so that seems unlikely) or if you think your cause is hopeless but would rather be screaming at the wind than be dirtied by the compromise of contact with the Conservatives.”

It is not just the EU, but as it stands I do feel like being in the Conservative party is like “screaming at the wind”. It has nothing to with the membership, but rather the leadership. From my conversations with people in the party, there is a widening gulf between what the members want and what the leadership does. At the moment, a lot of people are prepared to grin and bear it because of the positive poll results. But woe betide Cameron if the numbers change.

“Look at it this way: There are opportunity costs to the UKIP. Imagine if all the money, effort and people committed to the UKIP were, instead, within the Conservative party arguing and voting for change in its European policy. You wouldn't piss off loyal Tories by associating Euroscepticism with undermining right-wing electoral chances. What talent and funding UKIP possesses might be spent convincing people rather than on the paraphenalia of running a party.”

What does that tell you about the depth of feeling amongst those who have left the Tories and set themselves up to do the largely thankless, and certainly desperately difficult, job of setting up a new political party? And what makes you think that by setting up a party they are not trying to convince/influence people? I would say exactly the opposite is true. The reason why UKIP was set up was too convince people of the validity of their Euro-nihilistic ideas. Because the Tory party no longer supported such ideas. UKIP exists because people no longer have faith in the Tory party giving voice to their thinking on Europe.

And there is an undertone to this, and other pro-Tory arguments, of mindless veneration of the Tory party as an organisation. Almost as if UKIP are being rude and dis-respectful by not playing in the Tory camp. Well, bollocks. The Tory party exists to represent the views of their members. If cease to do so, as they are starting to for members on the right, then they should expect to lose members and for challenges to rise from new political parties. They – and no other political party – can or should assume support from voters or members. It is this arrogance that arguably led the Tories to their massive defeat in 1997.

“They replace their voice and vote with a threat, to hurt Conservative election prospects, but there is no evidence that this is a threat which the party responds to in the way UKIP would like.”

I can only speak for myself, but I am not threatening the Tory party at all. My vote is not a threat, it is and will be indicative of which party I feel best represents my views at the next election. Again, there is this arrogance seeping into the Conservative viewpoint. My vote is not directly tied in to supporting the Tory party or threatening the Tory party. It is based on who I think is best for the UK.

Put simply, if I were to vote for UKIP next time out, it would be because I think they best represent my views. It would not be to threaten the Tories or to get them to do anything in particular. It is a very Tory-centred view of politics that sees every vote as for or against the Tories, rather than supporting the party the vote is cast for.

I am not supporting the Tory party at the moment because they have ceased to speak for me. Pure and simple. It is not just the EU – there are a host of other issues I feel passionately about that the Tory party no longer either comments on or supports the same standpoint as me. And I do not venerate the Tory party, and will not support them regardlessly because I was once an active member. I have political principles that are far more important to me than being a member of a political party. This may mean I am not being pragmatic enough and I understand the “politics is the art of the possible” argument very well, but my principles out-strip the *pragmatic* at best (and downright wrong at worst) compromises that I would have to make to remain a Tory supporter under Hug A Husky Cameron.