HOW TO LOSE ELECTIONS
You can't reconcile the Rottweiler Right with the touchy-feely Tory party may have arrived too late
ACCORDING to the signs that surround this idyllic town, Bournemouth is twinned with Lucerne, Switzerland, and Netanya, Israel. But for the single week of the Con- servative party conference, the noble city of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, can be added to this distinguished roster. William Hague might have spent a mere one night at the Republican national convention held in Philadelphia this summer but the influence of George W. Bush on events here on the south coast is all-pervasive. This has been not so much 'compassionate conservatism' as touchy-feely Toryism.
The theme of the week was `inclusion', closely followed by `One Nation'. The Conservatives claim that they are 'ready for gov- ernment' and 'a party for all the people'. White men in suits are out (apart from the shadow Cabi- net) and every other type of human being in any other form of dress is dragged from the audi- ence, the bar, the street and stuck in front of the podium. This is about as representative of the real Conservative party member- ship as prawn-cocktail-flavoured crisps are of a potato. It has been a little curious but thoroughly entertaining.
Operation Inclusion started on Monday afternoon with what was billed as the first- ever Conservative party forum on women. Numerous feisty female parliamentary can- didates (all of them, I suspect) were intro- duced by Theresa May and offered the chance to proclaim the new message. For one brief, glorious moment it looked as though 'Land of Hope and Glory' was about to be dumped in favour of 'Sisters Are Doing It for Themselves' as the party anthem. Steve Norris, appearing ever more like a cross between Ron Atkinson and Warren Beatty, looked down approvingly from the BBC television box.
But it has not stopped with the sisters. Operation Inclusion has also hoovered up every available individual of Asian her- itage. The man chosen to fill the 'rising star' slot on Tuesday morning is the only Asian parliamentary candidate with the remotest hope of winning. But the confer- ence floor has been as nothing compared with the self-flagellation on race witnessed on the fringe-meeting circuit. The most spectacular performance came from John Bercow who, as a very young man admit- tedly, was once secretary of the Monday Club's immigration and repatriation com- mittee (website: www.sendthemback.com). We got it all wrong, a weeping John con- fessed; we have 'created or helped to con- firm an impression that at best the Conservative party was indifferent and at worst was hostile' to black and Asian peo- ple. Whether Mr Bercow completed this sensational apology by dousing himself in petrol and applying the lighted match has, sadly, passed unrecorded.
And it did not stop with ethnic minorities. In his speech, the shadow chancellor man- aged to include just about everybody. Strolling around the stage, without a script, smiling at anything that moved, Michael Por- tillo resembled one of those daytime televi- sion hosts who front programmes on such topics as 'I married my rabbit'. The reborn Portillo appealed for tolerance towards homosexuals, and the audience applauded. He put in a decent word for asylum-seekers, and the audience applauded. He confessed to being half-Spanish, and the audience applauded. He didn't actually call for the release of Myra Hindley, but if he had, the audience would probably have applauded. It was an astonishing performance. There has been, as far as I am aware, no similar direct appeal to the disabled, but it can only be a matter of time before some ambitious MP throws himself under a pass- ing wheelchair. Downing Street may have established a Social Exclusion Unit; Con- servative Central Office has gone one bet- ter and set up a Social Inclusion Unit. There are a few categories of voters still considered beyond the pale, of course rural burglars, aggressive foreign beggars, former chancellors of the exchequer who represent constituencies in Notting- hamshire — but otherwise this is not so much what the Americans call the 'big tent' approach to poli- tics as a damn great marquee the size of Wembley Stadium.
Alongside Operation Inclusion sit the buzzwords One Nation. It was not that long ago (about ten days, to be precise) that these very words were regarded as the unique preserve of the Tory Left and derided by all proper Thatcherites as a code for yet more socialist pub- lic spending. Not any more. Every- one this week is wild about One Nation. William Hague wants One Nation, Michael Portillo positively lusts after One Nation, Francis Maude would kill for One Nation, even John Red- wood is probably keen on One Nation (although, in his case, it would be Denmark).
In a sense, this is a perfectly reasonable use of language. Who, after all (apart from the SNP and Plaid Cymru), has ever been an advocate of two nations, let alone four or 11 or whatever? Nonetheless, one can- not help feeling some sympathy for the Tory Reform Group. It must be bad enough having only about 26 members nationwide, but now the Rottweiler Right has had the cheek to steal its slogan.
Now let me make it clear that I am in favour of all this inclusion. I loved it in Philadelphia and I love it in Bournemouth. No one could be more included than I am. I wear my inclusion not only on my sleeve but on every other item of clothing. Include me in. If the Conservative party can pull off this inclusion stuff — better still if it actually believes it — then it has my blessing. But I cannot help wondering whether the voters will consider that, at this late stage in the electoral cycle, it is entirely credible. The compassionate conservative vocabulary has served George W. Bush pretty well because he has a record that largely matches his rhetoric. There have been some prominent exceptions (mass executions come to mind) but even his sternest critics could not deny that as Governor of Texas Mr Bush has devoted an enormous amount of time and energy to remedial education (an element of self-interest here, perhaps) and to broad- ening the economic opportunities available to Hispanics. In this sense, his One Nation credentials are impeccable. It is not absolutely obvious that Mr Hague has devoted the last two years to laying similar foundations. When first ele- vated to the leadership he was transparent- ly willing to do so. His appearance at the Notting Hill carnival, the letter of support to the Gay Pride march, the shift in tone towards single mothers were, in my view, admirable attempts to send new signals, not only to the voters concerned but also to the wider electorate. This conference has been a shameless attempt to recreate the heady atmosphere of 1997 when social liberalism and free- market economics seemed destined for a long and happy period of meaningful cohabitation. Those were halcyon days when it looked as if the Conservative party leadership was about to announce 'Good- bye Back to Basics, Hello Transvestite Tories'. But, alas, a funny thing happened on the way to the all-inclusive massage par- lour. The government retained its lead in the polls, the economy inexplicably failed to collapse, and the Daily Mail, accompa- nied by the Daily Telegraph, turned its fire- power on Conservative Central Office. Mr Hague lost his nerve and threw inclu- sion overboard. For two years he swerved from strategy to strategy — a little kitchen- table conservatism here, some populism there, but nothing much more to connect them than the desperate attempt to secure his base. The base might well have been secured but only at the price of turning an urbane former management consultant into a macho provincial headbanger. And, having spent most of this year running around like Queen Boadicea on speed, the Conservative leader now aspires once more to come over as Claire Rayner. It is all a bit late, and arrives after Charles Kennedy has cornered the market in political amiability. The tragedy of Mr Hague's tenure is that his initial instincts were totally right and were the only route by which the Conserva- tive party had the slightest hope of over- turning Labour's enormous majority in the House of Commons. His belated and wel- come return to first principles this week will, I suspect, strike floating voters as somewhat schizophrenic. An image of the Tory leader as an unappealing and unsym- pathetic soul has been indelibly left on the electorate. He has been irredeemably Kin- nocked. It will take far more than a fly-on- the-wall documentary filmed by Channel 4 to offset this impression. It might not be fair, but it is an established fact of politics. The superficial confidence that undoubt- edly surrounds conference this week is stalked by the uneasy suspicion that Labour is set to restore a secure lead in the polls and that the Conservative party has missed its moment. It is perfectly possible that the Tory attempt to reconnect with uncommitted voters over the last few days will at least slow down any momentum that the government will obtain once the coun- try is confident that the petrol stations will not again be emptied. But Gordon Brown has a wall of money to throw at voters in his pre-Budget report and can be relied upon to do so. The Labour party's most effective asset at the next election will be, unfortunately, the Conservative party in general and the public perception of Mr Hague in particular. A political party cannot adopt inclusion on an occasional basis. It is impossible for the Tories to associate themselves credibly with Tony Martin and career women simul- taneously. A choice was made two years ago and it cannot be disinvented. It was a choice that might yet serve to keep Mr Hague in It's what I love about her — that wild streak of gypsy blood.' his post beyond polling day, but it ensured the re-election of the government. If the last two party conferences had been like this one, then it might all have been so different.
Tim Flames is associate editor of the Times.
Previous page
