David Gauke is a former Justice Secretary, and was an independent candidate in South-West Hertfordshire at the 2019 general election.
Last Thursday’s Future of Britain conference has inevitably been viewed from the perspective of what it means for the centre-left of British politics and, in particular, the role of Tony Blair. Is this the launch of a new party to replace Labour? Is Tony Blair about to make a return to frontline politics? Does this help or hinder Keir Starmer?
These are all perfectly reasonable and interesting questions, although can be answered quite quickly (‘no’, ‘no’ and ‘helps’).
If the conference is seen as the beginning of a new centre-left movement, it is also no surprise that it has attracted criticism from the Right including, on this site, by William Atkinson.
The essence of this critique is that the conference consisted of those whose heyday was 20 years ago, but who are now out of touch with public opinion having lost the Brexit referendum and the 2019 general election; that the centre ground of British politics is very much on the Right when it comes to many cultural issues and, in particular, that the globalism that marked the 1990s and early 2000s is very much out of fashion. The conference, the argument goes, was about re-heating an internationalist and technocratic approach to politics that has had its day.
To put it another way (and more crudely than William does), the conference embodies everything that the modern Conservative stands against. Critics will say that the conference represents the views of a smug, metropolitan elite who will continue to be on the losing side in future elections. I suspect that some of the comments on this article may be along these lines.
As someone who has the advantage over its critics of having been present at the conference (I am on the Advisory Board of The Britain Project, one of the co-hosts), I want to make the case for a more measured response from the centre right.
It is only fair to acknowledge that enthusiasts for Boris Johnson and the current Government were thin on the ground at Westminster Park Plaza. I also suspect that the overwhelming majority of those present at the conference voted Remain. (A minority did not, but only because they are 24 or younger and, therefore, were too young to vote in 2016.)
Having said that, Brexit was not a big part of the conference and nor did the event dwell on the inadequacies of the Prime Minister. Explicit in some sessions (and implicit in the others) was a sense that our politics is not working for the British public (with polling numbers to back this up), but most of the time was spent discussing what we do about it, rather than blaming Johnson for where we are.
In particular, the conference focused on three big challenges for the country: changing technology, climate change and the UK’s place in the world, and how we respond. These might not be the topics that excite the mid-market media (‘what, nothing on wokeness?’), but they are vital to our future.
It was the tone of the event that many found refreshing. There was relatively little knock-about, but instead a practical desire to understand the world as it is and how it will change and to develop a plan enabling the UK to prosper in these changed circumstances. Contributors were consistently engaging but chosen because of their expertise not because of their ability to polarise. The policy sessions did not involve the production of a manifesto full of detailed policies – remember, this event was not about creating a Party – but did involve some serious thinking for serious issues. The more explicitly political sessions made the case for more cross-party working, putting country before party.
Returning to the criticisms, this may not sound all that exciting unless you are interested in policy. The point can also be made that this all sounds very technocratic, and there is more to Government than that. This is very true but, as Blair pointed out, you cannot successfully deliver good government without being competent at the technical skills of delivery. If we look at the Government’s successes – the furlough scheme and the vaccine procurement and roll-out – these were essentially technocratic in nature. The problem for the Government is that these examples look somewhat isolated.
The next criticism is that the conference was made up of internationalists. As William Atkinson put it, people like ‘Gauke, Davidson, Blair et al’ would be ‘comfortable to be thought of as globally-minded’ whereas ‘most voters would not’.
I accept that most voters do not see themselves as ‘globally-minded’, but to the extent that I see myself as so being it is largely because I see that as being in the UK’s interests. It is impossible to see how we can respond to the challenge of climate change without working on an international basis, or how we can establish ourselves as a leading nation for technology without being outward-looking. Even the current Government would accept that.
It is certainly true that the conference was making the argument that the UK should be more outward-looking. The specific language was not used but I was reminded of Blair’s speech to the TUC in 2006, when he defined the political debate of the future as being about ‘open versus closed’. Subsequent events have validated his analysis. Those attending were unashamedly on the side of ‘open’.
This takes us to the issue of whether these attitudes are out of touch and look back to an era that ultimately left voters disillusioned and disenchanted, and was rejected by the public in 2016 and subsequently.
Putting aside the fact that quite a lot of people voted to Remain in 2016 (if we want to see that vote as a proxy for the ‘open vs closed’ divide) and we are perfectly entitled to have opinions even if we lost, there are two responses to this criticism.
First, an assessment of an approach to politics should not begin and end with a judgement about whether it is popular. The starting point, surely, must be whether it is in the nation’s interests. If it is, there are times when political leaders have to provide political leadership. Embracing technology and engaging with the outside world might not always be popular but it will be essential if the UK is to flourish.
Second, with the best will in the world, the country is not in great shape at the moment. The Government is lambasted from left, right and centre for not having a plan as to how the country can succeed. The Government’s cheerleaders should not assume that the public does not now yearn for something more serious and less populist.
One final point. The article has been a defence of a conference that faced up to big challenges, listened to experts, thought deeply about how we respond and recognised that our best interests are served by being willing to look outwards. None of these attributes should be seen as being alien to the centre right. But – just at the moment – they do seem to be alien to the Conservative Party.