Sam Bidwell is a Parliamentary Researcher, and Director of the Centre for Commonwealth Affairs.
Barring an electoral miracle, the Conservative Party will lose the next General Election. Whatever way you slice it, the polls are as bleak as they are decisive. However, the selection of Nick Timothy, the former Chief of Staff to Theresa May, as the party’s candidate in West Suffolk offers a ray of hope for the Party’s long-term recovery. The political adviser-cum-cricket commentator was confirmed as the successor to Matt Hancock yesterday evening, inheriting a comfortable Conservative majority of 23,000.
As soon as the electoral dust settles, the Party will need to rebuild itself for opposition. The intellectual heft of figures like Timothy will be vital in ensuring that it moves forward, rather than languishing in the same ideological dead-ends that sunk it in the first place.
Since 2020, the Party has staggered from idea to idea, not sure of its post-Brexit purpose. Managing the Coronavirus pandemic proved a temporary reprieve from having to fill the ideological vacuum, but the problem persists. Rishi Sunak’s time at Number Ten has been characterised by a lack of ideas and an inability to provide direction to a divided party.
From a position of political weakness, it will be tempting to revert to something familiar. As the most recent leadership contest showed, many Conservatives are still all-too susceptible to mawkish hagiographies of Margaret Thatcher. This is despite the fact that the union-busting of the 1980s has as much bearing on Britain’s contemporary problems as the Suez Crisis, or debates over the Corn Laws.
The alternative, favoured by many on the party’s left, will be a wishy-washy faux-Cameronism. Moderates within the Party will blame defeat on the spectre of Boris Johnson and insist on a kind of ‘austerity liberalism’ which pairs unpopular spending cuts with unpopular social policy.
Either of these approaches would be a mistake. Britain’s problems are not those of the 1980s, nor are they those of the 2010s. Drawing inspiration from Timothy’s own Remaking One Nation, the party should instead use its time in opposition to make itself fit for the modern day.
Yet Timothy can prove to be a remarkably difficult man to pin down. Many commentators place him on the left of the Party, citing his willingness to spend big on the NHS and subsidise British manufacturing. He is, by his own admission, deeply sceptical of the small-state libertarianism that has captured much of the Party. Despite this, many of his views fit more comfortably on the Party’s right. He is a strident critic of liberalism, and has derided the Party’s “addiction to immigration”. His views on law and order wouldn’t be out of place in the work of Thomas Hobbes.
In truth, he is neither left nor right. Timothy represents a much older tradition, of conservatism which couples respect for our national institutions with a desire to address economic imbalance, and a willingness to use the state to do so. He understands that the plight of ‘left-behind’ post-industrial communities is intimately connected to mass immigration, and that it is working class communities who suffer most from rising crime rates. Most importantly, he understands the need for an effective, assertive state in steering our national direction.
In this, he is joined by figures like Michael Gove, who freely intermingle moderate stances on housing and the environment with firm positions on immigration and national sovereignty. Together, they represent the party’s true One Nation tradition, the intellectual successors of Disraeli.
It is precisely that tradition, half-articulated by Johnson and Cummings in 2019, which captured hearts and minds in the so-called Red Wall. ‘Levelling-Up’ smacks of the kind of export-driven industrial policy that Timothy has so-often called for. Much of the Party’s rhetoric on Europe and immigration was cribbed almost directly from his work.
Yet in the wake of electoral defeat, some critics will say that this coalition proved unstable and unreliable. In truth, successive Governments have failed to fully commit themselves to these new voters. ‘Levelling-Up’ has been reduced to a few token investments in marginal seats; immigration is higher than ever. Is it any wonder that polls now show Labour leading comfortably in the Red Wall?
The Party should not abandon the nascent realignment; instead, it should embrace it, inspired by one of its most eloquent architects. Timothy’s ideas could prove remarkably popular in seats that voted Conservative for the first time in 2019, marrying conservatism on issues of nationhood and identity with moderation and pragmatism on the economy. Even his much-maligned social care reforms may find a warm reception, as the Party fights to win back younger voters who are disproportionately saddled with the cost of Britain’s aging population.
We should be encouraged by this injection of long-term, big-picture thought into the party’s ranks. Whether or not one agrees with Timothy’s vision for the country, it’s encouraging to have MPs who are willing and able to grapple with difficult, existential questions. It may mean that, in defeat, the Party is once again able to learn what it really stands for.
In the words of Disraeli, there is no education like adversity.
Sam Bidwell is a Parliamentary Researcher, and Director of the Centre for Commonwealth Affairs.
Barring an electoral miracle, the Conservative Party will lose the next General Election. Whatever way you slice it, the polls are as bleak as they are decisive. However, the selection of Nick Timothy, the former Chief of Staff to Theresa May, as the party’s candidate in West Suffolk offers a ray of hope for the Party’s long-term recovery. The political adviser-cum-cricket commentator was confirmed as the successor to Matt Hancock yesterday evening, inheriting a comfortable Conservative majority of 23,000.
As soon as the electoral dust settles, the Party will need to rebuild itself for opposition. The intellectual heft of figures like Timothy will be vital in ensuring that it moves forward, rather than languishing in the same ideological dead-ends that sunk it in the first place.
Since 2020, the Party has staggered from idea to idea, not sure of its post-Brexit purpose. Managing the Coronavirus pandemic proved a temporary reprieve from having to fill the ideological vacuum, but the problem persists. Rishi Sunak’s time at Number Ten has been characterised by a lack of ideas and an inability to provide direction to a divided party.
From a position of political weakness, it will be tempting to revert to something familiar. As the most recent leadership contest showed, many Conservatives are still all-too susceptible to mawkish hagiographies of Margaret Thatcher. This is despite the fact that the union-busting of the 1980s has as much bearing on Britain’s contemporary problems as the Suez Crisis, or debates over the Corn Laws.
The alternative, favoured by many on the party’s left, will be a wishy-washy faux-Cameronism. Moderates within the Party will blame defeat on the spectre of Boris Johnson and insist on a kind of ‘austerity liberalism’ which pairs unpopular spending cuts with unpopular social policy.
Either of these approaches would be a mistake. Britain’s problems are not those of the 1980s, nor are they those of the 2010s. Drawing inspiration from Timothy’s own Remaking One Nation, the party should instead use its time in opposition to make itself fit for the modern day.
Yet Timothy can prove to be a remarkably difficult man to pin down. Many commentators place him on the left of the Party, citing his willingness to spend big on the NHS and subsidise British manufacturing. He is, by his own admission, deeply sceptical of the small-state libertarianism that has captured much of the Party. Despite this, many of his views fit more comfortably on the Party’s right. He is a strident critic of liberalism, and has derided the Party’s “addiction to immigration”. His views on law and order wouldn’t be out of place in the work of Thomas Hobbes.
In truth, he is neither left nor right. Timothy represents a much older tradition, of conservatism which couples respect for our national institutions with a desire to address economic imbalance, and a willingness to use the state to do so. He understands that the plight of ‘left-behind’ post-industrial communities is intimately connected to mass immigration, and that it is working class communities who suffer most from rising crime rates. Most importantly, he understands the need for an effective, assertive state in steering our national direction.
In this, he is joined by figures like Michael Gove, who freely intermingle moderate stances on housing and the environment with firm positions on immigration and national sovereignty. Together, they represent the party’s true One Nation tradition, the intellectual successors of Disraeli.
It is precisely that tradition, half-articulated by Johnson and Cummings in 2019, which captured hearts and minds in the so-called Red Wall. ‘Levelling-Up’ smacks of the kind of export-driven industrial policy that Timothy has so-often called for. Much of the Party’s rhetoric on Europe and immigration was cribbed almost directly from his work.
Yet in the wake of electoral defeat, some critics will say that this coalition proved unstable and unreliable. In truth, successive Governments have failed to fully commit themselves to these new voters. ‘Levelling-Up’ has been reduced to a few token investments in marginal seats; immigration is higher than ever. Is it any wonder that polls now show Labour leading comfortably in the Red Wall?
The Party should not abandon the nascent realignment; instead, it should embrace it, inspired by one of its most eloquent architects. Timothy’s ideas could prove remarkably popular in seats that voted Conservative for the first time in 2019, marrying conservatism on issues of nationhood and identity with moderation and pragmatism on the economy. Even his much-maligned social care reforms may find a warm reception, as the Party fights to win back younger voters who are disproportionately saddled with the cost of Britain’s aging population.
We should be encouraged by this injection of long-term, big-picture thought into the party’s ranks. Whether or not one agrees with Timothy’s vision for the country, it’s encouraging to have MPs who are willing and able to grapple with difficult, existential questions. It may mean that, in defeat, the Party is once again able to learn what it really stands for.
In the words of Disraeli, there is no education like adversity.