It is no secret that the Conservative Party has a large wing that is on the right (dubbed the ‘rabid right’ by some liberal critics) of the party’s leader on many issues: these Tory backbenchers, constituency chairmen and members would feel more at ease with Nigel Farage as their leader than David Cameron. Of late, tensions between the party leadership and the backbenchers have grown further as Cameron attempts to balance the need to appease them, the electorate, and to a lesser extent his Liberal Democrat coalition partners.
Last month, a group of backbenchers published on the influential ConservativeHome blog their Alternative Queen’s Speech in an attempt to write a clear wish list of policies that they would like to see enacted through legislation. The result is an interesting insight into the mainstream priorities and aspirations of the extreme right of mainstream British politics. The proposals included measures to abolish the 45p Income Tax band; the tearing up of HS2 blueprints; abolishing subsidy for green energy; EU referenda; the semi-privatisation of schools; lower Capital Gains Tax; union busting; and an end to House of Lords reforms. As usual with these figures, we see a combination of short-sighted and unjust policymaking, and a strange preoccupation with low priority issues such as the European Union and taxation on financial transactions. It is telling that not a single proposal was designed to stimulate economic growth.
It takes a particular upbringing to form the world view that the environment and infrastructure projects should be ignored in favour of a focus on complaining at the European Union- where the main complaint from the Daily Mail brand of eurosceptic seems to be that they advocate the metric system- and lower taxation on the elite. That, as Gordon Brown once shrewdly said, is a world view that was ‘dreamt up on the playing fields of Eton’. When a person has never had to work to get on in life, enjoyed a high-paid, low effort job at Daddy’s firm straight from Oxbridge, it is little wonder that they don’t comprehend the problems and the lives of the millions who live in what might be termed ‘the real world.
It is that tendency within the Conservatives that has rendered them unelectable. Since the country reached the height of social mobility (between 1976 and 1979 depending on which statistical indicators are used), the Establishment is not something that is looked up to. Obviously many aspire to be wealthy or famous, but as part of the youthful ‘new’ elite, not the upper classes that have dominated national affairs for so many centuries. The problem for this group is that they continue to have influence, but not with the electorate. Are they even aware that the prospect of a privatised education system is not a policy which will inspire voters to back the Conservatives? It sounds like a ridiculous question, but I don’t think the answer is the right one.
The reason that UKIP, which espouses a virtually identical set of principles, enjoys so much support is because it relates them in a populist style. It is simply more in touch with ‘working class conservatives’. For example, both the Tory right and UKIP oppose immigration, but UKIP cites the effect on the labour markets and public services. Such is the distinction between populism and elitism. The message for the likes of Peter Bone, Liam Fox and Jacob Rees-Mogg is that they should start talking about matters that voters actually care about, or embrace Cameron’s post-ideological stance.
