A convenient convergence for the Conservatives and Europe

This was an article originally posted here as part of a series on Positive Policy organised by Steve Conyers (@OxfordSpring). The series continues on House Of Twits; and has so far covered Tax, Immigration, Foreign Policy, Localism and Smaller Government.

For at least as long as I remember the Conservative party could be characterised as a party divided by Europe. Prospective leaders have always had to make their positions clear: party orthodoxy has been euroscepticism, and the party will impose it’s litmus tests. Europe even played a part in the most recent leadership contest, and Mr Cameron was conspicuous by his conformity.

But Mr Cameron went further than his recent predecessors as leader of the Conservative Party. Last year, Mr Cameron withdrew the Conservative MEPs from the EPP, the mainstream centre-right coalition in European politics, and formed a new right wing group, the ECR. This decision appeared short-sighted from a narrow, political perspective as he risked isolation and impotence in Europe; and troubling (albeit politically expedient given the UKIP threat) from a broader ideological perspective as he appeared to drag the Conservative party towards its Eurosceptic wing. But perhaps the greatest cause for concern was his choice of partners in this bold new venture: very right-wing politicians, predominantly from Eastern Europe, and often with less than savoury reputations. As a moderate, pro-European Conservative, these impressions deeply concerned me.

Strangely, the “optics” are at least as troubling as the decision itself. At its simplest, it appeared to be a desperate sop to the more reactionary wing of his party: a clumsy attempt to lure back voters lost to UKIP. Symbolically it was even more troubling: Mr Cameron appeared to be signalling publicly and internationally that actually he was more ideologically aligned with his new friends than with his more traditional (and, one would hope, his more “natural”) allies across Europe such as M Sarkozy. It also signalled that perhaps Mr Cameron wasn’t going to be the pragmatist he insisted: perhaps the boy wonder was more right-wing than we had suspected.

Most peculiarly it was a reactionary move that appeared to be out of step with Mr Cameron’s otherwise progressive agenda and the mood of the voters he is trying to court. As a country we have become more liberal socially and more conservative economically — perhaps a cultural counterpart to the entrenchment of the NHS and the City into the mainstream. Culturally we have become more European even as economically we have become more Atlanticist.

Perhaps Mr Cameron was relying on the received wisdom: apparently Britain is more Eurosceptic than most of Europe. It’s easy to understand this attitude, as there are significant problems with Europe which the media are more than willing to let us know about. Brussels was long the pinnacle of tax-payer funded excess. It’s inefficient, bureaucratic and curiously unaccountable. Moreover, there is the fear of Federalism; that we should no longer be Sovereign.

However there are so many brilliant things that have come out Europe that improve our life in Britain. Some are small conveniences, some are fundamental: everything from the ease of taking a tour around Central Europe through to the intangible and difficult to quantify impact of a prosperous Europe on our day-to-day lives. Moreover, operating within the framework of the EU is frequently in our best interests. The world is becoming smaller; and more and more agreements of greater and greater importance need to be made at the international level, including climate change legislation and working to contain the threat of Iran. Taking a more international approach to many problems in the future should help ease their economic footprint: it is encouraging to hear Dr Liam Fox is working to bring France back into NATO, for example; and a “Robin Hood” Tax could only work if implemented internationally.

All this is somewhat beside the point: there are many more issues of much greater importance and urgency facing the next Prime Minister than Europe. The Conservative position is frankly not of any consequence for the time being. In November last year a survey for the Times suggested that only 3% of voters ranked Europe as their most important issue – a number which I’m sure will have retreated further in the face of more pressing concerns. It is an issue of periodic importance, and even then only when we don’t have anything else more important to worry about.

But even if by some strange quirk Europe does become an issue, the Conservatives have a unique opportunity to dominate this issue; and should Mr Cameron win the election, he is excellently positioned to take a vital role in the future of Europe if he seizes the opportunity – and co-incidentally put to bed the decades-long European angst that afflicts his party.

First it is important to note that Mr Cameron has a lot of leeway on Europe. He can be vague and woolly. He blundered in offering The Sun a “cast-iron guarantee” that he would hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty — his hands are effectively tied on this — but that “blunder” allowed him to position himself at the more Eurosceptic end of his party and stem any potential losses to UKIP. By keeping to his previously announced positions, especially as they are sketched out on the Conservative party website, Mr Cameron sits firmly in the mainstream of British society; moreover no party can credibly challenge that position or seek to displace him from it.

In Europe the establishment is wary of Mr Cameron, no doubt as a consequence of his referendum guarantee and his withdrawal from the EPP. Indeed, a victorious Mr Cameron will have serious clout: as a newly elected Prime Minister he has a mandate, the threat – or, if necessary, the result – of a referendum, and a not insignificant caucus in the European Parliament. Mr Cameron can go to Europe in the ascendency. This is why this is a golden opportunity to embrace Europe. By doing so, Mr Cameron can negotiate from a position of strength, particularly if he can ride his honeymoon period, and he has the opportunity to have his say and (whisper it) get his way. The fundamental principles of the European Union are perhaps less Atlanticist than he would like, but they are sound principles that are not at all against Conservative ideology.

Mr Cameron runs under circumstances unique to modern Conservative leaders, and this applies more than ever to Europe. He has bought himself some room and some time: partly through his own manoeuvres, partly through missteps by his political foes, partly through chance. If he is bold, he has a chance to shift the existing paradigm enveloping the Conservative party on Europe; and if he is prepared to accept the reality of our place in Europe and work from within, he will have sewn this issue up for the foreseeable future.

How to lose an election in seven hours

Imagine how much better this would be if these two were badly air-brushed.

The farcical and stunningly ineffective attempted coup against Gordon Brown has been dominating Twitter since news broke during PMQs yesterday. Rather than repeat a lot of the (probably much better written and researched) analysis which will be in today’s papers and all over the opinion-sphere I just wanted to share with you my personal take on an hugely exciting day in the Village.

Let’s start with PMQs. Not a classic in any sense, although I would say that either Brown is getting better or Cameron is getting worse — despite his one good joke — although Guido suggested that he was pulling his punches.

Yeah. That was it.

This followed on the heels of two Conservative gaffes in two days: vacilitating on a tax-break for married couples and also on the EMA — not to mention the half-wits who let David Cameron be interviewed by Nick Robinson without make-up (or even angling his head face up slightly!), making him look like he had two black eyes.

[PLUG: In an upcoming post I will look at how badly the Tory message/image machine is run, particular around Cameron, and especially given his PR hack background]

By launching this attack as and when they did, Patsy “Patronising” Hewitt and Geoff “too bland to merit a nickname” Hoon have completely re-written the narrative in away which is certainly bad for Labour. This has all been covered to death elsewhere, so I’m going to focus on a couple of points which I think may have been missed.

First: David Cameron has been given a breathing space to sort his machine and message out. This was desperately needed, and incidentally this would be the perfect day for him to remove some dead wood from his team (I would start with Michael Gove). One bad day is bad enough; but two in a row, particularly this early, is unforgivably amateur.

Second: Who was going to take over? Patsy? Geoff? Peter Mandelson — even though he sits in the Lords? By attacking Gordon Brown, rather than aggrandising an alternative, they highlighted the sheer incompetence of this publicity-seeking gesture, never mind the bitterness and pettiness. There is no one else at the moment who could lead the Labour party. I don’t think anyone of the contenders would want to, even if they are desperate to replace Gordon Brown, because they would be tarred by the inevitable defeat this Quixotic rebellion has ensured.

Finally: I have commented before on David Cameron’s leadership. What this has really highlighted is the dearth of leadership in the Labour party at a time when the country is crying out for somebody to step up and make the tough decisions for us. No one knew who these two wanted, they just wanted someone who wasn’t Gordon Brown. None of the contenders had the testicular fortitude to confirm in public what they will mutter in private, although they are happy to snipe and offer lukewarm statements of support. At the very least they could have shown some leadership if they had attempted to rally the party around them. OK, Ed Balls did; but Ed Balls would praise his imminent execution as the greatest moment in modern British politics if Gordon were to order it. And while I would personally consider Gordon Brown to be a formidably intelligent man of great personal integrity (although I still wouldn’t vote for him) his leadership is a joke if, at this late stage in the game, it takes him seven hours to see off such a badly organised attempted coup.

— postscript —

A quick note on the new Conservative poster: if they had real balls at Conservative HQ they would have air-brushed Patsy’n’Geoff in a really obvious manner. A bit of self-mockery goes a long way.

Mirroring New Labour?

One thing I remembering causing consternation at the time of the original announcement was David Cameron’s commitment to the NHS — I’m sure I remember HIGNFY or The Frankie Boyle Show (Mock the Week) laughing at the looks of the old ladies at the conference.

When I heard it, I was delighted. For several reasons.

I would argue that the battle for the NHS had already been won, oh, too long ago for me to remember when. It is so deeply embedded into the fabric of our society that we could never get rid of it. Not that some competition isn’t a good thing — witness the failures of New Labour (and Patsy “Patronising” Hewitt in particular) at running the NHS. However there is another ideological battle which has been won, this time by the Conservatives of the 80s: the pro-business, pro-free-market battle.

These are, I would respectfully submit, the two most significant and widely followed ideological orthodoxies in 21st Century British politics to date; and their acceptance as status quo defines the political landscape in this country. None of the major parties will challenge the orthodoxy of these positions, for which I’m eternally grateful: it has clipped the wings of the parties and moved us all to the centre.

David Cameron’s choice to campaign on the NHS reminded me of Tony Blair’s wooing of the City. Both claimed a position traditionally associated with the opposition party. For both this was an integral part of transforming their parties: in both cases they were able to position their parties as more centrist and reasonable; in both cases they have made their parties more electable; and in both cases they have sent a huge psychological signal to the electorate that they are intending to build on what works — a positive, aspirational message. Both are bold, even daring, moves: unpopular with the roots but hugely attractive to the wider electorate. And with that touch of cheekiness just adding to it’s roguish charm.

Although we don’t know the outcome of David Cameron’s decision, we can see in purely political terms the success of Tony Blair’s. But there is one thing we have already learned: David Cameron has shown the good sense and humility to learn from past Tory failings and past Labour successes. In short, David Cameron has shown excellent leadership.