So the National Conservatism Conference 2023 has kicked off in London. For three days our capital will play host to a procession of right-wing, populist speakers ranging from government ministers to climate change deniers.
Even before the event began, it was mired in controversy. Snippets of the speech to be given by the Home Secretary leaked, with suggestions she would suggest training our own fruit pickers would resolve some of Britain’s economic woes, and left-wing media organisations reported being barred from attending. OpenDemocracy reports that they, along with others, were denied passes to the conference due to space and availability, but claim there were empty seats at the conference today and that other less progressive media outlets were awarded passes after applying just days before the event.
But what a first day. We started with the chairman, Christopher DeMuth, telling the audience that he had been communing with the spirit of Margaret Thatcher who was, he was happy to report, “totally on board”. Perhaps that is a case of ‘enough said’.
It is hardly surprising to anyone, I would imagine, to hear Jacob Rees-Mogg align himself with the politics of isolation. He has defined national conservatism as “national political ideology by its nature in contradistinction to liberalism or socialism, which since their beginnings have had internationalist ambitions and have attempted to impose similar or identical structures on different nations”.
What was perhaps more surprising was his acknowledgment that the introduction of Voter ID rules was in fact a way for the Conservative Party to gain an electoral boost. “Parties that try and gerrymander end up finding their clever scheme comes back to bite them – as dare I say we found by insisting on voter ID for elections,” he said (albeit mis-using the term gerrymandering, which really relates to what Americans would call re-districting and we call boundary changes).
He went on to say: “We found the people who didn’t have ID were elderly and they by and large voted Conservative, so we made it hard for our own voters and we upset a system that worked perfectly well.” I have to disagree with the former minister here. There has been no conclusive examination of the data – most of which is still only slowly coming in – to suggest the majority of those who didn’t vote because of Voter ID issues were elderly. Rees-Mogg has also tried to say he was not massively in favour of the legislation, leading to a plethora of shared videos on social media showing him strongly arguing in support of the proposed changes on the floor of the House of Commons.
Try as he might, to suggest the Tory losses in this months local elections were due to Voter ID issues is folly. The public turned out in droves to reject a continuation of Conservative ideology at local level; perhaps in protest at the national party, but they turned out all the same. The swing against the party was despite the new Voter ID legislation, not because of it.
The Home Secretary got her turn. In what was probably one of the most partisan speeches of the last few years, Suella Braverman railed against liberals, saying those on the left “are ashamed of our history and embarrassed by the sentiments and desires expressed by the British public” She said: “I think the left can only sell its vision for the future by making people feel terrible about our past …”. At various points she suggested Keir Starmer may become the country’s first female Labour Prime Minister, mocking the Labour leader for his stance on trans issues, attacked experts as “self-appointed gurus” and rallied the right in her attack on the left. After describing her politics as that of “a politics of optimism, pride, national unity, aspiration, and realism” she described opposing views as the “politics of pessimism, guilt, national division, resentment and utopianism. The left … sees the purpose of politics as to eradicate the existence of inequality, even if that comes at the expense of individual liberty and human flourishing.”
I am not sure where the Home Secretary has been recently, but the idea of forcibly deporting those in need of refuge and asylum to African nations does not strike the chord of politics she ascribes to herself.
And as for the MP for Penistone and Stocksbridge? Miriam Cates had this to say: “You must also have hope for the future. And that hope is not reaching so many of our young people today, because liberal individualism has proved to be completely powerless to resist a cultural Marxism that is systematically destroying our children’s souls. When culture, schools and universities openly teach that our country is racist, our heroes are villains, humanity is killing the Earth, you are what you desire, diversity is theology, boundaries are tyranny and self-restraint is oppression, is it any wonder that mental health conditions, self-harm and suicide, and epidemic levels of anxiety and confusion characterise the emerging generation?”
Rumours already swirl that Braverman’s speech was a subtle – or not as the case may be – warning to Rishi Sunak of a possible leadership challenge. Downing Street has spent the day fending off questions about whether the Prime Minister and his government agree with the many statements and ideologies espoused by speakers today. One can only hope that, with two more days of speeches from people like this, those in 10 Downing Street are worried.
What is worrying, however, is the view that the right now seem to be taking. There was a time, once upon a time, when despite differing politics the left and the right could converse, debate and challenge one another without falling into this sort of xenophobic, hate-filled rhetoric. Where once the right were at least willing to make their argument, now they seem to want to completely shut off any opposition and isolate not only themselves, but the country at large. It feels very much that if they had their way, some of the speakers might just like to follow in Donald Trump’s footsteps and attempt to build a wall to shut out anyone who doesn’t think as they do.
What a poor country that would be to live in.
* Jed Walker is a pseudonym of a party member whose identity is known to the LDV team.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
GUEST POST Why have the Lib Dems given up fighting most parliamentary by-elections?
A medieval street at the heart of Swansea's social life
Nonconformistradical
Jason Connor
expats
13 Comments
Absolutely but how do we challenge this thinking and put forward alternatives
We could point out that it comes from the US Trumpite sphere of hate of others. The running of their social media spells words as in US eg somber, center, not sombre ,centre. ie American far right propaganda media operatives. controlling English politics. Sell the country and ourselves as forward looking knowing that we thrive on being open to embracing the world.
He may actually have been right about voter ID at least in those areas (like N.E.Somerset) where the Tories are fighting us. Our voters are the most likely to have ID of any party. Labour and the Greens however are less likely than Tories to have ID.
Strident nationalism is very un-British.
The key thing is not to give them ammunition and examples. Don’t argue that cancel culture is a myth then cancel people etc. If progressive politics is seen as bringing people together then “National Conservatism” will not gain any traction.
“Strident nationalism is very un-British.” Forgive me, but I think Andrew Melmoth must have missed where Penny Mourdant went from 3rd place in Tory/UK Prime Minister race to next Tory leader/future PM on basis of carrying a sword.
Back to the point at hand, this lot of MP’s and pundits have been very successful in telling people left behind that they have the answer and that answer is to blame… well, you know the list by now.
The thing they have done right is to recognise that people are being left behind. That’s why Brexit won, because people felt their lives were getting worse by the year and had nothing left to lose.
And as things get worse, and as these Tea-Party wannabees have greater say on matters, things will become more difficult which will make more people look for groups like this.
And current leader of the opposition, and probably next PM, is saying he can’t spend money because things are more difficult so is only going to keep the same path but do it more effectively.
It’s a challenge for sure.
I don’t see why the Greens are less likely to have ID. Most of their members and voters where I live are very upper middle class, perhaps Labour less so. Many young people carry ID as they might be asked for it in pubs, buying certain products in shops etc so it would not have put them off voting. I support Voter ID as I did identity cards when Gordon Brown proposed them and can’t wait to get one. Many of these voting issues will be ironed out at the next set of elections in any case.
Someone needs to ask Christopher DeMuth whether he asked the spirit of Margaret Thatcher about her being a leading member of the succesful Remain campaign in the 1975 referendum. And about her work in proposing and agreeing to the the setting up of the European Single Market. She went to European summits with the aim of getting concessions for the UK, much as General de Gaulle did for France. So some of her apparent Euro-scepticism was a negotiating tactic. It was when it seemed to obtrusive that the Tory party dumped her.
Ian Sanderson (RM3) 18th May ’23 – 4:20pm:
Someone needs to ask Christopher DeMuth whether he asked the spirit of Margaret Thatcher about her being a leading member of the succesful Remain campaign in the 1975 referendum.
She later realised her mistake…
‘Britain must quit EU, says Thatcher’ [March 2002]:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2002/mar/18/uk.eu
Jason. I wasn’t guessing, the question has been the subject of a proper study and Greens have very much the highest percentage of supporters without valid ID. I suspect that is down to a high proportion who have chosen not to drive.
There is a very important message from this conference. It is clear that the Tories will try to dominate the next general election campaign with their Culture Wars issues.
And we need to be ready for them.
The problem we have on this issue is that we are stuck in our own bubble.
We tell each other how outrageous they are, ignoring that on some of these issues, notably immigration, the Tory view is popular.
I have a sense of deja vue on this. Remember how the Tories finished in 4th place in the 2019 EU elections. The election results seemed to persuade the Lib Dem leadership that we would win the seats we won in the EU elections. The ignore the fact that the Brexit party topped the polls and there was a good chance their voters would switch back to the Tories – which they did, and that Jeremy Corbyn would back Remain, which he did and thus Labour won most of the Remain supporting vote ensuring we did not win any Labour seats. Although those things were out of our control, our response indicated we did not believe that these things might happen.
Getting out of our bubble does not mean we have to be like them, but it does mean we have to game plan for what will be some pretty brutal attack lines from the Tories as we approach the next general election. We have to take this stuff seriously.
I would be interested in reading your figures Peter and find that hard to believe. In many ways the Greens did much better than the Lib Dems in the % increase in their Councillors. Whether they drive or not they would have some other relevant form of ID, passport, travel ID etc. Anyone can apply for a free Voter Authority Certificate so there are plenty of other options. In fact I think voter ID is benefitting opposition parties more than the party of government despite attempts by some on here to demonise this policy on erroneous accusations/assumptions of voter suppression.
If a week is a long time in politics, five years is an eternity. The above shows why we urgently needed a written constitution that provides a rule book for how amongst other things political parties operate, the lines that they cannot cross and mechanisms for earlier accountability under strict guidelines.