:: Conservative Revival ::

:: Tuesday, September 17, 2002 ::

With Section 28 and the Conservative Party's attitude to it likely to open up more painful splits in the Official Opposition, Melanie Phillips is masterful in showing a way through the controversies that will ensure a policy that all but the fringes can agree upon:

The cynical purpose [of Labour, in scrapping Section 28,] is to expose the profound divisions in the Tory party between those who propound a heartless, manipulative and utterly destructive libertinism, and those who are developing a concept of social justice that helps protect and liberate the vulnerable rather than do them more harm.

Duncan Smith belongs firmly to the latter camp. These decent, principled instincts are leading him to resolve the problem of articulating a moral position without appearing harsh or shrill.

His speech last Friday, in which he updated William Beveridge’s five giant social evils, was an intelligent and even audacious attempt to reposition his party on the moral and compassionate high ground.

For Duncan Smith has understood two things: that this ground is vacant; and that the social libertines in his party, despite their claims to ‘social inclusion’, would in fact turn society into an even harsher, more self-centred and amoral place.

She attributes great insight and wisdom to Iain Duncan Smith, I hope rightly. She also shows a rare and entirely correct understanding of what made Blairism so popular:

Foolish people high up in the Tory party think that by going along with lifestyle choice, they will make themselves relevant, modern and electable. But they have fundamentally misunderstood both why they lost the last two elections, and the basis of Tony Blair’s appeal.

He was elected not because people wanted more family disintegration. Quite the opposite: people believed society was broken and he would repair it.

Was this not exactly the atmosphere of Britain in the dying days of the Major government? New Labour may have been little more than a coalition of anti-Conservatives, but the general feeling of the British people extended also to a hope that "community", that "society", be rejuvenated. Despite, or perhaps because of, Leftist politicians' inability to explain coherently how Thatcherism had harmed such notions, the prevailing myth of the time was that a return to "community spirit" was the solution to Britain's problems. It was an emotional attraction, not a rational critique. But when Labour ministers dishonestly quoted Thatcher's celebration of personal responsibility and liberty "There is no such thing as society", people took from that the message the Tories had deliberately destroyed social bonds that protected all.

One could see this in the bizarre popularity of transparent propaganda films like Brassed Off, whose appeal lay in its depiction of a community where everyone knew everyone else, got on with them and understood them, with no grey areas of class difference or social attitudes getting in the way of their common bonds. The unvoiced desire among many for such a fictional society - a panacea for all social problems - was the moral basis for Blairite support.

Thankfully, I think Iain Duncan Smith recognises that Britain's problem is not that no one knows their milkman's name any more, but that any notion of moral responsibility for our actions has vanished. Margaret Thatcher actually restored some of these notions, and certainly did not create the divided, envious, hostile Britain of the 1970s: she merely sided with the good guys in the decade that followed. By making the argument over Section 28 about the vulnerable people who suffer from the breakdown of the family, IDS could easily take this basically conservative support from New Labour. Phillips continues:

If another attempt is made to repeal [Section 28], Duncan Smith should turn it into a political boomerang.

The Tories have said they are thinking about redrafting it so that it no longer offensively singles out gay people. Very good. It is indeed an anachronism. There is a far wider and graver issue to be addressed: the sexual promiscuity of the young in general.

Section 28 should therefore be replaced by a requirement not to promote or encourage sexual activity by any kind of schoolchildren, regardless of their sexual proclivities.

... If the Tories went down this route, it would be fascinating to discover whether the government would fight to defend the right of public authorities to promote the general sexual activity of schoolchildren.

Of course, this is absolutely right. The problem with schools is not so much that they promote homosexuality as that, in their refusal to mention love or marriage, they make sex seem an entirely amoral, clinical business with no emotional attachments or consequences. Section 28 could easily be abolished but replaced by something of greater effect and entirely positive: an ethical edge to the way schools teach their pupils, telling children of their duties to others and of the moral edge to their behaviour. By choosing bravely to call for this, IDS would be siding with so many normal voters, showing that the state is the opponent of their own loving parental control, with its free condoms and abortion pills given out to 11 year olds without parents ever knowing, and its undermining of all the moral teachings they choose to pass down. Section 28 could divide the party, or its replacement could be a source of unity and new support and, if implemented, a step towards a better Britain.
:: Peter Cuthbertson 9/17/2002 07:42:00 PM [+] ::
...

Here's an interesting idea: restoring Grand Juries in the UK. While I accept that the Conservative party leadership has yet to fully grasp that the way back is to return more power to the general population at the expense of the centre, I firmly believe that that is case. Assuming that this argument wins out this would be a great way of setting up a contrast with the Government which is further centralising the justice system (Coroners are apparently the latest group who are going to be removed from dealing with "complicated cases"). It would also be a good way of preventing stupid cases being brought to court (e.g. that guy who was jailed for collecting golf balls), which I think would be a fairly popular position to take.
:: j 9/04/2002 01:25:00 PM [+] ::
...