Conservatives: Who’s voting for them?

With the Local Elections approaching the Conservatives are riding low in the polls and are heading for another wipeout. This is not particularly surprising given their achievement-free record. Some pundits are rightly asking who would still vote for them, given their failure to deliver any tangible improvements to daily life? I can speak with some authority on this, living in a seat that has been Conservative for 99 years and currently has a 20,000 majority (Sevenoaks). Let’s take a look at those who constitute the genuine hard core of Conservatives, who’d still vote that way even if Britain started a nuclear war and came off 2nd best . . .

The tax fetishist
In the Home Counties the social engineering wrought by an atomised, individualistic labour market with contractors and micro businesses has reached its logical conclusion. It’s a case of every man for himself and everything counts in large amounts. I know people who still think Gordon Brown is public enemy #1 because of his changes to the IR35 regulations. Tax matters, for some it’s the only thing that matters. During the coalition years these people were secretly very pleased as there was a slight income tax cut, Council Tax was frozen as was petrol excise duty. They still complain to me when the price of petrol goes up, but they know it would go up much, much more if Labour were in power. What’s in their pay packet and how much is deducted defines their politics. These are the people who kept the Conservative vote up in 2015 while the Lib Dems vote collapsed – austerity was for other people, low taxes were for me.

Gordon Brown – a bête noire to Conservative diehards, despite being the only British chancellor in history to avoid a global recession because – minor tax changes

The benefits obsessive
The benefits obsessive is perhaps the most malevolent manifestation of the class system at work. Rabidly anti-Welfare State, they regularly get on a high horse about the fact that they know people who are out of work, claiming benefit and ‘aren’t looking hard enough for work’. Apparently this is a bigger problem than the guys from the rough end of my area who are in prison for murder, arson, people smuggling or GBH. Like many people who are prejudiced they know little about the subject matter or the scale of the ‘problem’, when pressed they don’t know how many people are out of work and claiming benefit, and throughout history they remain ignorant about the numerical value of Unemployment Benefit/Jobseekers’ Allowance or Universal Credit (a maximum of £77 a week if you’re over 25, a King’s Ransom eh). Judging those not in work, or maybe even those in part-time work receiving some benefits is psychologically very satisfying for some, and they will gloss over the fact that throughout history it’s been incredibly difficult to reach a state of ‘full employment’ (defined by Beveridge as 3% or under) – during the last 100 only the 1945 – 1965 period could be classed as such and that had a lot to do with receiving Marshall Aid at the time. Capitalism invariably involves success and failure, the kind of failure that involves bankruptcy or downsizing of firms. That doesn’t compute with the benefits obsessive, it’s always YOUR fault if you’re out of work.

The Conservative hardcore – a headscratcher to those on the progessive left – but they’re my neighbours!

The house price bore
They say the seeds of defeat are sown in the moment of victory – that was certainly the case with New Labour and its approach to housing. In the 1990s Tony Blair was rightly focussed on crossing over to the C1, B and A social classes and that included people with mortgages or owned their house outright. His overtures to these demographics was successful at the time, but turned out to be very naive, allowing the social housing sector to atrophy away during his tenure. I guess Brown and Blair hoped homeowners would continue to vote Labour and on the face of it why wouldn’t they? Interest rates were low and house prices went up the whole time they were in power – it was a good time to own a house. The problem for opposition parties in the last few years is that householders now attribute ever rising prices to the Conservatives, the social housing sector has shrunk and people in the private rented sector move so often they are hard-to-reach and their turnout is low. A few years ago after the famous planning policy reset suggested my area should add 13,000 new homes a farmer applied to build 800 homes on a Greenfield site. In 40 years of living here I’ve never seen a campaign remotely like it – the posh village next to the site was apoplectic with rage. While many pretend to care about removal of green space, it’s really code for ‘chip away at the value of my house over my dead body’ – that’s the root of the ultra-NIMBYism that exists in the Green Belt, the force is incredibly strong and probably always will be. You might own an average-sized house, built in a standard architectural style with not much garden but it’s worth £650,000 because it’s 5 minutes away from the train station that goes to London and By God that inflated price makes you feel important!

The biggest community campaign in my area during my lifetime. The posh village down the road from me raged against the threat to green space (and their own house prices)

The social climber
Perhaps the smallest group out of the hardcore but the most zealous – there’s nothing quite like a Conservative whose kids are the first generation from their family to go to a Public School. Like the tax fetishist, there is an element of monomania about them – their finances revolve around school fees, school fees and more school fees. It’s the only thing on their mind. Never mind that there are perfectly decent state schools where they live, delivering high 11+, GCSE or A Level pass rates, only the local prep school and follow on fee draining secondary school is good enough for little Timmy and Emily. I realise that not everyone who goes to Public School is authoritarian or sides with the forces of wealth and privilege all the time, however giving your kids something that you didn’t have yourself is a tremendously emotive and important act that translates into fanatical loyalty for the party of the Public School (even if there is a hierarchy within the Public School bracket meaning Etonians, Harrovians, and Wykehamists look down on those who went to Bedales, Ampleforth or Repton).

Another brick in the Wall Game – a lifestyle aspired to by many but will only ever possible for the precious few

What does a good insight into these groups tell us? Recently my own party the Lib Dems has targeted the Blue Wall with two approaches – highlighting the failure of the NHS, a public services play, and a poster pointing out the god awfulness of Lee Anderson, a rare foray into identity politics. Neither of these will resonate with the Conservative hardcore – that’s okay because they’re aimed at soft Tories and floating voters, the groups that are most likely to switch anyway. But what if you could peel off hardcore Tories too? What would work? You have to know them, know what their concerns and priorities are and beat the local Tory party by parking your tanks on their lawn – the pocketbook lawn. The tax obsessives and benefits fetishists are currently unhappy – they’re unhappy with economic mediocrity and rising inflation in the same way you are. They’re counting up the cost of rising utility bills, food inflation and rising mortgage payments the same as everyone else. If you can persuade parts of the hardcore that they could have it so much better by voting elsewhere that really would be a death knell for the Conservatives this year and next.

The Human Rights Heroes

You may have seen reports that the Conservatives are planning to adopt a policy of leaving the European Convention on Human Rights at the next election. If they do, it will be a thoroughly illiberal disgrace and the second time we’ve ditched a set of rules applied across Europe that Britons drew up themselves. The first time was, courtesy of Brexit, leaving the Single Market, the rules for which were drawn up by senior British civil servant Baron Arthur Cockfield.
The existence of the European Convention on Human Rights can be attributed to six Britons, one instigator, and five architects. I’m going to take a look at these titans of civil liberty as a poignant reminder of where our political establishment used to be, and what it could be again.

The instigator
Winston Churchill is often invoked by little Englanders, but post-WWII he was a great believer in pan-European institutions and agreements. This came from a desire to reset International Relations and make them different and better compared to the interwar period. He also had the confidence to believe it was possible to achieve a unity of purpose among liberal, democratic and capitalist countries, especially in the context of a continent divided by the creation of the Iron Curtain. Churchill supported the idea of a pan-European institution before the end of the second World War and Britain was one of the 10 founding members of the Council of Europe in 1949. At the time he said, “The dangers threatening us are great but great too is our strength, and there is no reason why we should not succeed in… establishing the structure of this united Europe whose moral concepts will be able to win the respect and recognition of mankind.” The structure he was referring to would include a charter, about which he was explicit, “In the centre of our movement stands the idea of a Charter of Human Rights, guarded by freedom and sustained by law.” Thus the late 1940s is the start of a sustainable and effective rules-based system of International Relations, which if you’re in the West involves the UN, NATO, the EU and the Council of Europe.

The chief architect
It’s a measure of how far the modern Conservative party has fallen that they want to rub out a Churchillian idea that was carried forward by another Conservative – lawyer and MP David Maxwell-Fyfe. Maxwell-Fyfe is commonly thought of as having made the biggest contribution to the Convention, once described as “the doctor who brought the child to birth”. Like many who shaped the post-War world, Maxwell-Fyfe had a huge part to play in the war and its fallout, immediately prior to his involvement in the Convention he had been British deputy prosecutor at the Nuremberg trials. Wikipedia says of Maxwell-Fyfe performance at Nuremburg, “There were misgivings in some quarters as to how Fyfe would perform, cross-examination not being regarded as one of his strengths. However, his cross-examination of Hermann Göring was one of the most noted cross-examinations in history.” After drawing up the Convention on Human Rights Maxwell-Fyfe continued to be staunch believer in European integration and criticised the Conservatives for failing to lead on the issue when in Government during the 1950s.

David Maxwell-Fyfe (centre) at the Nuremburg Trials

The right hand man
People often talk about the Liberal Elite, well Baron Walter Layton is a God Tier Liberal. One of the few who could dine at the same table as Keynes and Beveridge during the mid-20th century. Layton entered Liberal politics too late to make it as an MP, failing in multiple bids to get elected in 1922, 1923 and 1929, but made up for that with power and influence in the press for the rest of his life. He was Editor of The Economist for 16 years, and Chairman for a further 19 years. He was also took senior roles at the News Chronicle for 30 years. (The News Chronicle was a middle market paper created by the merger of the Daily News and Daily Chronicle in 1930, it was owned by the Cadbury family, notable contributors included Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, G.K. Chesterton and H.G.Wells). Before entering publishing Layton had been a lecturer in economics, but thanks to his position at the News Chronicle and Economist he could provide considerable backing to the pro-Human Rights and pan-European agenda at the time of the Council of Europe’s inception.

Baron Walter Layton – provided the popular narrative for human rights via the News Chronicle and Economist

Finishing with a flourish
They say all political careers end in failure, that wasn’t the case with Ernest Bevin. As serving Foreign Secretary after the war he presided over many historic achievements – the founding of the UN, of NATO, securing Marshall Aid from America and granting independence to India and Israel. As a Labour Foreign Secretary his involvement was crucial in showing that the British political establishment had a ubiquitous non-partisan support for the Convention. Bevin was known for exceptional oratory skills developed as a lay preacher before entering politics and took a Christian Socialist sensibility into his work – opposing fascism throughout the 1930s. Before the pan-Atlantic founding of NATO he floated the idea of a European military alliance, and it’s important to note he was a strong anti-Communist. The book The American Age: United States Foreign Policy at Home and Abroad by Walter LaFeber says of Bevin, “In 1946 during a conference, Soviet Foreign Minister Vyacheslav Molotov repeatedly attacked British proposals and defended Soviet policies, and in total frustration, Bevin stood, lurched towards the minister and shouted, “I’ve had enough of this I ‘ave!” He was then restrained by security.” Sadly Bevin died in 1951, he didn’t get to see the Convention come into force in 1953.

Ernest Bevin – a key player in the reforming post-war Attlee Government

The details man
All those involved in drafting the Convention knew it had to be watertight and carefully worded in order to be widely accepted and durable. Samuel Hoare, Home Office Undersecretary, is widely credited with finessing the fine detail of the Convention line-by-line. Hoare entered politics in 1907 as a London County Councillor. A member of Conservative and National governments, he took up senior roles such as Foreign Secretary under Stanley Baldwin. He was, however, briefly on the wrong side of history as a close associate of Neville Chamberlain in 1940. It was said of Hoare, “He was a poor speaker but a good writer. He was hard-working but cold”, not perfect but with the right skillset to be an effective treaty or convention drafter. After the war Hoare was a leading advocate of penal reform, abolition of the Death Penalty and was chair of the Howard League for Penal Reform for 12 years.

Samuel Hoare – AKA Viscount Templewood – played a vital role in drafting the Convention

One for the future
Most of those involved in drawing up the Convention were coming to the end of their political careers, there was one exception – Harold MacMillan. By the late-40s MacMillan was no spring chicken, he’d been first elected to Parliament in 1924, but would go onto a far more prominent role after being involved in the Convention. During the war MacMillan developed a close relationship with General Eisenhower, was part of the negotiating team that secured the Italian armistice in 1943, and is seen as instrumental in paving the way for a pro-British government in Greece in 1945. These achievements led him to being part of the British delegation, like Churchill he was keen on European integration as a response to the Soviet threat.

Harold MacMillan with John F. Kennedy – MacMillan was known for his top level diplomactic skills

Section 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights as listed by the British Institute of Human Rights, the clauses underlined are not protected by the UK Human Rights Act

Churchill – out of victory came freedoms, rights, responsibilities, new institutions, new rules – a new world

British fair play
Looking at the Convention, as a set of basic rights, it’s hard to take issue with, and if you’ve been told it’s a largely-British document that would come as no surprise. If we’re being self-congratulatory it would seem to be consistent with a British sense of common decency and fair play. Yes it’s been applied all across Europe but it’s as British as a stick of Blackpool rock or a carefully constructed Chris Tavaré half-century. If you hate Britain, if you hate what Britain stands for and what makes Britain special, if you hate what other Britons value then you probably hate the National Trust, the NHS and the BBC. You’ll also hate the European Convention on Human Rights because a swivel-eyed libertarian Think Thank told you so. I know what side I’m on though.