Gransnet forums

News & politics

What will happen to Conservatism and where will it go from here.

(62 Posts)
vegansrock Thu 10-Nov-22 06:47:12

They’ve become the Brexit Party. When that appeal crumbles, this current bunch haven’t much left.

growstuff Wed 09-Nov-22 23:52:13

Like her or love her, I think Thatcher was an idealogue. I think she believed very strongly that what she was doing was right for the country.

I don't think there's been a consistent ideology in the last 12 years of Conservatism. Cameron and Johnson were socially quite liberal and, I think, just let others do the work so they stayed in power. IMO May was more how many people imagine Conservatives, although she was out of her depth. She would probably have been fine as a local council leader. She tried too hard to appease and didn't watch her back.

Truss was a puppet. Goodness knows what she really believes. Sunak is a new breed of Conservative. I think he's going to struggle to last the course. He's another puppet and is PM as a result of political shenanigans, orchestrated by the ERG.

It seems that the "New Conservatism" is about conserving privilege for a small minority and using any means to dispose of people who might challenge them, even if those people are more talented and experienced. They're not even trying to appeal to the voting public or do the best for the country as a whole. The only weapons they have are immigrants, Corbyn and "wokeness", which will keep a few people onside, but I don't believe anywhere near the majority are fooled.

I do actually believe that the majority of Conservative voters are basically decent people, even if I disagree strongly with their views and methods. Nevertheless, I think we share a wish to live in a strong country. Current polling would suggest that there's a big mismatch between the current Conservative government and traditional Conservative voters.

MaizieD Wed 09-Nov-22 23:05:41

I think that Thatcher did away with what we might consider to be 'traditional' Conservatism (or was it just the postwar consensus?). Unless you count taking us back to the 19th C as being 'conservative'. She was quite revolutionary with her destruction of nationalised industries and war with the workers.

I'd see 'traditional' conservatism as much more centrist than she and her successors were. What we have now doesn't seem to be conservatism in any shape or form. I hope they obliterate themselves because they aren't at all nice...

Wyllow3 Wed 09-Nov-22 22:58:34

I think there is/was a kind of benevolent patriarchal conservatism, where people knew their place, but it was right to look after the "poor and needy" based on the old style economy, fairly full employment, big national industry, local communities functioned as such, Rotary Clubs, that sort of thing. That's the mage in my mind of "Caring Conservatism"

But social conditions have changed beyond recognition, we have social media, international control of many resources, demands for equality where there were not them before, and so on.

Probably a period out of power could bring more clarity, but maybe not. Because there will always be tensions between moderates and the right, the need to placate more far right views. We've seen the rise in the further right across parts of Europe, and what is happening in the USA at the moment with groups like QAnon, and I'm not optimistic.

DaisyAnne Wed 09-Nov-22 22:52:09

BlueBelle

In answer to your title
Hopefully join Hancock in the jungle and get lost (fingers crossed)

Where in the title, BlueBelle?

growstuff Wed 09-Nov-22 22:43:32

Wiki reckons they're related, but doesn't give any details.

MaizieD Wed 09-Nov-22 22:39:04

Fleurpepper

Out of interest, is Michael Oakeshott the ex husband of Isobel, who went off with the UKIP guy?

I doubt it! He died in 1990, age 89.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oakeshott

Fleurpepper Wed 09-Nov-22 22:30:05

Out of interest, is Michael Oakeshott the ex husband of Isobel, who went off with the UKIP guy?

Luckygirl3 Wed 09-Nov-22 22:27:09

My local Tory MP - now a junior minister - wrote a book called "Caring Conservatism" and I think he really believed it - poor deluded soul. There is a world of a difference between the definition of conservative as an adjective and what the party that has borrowed the name stands for.

BlueBelle Wed 09-Nov-22 22:20:36

In answer to your title
Hopefully join Hancock in the jungle and get lost (fingers crossed)

NotTooOld Wed 09-Nov-22 22:15:57

Gawd knows. But we need to be rid of 'em.

DaisyAnne Wed 09-Nov-22 21:45:27

Reading this week's New Statesman magazine, one article quoted philosopher Michael Oakeshott's summation that to be a conservative "is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbound, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss.

In another article, former conservative cabinet minister William Waldegrave says, "How on earth have British Conservatives, inheritors of the immensely successful pragmatic intellectual tradition I have described, borrowed out-of-date, business-school speak and paraded themselves as 'disruptors' - a word representing everything they should oppose."

You will have your own opinions, but I can only think both of these are correct. So, what next for Conservatism? The party which wears that name no longer seem to fit the description. Where will they go now the cover they sought is dragged away from them? What becomes of them now they are slowly but surely being seen by the majority for what they are?