guardian
Friday August 26, 2005
The Guardian
In the August hiatus that masks some assiduous campaigning, candidates for the Conservative leadership are beginning to fall on either side of a dividing line familiar from Labour's long and agonised years in opposition. Is it to be one last heave, or root and branch reform? At its simplest, the heavers believe the Conservative party exists in order to govern. The reformers are looking for a cause.
In acknowledgement of the invention of New Labour, the cause is often referred to as a Clause 4. Reformers believe that it was by establishing that he was at war with his traditional party that Blair convinced the voters he was on their side. Similarly, Tory reformers believe the country now so dislikes the Conservative party, its leader must pick a fight with it in order to show voters that he or she is not like the party they hate.
In support of this claim are pamphlets like last month's "Case for Change", which warned that "confrontation, tension and conflict" would all be necessary before the party could win an election again. Its analysis of the May election result showed support among under-45s down to a quarter of voters, among ABs to just over a third and among women to just 32% of the vote. In 100 seats where the Tories had previously been the challengers, Lib Dems now lie second. Other seats won by Labour from the Conservatives in 1997 now have Lib Dem MPs. No heave, the reformers argue, could be hefty enough to recover from this position.
But reformers have yet to agree the Clause 4 issue. It might be tax, or public services, as Stephen Pollard argued in the Guardian earlier this week. But more manageable than forcing ministers to use the NHS or making them take their children out of private schools, might be proof of a fundamental commitment to diversity that would make the party as open as it was, relatively, during the 1950s.
Derek Laud did his best on Big Brother, but Tories still look and sound predominantly white and male. Those who wanted greater diversity at the last election could not overcome the party's devolved structure which led to local parties with small ageing memberships choosing the same kind of candidate they chose the last time.
The Tories, lacking the kind of prescriptive constitution that Blair rewrote, have no dragon to slay with a single blow. Pushing through structural reform would be a parallel confrontation with outdated tradition - and prove a commitment to diversity that would become transparently obvious by the next election.
