Seven questions the Conservative Party needs to answer

We need to focus on the challenges and implement solutions regardless of how uncomfortable it is for our establishment elite.

In a New Statesman article in April, Tony Blair raised hackles by accusing the Labour Party of settling "back into its old territory of defending the status quo". He said: "The risk…is that the country returns to a familiar left/right battle’ and ‘in the 21st century such a contest debilitates rather than advances the nation". He also asked a number of questions which the Labour Party needs to answer.

The surprising thing about his piece was how much of it I actually agreed with. When the going gets tough, all political parties have a tendency to retreat behind the old clichés; to hide behind the standard lines; avoid facing reality and avoid making the impartial decisions necessary for the good of the country and everyone in it. Playing politics – scoring points - seems almost more important than delivering real results. 

But why is this? It hasn’t always been the case. Over the last month, the policies and actions of Baroness Thatcher have been reassessed. I was struck again by how politically neutral many of her decisions really were – and, consequently, how unpopular they were with the old establishment within the Conservative Party. She was not a popular figure with the Tory grandees. Lady Thatcher looked at a problem and implemented a workable solution. She took actions for the benefit of the many – not just the elite few.          

Like Tony Blair, I think there are questions the Conservative Party needs to ask in a balanced way without fearing the reaction within the party – or the country. We need to focus on the challenges and implement solutions irrespective of whether they fall towards the left or the right – regardless of whose toes we tread on or how uncomfortable it is for our establishment elite.

1.      How can the party ensure the Conservative message reaches both traditional and newly diverse working-class voters?

The working class is changing - and we need to react. According to a recent BBC survey, the new working classes are more culturally, socially and economically diverse than ever before. We must reconnect with the underlying drivers and common interests which unite people by getting our message across that we can provide opportunities to improve your lot in life no matter where you live, your circumstances or heritage. There are plenty of working-class Conservative MPs these days. I, for one, know what it’s like to be poor and to pull yourself up through hard work. But the party has fallen foul of the charges of posh boys and, to an extent, it does seem to many that we are 'out of touch'. We need to get out there and reconnect with everyone, not just the people in the middle and at the top of the income scale – just because we see them as our core voters. I believe we should be focusing our attention on the areas outside the affluent south east, getting some perspective.

2.      How can we unleash the power of entrepreneurship and enterprise, and help businesses grow?

This is a vital question because healthy, growing businesses stimulate the economy and help reduce the cost of living through competition, increased job opportunities and rising wages. Therefore we need to advocate and implement bold measures to encourage growth. We have done good work by, for example, reducing corporation tax but it’s just not enough. We need to start taking calculated risks – cutting taxes for businesses and working people and putting more money back in their pockets. I want to see an enterprising nation with flexible employment: low tax that’s simple to administrate, and a climate where it’s easy to start a business from your living room – and continues to be easy when you start to grow. I want to see businesses compete for employees, with improving terms and conditions without the need for major legislation.

3.      How can we become the party of social mobility once more?

According to the London School of Economics report Recent Changes in Intergenerational Mobility in Britain, ‘the UK remains low in the international rankings of social mobility when compared with other advanced nations’. This is not a situation we can sit back and accept. Lady Thatcher’s legacy will be largely one of implementing policies that enabled social mobility, of encouraging people to get out there and improve their own lives. But what’s happened since? Not much really. The working-class young people of the ‘70s and ‘80s make up today’s middle classes. But there’s a new generation that needs hope and our help right now – and there are the people who got left behind in the intervening years. In an era where classrooms without walls are a reality, where new forms of online learning at a pace and a place of your choosing can make lifelong learning accessible to all, we need to do more to encourage self-progression, re-skilling, and the creation of new and dynamic ways of learning. We need to create policies that make it easy for people to build businesses - even in their spare time, not keep putting barriers in their way and increasing red tape. We need to find ways to put power back in the hands of working people; to give them the tools they need to build their own futures. I want to see a government working to unite people and agree the way forward through consensus; one that avoids needless confrontation and creates the environment necessary to build a hopeful country at ease with itself.

4.      How can the government return power from faceless bureaucrats in Brussels to the British people and create a sense of national self-confidence and control?

This is the biggest issue we face both politically and economically. If Britain is going to grow and prosper we must stop being governed by Europe. We must find a way to get out of the EU clutches and wrest back the powers we need to start building a country of opportunity for all. We need to face the fact that a very sizable part of the country does not want to remain in the EU and if we are to win a majority at the next election we need to put the legislation for an in-out referendum in place within this Parliament. We cannot leave this issue just hanging around. The uncertainty must be removed and a sense of economic and political stability restored so that Britain stands self-confident once again.

5.      How does the party address immigration sensibly without ‘lurching to the right’?

I don’t think we’re moving to the right – but I do worry that as the election approaches it could become an easy way out for the party. People are genuinely worried about immigration, both from the EU and from further afield. The government has done good work in reducing the overall level, but it’s still far too high and the rate of change is still too fast for people to feel comfortable.  By rationing UK citizenship in a fairer way, and severing the link between work visas and citizenship, we can have an integrated and fully functioning society with a bright future. And healthy integration can only be achieved if we have tougher demands on who is actually allowed into our country – both in terms of entitlements to benefits and health services. Our immigration policy must go hand in hand with our economic policy. Only by fixing our broken immigration system can we resolve our financial difficulties.

6.      How do we adequately deal with our aging population?

Currently, 10 million people in the UK are over 65 years old and by 2050 this figure will have risen to 19 million – and of course people are living longer and are healthier in retirement than ever before. It is absolutely imperative for the country that we ensure individuals can support themselves in old age. We must find way to make it easy for people to save for their retirement and avoid perpetuating a dependency culture. I believe we need to move away from state reliance back to forms of self-reliance. I concede this will be painful, but we must begin shaping the arguments, developing the policies and preparing the people for the repatriation of financial responsibilities right now so that our children are not left with the problem we chose to ignore.

7.      How can the party embrace the emerging digital world to transfer power from the state to create bigger citizens?

We need to consider how best to use web applications to deliver more public services and give the public back control of government-held personal data such as NHS records. Public sector hierarchies and bureaucracy may well have been necessary in a paper-based world, but the digital world is different. It can be used to slim down burdensome government public services and eliminate administrative middlemen – and turn the government into an ‘on-demand resource’ – where citizens have complete control of their contact with the government rather than have services imposed on them from above. I also believe there is scope to use the price-comparison website model for public services; as Sean Worth, David Cameron’s former special adviser puts it: "Online comparison sites should be contracted by the government to produce simple league tables to allow people to compare the performance of local hospitals, GPs and care homes." This could be cross-sector, i.e. public, private and philanthropic, and allow for location-sensitive data collection.

Only by asking these questions – without fear - and developing workable solutions can we, as a party, move forward and create a Britain full of hope and optimism. I’ve said it before, but I firmly believe that we need a new kind of politics with a greater degree of courage, self-analysis and straight talking. We have to face the fact that many people feel we’ve let them down. We need to restore people’s faith in the Conservative Party and show people that we will do what we say. We need to be clear about what we are going to do, without equivocation. Only then can we rebuild Britain for the benefit of all.

Adam Afriyie is the Conservative MP for Windsor

A Conservative Party flag flies during the funeral of Margaret Thatcher. Photograph: Getty Images.

Adam Afriyie is the Conservative MP for Windsor

Getty
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn is not antisemitic – but the left should be wary of who he calls friends

The Labour MP's tendency to seek out unsavoury comrades is a symptom of an intellectual and political malady: the long-term ideological corruption of that part of the left in which he was formed.

“The scientist is not a person who gives the right answers,” said the French anthropologist Claude Levi-Strauss. “He’s one who asks the right questions.”

The British novelist Howard Jacobson is not a scientist, but he has asked the right question about the rise of Jeremy Corbyn, the improbable-but-likely next leader of the Labour party. Here it is:  “Why can’t we oppose the inequities of a society weighted in favour of wealth, and all the trash that wealth accumulates, without at the same time having to snuggle up to Putin, pal out with Hamas, and make apologies for extremists?”

One answer to the Jacobson Question has been offered by Yasmin Alibhai Brown, a defender of Corbyn. His “tendency for unchecked inclusiveness”, as she delicately puts it, is due to his “naivety”. But that explanation will not do. We won’t find the answer in one man’s naivety, especially not a 67-year-old with a lifetime of political experience behind him.

We must go deeper, reading Corbyn’s undoubted tendency to snuggle, to pal out and to apologise as a symptom of an intellectual and political malady: the long-term ideological corruption of that part of the left in which he was formed.

This corrupting ideology can be called “campism”. It has caused parts of the left to abandon  universal progressive values rooted in the Enlightenment and sign up instead as foot soldiers in what they see as the great contest between – these terms change over time, as we will see – “Progressive” versus “Reactionary” nations, “Imperialism” versus “Anti-Imperialism”,  “Oppressed” versus “Oppressor” peoples, “The Empire” versus “The Resistance”, or simply “Power” versus “The Other”.

Again and again, the curse of campism has dragged the political left down from the position of intellectual leader and agenda-setter to that of political irrelevance, or worse, an apologist for tyranny. 

Only when we register the grip of this ideology will we understand why some leftwingers march around London waving placards declaring “We are all Hezbollah now!”. Only the power of the ideology accounts for the YouGov poll that showed 51 per cent of Jeremy Corbyn’s supporters believe America is the “greatest single threat to world peace”, and one in four think a “secretive elite” controls the globe.

The intellectual history of campism has three chapters.  

In the short 20th century, it took the form of Stalinism, a social system that was at once anti-capitalist and totalitarian, and that spread a set of corrupting mental habits that utterly disorientated the left.

Clinging to the dogma that it must have been some kind of socialism that had replaced capitalism, many imagined themselves to be involved in a “great contest” between the capitalist camp and the (imperfect) socialist camp. And that ruined them. They became critical supporters of totalitarianism – notwithstanding their knowledge of the show trials, mass killings, gulags, political famines, and military aggressions; notwithstanding the fact that they themselves were not totalitarians.

The result was the slow erasure of those habits of mind, sensibilities and values of an older leftwing culture rooted in the Enlightenment. In its place the Stalinist-campist left posited lesser-evilism, political cynicism, power-worship, authoritarianism, and sophisticated apologias for tyranny.

In the Sixties and Seventies, the New Left created liberatory social movements that changed the face of the western world for the better. But the New Left was also a cheerleader or apologist for one third world authoritarian “progressive” regime after another, including Maoist China, a monstrous regime responsible for the deaths of tens of millions of “its own” people. Believing the world was divided into an imperialist “centre” exploiting a “periphery”, the New Left thought its duty was to support the latter against the former.

And when the baby boomers grew older and made their way into the universities and publishing houses, they formed the global creative class that has been reshaping every aspect of our intellectual culture ever since. Again, much of that reshaping has been a boon. Schooling us all in the anti-imperialism of idiots, and the romantic cult of the transformative power of revolutionary violence, has not.

After 1989, much of the left didn’t miss a beat. It quickly developed a theory that the world was now made up of a “Resistance” to “Empire”. Here was yet another reductive dualism. But this time there was barely any positive content at all, so campism took the shape of spectacularly inchoate and implacable negativism.

The result has been immense political disorientation, political cross-dressing, and moral debasement across swathes of the left. How else to explain the leftwing social theorist Judith Butler’s astonishing claim that, “understanding Hamas, Hezbollah as social movements that are progressive, that are on the left, that are part of a global left, is extremely important”?

When we understand how campism creates that kind of ideology-saturated and captive mind, we can better understand Corbyn’s choice of comrades and answer the Jacobson Question. 

The ideology demands two commitments. First, “Down With Us!” – the commitment to oppose the West as malign. Second, “Victory to the Resistance!” – the commitment to side with, or to apologise for, or to refuse to criticise, any “resistance” to the West.

The commitment to oppose every projection of force by the West as malign underpins Corbyn’s commitments to unilateral nuclear disarmament and withdrawal from Nato, his attitude to the IRA, and to Putin, and his false equating of the actions of Isis and the coalition in Iraq.

Corbyn will withdraw the UK from Nato because it is the military organisation of the West and therefore “imperialist”. He turns the world inside out and “blames the USA and Nato rather than Putin’s imperialistic Russia for the crisis in Ukraine,” notes Labour MP Mike Gapes.

I believe Corbyn would lead Britain into a warmer relationship with Putin’s Russia, and even thinks it was a bad thing that Poland was ever “allowed” to join Nato.

Astonishingly, given recent history, he also argues that Poland should have, “gone down the road Ukraine went down in 1990”. Corbyn opposes all military support to Ukraine and seems quite uninterested in the Ukrainian bid for freedom from Russian control. What matters much more to him is adherence to the campist ideology: “The self-satisfied pomposity of western leaders in lecturing the world about morality and international law has to be challenged,” he rails.

Campism also explains Corbyn’s comparison of the actions of Isis today and the actions of the coalition forces during the Iraq war. And those comments have a precedent of sorts. Corbyn was national chair of Stop the War during the Iraq war when the leadership circulated a statement that supported the “right” of the “resistance” to use “whatever means they find necessary”. At that point, the so-called resistance was targeting democrats, including the free trade union leader Hadi Saleh.

The second commitment of the campist left has been to side with, or apologise for, or refuse to sharply criticise, the so-called resistance camp. Without understanding this, Corbyn’s apologies for the Muslim cleric Raed Salah remain a mystery, his attitude to the IRA or the antisemitic Islamist terror groups Hamas and Hezbollah will seem harmless, even ahead-of-his-time diplomacy, and the idea that he indulges antisemitism will appear to be a “slur” by a “lobby”.

Corbyn has defended the antisemitic Raed Salah in these terms: “He represents his people extremely well and his is a voice that must be heard . . . I look forward to giving you tea on the terrace because you deserve it.”

In fact, Salah was found guilty of spreading the blood libel – the classic antisemitic slander that Jews use the blood of gentile children to make their bread – reportedly during a speech on February 2007 in the East Jerusalem neighbourhood of Wadi Joz.

Corbyn said he has no memory of meeting Dyab Abou Jahjah. Within minutes, Twitter was running photographs of Corbyn sitting next to Abou Jahjah – the Lebanese extremist who said, “I consider every death of an American, British or Dutch soldier as a victory” – at a public meeting.

Jahjah then boasted on Twitter of his “collaboration with Jeremy Corbyn” and insisted that Corbyn was “absolutely a political friend”. Again, it seems that Jahjah, being part of the “resistance camp”, according to the ideology, was simply beyond criticism.

It did not seem to matter that Jahjah reportedly referred to gay people as “Aids spreading fagots”, and was arrested in Antwerp for organising a riot. Or that he claimed to have published anti-Jewish cartoons showing Hitler and 15-year-old Anne Frank naked in bed with the caption: “Put that in your diary Anne”.

As the Community Security Trust commented: “I am sure that Corbyn would be the first to condemn Holocaust denial. The problem is not that Corbyn is an antisemite or a Holocaust denier – he is neither. The problem is that he seems to gravitate towards people who are, if they come with an anti-Israel sticker on them.”

Hezbollah comes with the mother of all anti-Israel stickers. That is why – although Corbyn knows that it is a radical Shia militant group that has subverted Lebanese democracy, actively supported Bashar al-Assad's brutality in Syria, and seeks the destruction of Israel – he nonetheless (and campism is a politics of “nonetheless”) tells the left that Hezbollah are our “friends”.

Hamas too. Corbyn also calls the Palestinian Islamist group his “friends” and argues that the organisation should not be called “terrorist”. Yet Corbyn knows that Amnesty International believes Hamas to be guilty of war crimes, torture, abductions, and summarily killing civilians. He knows that when five Jews praying in a synagogue were murdered, along with the heroic Druze policeman who came to their aid, in 2014, Hamas welcomed the attack, calling it a “quality development”. They even called it a “terror attack” – embracing the label Corbyn says they do not deserve.

The problem is not that Corbyn agrees with what all these people say. It is that he agrees with who they are: the Resistance to Empire. The apologies and the contortions and the evasions all begin there.

And then there are the Jews.

The concern here is not that Corbyn indulges in antisemitism. He does not. The concern is that he is has associated with others who have. The concern is that, when he is faced with what is called the “new antisemitism”, he is lost. At best, he is an innocent abroad who – oddly, in the age of “Google it!” – can’t seem to work out who is who, or what is what.

Writing for openDemocracy about Corbyn, Keith Kahn-Harris expresses scepticism about Corbyn’s explanation of his choice of comrades. “Although he has defended his contacts with Islamists, the IRA and others as a contribution to peace-making,” Kahn-Harris notes. “Corbyn does not have the deep relationships across the spectrum [or] the even-handedness that this would entail.”

What strikes Kahn-Harris most about Corbyn’s record is something else entirely: that he “is constantly predisposed to be at least convivial towards a broad swathe of those who see themselves as opposed to ‘the west’.”

He goes on: “Much of what appears to be [Corbyn’s] openness does indeed reflect engrained political pathologies.”

And that has been the claim of this essay, too: we have to look to those engrained political pathologies – I have used the short-hand label “campism” to describe them – to answer to the Jacobson Question.

Alan Johnson is the editor of Fathom, a free quarterly journal, app and website.