Tories in disarray as US questions Cameron's links to "respectable fascism"

Furore builds over Conservative alliance with European anti-Jewish far right

The New Statesman's revelations about the Jew-baiting past of David Cameron's anointed European ally Michal Kaminski have unleashed a political process with no clear ending.

In the United States a senior Democratic politician has said that Barack Obama should look askance on Cameron if the Tory leader continues to defend Kaminski, a member of Poland's Law and Justice party. Even though Kaminski protests that he is not anti-Semitic, he does not disavow his anti-gay views - still less the disgustingly racist anti-Obama remarks of his associates.

Instead the Conservatives are working themselves up into a lather over the senior Conservative MEP Edward McMillan-Scott.

The day after the New Statesman broke the news about Polish and European Jewish organisations' concern about the Cameron-Kaminski alliance, the Yorkshire Post published an article by McMillan-Scott further exposing Cameron's secret manoeuvring.

McMillan-Scott is a true blue Yorkshire Tory who has carried the anti-Labour flag in the north of England since 1997. He said Kaminski was "homophobic and had fascist links". The MEP argued that the new Cam-Kam alliance heralded "the rise of extremism" in Europe and declared that "the rise of respectable fascism had to be stopped". These are extraordinary charges to level. McMillan-Scott's language provoked an intemperate outburst from the normally calm and suave Tim Montgomerie, editor of the well-regarded ConservativeHome blogsite, which is close to Cameron.

He accused McMillan-Scott, a right-wing traditional Tory, of being "a useful idiot of the left", and said the Yorkshire Post article was a "pathetic justification of his own disloyalty". Montgomerie also urged the Tory chairman, Eric Pickles, to expel McMillan-Scott from the party. (He has already lost the Tory whip in the European Parliament.) Such over-the-top language about disloyalty and expulsion shows how rattled thinking Conservatives are about the mess into which William Hague has dragged the Tories by pushing through an alliance with the likes of Kaminski.

Worse followed as David Rothkopf, a former under-secretary for commerce in the Clinton administration, declared on his blog: "I have no hesitation suggesting that Kaminski is either anti-Semitic [or] pandering to anti-Semites . . . and a more suitable choice for support by the British National Party than by Conservatives." Rothkopf is close to the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton. He added that Cameron's endorsement of Kaminski "makes him an even more dubious choice to be Britain's next prime minister".

With less than a year to go to a general election, the Cam-Kam debacle has crossed the Atlantic and become a political issue in America. Is this what Cameron wanted when he turned down the chance to appoint knowledgeable Malcolm Rifkind - the former foreign and defence secretary - as shadow foreign secretary, and instead promoted the anti-European obsessive Hague?

Denis MacShane is MP for Rotherham and was a minister at Foreign and Commonwealth Office
Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

How can Labour break the Osborne supremacy?

The Conservative hegemony is deeply embedded - but it can be broken, says Ken Spours.

The Conservative Party commands a majority not just in the House of Commons, but also in the wider political landscape. It holds the political loyalty of expanding and powerful voting constituencies, such as the retired population and private sector businesses and their workers. It is dominant in English politics outside the largest urban centres, and it has ambitions to consolidate its position in the South West and to move into the “Northern Powerhouse”. Most ambitiously, it aims to detach irreversibly the skilled working classes from allegiance to the Labour Party, something that was attempted by Thatcher in the 1980s. Its goal is the building of new political hegemonic bloc that might be termed the Osborne supremacy, after its chief strategist.

The new Conservative hegemony is not simply based on stealing Labour’s political clothes or co-opting the odd political figure, such as Andrew Adonis; it runs much deeper and has been more than a decade the making. While leading conservative thinkers have not seriously engaged with the work of Antonio Gramsci, they act as if they have done. They do this instinctively, although they also work hard at enacting political domination.

 Adaptiveness through a conservative ‘double shuffle’

A major source of the new Conservative hegemony has been its fundamental intellectual political thinking and its adaptive nature. The intellectual foundations were laid in the decades of Keysianism when free market thinkers, notably Hayak and Friedman, pioneered neo-liberal thinking that would burst onto the political scene in Reagan/Thatcher era.  Despite setbacks, following the exhaustion of the Thatcherite political project in the 1990s, it has sprung back to life again in a more malleable form. Its strengths lie not only in its roots in a neo-liberal economy and state, but in a conservative ‘double shuffle’: the combining of neo-Thatcherite economics and social and civil liberalism, represented by a highly flexible and cordial relationship between Osborne and Cameron.  

 Right intellectual and political resources

The Conservative Party has also mobilised an integrated set of highly effective political and intellectual resources that are constantly seeking new avenues of economic, technological, political and social development, able to appropriate the language of the Left and to summon and frame popular common sense. These include well-resourced Right think tanks such as Policy Exchange; campaigning attack organisations, notably, the Taxpayers Alliance; a stratum of websites (e.g. ConservativeHome) and bloggers linked to the more established rightwing press that provide easy outlets for key ideas and stories. Moreover, a modernized Conservative Parliamentary Party provides essential political leadership and is highly receptive to new ideas.

 Very Machiavellian - conservative coercion and consensus

No longer restrained by the Liberal Democrats, the Conservatives have also opted for a strategy of coercion to erode the remaining political bastions of the Left with proposed legislation against trade unions, attacks on charities with social missions, reform of the Human Rights Act, and measures to make it more difficult for trade unionists to affiliate to the Labour Party. Coupled with proposed boundary changes and English Votes for English Laws (Evel) in the House of Commons, these are aimed at crippling the organisational capacity of Labour and the wider Left.  It is these twin strategies of consensus and coercion that they anticipate will cohere and expand the Conservative political bloc – a set of economic, political and social alliances underpinned by new institutional ‘facts on the ground’ that aims to irrevocably shift the centre of political gravity.

The strengths and limits of the Conservative political bloc

In 2015 the conservative political bloc constitutes an extensive and well-organised array of ‘ramparts and earthworks’ geared to fighting successful political and ideological ‘wars of position’ and occasional “wars of manoeuvre”. This contrasts sharply with the ramshackle political and ideological trenches of Labour and the Left, which could be characterised as fragmented and in a state of serious disrepair.

The terrain of the Conservative bloc is not impregnable, however, having potential fault lines and weaknesses that might be exploited by a committed and skillful adversary. These include an ideological approach to austerity and shrinking the state that will hit their voting blocs; Europe; a social ‘holding pattern’ and dependence on the older voter that fails to tap into the dynamism of a younger and increasingly estranged generation and, crucially, vulnerability to a new economic crisis because the underlying systemic issues remain unresolved.

 Is the Left capable of building an alternative political bloc?

The answer is not straightforward.  On the one hand, Corbynism is focused on building and energizing a committed core and historically may be recognized as having saved the Labour Party from collapse after a catastrophic defeat in May. The Core may be the foundation of an effective counter bloc, but cannot represent it.  A counter-hegemony will need to be built by reaching out around new vision of a productive economy; a more democratic state that balances national leadership and local discretion (a more democratic version of the Northern Powerhouse); a new social alliance that really articulates the idea of ‘one nation’ and an ability to represent these ideas and visions in everyday, common-sense language. 

 If the Conservatives instinctively understand political hegemony Labour politicians, with one or two notable exceptions, behave as though they have little or no understanding of what is actually going on.  If they hope to win in future this has to change and a good start would be a collective sober analysis of the Conservative’s political and ideological achievements.

This is an extract from The Osborne Supremacy, a new pamphlet by Compass.

Ken Spours is a Professor at the IoE and was Convener of the Compass Education Inquiry. The final report of the Compass Education Inquiry, Big Education can be downloaded here.