 and that the state should be 'empowering not interventionist'. This version of Conservatism was forged in the 19th and early 20th centuries when Britain was the richest country in the world and when it was easy to be complacent. It sustained itself into modern Britain primarily as a way for the old Conservative establishment and ruling class to try to retain something of what they had in the new socialist order. It was not particularly successful in avoiding social conflict or economic decline. The modern version of this accommodationist policy is based on the belief, as the paper sets out, that for structural reasons Western societies are heading for durably lower growth, that tackling inequality should be a priority, and that an ageing population and rising public spending commitments mean the increasing tax burden is not an aberration but a permanent reality. The only sensible way forward, then, is to tinker with policy in the hope of getting){kind=link}
The outcome of socialist policies remain the same, even if a Conservative is implementing them
It’s often said that the Conservative Party is about power, and staying in power above anything else. It has often achieved this by recognising and accepting broader social and political change rather than resisting it. But does this mean there are no limits to the policies the Conservative Party, and Conservative governments, can pursue? Just as Herbert Morrison famously said “socialism is what a Labour government does”, is it also true that if a Conservative government does it, it’s conservative?
The question is posed by this week’s paper, The Road to Credibility, from the think tank Onward by Tim Pitt, a former Treasury adviser. The document has attracted much comment, possibly because Onward’s director, Will Tanner, has just become Rishi Sunak’s deputy chief of staff.
It is worth a proper read. It begins by claiming that Conservatism is inherently pragmatic and non-ideological, that economic change must take place “gradually and sensitively”, that prosperity should be shared broadly (though who would disagree with that?) and that the state should be “empowering not interventionist”.
This version of Conservatism was forged in the 19th and early 20th centuries when Britain was the richest country in the world and when it was easy to be complacent. It sustained itself into modern Britain primarily as a way for the old Conservative establishment and ruling class to try to retain something of what they had in the new socialist order. It was not particularly successful in avoiding social conflict or economic decline.