Conservative Thinkers: The Key Contributors to the Political Thought of the Modern Conservative Party

201 Pages·2009·0.9 MB·English

by  Mark Garnett

Conservative thinkers

Conservative thinkers
The key contributors to
the political thought of the modern
Conservative Party
Mark Garnett and Kevin Hickson
Manchester University Press
Manchester and New York
distributed in the United States exclusively
by Palgrave Macmillan
Copyright © Mark Garnett and Kevin Hickson 2009
The right of Mark Garnett and Kevin Hickson to be identified as the authors
of this work has been asserted by them in accordance with the Copyright,
Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Published by Manchester University Press
Oxford Road, Manchester M13 9NR, UK
and Room 400, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York, NY 10010, USA
www.manchesteruniversitypress.co.uk
Distributed in the United States exclusively by
Palgrave Macmillan, 175 Fifth Avenue, New York,
NY 10010, USA
Distributed exclusively in Canada by
UBC Press, University of British Columbia, 2029 West Mall,
Vancouver, BC, Canada V6T 1Z2
British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data
A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data applied for
ISBN 978 07190 7508 7 hardback
First published 2009
18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 09 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
The publisher has no responsibility for the persistence or accuracy of URLs
for any external or third-party internet websites referred to in this book, and
does not guarantee that any content on such websites is, or will remain,
accurate or appropriate.
Typeset
by Frances Hackeson Freelance Publishing Services, Brinscall, Lancs
Printed in Great Britain
by the MPG Books Group
Contents

Acknowledgements page vi
Introduction 1
1 Harold Macmillan 8
2 Rab Butler and the One Nation Group 22
3 Quintin Hogg, Lord Hailsham 40
4 Enoch Powell 57
5 Angus Maude 73
6 Keith Joseph 91
7 The traditionalists 105
8 Ian Gilmour and the wets 121
9 John Redwood 140
10 David Willettts 155
Conclusion 169
Bibliography 179
Index 187
Acknowledgements
Kevin Hickson would like to record his thanks to the late Lord Biffen, Lord
Howe, John Redwood MP, Professor Roger Scruton, Jonathan Sumption QC,
Lord Tebbit, David Willetts MP, and Sir Peregrine Worsthorne. All kindly
agreed to be interviewed for the book. John Redwood, Roger Scruton, Jonathan
Sumption, David Willetts and Sir Peregrine Worsthorne also commented on
the relevant draft chapters. We are most grateful for their assistance, although
we accept full responsibility for the judgements included in the published ver-
sion. Kevin Hickson would also like to thank Professor Lee Miles and Professor
Arthur Aughey.
Mark Garnett’s greatest debts are to five Conservatives who, in the course
of research for earlier projects, offered valuable insights which were relevant
to this book. Lord Alport, James Douglas, Lord Gilmour, Sir Edward Heath
and Lord Pym are no longer alive, but they are remembered with great affec-
tion and gratitude. The chapters on Macmillan, Butler, Hailsham and Maude
are dedicated to Ian Gilmour, in memory of a long and cherished friendship.
Although he died before the completion of the chapter on his own career, he
agreed to be interviewed for the project and, as ever, was a generous host on
that occasion. He would have dissented very strongly from the conclusions of
the chapter which discusses the nature of his own ideas, but hopefully he would
have recognised their friendly intentions.
Introduction
This book is an analysis of the political thought of the Conservative Party.
Academic discussions of the Conservative Party have tended to neglect
ideology, focusing instead on the ‘pragmatic’ nature of the Party and its elec-
toral and governmental record. We believe that this view is mistaken, and that
the Party’s development since the Second World War cannot be understood
without a detailed consideration of ideas.
The chapters trace the ideology of the Conservative Party through its most
prominent thinkers. These are Harold Macmillan; R. A. Butler; Quintin Hogg
(Lord Hailsham); Enoch Powell; Angus Maude; Keith Joseph; the traditional-
ists (T. E. ‘Peter’ Utley, Maurice Cowling, Peregrine Worsthorne, Shirley Letwin
and Roger Scruton); the ‘wets’ (most notably Ian Gilmour); John Redwood;
and David Willetts. These are the individuals considered by the authors to
have made the most important contributions to the political thought of the
Conservative Party. Some of them did so through the publication of a major
book or even in some cases a series of books. Others (notably Powell) made
their contributions in the form of articles or speeches. Some of these indi-
viduals were primarily academics (Cowling and Scruton) or journalists (Utley
and Worsthorne) who, through their utterances on Conservatism, made im-
portant contributions to the Party’s ideology. Others, most notably perhaps
Butler, contributed more to the ideological reconfiguration of the Conservative
Party through practice rather than theory. Our subjects are studied in a broadly
chronological framework and each chapter contains a brief biographical over-
view followed by an evaluation of their thought.
This brief overview of the book provokes two theoretical issues and it is
the purpose of the Introduction to deal with these head-on. The first relates
to the nature of the Conservative Party, which many commentators argue is
not an ideological entity. The most widely cited academic perspective of this
conservative thinkers
sort is the ‘statecraft’ thesis first outlined by James Bulpitt, who argued that
the Conservative Party is in fact a pragmatic movement committed above all
to winning elections and maintaining power.1 If this view is correct then there
seems little point in analysing the work of authors who have tried to exercise
ideological influence over the Conservative Party. The second issue raised here
is that of why and how the authors have selected the individual thinkers and
overlooked others with plausible claims to influence.
Ideology and pragmatism in the Conservative Party
A number of commentators have argued that the Conservative Party is free from
ideology. This has indeed been argued by prominent Conservatives themselves
and was frequently heard in the 1980s as opponents of Thatcherism claimed
that Margaret Thatcher had brought in something alien to the Conservative
Party – ideology. This view was expressed most vocally by Ian Gilmour, who
prided himself on his lack of ideology (a view that will be examined critically in
this book). Others argued that in fact the Thatcher Governments had not been
pragmatic but had instead been part of the authentic Conservative tradition,
which the Party had neglected in the years after 1945. Of those discussed in the
book, this view was expressed by Peter Utley and Shirley Letwin.3
The most sophisticated academic expression of this approach to the politics
of the Conservative Party was expressed by Bulpitt.4 Although the Conservative
Party may well hold to all kinds of opinions on a broad range of issues, the
Party as a whole was not an ideological organisation, but instead was one
guided by ‘statecraft’. Briefly expressed, statecraft was a preoccupation with the
politics of power. It was concerned above all with winning elections and hold-
ing on to office. If the Conservative Party was in opposition, then this would
involve finding effective critiques of the government; if in power, the Party
should demonstrate a degree of governing competence, as well as discrediting
its political opponents. Ideas didn’t matter in this process, except to further
the Party’s statecraft, to gain what Bulpitt termed ‘elite argument hegemony’.5
This process of statecraft could be seen in the post-war repositioning of the
Conservatives after Labour’s victory in the 1945 General Election, and a similar
strategic shift after the two electoral defeats of 1974.
If this view is accepted then it makes only limited sense to analyse the ideol-
ogy of the Conservative Party. However, it is important to raise a number of
issues with the ‘statecraft’ interpretation as it stands. The first relates to the
nature of the Conservative Party’s statecraft itself. It becomes apparent that this
has changed over time. The notion of statecraft as limited politics, as Bulpitt
outlined it, was most associated with the leadership of Lord Salisbury (1881–

introduction
190), who believed that politics was an activity limited to maintaining social
order and defending the nation from internal and external threats.6 The role of
the state was like that of the policeman, and without deviant human conduct
there would be no need for the state. Consequently it was not the responsibility
of the state to manage the economy or to implement social reform.
Gradually, over the course of the twentieth century, the functions of the
state were enlarged as it took responsibility for welfare reforms and economic
management. This was occurring before the Second World War but increased
under the Churchill coalition and the first majority Labour administration
(1945–51). Therefore the statecraft of post-war Conservative governments
was very different from that of Salisbury. The election of Margaret Thatcher’s
Conservative Government in 1979 may well have been expected to herald a
restoration of limited politics. However, the economic and welfare reforms im-
plemented after 1979 required a very active form of government.7
Therefore, we can see that the statecraft of the Conservative Party was not
fixed but rather changed over time in the light of changed circumstances and
the beliefs of the Party’s leaders. On this view, ideology has always been an in-
tegral element in Conservative ‘statecraft’; indeed, there have been times when
the Party’s prospects of winning or retaining office have been endangered by
the pursuit of ideological objectives. Thus, even though the idea of statecraft
is important for understanding the Party’s fortunes since 1945 it could not be
fully appreciated without a thorough study of ideological developments.
The second reason for transcending the statecraft thesis is that it rests on a
very limited evidential basis. The usual sources for historical enquiry – mem-
oirs, diaries, speeches, press releases, private and official papers, etc. – are largely
dismissed as exercises in political rhetoric while professional politicians cor-
rectly perceive that the reality is one of the essential power-struggle within
and between political parties. However, the methodological approach taken in
this book is that of hermeneutics. The essential feature of hermeneutics is to
accept that political activity is a subjective exercise and one shaped by beliefs.
Such academic analysis will inevitably be subjective as the views of the author
will shape the ways in which he or she understands the actors under scru-
tiny. However, this does not mean that academics should fall in to relativism.
Instead, there are a range of sources that can be used in order to understand the
motivations of political actors. It is only through a careful examination of these
sources that academics can gain an accurate understanding of the beliefs of the
actors involved. Hence, for the purposes of this study, the authors will examine
a range of published and unpublished sources. What these sources reveal is that
the political actors in question were or are all motivated by beliefs or ideology.
While policy does not derive purely from ideology, it is one important source
of policy development; hence we cannot understand the development of the
3