By exploring the evolution of Conservative thought in SMF papers, Theo Bertram sets out the challenge for the next leader - to be able to adapt free-market principles to deliver a societal vision that works for all.
The Conservatives’ General Election defeat has precipitated a dilemma in the party: should it try and win back liberal and middle-class former voters, or lean to the right, and reclaim its popularity with working class voters it fought so hard to get on side in 2019? It is this strategic question that whoever wins the Conservative leadership race will have to grapple with. The difficult answer is that it needs to do both.
As a former political adviser to Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, I am probably the last person the Conservative Party would want advice from regarding its future direction. I can remember the times when prosecuting the political and policy argument against the Tories felt like shooting fish in a barrel, and what it was like when the situation was reversed. I know which I preferred. Over years of observation, however, one of the things I learned in that time was that the Conservative Party – the most successful political party the UK has ever known – has a remarkable capacity to reinvent itself.
In my new role as the Director of the Social Market Foundation think tank, I have spent some time looking back through the many SMF papers written by Conservatives over the last 35 years. Because the SMF stands firmly in the broad centre ground of British politics, many of these papers wrestle with the difficult but important intellectual challenge of how a Conservative Party can both occupy the centre and own the right.
One of the consistent themes is how and whether free markets should be restrained in the interests of society. ‘The free market is the cutting edge of modern Conservatism’, wrote David Willetts in 1994, ‘but we are not so confident about this as we were.’ His paper on Civic Conservatism sought to tackle the caricature of Thatcherism as ‘individualism, selfishness and the profit motive’, and to make a different case for free markets, one which acknowledged that the free market on its own ‘is not enough’.
Later, writing for the SMF in 2005, Michael Gove developed this theme further, arguing that the Conservative defence of free markets should include ‘defending certain values which make it possible for markets to flourish in a civilized community.’ Like Willetts, Gove did not see the restraint of free markets in the interest of society as a contradiction but as a necessary requirement: ‘I would go as far as to say that the markets the Conservatives should be in the business of defending are explicitly social markets.’
The belief in a smaller state is also a consistent theme, which is expressed broadly in three ways:
- As an antipathy to regulation: ‘regulation can only be justified if the costs which it imposes are exceeded by the benefits which flow from them’ (David Willetts, Deregulation, 1993);
- As mistrust of Labour’s tendency towards ‘State Centrism’, with centrally-set targets and centrally-set funding (Greg Clark, The Failure of State Centrism, 2005);
- And finally, in a hard-headed commitment to fiscal responsibility, even at the risk of appearing heartless: ‘it is unforgivable to forget the social purpose of social security but it is a dangerous mistake to put social security and economic policy in two distinct boxes’ (Peter Lilley, Winning the Welfare Debate,1995). This seems somewhat in contrast to the current Conservative position in opportunistically defending a cash handout to Britain’s most wealthy pensioners.
The last time the Tories went from opposition into government, the SMF published ‘What’s Right Now: Conservative essays on the role of civil society, markets and the state’. In this set of essays, George Osborne gave a succinct summary of Conservative economic policy: ‘macroeconomic stability, increased productivity, reduced demand on the state, and lower taxes’. He also set out the political strategy, which feels as relevant now as it was then: ‘We must never confuse populism with popularity. We should never sacrifice long-term credibility for short-term opportunity.’ Whoever becomes Conservative leader should be able to hold their policies up against that principle.
In other areas, there has been significant change. While Conservatives have always regarded the family as a vital institution, attitudes towards the family have changed over time. Writing in ‘What’s Right Now’, Andrew Lansley took issue with those Conservatives who had criticised the role of the state in supporting women into work, insisting that a modern Tory Party must ‘understand the world as it is, not as it used to be’. His stark self-analysis – ‘why have women increasingly abandoned the Conservative Party at three general elections?’ – was part of a process that would later result in a 23 point swing from Labour to the Tories among younger women in 2010. Similar self-analysis on the Conservative benches is warranted today: the gains made under Cameron among younger women have been completely lost over the last three elections. Support for the Tories among younger women has fallen from 30% in 2010 to just 6% in 2024. A successful Conservative leadership candidate should be able to articulate why young women have deserted the party and why they should return.
As party members and leadership candidates alike descend on Birmingham, it seems likely that this year’s party conference will represent a battle of political ideals. It would be a mistake to believe that simply being anti-immigration, anti-woke, or opposing net zero constitutes a coherent plan for government. Similarly, those Conservatives who think that the historically thin majorities in the Commons mean an automatic return to power should be wary of the double-edged nature of volatile politics. The test for Labour will be whether it can get growth and improve public services. The test for the Conservative Party will be whether it can adapt its free-market principles to deliver a societal vision that truly works for all. As years of Conservative thought at the SMF have shown, it would be a grave error to write the party off in that regard, and we look forward to providing a platform for that debate in the future.
