Matt Beech

British Conservatism and Foreign Policy: Traditions and Ideas Shaping Cameron's Global View

This article contributes to a debate on prospective Conservative foreign policy initiated by Klaus Dodds and Stuart Elden in this journal. The central argument is that Camerons global view is being shaped by the traditions and ideas associated with Liberalism as well as Conservatism. Elite interviews with former Conservative foreign secretaries help illustrate the role played by Conservative assumptions between 1979 and 1997. The article examines Conservative attitudes to the ‘special relationship’; to living in the post-9/11 world; and evaluates continuity and change in the Conservative partys approach to foreign policy. It is argued that while Cameron and Hague are part of the Conservative tradition, their speeches and policy statements also reveal a Liberal perspective.

A Tale of Two Liberalisms

The Conservative-Liberal Government represents a new period in British politics. The Coalition brought to an end 13 years of New Labour rule and reintroduced the idea of inter-party cooperation in government. The United Kingdom has not experienced such politics since the 1940–45 National Government of Winston Churchill. The major policy event of the Coalition’s tenure and most likely of the decade was the Comprehensive Spending Review (CSR) on 20 October 2010. The CSR sought to radically reduce the national deficit by dramatically cutting public expenditure annually by 14.4 per cent and by 46.4 per cent over the next five years (Crawford, 2010). However, it also had another purpose — to curtail the size and the responsibilities of the central state. Whether Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats as partners in the Coalition endorse the concept of the ‘big society’ is not known; nevertheless, it is the clearest expression of what David Cameron hopes will supplant Labour’s ‘big state’. What the public have in this new era of British politics is an accord between two political parties that espouse two types of liberalism and contain similarities as well as stark differences. And yet, at the heart of this accord is opposition to the social democratic state that has presided at the epicentre of British politics since the premiership of Clement Attlee and an opposition to the organization that has sustained this model of the state, namely the Labour Party.

Cameron and Conservative Ideology

One of the most contemplated questions in contemporary British politics is, ‘what type of Conservative is David Cameron?’ For many voters it is a question that will be pondered in the lead up to the next general election. Those citizens in particular who for over a decade have abandoned Britain’s most electorally successful political party in favour of New Labour, are now reconsidering their electoral options. The Conservative Party was once regarded as the ubiquitous party of British government until the emergence of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. But now, under a new leadership the Conservative Party is experiencing a renaissance, in England, at least. This is largely due to the charisma, character and, more substantively, the perception of political moderation of David Cameron. Of course, it is accurate to state that New Labour is a victim of its own success inasmuch as it has governed for 12 years and won three successive general elections. Electorates eventually choose one of the opposition parties to rule and in the British case, with the first-past-the-post electoral system, that choice is in reality one of one. The British electorate may well be inclined to opt for Her Majesty’s Opposition at the next election and that means a Conservative government led by David Cameron.

New Labour and the Politics of Dominance

In attempting to survey New Labour’s period in office one aspect appears to stand out. New Labour’s politics has been and continues to be the politics of dominance. As a government they have set the tone for political discourse and have been the victors in many policy debates. The purpose of this chapter is to argue that New Labour in government have dominated British politics and by doing so have recast the centre-ground. Implicit in this argument is the assertion that the centre-ground is not fixed and that since 1997, New Labour has moved the centre-ground leftwards. Previously the political centre was dominated by tenets of neo-liberalism. In policy terms neo-liberals are suspicious of the state, its power and its ability to distribute efficiently goods and services. Therefore, free market economics is promoted as the mechanism for granting liberty to the individual who is seen as the most important of actors. Notions of social justice and egalitarian claims are dismissed as a mirage and a derivation of personal freedom.1 The Thatcher and Major governments provided the Conservative Party with 18 consecutive years in office and during this long period of Conservative dominance the Thatcher government in particular was given the opportunities to persuade sections of the British electorate of the virtues of their neo-liberal philosophy. In a similar fashion, New Labour has been presented with opportunities to counter some of the ‘Thatcher–Major settlement’ through the implementation of centre-left principles.

Blue or Purple? Reflections on the Future of the Labour Party

The purpose of this article is to examine the future ideological direction of the Labour party by analysing two intellectual offerings that have appeared in the post-New Labour era: ‘Blue Labour’ and The Purple Book. First, the article sets out the strategic context of these ideological conversations: Labours defeat in the 2010 general election; the formation of the Conservative–Liberal Democrat coalition; economic austerity resulting from the banking crisis and the global financial crash; and the changing political climate which ostensibly suggests a move from the ‘politics of the state’ to the politics of ‘localism’. Next, the article discusses the main features of ‘Blue’ and ‘Purple’ Labour. Finally, the article provides an explanatory evaluation of the two divergent ‘futures’. The article aids both scholars and students in the ongoing intellectual task of explaining British politics in the post-New Labour era and, more particularly, helps one to understand the ideological future of the Labour party.

The Ideology of the Coalition: More Liberal than Conservative

For those who study British politics from a contemporary history or political science perspective the role of ideology is notable. British party ideology is diverse, fluid and contains contradictory strands. At certain times a particular expression dominates, usually from the podiums occupied by the party leadership. Of course, the role and significance of ideology is never the full story. The politics of personalities, internal management, path-dependent policy commitments and a host of external factors — chief of which is electoral calculus — all contribute to the story of a government. The work of Jim Bulpitt in relation to the primacy of statecraft in the domestic politics of Margaret Thatcher has been influential and widely cited within academic circles (Bulpitt, 1986). But Mark Garnett and Kevin Hickson are surely right to point out that ideology is a key contributing factor in the statecraft of elite politicians, including those at the apex of the oldest political party in Europe: ‘[W]e 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 integral element in Conservative “statecraft”.’ (Garnett and Hickson, 2009: 3)

The Conservative-Liberal Coalition

This book offers a unique full term analysis of the Cameron-Clegg Government. From austerity to gay marriage, the Scottish referendum to combating IS, it brings together expert academic voices to provide rigorous yet readable insights on the key areas of government politics and the debates which will shape the 2015 general election.

A puzzle of ideas and policy: Gordon Brown as prime minister1

This article argues that Gordon Brown as prime minister is a puzzle of ideas and policy. This observation is most notably supported by his failure to espouse an ideological narrative for his government. Brown the intellectually literate Labour leader has not constructed his idea of the ‘good society’. This in turn has had a negative impact upon the effectiveness of his leadership and the unity of his government. The article highlights the implications of this problem; discusses the nature of Browns politics through analysing the works of Lee and Hickson; and asserts the virtues of crafting a coherent ideological narrative for government. The article concludes by surveying the prospects of a Brown-led Labour Party in the forthcoming political era – an era which is likely to be one dominated by the Conservative Party under the leadership of David Cameron.

The Brown government

From its inception, the ideological complexion and public policy agenda of the Brown government has been of burgeoning academic interest to members of the Centre for British Politics at the University of Hull in the UK. Matt Beech’s research agenda has focused on studying New Labour in government (Beech 2006) and more broadly the ideas and values underpinning British social democracy (Beech and Hickson 2007). Simon Lee (2007) has recently published a monograph on the politics and ideas of Gordon Brown and in 2008 Beech and Lee (2008) co-edited a volume of essays which sought to assess the impact of Tony Blair’s New Labour government. At the same time associates of the centre such as Stephen Driver (2006) and Mark Evans (2004) have made other significant contributions to the study of New Labour in power. An interim study of the Brown government was therefore an obvious choice for the Centre’s next project. For many of its members Gordon Brown was a most eagerly anticipated leader of the Labour Party and British prime minister. Indeed, he was a constant thorn in Tony Blair’s side because of his profound understanding of party history, his grip on policy, his popularity at Labour’s grassroots and his unconcealed desire to assume the office of prime minister. Those who believed that Brown was the much-required antidote to Blairite New Labour have been disappointed thus far. Although Brown’s approach to the premiership is different in style it remains similar in substance, or so it seems. In the aftermath of a tumultuous 18 months dominated by ‘events’ academics, commentators and students of British politics can now begin to evaluate Brown’s social democracy in earnest. The interpretations vary, as is to be expected, but the prospects for the Labour Party in government seem increasingly bleak in electoral terms. The most notable issue on Brown’s watch is the ‘credit crunch’ or the banking crisis which, in turn, is a product of the global economic downturn; a downturn that is threatening to develop into a deep global recession. Thus, Brown’s era at the head of government is rapidly descending into a period of crisis management characterised by the politics of austerity. These are exceptional times in British politics which now require serious academic reflection by political scientists. This special issue hopes to bridge the gap.

Labour parties, ideas transfer and ideological positioning: Australia and Britain compared

ABSTRACT As part of this special issue examining policy transfer between the Labour parties in Australia and Britain, this paper seeks to explore the relationship between the two on ideological positioning. In the 1990s there was substantial ideas transfer from the Australian Hawke–Keating government to Blair ‘New Labour’ in Britain, as both parties made a lunge towards the economic centre. This paper analyses how the inheritors of that shift, the Rudd/Gillard government in Australia and the Miliband and Corbyn leaderships in Britain, are seeking to define the role and purpose of Labour parties in its wake. It examines the extent to which they are learning and borrowing from one another, and finds that a combination of divergent economic and political contexts have led to strikingly limited contemporary policy transfer.