The leader column in this week’s edition of the magazine (please subscribe, by the way) asks an excellent question: Why aren’t the Tories winning? After all, and despite everything, David Cameron has presided over a period of, first, economic stabilisation and, now, some useful quantity of economic growth. His party is better trusted on economic issues than the opposition and, well, Mr Ed Miliband has not yet convinced voters he has the chops to be Prime Minister.
As Danny Finklestein observed in The Times yesterday, it is possible to lose despite enjoying one of those advantages but most unusual to lose while being ahead on both these metrics.
And yet the Tories may still lose. What gives?
It is true, as our editorialist argues, that Cameron has been oddly reluctant to talk about his successes but the problem goes rather further than that. Nor can it simply be ascribed to the lack of a coherent, and optimistic, election message (though that is part of it too.)
No, the simplest explanation is that the problem lies less in Tory policies than in Tory men (and the occasional Tory woman). Moreover, the party has a quite remarkable ability to reinforce the negative stereotypes that do it so much damage. That’s one reason why it is 23 years since the Tories last won a majority.
Take, for instance, yesterday’s Telegraph letter signed by leading businessmen warning Britons of the risks associated with a Labour government. At first glance, it seems like good news for the Tories. We have fixed the economy; don’t let Labour wreck it. And there is something to this, for sure. It is a necessary part of the Conservative election campaign.
But it also reminds voters that the Conservative party is the party of big business. And it does so at a time when big business is barely more trusted than Ed Miliband. The suspicion that something has gone rather wrong with capitalism is widespread. Many people feel that the system is broken; that it serves the interests of the few, not the many. Those at the top are fine; those below less fine. It’s not fair.
It doesn’t actually matter very much whether these grumblings are based on truth or not. What matters is that they are widely believed to be true. Which, again, is why arguments about whether or not cutting the highest rate of tax helped increase Treasury revenues ends up being beside the point. Many voters don’t much care about that. Nor do they care that the percentage of income tax receipts paid by the wealthiest ten percent of taxpayers is much, much, higher than most people think.
No, they care about what they see as the unfairness of a policy that chopped income taxes for the wealthiest Britons. A tax cut for millionaires! Why?
Nor does it matter very much that anyone earning more than £9,000 a year has also seen their income tax bill reduced under this government. Small benefits you receive yourself are less important than larger benefits that are – or are perceived to be – enjoyed by someone else. (This is also one reason why hostility to welfare spending is highest amongst those just too rich to qualify for those benefits.) Envy? Perhaps. Normal? Certainly.
This is not, in other words, a great time to be the Bosses’ Party and this remains the case even if, indeed when, the bosses have a point. It undermines the Tory party’s ability to talk about other things; it dashes the party’s hopes of being seen as the party that is on your side. A harsh verdict? Perhaps. Nevertheless, a widely-felt one.
Motives matter too. The Tory party has not yet found the language to describe why reducing the benefits bill is a good thing. Instead the perception arises that the party is simply hostile to those living in adverse or challenging circumstances. Worse still, many people – and these people are not by any means all Labour supporters – discern an unseemly relish in the way in which too many Conservatives talk about the undeserving poor. The spirit of the Nasty Party endures.
The modernisation project – abandoned, now, alas – was never about ditching Conservative principles. It was supposed to be about creating an approachable and likeable Tory party that was better able to make the case for those principles. A party that was comfortable with modern Britain. A party that liked modern Britain.
The project never went far enough. We know this because we saw, in 2010, how, for different reasons, Cameron struggled to make progress in London and Scotland. Add to that the failure to make any great impression in the cities of northern England and you get a party that can’t win a majority. Even when the alternatives are Gordon Brown and Ed Miliband.
And yet, as our leader argues, the Tories do have some good stories to tell. Their education reforms – which, far from being alarming are simply the extension of Labour’s own education reforms – are for the many, not the few. They were once a moral crusade for the better advancement of the children of the lower-middle and working classes. That zeal matters.
But because the Tory party is not trusted and not much liked either it’s motives have been mistrusted (and sometimes traduced) too. That’s a message issue, sure, but also a positioning difficulty and, most importantly, an attitude problem.
It’s tough to persuade the 85 percent when they think your instincts run towards the interests of the 15 percent and when, more to the point, they think you are the 15 percent. When they think you’re the party of the rich and when they think you’re overly relaxed about legal tax avoidance they think probably shouldn’t be legal at all. When they hear Tory MPs talking about the horrific price of private education or the awfulness of being caught by a so-called mansion tax or how it’s really tough for a family to live on, what, less than £100,000 a year? People hear these things and these things colour their impressions of a party.
Few people really mind that David Cameron and his chums went to Eton. That wasn’t their choice, after all. But they do mind that the party seems so tone-deaf so often. That it struggles to empathise with the ballyhooed ordinary hard-working families. That it is out of touch and, worse, unconcerned.
That’s why the Conservative party still needs to retool itself as a party for blue-collar workers. A party for opportunity, of course, but also for fairness. A party that challenges shibboleths and vested interests. A party that offers a fair shake and a square deal for the ordinary family. A party for C1, C2 and even D and E just as much as it is a party for A and B. That’s the challenge. It’s also the opportunity.
Politicians should leave the wealthy alone – they already contribute more than their fair share
J
oin us on 22 April for a Spectator debate on wealth and politics. Are wealth taxes the answer? Or is it wrong to squeeze the rich? Chaired by Andrew Neil.For the motion: Toby Young and William Cash.Against the motion: Owen Jones.Remaining speakers to be announced. For tickets and further information click here.
Comments