A common thread from the rise of the Tories from the time of the restoration of Charles 2 is the right to own property. The Tories have been voted in to power by those who own and aspire to own property.In many ways the Tories are the most pragmatic political party. The increase in the male working class vote in the 1870s ? showed a most pragmatic response to the demands of the male skilled working class . Entry to the ruling class was based on property. When the aristocracy of continental Europe insisted on family hereditary, such as listed by the Almanach de Gotha to define entry to the upper classes, the British Tories were happy to marry the wealthy daughters of the industrialists. This is probably why we have not had a revolution since the Civil War. One great asset of the Conservatives is to add some healthy scepticism mixed with pragmatism to the political debate.

(”Man is a fallen creature”),

I spoke to John Hays of Cornerstone once and he used the phrase . You may not remember but there was once a time when people thought proper socialism would work. At its heart was a quasi mystical belief than man would be perfected by release from economic slavery . The stark contrast between this vision and the corruption of venal self interest actually encouraged b y bureaucratic distribution used to be one of the main arguments between left and right . In this Marxist context Conservatives are pessimistic about the possibility of utopia or earthly heavens .You might say they believe people are’ bad’ /can be “bad”. That would be to misrepresent the position a Conservative does not think ordinary self interest valuing of family above strangers etc. is bad . It is not perfect but perfect is not human.

The word ‘fallen’ is so much better then , it carries of course a rich associative theological significance which sets the real man with his struggles and desires against the imaginary utopian man who might operate Browns clunking state machinery. A good example is the failure of comprehensive education . Good theory , but in reality the loyalty parents have to children has meant those who can , cheat and they are assisted by teachers who do not want all the problems on their patch. Are they evil , no , but fallen , oh yes fallen. Utopian thinking was a 20th century sickness but the spores lurk in New Labour.

Your understanding of social Conservatism misses a crucial point. Unlike the doctrinal bookish Parties of Marx and J S Mill etc. The sort of Conservatism you describe is too prescriptive to be part of the English grain and would be the reverse of Conservatism ,here , were it imposed .
Capitalism , emerges from a civil society , from trust and order . Economic Liberalism is not possible without such pre conditions , we are seeing this right now . That is why to a Conservative this crisis is one of trust in value not fluttering money in all directions like conjuror . Confidence will return when rubbish is no longer over valued. As a country this means less people doing nothing productive and more people making money to pay for it all together with paying our way .

oops I meant

Your understanding of social Conservatism misses a crucial point. Unlike the doctrinal bookish Parties of Marx and J S Mill etc Conservatism is not universal The sort of Conservatism you describe is too prescriptive to be part of the English grain and would be the reverse of Conservatism ,here , were it imposed .

You know, you may have a point about the logical inconsistencies with the Tories, there, but ‘daft’? Perhaps, but then I hear of yet another fuckwitted New Labour idea getting shoved out there, doubtless via a SpAd, policy wonk or think tank (and not from the dwindling band of grassroots members who may have som vestiges of principle and sense left…). Today’s stupidity (seems to be one every day, with two on high days and holidays) is Jacqui Smith’s wanting to have the public vote (what, X-factor stylee?) on the form of punishments for criminals. Is Brown’s ‘narrative’ (horrid, weasel word when used politically) to return to the Middle Ages? How illiberal can the man’s inner circle get?

Your understanding of social Conservatism misses a crucial point. Unlike the doctrinal bookish Parties of Marx and J S Mill etc Conservatism is not universal The sort of Conservatism you describe is too prescriptive to be part of the English grain and would be the reverse of Conservatism ,here , were it imposed.

That’s a fair point, Newmania, and I would certainly hope that a British Conservatism would govern in the way you articulate. This wisp of a post certainly wasn’t intended as an assessment of today’s Conservative Party. Indeed, it only really points out the obvious: that when the party does return to government it won’t be able to satisfy both economic and social conservatives equally.

I just find the conflicts or competing agendas within conservatism (just as there are within democratic socialism or liberalism) fascinating. Take gambling, for instance. There was a very strong pro-business argument for building ‘super casinos’, but there was a great volume of opposition from the right on largely social conservative grounds. And yet it was a Conservative Prime Minister who gave us the National Lottery.

Beyond that, I think it’d be valuable for someone to try to define what Social Conservatism means to British Tories in the 21st century. I suspect (or at least hope) the answers would be very different to 20 years ago.

Is Brown’s ‘narrative’ (horrid, weasel word when used politically) to return to the Middle Ages? How illiberal can the man’s inner circle get?

I’m not sure what ideology or vision New Labour are following though. Its certainly not left of centre…

I shall live to regret this. I’m going to feed the troll… New Mania talks of the corruption of venal self interest actually encouraged by bureaucratic distribution – but is such venality not equally encouraged by unfettered markets?

Philosophy and religion have the potential to free us from venality and other evidence of “fallenness” but of course neither comes with a cast-iron guarantee. Politics can mitigate those effects at the social level, but it is doubtful that it can do more. Robert Owen, over 150 years ago, concluded towards the end of his life that socialism required the production of a new kind of man and woman: the Marxist error was to suppose that this newness could be achieved by politics.

As to what the Tories will do when they return to power next year, my suspicion is that they will talk social conservatism and practice economic liberalism. They may well give extra tax benefits to couples who have gone through a marriage ceremony, but those will also be available to civil partnerships, for example. Socially conservative measures will be left to Private Memers’ Bills, where they can be voted down by oppostion MPs.

As to what the Tories will do when they return to power next year, my suspicion is that they will talk social conservatism and practice economic liberalism.

I hope you’re right. If I believed that, I’d vote for them just to get the current lot out. But I’m rather sceptical.

I agre with much of that Mike

http://www.amazon.co.uk/After-Blair-Cameron-Conservative-Tradition/dp/1840467959

This is good book for establishing what the usually inchoate doctrine of “conservatism “ is . Its adherents are not always the most powerful elements of the Conservative Party but in my experience and instinctive version is far more common among the members than in the blogasphere. Cameron’s broad appeal in the Party is based on a return to this historic strand .
“At their core, social conservatives believe unfettered markets can be damaging, and economic liberals stand against against restrictions on markets. “
Quite so .The unfettered market is like taking as combine harvester your beautifully manicured lawn . This is quite a tricky subject to unpack. I had a go but floundered .
In practice I believe Cameron planned to increase taxes ( he had prepared the ground ) and attempt to break up the Labour strongholds of entrenched dependency . The mechanism for this was to be Wisconsin style welfare reform and well funded support without which it is impossible. Social Conservatism would emerge from self reliance not diktat
.I believe they intended to increase borrowing incidentally .As the results of ten years of squander unravel this vision is in tatters that is why there has been a period of drift. It can only go one way now which is to defend the tax payer against newly rampant collectivist triumphalism . We hoped for more

The extent of social Conservatisms in the Conservatives Party depends on your point of view . If you dislike marriage and approve of fiscal impediments then it is unreasonably attached to it . If you feel there is no national “we” in the first place concerns about its maintenance will elude you . I see the effort as to defend people’s chosen life styles from arrogant imposition of unwanted change ..where it is defensible..

The only reason The Conservatives can juggle between economic liberalism and social Conservatism is because they are sanctimonious hypocrites.

They shift their ground on where they want to fight each issue, and the media lets them get away with it. Leave it to the market, is fine in Conservative land, if you are talking about the average widget factory, but they are quick to go all police state if they want to ban something. (and they ban more than they like to admit.

”Love of country is fundamental to all conservatism”
Unless it gets in the way of free trade and Gat, then love of country can go hang.

Many Conservatives long for the return of tax relief on mortgages, so that home owners can be subsidised by non home owners. So much for the free market there.

[10]

Many Conservatives long for the return of tax relief on mortgages, so that home owners can be subsidised by non home owners. So much for the free market there.

Maybe the rank and file does but I’d be most surprised if a Cameron government restored it. Actually, the subsidy was to mortgageors and from outright owners as much as from tenants. If it were to be brought back, it should surely relate to interest payments only.

I’ve got no problem with a social conservatism if it is chosen for oneself, but I have a massive problem with a government prescribing it.

The problem for British conservatives is that the traditions they purportedly defend are those of opposition to and distrust of authority: – so if you are British and conservative you are a hypocritical fool.

So in this thread I strangely find myself agreeing with both Newmania and Sally! Now, that’s a mindbender!

I s not much of Conservatism by definition conserving what is already in existance . Politically it is the expression of an emotional resistance to change , which in fact is an advantage in some cases . After all cars are fitted with breaks There is an argument that if the monarchies in Germany , Austria , and Spain had ben left in place after WW1 , then the Nazis/Fascists would not have risen to power. The traditional aristocrats of Germany ad Austria provided more effective opposition to the Nazis than the communists. The development of political ideaologies of change gave us Nazism and Communism which has resulted in the murder of tens if not hundreds of millions in the twentieth century. When discussing Conservatism there is much difference between the pragmatic variety practised in the UK and the much more rigid type practised in Roman Catholic countries.

One aspect of Conservatism is the concept of noblessse oblige. After all MacMillan coined the term “Banksters” ( somewhat appropriate today)and Churchill was aware of the “Pride of finance” which needed to be reduced. MacMillan, Pym, Carrington and Whitelaw ; (all who were guards officers who had fought in wars and were recogniseed for their bravery), attempted to put break on Thatcher’s messianic zeal through judicious doses or pragmatism.