A different kind of blue

Rachael Vorberg-Rugh

Over here in the UK, "blue" means Conservative...just one of many word reversals that caused Oscar Wilde to call the US and UK "two nations divided by a common language."  (See also "public school").  Today, the Conservative (aka Tory) Members of Parliament are deciding on the final two nominees for their party's top job, replacing outgoing Conservative Party leader Michael Howard, who's stepping down after the party lost last May's election.

In Britain's parliamentary system, the head of the party which returns the most MPs to Parliament becomes the Prime Minister.  Thus, should the Tories win the next election (five years from now, barring unforseen crises), the Conservative party leader would become PM.  Under this system, it is possible to change Prime Ministers without an election--as when John Major  took over the leadership from Margaret Thatcher in the early 1990s.  Over on the Labour side of the aisle, it is expected that Tony Blair will step down sometime in the next few years, with deputy leader Gordon Brown taking over as PM.

But speculation about the Blair/Brown swap aside...this is the Conservative's time to debate the future of their party.  Conservatives have had a rough ride since the sweeping Blair victory of 1997--changing leaders three times, arguing over Britain's relationship with the EU, and proving unable to unseat Labour despite Blair's increasing unpopularity since the start of the Iraq war.  With this latest leadership election, the Conservatives aren't just trying to find a charasmatic figure who can save them from losing a 4th straight election--they're trying to rebuild their party and find a distinctive vision that sets them apart from Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Of the original contenders, only three remain: David Davis, known as a right-wing Eurosceptic, who began as the favorite but has not impressed the party faithful on the charisma front; Liam Fox, also from the party's Eurosceptic right, and the dark horse of the campaign; and David Cameron, the current favorite, billing himself as the young modernizer, with many pundits labeling him the Tory Tony Blair.  Today's vote by Tory MPs decides which two will go forward to the final round of voting--in which the party's 300,000 members vote by mail, with a result due on 6 December.

As an American observer, two aspects of the leadership battle have been of particular interest.  One of the key stories of the last week's media here was a controversy over David Cameron's refusal to answer questions about whether or not he'd used drugs while at Oxford. He commented only that he had had "a normal university experience." According to a Daily Telegraph article, "He said there were lots of things he had done at university, adding that he was 'enough of a human' to have done them but 'too much of a politician' to discuss them."  Its all been quite reminiscent of Bill Clinton's "I didn't inhale" moment, with the exception that most Brits, inside and outside the Tory party, respect him for refusing to answer the quetion.

Much more substantively, however, what's interesting about this leadership election to me as a depressed Democrat abroad, is watching the Tories try to shape a distinctive vision while accepting nearly all of the social welfare provisions developed by Labour governments since the Second World War.  UK Conservatism is a world away from the Republican Party.  Evangelical religion plays no role whatsoever.  This is a country where the Conservatives now actively support the National Health Service, completely abandoning Thatcher's attempts to return to a privatized system.  The Tories' 2005 election manifesto promised to: "spend the same as Labour would on the NHS, schools, transport and international development, and more than Labour would on police, defence and pensions"; to maintain the minimum wage with regular increases; and increase government spending by 4% a year (as opposed to Labour's 5%).  The Tories' main policy differences w/ Labour during the election focused on tightening immigration restrictions, regulating gypsy camps, being "tough on crime", and the cleanliness of NHS hospitals.

Now, I'm very poorly qualified as a pundit.  Nonetheless, I think US Dems can gain something from watching the Tories' attempts to shape their vision.  Like the Democrats, the Tories can ill-afford to lose the next election.  Like the Democrats, they have to be able to define and distinguish themselves in a political universe where the "race to the center" is all.  Like the Democrats, they're in desperate need of a charismatic, articulate leader.  There are lots of differences of course, but perhaps the party could benefit by removing its gaze from its navel and taking a look at what others are doing abroad.

Of course, Democrats might also gain some advantage by watching Labour alienate its traditional base and thereby do much to further the cause of both Lib Dems and Tories, but hey, that's another column.

By Rachael Vorberg-Rugh Oct. 20, 2005