What's the point of the Conservatives?
A party that venerates Margaret Thatcher junks her ironclad commitment to the rule of law
Close your eyes, take a deep breath and picture what the Conservative Party stands for. Don’t dwell on specific policies or the proclivities of its current leader, ignore the penchant for regicide and so on. What is the essence of Toryism?
I’m a mere outside observer, but I have lived under Conservative government for roughly two-thirds of my life, so I feel reasonably qualified to have a go at answering. While acceptable responses include personal liberty, free enterprise, democracy and unionism, it’s the rule of law for me, Clive.
This can be a somewhat amorphous concept, though we tend to notice its absence pretty quickly. In his 2010 book, The Rule of Law, Lord Bingham, a former Master of the Rolls, Lord Chief Justice of England and Wales and Senior Law Lord, sets out eight principles. These include:
The law must be accessible and, so far as possible, intelligible, clear and predictable.
Questions of legal right and liability should ordinarily be resolved by application of the law and not the exercise of discretion.
The laws of the land should apply equally to all, save to the extent that objective differences justify differentiation.
The rule of law requires compliance by the state with its obligations in international law as in national law.
Keep these in mind as we turn to a proposal by Conservative ‘rising star’, Katie Lam. In an interview with The Sunday Times, the MP for Weald of Kent and opposition whip suggested that many people who came to the UK legally, including those with indefinite leave to remain (ILR), will “need to go home” in order to ensure that the UK remains “culturally coherent”.
This represents an escalation rather than an abrupt departure from official Conservative Party policy, which is merely to strip ILR from those who receive benefits, commit a crime or whose income drops below £38,700 for six months or longer.
“In order to be considered truly free, countries must also have a deep love of liberty and an abiding respect for the rule of law.” — Margaret Thatcher
“Indefinite leave to remain” is a slightly curious jumble of words. But as someone who has gone through the process of securing it for others, I can tell you it means the world. As the name suggests, ILR confers something enduring, something secure. It gives the holder, in the words of the UK government, “the right to live, work and study here for as long as you like.” As long as you like.
Anyone with ILR can apply for citizenship after a certain period, which may make travel and other logistics easier. But you don’t have to — settled status is enough. Reducing ILR to a revocable privilege therefore represents a quite dramatic change with wide-ranging implications.
The rule of law and I
Returning to Lord Bingham’s principles, if the government can unilaterally rescind or redefine ILR, then rights cease to be predictable, application of the law is replaced by ministerial whim and the UK’s international obligations would surely be called into question. As an aside, good luck being a British ‘expat’ in Spain or Dubai if this were ever to hit the statute books.
May I also ask: have you thought about the comms? Not least when we know that the British public tends to be hawkish on immigration in the generality, but pretty sympathetic to individual claims. Consequently, it doesn’t take much to imagine a scenario in which a mother with ILR and British citizen children is down for deportation. What if her ‘home’ country won’t accept the kids? Would they end up in the care of social services? What would this do for “cultural coherence”?
It is, of course, perfectly reasonable for any government to remove those in this country illegally, to seek to reduce net migration and prevent dangerous Channel crossings. None of these require the Conservative Party — the Conservative Party! — to junk its commitment to the rule of law. This political party that venerates Margaret Thatcher to the exclusion of almost all others.
Why did Thatcher push for the Right to Buy? Because she supported property rights and a property-owning democracy. How did she characterise events at Orgreave during the miners’ strike? “An attempt to substitute the rule of the mob for the rule of law.” Why did she send a task force to take back the Falkland Islands? She viewed the Argentinian invasion as an illegal act of aggression and threat to the islanders’ right of self-determination. You can’t display her clothes at conference and ditch the core of her political project!
“The legal system we have and the rule of law are far more responsible for our traditional liberties than any system of one man one vote. Any country or government which wants to proceed towards tyranny starts to undermine legal rights and undermine the law.” — Margaret Thatcher
I recognise the Tories are in a tough spot. In Reform UK, it has an insurgent populist party to its Right promising to tear it all up. In the Lib Dems, it has a safe repository for disaffected liberals and pro-Europeans. And, of course, the party is still carrying the self-inflicted wounds incurred by the fairly chaotic way in which it governed the country between 2016 and 2024.
But personally, I think Britain could still benefit from having a centre-right political party with normie centre-right views, like upholding the rule of law at home and abroad. That slice of the ideological spectrum may no longer secure the 40-50% of the vote it did throughout much of the 20th century, but ditching an entire political philosophy dating back centuries feels, I don’t know, premature?
Whether it be expropriation without compensation, confiscatory taxation or regulation or revoking ILR, it just doesn’t feel very conservative. Governments may have a right to change the rules ex post facto, but it is one that ought to be used sparingly and with good cause.
Because don’t forget: if the state can come for them, they can come for you.
“Nigel Farage has been and is, the Marine Le Pen of British politics.” (I’ll come back to this quote)
There is nothing, Jack, in today’s newsletter with which a sane person could take issue. Whilst reading it, my inner voice shouted out “James Cleverly”; “Rory Stewart”.
But given the short term horizon of politicians, what can the Tories do when they are so discredited that the usual interval of opposition to allow new leaders and plausible (and sane!) policies to emerge is just not available to them? In the sense of the party still retaining a respectable size in the Commons,
It is not available, some say, because of strategies outside their control: such as that Starmer, who, according to some, is pursuing the strategy of pitching the next election as a straight choice between him and Farage. That when it comes to it, the electorate will not vote for a Reform govt. This is the so-called Macron strategy, (not coined by me) used to effect in France to prevent Le Pen from gaining power. But she and her cohorts are proving quite pesky! But in a first-past-the-post system, this analogy is flimsy. In other words, careful what you wish for! Labour has already proved that you can win with historically low percentages.
And so we come to my quote which began this. I think he is! In the sense that, he’ll be around gnawing at the ankles of him or her-to-come. Even if he does not form a govt in 2028-29, he’ll say Reform has come a long way….and….er….the best is yet to come! QED?
Where are the Tories then?