Conservative Mainstream - what’s in a name?
Nik Darlington 12.09pm
Yesterday, I commented on Rachel Sylvester’s Times article on the future of the coalition. It caused quite a stir (Ms Sylvester’s, not mine). Tim Montgomerie was aptly and ably fast out of the traps (he blogged the night before Sylvester’s column even appeared in print) to confirm that allies of the Prime Minister are closer to the Liberal way of thinking (Tim calls them ”Liberal Conservatives) than the likes of “Brady, Carswell, David, Redwood and other members of the Conservative mainstream”, who by implication Tim identifies as the “unreconstructed elements” in Sylvester’s piece.
Tim Montgomerie is hugely popular and not short of informants. There is no reason, therefore, to doubt the truthfulness of his subsequent soundings, which produced “hot denials…from good sources”. In her own article, Rachel Sylvester points to the self-evident problems with her theory of extended coalition, chiefly that Conservative backbenchers would “go nuts”. Tim claims that the “general view” is a few trinkets for Liberals (note my lack of “Democrat” appendage) who the Tories like, but nothing approaching the present formal arrangement. I think that the real divergance is that Sylvester’s and Montgomerie’s little black books contain different sets of contacts. What is instructive about Sylvester’s view is that it appears to come from many figures in the Cabinet (unless she is attributing several quotes to only one or two sources); conversely, Tim offers a “general view”. Irrespective, Tim’s is the more realistic analysis at this stage in the Parliament.
Yet still Tim persists with this manichean notion of the Cameroons being “Liberal Conservatives” and the Tory Right being the “Conservative Mainstream”. It is quite harmless (and even enjoyable) to shuffle people according to different labels, different stables and different books that rest on bedside tables. The Conservative party is its own coalition of groupings. So, obviously, are the Liberal Democrats and, to a lesser extent, the Labour party.
The problem with Tim’s “Mainstream” nomenclature is it is a rather ironic misappropriation of an extant grouping. Conservative Mainstream - and its corollary Parliamentary Mainstream - was set up in 1996 as an affiliate of the TRG. Essentially, Parliamentary Mainstream was the parliamentary TRG and still is to a great extent, though membership is open to anyone. Until the Conservative party returned to Government it was run by immigration minister, Damian Green.
Paul Waugh pointed this out when Tim launched his “Mainstream” versus “Liberals” theory last December. The Sunday Telegraph reported that unhappy backbenchers were considering calling themselves “Conservative Mainstream”, suggestive of very short memories.
The caveat was that Conservative Mainstream was as derelict as Battersea Power Station. Its old website’s events page was last updated in November 2007; the only other organisations that can rival it for similar inactivity (or broadcasting of such) are local Conservative Associations. It could be argued that the Mainstream name was up for grabs.
Alas, moves were already afoot to revive the it and since then a new website has appeared. The true Conservative Mainstream is very much alive under the leadership of chairman Jonathan Evans (MP for Cardiff North). He is supported by four vice-chairmen (two from the new intake): Laura Sandys (South Thanet), Robert Buckland (Swindon South), the chairman of the Health Select Committee, Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell (Charnwood) and the chairman of the Treasury Select Committee, Andrew Tyrie (Chichester).
Regular events take place for parliamentarians, such as recent talks by journalists Peter Riddell, Adam Boulton and Michael White. New publications are being planned and there’s even a link to fresh young thinking in the form of think tank Bright Blue.
What’s in a name? That which we call a rose by any other name would smell as sweet.
Shakespeare makes a good point. We shouldn’t get bogged down in arguments about names when the policies are more important. If certain members of the Conservative party want to call themselves Conservative Mainstream when another organisation has already been doing so for fifteen years, there is nothing stopping them. They’ll probably get away with it too, because bickering with the Government makes good headlines. The whole thing just looks a bit odd, that’s all.
Twitter: @NikDarlington
