What can the experience of Britain's Conservative Party teach Republicans as they prepare to fight Obama in 2012?

Tim Montgomerie

Britain's Tory Party is popular with nearly all American conservatives at the moment. Modernizing Republicans like the ways in which David Cameron changed the UK Tories, dragging them away from 'old-fashioned' views on candidate selection, the environment and lifestyle diversity. More traditional Republicans are more impressed with David Cameron now that he's in 10 Downing Street. They like his government's welfare reform program, his emphasis on school choice and, most of all, they admire his plan to eradicate Gordon Brown's deficit. In the next couple of days we'll look at lessons from Cameron's early months in government. Today we'll look at ten lessons from Cameron's road to office.

Build a broader appeal, not a radically different party. Before Cameron, Conservatives could talk comfortably about Europe, crime, tax and immigration but not about much else. After five years of Cameron's leadership the Conservatives are also talking about healthcare, education, conservation and civil liberties. They got into trouble when the new breadth wasn't twinned with the old familiars - when they only talked about the new thinking and neglected the old. Only when all themes were blended together (the message of ConservativeHome's shields) was there authenticity and balance. String, woodwind, brass and percussion together. The shop was selling the staple fare but new products were put in the store window.

Don't take any issues off the table. Early in the Cameron leadership (from late 2005 until 2008) there was a policy of deliberate 'economic disarmament'. Cameron decided that the election would be fought on social issues and he attempted to neutralize the economic issue by agreeing with most of the Labour government's big judgments on tax and spending. When the economic crisis hit the British Tories were left looking somewhat naked. Cameron and George Osborne were nimble enough to quickly carve out a distinctive and hawkish deficit policy (but are still struggling to find a growth strategy). There is no danger of the Republicans neglecting economic policy but they should keep working inventively on all major policy fronts - particularly the security front, lest the terror situation deteriorates.

Detoxification of the brand. For many Britons the Conservative Party was ugly before Cameron in its attitudes to the poor and to minority lifestyles. Some called it the 'nasty party'.  Much of that reputation was unfair but Cameron decided to address the problem head on and 'detoxify' the Tory brand. A more respectful view of same-sex relationships, for example, has also bought David Cameron greater opportunity to make the case for traditional marriage. His change agenda can be summarised with four 'C's:

• Candidates: He relentlessly promoted women, candidates from minority backgrounds and gay Conservatives. The Conservative party began not just to look more like Britain but to offer ideas and policies that spoke directly to more of Britain.

• Conservation: A famous visit to a Norwegian glacier - complete with huskies (photo above) - was the most memorable moment in David Cameron's attempt to convert his party to the cause of combating climate change.  Voters were encouraged to vote blue (the Tories' colour) and 'go green'. There is little evidence, however, that the emphasis on global warming was a big success. Voters were - and are - much more interested in energy bills. Conservatives have been most successful electorally when they've focused on local, practical green measures rather than 'change the world' environmentalism.

• Compassion: In echoes of George W Bush's 2000 campaign David Cameron has presented himself as a gentler conservative, concerned about the many poorer communities failed by Labour's big state. The first visit of his leadership was to a project working with disadvantaged youths and his first announcement was a major commission into the causes of persistent poverty. Slowly but surely voters who had done well under previous Tory governments - but who felt too many had been left behind - returned to the party.

• Civil liberties: Once uncompromising domestic security hawks, the Conservatives have about-turned and became vigorous opponents of Labour's plans for a national ID card and for an extended period of detention without charge. 

Build new think tanks that ensure modernization is conservative. Two think tanks, more than any others, built Cameronism. Neither existed at the start of the decade. The Centre for Social Justice* (CSJ) crafted Cameron's compassionate agenda and Policy Exchange (PX) helped his development of policy on education. They were needed because the existing think tanks appeared unenthusiastic about broadening their own policy development. Both the CSJ and PX had strong links to the Conservative Party and incubated talented individuals, much like US think tanks, who have since joined Cameron's government at senior levels.

Tax cuts are still a potent weapon. Cameron may be best known in the USA for the changes he made to the Conservative Party but when his fortunes were at their weakest - in the fall of 2007 and earlier this year when his poll ratings were flagging - he introduced tax cuts and both restored his position. The gentler, greener conservatism may have softened the opposition of the BBC, Guardian and other left-leaning media but tax moved voters.

Lovebomb enemies.  After years of unsuccessfully trying to scare people from voting for Britain's third party - the Liberal Democrats - by, for example, attacking their strong pro-Europeanism, their social permissiveness and their 'soft' approach to crime - the Tories decided that it was better to flatter them and appear to agree with them on issues where there was common ground. This included civil liberties, decentralization, conservatism of the local environment and school funding. The love-bombing strategy was partly a result of Tory fears that negative campaigning against the LibDems had, over the years, only reinforced voters' perceptions of the Conservatives as mean-spirited rather than affecting voters' perceptions of the 'nice' LibDems. The Republicans should consider delegating the harder-edged attacks to third parties ('SwiftBoating' is, I think, the verb!).

Build a big tent. One of the strengths of David Cameron's leadership has been his willingness to involve the party's 'biggest beasts' in the development of party policy. From the traditional left of the party he gave policy advisory roles to Ken Clarke, Stephen Dorrell, John Gummer and Michael Heseltine. Similar roles were given to figures of the right including Peter Lilley and John Redwood. When the GOP chooses a 2012 candidate a sense of bringing the whole party together could be decisive.

Ruthless targeting. Resources were poured into only the most winnable battleground seats. The Conservative leader had complete control of the party operation. He didn't have to worry about the performance of whoever might be in charge of the UK's equivalent of the RNC. Much to the annoyance of individual candidates Conservative HQ centralized all campaign literature and messaging. This centralization meant individual candidates lacked as much freedom as would have been ideal but it prevented big embarrassments that might have distracted from the national message.

Learn the lessons of Cameron's mistakes. David Cameron only increased the Tory share of the vote from a historically low 33% to 37%. Given the scale of the outgoing Labour government's performance that was a modest advance. The problems of the campaign are analysed here but there was a lack of campaign co-ordination, poor use of polling and a failure to turn campaign pledges into retail form. David Cameron also agreed to a format for election debates that probably cost him 2% or 3% of the national vote. What Cameron's changes to the party did succeed in doing, however, was make the Coalition with Nick Clegg's Liberal Democrats possible. The more centrist Conservative Party under Cameron became acceptable as partners. This possibility of bipartisanship might be relevant to the GOP despite the big differences between the electoral systems of Britain and America.

* The CSJ deliberately adopted the language of the Left ("social justice") and infused it with conservative thinking on poverty, emphasizing the family, traditional education and work.

Comments

[Ken Stevens]

"What can the experience of Britain's Conservative Party teach Republicans"

How about:
Avoid our error; display a perceptible difference from your political opponents.
Don't rely on simply being NotObama.

[dg]

"Candidates: He relentlessly promoted women, candidates from minority backgrounds and gay Conservatives. The Conservative party began not just to look more like Britain but to offer ideas and policies that spoke directly to more of Britain."

Hmm, the "A list" didn't do very well at all. I wouldn't recommend it to the Republicans if they want to win.

Conservatives are a traditionalist party and historically they have always won, for the most part, by winning the votes of intelligent white men (working, middle, and upper class) and the exceptions who think like them.

If there are women or black or Indian or Chinese candidates, isn't it the case that they do well because of their personal character and for their tough policies on taxes, traditional marriage, abortion, etc? Character and policies are what matter not skin colour or gender.

"He relentlessly promoted women, candidates from minority backgrounds and gay Conservatives."

This had no effect! Genuine conservatives (whatever their skin colour) must relentlessly promote tax cuts, the constitution, anti-Marxism, and liberty.

[hector]

I dont think the british conservatives and american republicans have that much in common, if I was in america I would vote democrat most of the time.

In my opinion the republican party is stuck in the dark ages. While we have moved with the times and become more inclusive to minority groups, the republican party pretend to be the party of freedom as long as its freedoms of which they improve. The fact that in 2010 they are still debating whether to allow homosexuals in the military is ridiculous.

[anon]

How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

[Marion]

"How to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory"

Quite - given the appalling performance of the Labour government the Conservatives should have won by a landslide - they didn't so they're hardly able to offer advice to the Republicans unless it's learn by our mistakes!

The Republicans should listen to their own grass roots. The Tea Party sprung up because so many felt no party properly represented their views on small goverment and low taxation.

[FaustiesBlog]

Several things:

* Ignore or ride roughshod over civil liberties at your peril.

* People are taxed enough already.

* That government is best which governs least.

* We know when you're lying, so stop taking us for fools.

* You're spending our money, without our permission - that is theft.

* Corporations with balance sheets bigger than the GDP of a country will gain more power, as the power of the individual is gradually eroded. Put a stop to that.

* Lobbyists pervert democracies - we're onto that, too, and we don't like it.

[Josef]

I get the impression from reading this article that conservatives are doing nothing much more than adapting to a culture which has been pushed radically left towards a sort of therepautic liberal totalitarianism in which "mean spirited" views about criminals, single mothers and immigration are supressed so that the most important issues facing our civlisation are effectively brushed under the carpet because they can't be talked about honestly. In the case of the tories, it reveals the Right to be prisoners of the left who are simply mopping up after Labour's financial mess and pretending this is some sort of victory for them. It's just so sad that tories allow themselves to be fooled so easily. Does anyone honestly believe that Cameron would be 'cutting' public spending if he wasnt being forced to by economic circumstances?

The article claims that pushing the tory party left aloowed for a "greater opportunity to make the case for traditional marriage". This is an absurd claim with no basis. Marriage is a social construction which serves no other real purpose besides tying fathers to the family and preserving patriarchy. East Divorce makes marriage and partriarchy obsolete and trying to preserve marriage as an institution is a losing battle unless politicans are prepared to address the easy and anti-male divorce laws, (which of course they are not). It's so pathetic that "right-wingers", instead of analysing why things have gone wrong or how to seriously attempt to reverse our civilisational decline, they are proccupied with spinning their unmitigated failure as some kind of victory. Why do it? What is going through your heads? Do you honestly think that life in America and Britain will improve or that a small government program will be viable if present demographic trends (re. mass immigration and the decline of the traditional family) are allowed to continue? Why kid yourselves?

[Person of Choler]

Do you think that the Republican Establishment should start "love bombing" the tea party enthusiasts? They seem to be rather a large and active bunch.

[DaveP.]

"Britain's Tory Party is popular with nearly all American conservatives at the moment."

Who told you that? The mouse in your pocket? Megan McCain?

The modern Tory brand has little more to do with Thatcher's Tory Party (which is what most Americans think about when they think about Tories at all) than they have to do with Winston Churchill.

Mostly what I've learned form the Tories is that when you erase the definitions between a Conservative party and a Liberal party, all you do is guarantee losses to the Liberals. I notice that erasing differences between Conservatives and Liberals is exactly what this article recommends... and point out that it not only failed in England from teh era of John Major on up, but failed in America in '06 and '08.

[Walter Sobchak]

"Compassion: In echoes of George W Bush's 2000 campaign David Cameron has presented himself as a gentler conservative, concerned about the many poorer communities failed by Labour's big state."

Sorry, been there, done that, got the t-shirt. There will be riots if anybody uses the term "compassionate" amongst conservatives in the US.

[Mark in Texas]

What can Republicans learn from the Tories?

I learned it 20 years ago when the party establishment tossed out Margaret Thatcher and opted to go back to being the Labour Lite Party (Motto: "We aren't any different from Labour but we think that our butts ought to be sitting in the chairs."

The Tea Party movement is an indication that other people learned that lesson as well.

[Andrew Lale]

'David Cameron only increased the Tory share of the vote from a historically low 33% to 37%'. So the Republicans have nothing to learn from him whatsoever. Agree with Faustiesblogs comment 100%. Marion too. It is hard to say what David Camerons Conservative party is. It has no discernable character or common thread. It certainly isn't traditional Tory, and it isn't Classical Liberal. Unlike Thatcherism, which was determinedly on the side of the little guy, the white van man, the real working people of the country, Cameronism seems to be designed to appeal to pious towny folk who care about the appearance of things MUCH more than they care about the reality of things. Given how stupendously bad Labour were, the Nazis could have picked up four percentage points against them...

[Bedd Gelert]

"What can the experience of Britain's Conservative Party teach Republicans as they prepare to fight Obama in 2012?"

That Obama-esque policies, as embraced by the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition in the UK, win elections ??

That being a right-wing neocon crazy in bed with the Tea Party will have you wandering the wilderness for the next forty years ?

That the British Conservative Party has nothing in common with the Republican Party ?

That smearing the opposition as socialists when they are nothing of the sort only succeeds in making people realise how stupid you are ?

[Shaun Bennett]

"What can the experience of Britain's Conservative Party teach Republicans as they prepare to fight Obama in 2012?"

Thats easy: whatever we did, just do the opposite.

After all, we frittered away a 20 point lead and just about managed to win the election by shear luck. Its a mark of just how unpopular the Brown government really was!

US Republicans must-unlike the British Conservatives-stick to a strong, clear conservative message and not run after every fad and airheaded nonsense that the leader happens to think is 'in' this week.

[MG]

Don't agree with all the points by Tim but the general point that Cameron had to reduce the unfair image of the "nasty" party is correct. However painful it might be for some who still don't want to face up to it and still think that one last heave to the right would have solved it. Where I think there aren't such good lessons was the weakness in a coherent and consistent message. This became more apparent closer to polling day and took the edge off what should have been a better result. That said I don't think there would have been a landslide Conservative win as the starting point was too far behind.

[Mr Angry]

I'm sorry but it is stretching credulity to suggest that there is anything much that the Republicans can usefully learn from the Cameroons. For a start the great driver of conservative electoral success in the US is the Tea Party movement who are more likely to be alienated by the Hilton/Cameron agenda than they are attracted by it.