I’ve always hated maths. Long ago I decided that as long as I could count the correct change I’m due in a pub, I’d get by just fine.
But as notes began to pass without change heading in the other direction – I did away with maths for good.
One thing I still take pride in, for all my limitations, is being able to mathematically deduce whether A is mathematically larger than B.
For instance, on June 9, I saw that the Conservatives won 318 seats to Labour’s 262 – but what united those who voted for the winners?
Even with Labour’s defeat, the 12 million who voted for comrade Corbyn, can be broadly assimilated into two camps: hereditary Labour supporters and, those who felt energised by what was a great campaign.
The second lot, many hitherto disengaged, were young, socially liberal, and easily identifiable.
Just like the religious, you could identify what this second lot wanted on almost any issue – terrorism? America must be too blame, gender classification? At least 60, immigration? The more the merrier.
And they had a leader who embodied this outlook – a leader who, just like the religious, is so ideologically driven, that he knows the answers to questions a priori.
Conservatives campaign during the 2017 General Election.
What then, of the winners?
What is the point of the Conservatives, who voted for them, and why?
I’ve asked this question to several Tories, and it’s worth re-asking here: how many of you who voted blue, felt happy about the decision?
A terrible campaign, embodied by a manifesto which seemed so un-conservative, a leader who proved she cannot lead, and policies which seemed incapable of stirring passion in the most ardent right winger.
Perhaps then, for all the calamities this time round, two opportunities have presented themselves which may reshape what it is to be conservative.
Firstly, the working classes have given up on Labour; it’s now, as it has been under many different auspices, a middle class party.
The working classes have long felt disenfranchised, not just with London-centric Labour, but with politics more generally.
Immigration deflated wages, but mentioning this meant you were a bigot. Questioning cultural compatibilities, which led to preventable tragedies in Rochdale et al, meant you were an Islamophobe; while the whole time London pointed at the merits of globalisation, while many in the UK only saw its defects.
Address these issues. Take on the honourable mantle that Labour was born to do, adopt genuinely socially conservative policies: put the community first, make people pay in before they can take out, control immigration, and make people assimilate to British customs.
While at the same time, don’t interfere in matters of everyday life – let people choose their own life paths – thereby keeping a key tenant of libertarianism.
Lastly, if the Labour party has a socialist leader, would the Conservative’s not benefit from a conservative at the helm?
Let the Conservative party vision be one in which the state is small, only interfering in the afore mentioned matters which touch on issues essential to the maintenance of a British society.
And then, step back.
That’s it – and whether you agree ideologically or not, it’s a clear position: it would resonate with many who begrudgingly voted Tory; it would above all else, be conservative.
Reddit this article ↓