A Statecraft Analysis of the Conservative Party
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by University of Birmingham Research Archive, E-theses Repository A Statecraft Analysis of the Conservative Party: 2001 to 2010 By Anthony John Hopkins A thesis submitted to the University of Birmingham for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Political Science and International Studies College of Social Sciences The University of Birmingham December 2011 University of Birmingham Research Archive e-theses repository This unpublished thesis/dissertation is copyright of the author and/or third parties. The intellectual property rights of the author or third parties in respect of this work are as defined by The Copyright Designs and Patents Act 1988 or as modified by any successor legislation. Any use made of information contained in this thesis/dissertation must be in accordance with that legislation and must be properly acknowledged. Further distribution or reproduction in any format is prohibited without the permission of the copyright holder. Abstract This thesis investigates the Conservative Party between 2001 and 2010 and makes its principle contribution to the literature on this period by highlighting the importance of examining how the party has sought office, something which it argues has previously been insufficiently addressed. In order to do this, Jim Bulpitt’s statecraft approach is critically assessed, clarified, improved and adapted in order to provide a framework of analysis that is systematically applied for the first time to a political party in opposition. It argues that accounts of the Conservative Party under Duncan Smith should look beyond the theme of leadership failure to better understand the complex interaction of the party’s putative statecraft and Labour’s dominance of the party political context. It examines how the existing literature highlights the failure of the party to make further improvements and it is argued that the statecraft intentions of Howard were cautious because of the circumstances in which he became leader and the requirement to re-establish the Conservative Party as a credible political party after it edged towards the precipice in late 2003. This thesis argues that after 2005, the constraints on David Cameron altered, but remained, and that rather than exploring the party in relation to ideological change or party decontamination, these should be seen as part of the means used to return the party to an electable position, not as ends in themselves. 1 Dedication This thesis is dedicated to Ruth, and my late sister Charlotte 2 Acknowledgements During the course of writing this thesis I have accrued debts of a level that would cause even George Osborne, a man well equipped to tackle imponderable debt, mild perturbation. It seems somewhat inadequate to just acknowledge them here, but I hope it will suffice until a ‘Plan B’ occurs to me. There are a number of people without whom this thesis would not have been possible. The first mention goes to Peter Kerr, whose input predates this PhD, and stretches back to a phone call in 2002 when I first secured a place at Birmingham to study politics whilst stood in a field and taking a break from muck spreading. Throughout three years of undergraduate study, some of the best years of my life, Pete tolerated my frequent, and often provocative interruptions to his lectures and seminars with great forbearance. Later, it was Pete who first (and doubtless now he thinks foolishly) suggested I consider studying for a PhD, and agreed to supervise it, originally with Steven Kettell, formerly of the Birmingham Parish, and to whom thanks are also due. I shall be forever grateful for the chance to pursue this thesis. Whilst I would like to thank all the staff in the Department of Politics and International Studies at Birmingham, I would particularly like to mention Bob Watt who was personal tutor for three years, and became a good friend. I would also like to mention David Dunn, Colin Thain, and Linda Wall, who have all provided friendship and encouragement over the years. I would also like to thank the late Jim Bulpitt for developing the statecraft approach that first stimulated my interested in pursuing this thesis. Everything I’ve heard about Jim Bulpitt makes me wish I’d known him. There are a number of friends who have contributed to keeping me vaguely sane over the years, and also require mention here. Firstly, from my days as an undergraduate at Birmingham: Gareth Williams, Richard Cochrane, James Easton, Mark Glover, Verity Baker, Michelle McWilliam, Lois McCloud, Saeka Ahmed, Jamila Kapasi, Helen Burt, Yagna Shamji, and Team Geoff. 3 As a postgraduate, I would particularly like to thank four thoroughly decent chaps: Andrew Futter, Mark McClelland, David Norman and Oz Hassan whose friendship and encouragement has proven invaluable, especially over the last few months of this process in 2011. I also owe a great debt to Urszula Huntermann, who became one of my closest friends and got me through the otiose masters year, without which I would not be the academic I am today… In the wider PhD community, I would also like to thank Cherry Miller, Ken Searle, Ben Taylor, Jake Diliberto, and Zoe Pflaeger. My friends in Inkberrow and beyond also merit a mention, and especially Mark Hemmings, Martin Burford, Stuart Elliott, Danny Johnson, Paul Pinfield, Jack & Betty Smith, Norman Biggs, Katherine Gent and Caroline Marock. There are others, but they know who they are. I should also mention my family, my sister Louise, my Parents and those who could not delay the inevitable long enough to see this day, particularly my Grandparents (Ray and Val Hopkins, John and Betty Hillson) and also William ‘Bub’ Guest and Auntie Mary Lusher. I would also like to thank my garden, leeks, snowdrops, and my bees, who have for years provided me with a sanctuary from which to escape any mention of ontology and epistemology! However, there is one person I owe more than I can ever convey, and that is Ruth. She has patiently and calmly endured putting up with me, which has been far from easy, as I’ve worked towards completing this thesis, and without her help and support it simply would not have happened. Anthony Hopkins Birmingham, 2011 4 Contents Introduction 8 Chapter 1 : Development Of Research and Conservative Literature Review 1.1 Introduction 15 1.2 Research Questions 16 1.3 Reviewing The Literature 16 1.3.1 Literature 2001 to 2005 16 1.3.2 Literature 2005 to 2010 27 1.4 The Research Process 31 1.4.1 Introduction 31 1.4.2 Informing Of Methodology: Ontology and Epistemology 31 1.4.3 Research Methods 33 1.5 Conclusion 38 Chapter 2 : Statecraft - Theoretical and Development 2.1 Introduction 41 2.2 Statecraft: An Alternative Approach 42 2.2.1 Bulpitt's Statecraft 43 2.2.2 Dimensions of Statecraft 45 2.3 The Development of Statecraft 47 2.3.1 Introduction 47 2.3.2 Review of Bulpitt's Work 48 2.3.3 The Work of other Authors 56 2.4 Wider and Specific Criticisms of Statecraft 59 2.5 Structure and Agency 63 2.6 Intentionalism 75 5 2.7 Rationality 76 2.8 NRG 77 2.9 Ideational 88 2.10 Statecraft Framework and Application 92 2.11 Conclusion 98 Chapter 3: 2001 to 2003 - The Conservative Party under Iain Duncan Smith 3.1 Introduction 100 3.2 Party Management 102 3.2.1 Informal Party Management 109 3.2.2 Tendencies 112 3.2.3 Summary 117 3.3 Strategy 118 3.4 Political Argument Hegemony 127 3.5 Competence 134 3.6 Conclusion 141 Chapter 4: 2003 to 2005 - The Conservative Party under Michael Howard 4.1 Introduction 143 4.2 Party Management 145 4.2.1 Party leadership 146 4.2.2 Howard as leader 150 4.2.3 Tendencies 152 4.3 Strategy 158 4.3.1 Policy 162 4.3.2 Election Campaign 165 4.4 Political Argument Hegemony 169 6 4.5 Competence 179 4.6 Conclusion 184 Chapter 5: 2005 to 2010 - The Conservative Party under David Cameron 5.1 Introduction 187 5.2 Party Management 189 5.2.1 Leadership 191 5.2.2 Wider Party Management 198 5.2.3 Tendencies 205 5.3 Strategy 210 5.3.1 Brand Decontamination 217 5.3.2 Implementation 222 5.4 Political Argument Hegemony 228 5.4.1 The Big Society 233 5.4.2 Party political factors 234 5.5 Competence 239 5.6 Conclusion 246 Epilogue: The Coalition 249 Conclusion 256 Bibliography 268 7 Introduction For much of the twentieth century the Conservative Party dominated the British Party political landscape to the extent that it has been referred to as the Conservative Century (Seldon and Ball, 1994). Yet as the century came to a close, the party once considered a master of reinventing itself in order to overcome obstacles to its pursuit of office, seemed more concerned with internecine conflict, tub-thumping populism, and an obsession with Europe than trying to meet the challenge of New Labour. It’s not uncommon for a political party to lose one election badly every now and then; but it has been very rare for the Conservative Party to lose two consecutive elections, by such a margin as they did in 1997 and 2001, and even less common for it to lose a third (Green & Cowley, 2005, p. 47). Yet this is exactly what the Conservative Party managed to do, and even in the fourth successive general election it has only managed to recover office through the formation of a coalition with the Liberal Democrats.