Were the Conservatives the natural party of government between 1951-2007? (45)

There is abundant evidence to suggest the Conservatives were seen as the natural party throughout the initial era of 1951 to 1997. However, after Blair’s New Labour huge and resounding landslide victory in 1997, definitions of a “natural party” have become more complicated; and it being ascribed to the Conservatives far from being accurate.

Agree: * Throughout 1951 to 1997, the Conservatives were in power for 35/46 years. No Labour government ever won two successive elections. * Conservatives dominated for long periods between 1951 to 1997, with 3 consecutive victories during 1951 to 1964, and 4 consecutive victories during 1979 to 1992. * The only landslides came from the Conservatives during 1951 to 1997, in the general elections of 1959, 1983 and 1987; they had a majority of over 100 seats during these administrations * Many commentators and books have described the 20th century as the “Conservative century/age”. * Conservatives certainly had the “appetite for power” during 1951 to 1997; their energy and direction was focused on winning general elections * Conservatives have never really been tied to a single ideology, Labour before 1997 focused wholly on socialism and derivatives of it. This meant the Conservatives were able to adapt more easily: Churchill accepted the welfare state, whilst Thatcher was able to reposition the Conservatives towards the right wing of the party * Pre 1997, Labour tended to always focus on the working class; the Conservatives were seen to be focusing and appealing more to the nation as a whole. Even the radical Thatcherite government could appeal to traditional working class communities (Thatcherite Conservatives). Particularly with the growth of the affluent middle classes, Conservatives were seen more in tune with them. * Pre 1997 Labour was badly ravaged by internal divisions (Bevanites vs. Gaitskellites, Loony Left vs. Kinnock’s reforms), thus they were never effective in opposition. * Industrial discontent and rise of trade union militancy pre 1997 was frequently ascribed to the Labour party (who were committed to the needs of the trade unions as one of their higher priorities), events like the failure of In Place of Strife and the Winter of Discontent placed a very bad and unappealing image on the Labour party. * Conservatives traditionally had the support of elites and privileged in the nation, so they could command more funding; as well as popular press support, that is before 1997. * Pre 1997, Conservatives tended to have the better leaders. The likes of Macmillan and Thatcher were arguably the most influential Conservative PMs, in contrast to the most influential Labour PMs of (this is a personal opinion) only Harold Wilson, it simply felt that the Conservatives had the greater political intellect skill to the run the nation * One could also argue pre 1997 that Labour was simply unlucky at the time they arrived at office, due to poor and bleak economic outlooks. For example, Wilson in 1964 faced growing economic problems of a lack of modernisation, and again in 1974 he faced the after impacts of the OPEC oil crisis which eventually set the tone for high inflation and unemployment, coupled with industrial unrest

Disagree: * The almost revolutionary 1997 general election victory for Blair’s New Labour completely changed the political scene. The Conservatives were defiantly no longer so dominant after 1997. * One can trace their gradual decline from 1992 of Major’s administration, which was tainted with internal divisions over Europe (internal divisions that were as explicit as this in the Conservative party were exceptionally rare), and countless reports of sleaze. * After 1997, the Conservatives seemed to have lost their “appetite for power”. * From 1997 to 2007, there were 4 different Conservative leaders, again something unique in the party history; as well as losing badly in subsequent elections of 2001 and 2005 * Labour did win general elections pre 1997 and they did have influential PMs. If the Conservatives were truly the natural party, they wouldn’t have lost general elections; indeed they wouldn’t have lost in such a huge margin as seen in 1966 * A growing less deferential society, who were more willing to be critical and satirical of their leaders, meant the image of the traditional Conservatives being the “Knight of the Shires” did have to change, seen through the choice of Edward Heath, first non-privately educated Tory, as leader. They weren’t wholly adaptable, in many cases they were forced to adapt * Growing apathy after 1997 meant definitions of a natural party became more and more obscure. A more affluent and consumerist society meant traditional loyalties towards parties declined, seen through the gradual decrease in the number of party members.

Thus to conclude, there is seemingly an abundant body of evidence to prove that the Conservatives were indeed the natural party of government, but in a modified time period, that of 1951 to 1997. They commanded huge political power, coupled with seemingly unified desire and appetite for political victory; even if that meant the radical and populist Thatcher had to initially destroy the assumed “Wets” of her cabinet during 1979 to 1983. However, by 1997, with modernisation and the acceptance of the blurry neo-liberal consensus that Thatcherism had entailed, Labour saw itself reborn under the charismatic leadership of the apparent classless Tony Blair. He led his party to 3 straight general election victories, which was unprecedented for Labour and for the nation too. By 2007, definitions of a natural party of government have become anything but palpable, with the nation rejoicing in their new found forms of affluence and prosperity, not in traditional tribal loyalties towards political parties. Explicitly and blatantly, the Conservatives were the natural party pre 1997; however, the New Labour revolution has completely destroyed and shattered any ideas of a “natural party”.