This article was written anonymously by a Conservative Supporter in response to a tweet by Fr. Calvin Robinson, a conservative commentator, who attacked a number of Conservative Party groups as as left wing infiltrators.
What is a commentator? A commentator, effectively, is a person who tries to gain legitimacy by reflecting the views of an ideological population or a value system, and analyse the approach by political parties through the lense of this. This inherently is not a problem, as many commentator’s give valuable insights into perspectives on issues with their ideological flair. However, people such as the Reverend Calvin Robinson tweeting out “Why is there a Black Conservatives event?I’m not a black conservative. I’m a conservative. Skin-colour is irrelevant. Conservatives do not subscribe to Leftist ideologies, identity politics, CRT. These are not conservatives. They’re well-meaning liberals adopting neo-Marxism.” followed by “The rot in the Conservative Party is deep. Tory Reform Group, LGBTQ+ Conservatives, Women 2 Win, Conservative Women’s Organisation, 50:50 Parliament, CARFE, and now 2022 Group. The Party has been captured by liberals obsessed with identity politics. Infiltrated by the Left.” This was in reference to Steve Baker (a self professed Libertarian) showing support to footballers supporting standing up to racism by taking a knee and supporting the 2022 group.
The question is, what does this reflect? Though for sure the principles he espouses are certainly coherent with the current party, where identity doesn’t matter but instead the belief system held by all these people are the uniting factor and everything else should be forgotten. This is not inherently a flawed idea. What is a flawed idea, is that anyone who does not subscribe to this idea is Liberals and/or Cultural Marxists. This though is not the case. There is a rich history of the Liberal Tory movement of the 1820’s and the following development of more Liberal Conservatism that predates any reminisce of Thatcherism, but even within this, i find it shocking that anyone would deem a member of any government standing up and stating that racism is bad, and people who are showing support to those who are also saying that is something to be against.
The reality is that, on the issue at hand, what Baker was talking about, is not reflective of the possible legitimate criticisms of certain demonstrations which involved destruction of property and vandalism. Footballers bending a knee is a prime example of what we deem to be important in today’s society, civil society. The ability to demonstrate and share your views is something this country takes pride on, and people who demonstrate and take action for their beliefs is nothing to be against, and the government being for a demonstration made by citizens of this nation is the incoherent argument for which to base yourself to be a true conservative, whereas the others are liberals. This is not a solely liberal policy, its one of the foundations of this nation’s values, and as conservatives, we are a party and ideology which should champion it, especially considering the claims by many conservatives that they feel as if they are being silenced and have referred to free speech laws in their defence. I agree with them that free speech is important, but in contrast to Robinson apparently, I believe it’s a universality, whereas he deems it to be something that is solely for his side.
On the second issue in the tweet, being against sections of society having their own group. I am someone who’s not in favour of identity politics. I believe we should not place our identity as someone so important as to demonise others who don’t share it, and put on a pedestal those who do. I also dont believe its the most important thing to be tackling in this country, and I think that we should all primarily come together and just go through our daily lives without considering what gender identity someone may be. With that in mind, the idea that groups such as LGBT Conservatives shouldn’t exist is propostuous. It is something that doesn’t exclude people, that brings people into the party to discuss how to make the party better, and influences its relations to groups that clearly have struggles in relating to a party that they, especially now, deem to have let them down. It’s important for any party to have these groups as they form a basis of influencing how we look at the country from new perspectives, and are important in invigorating the party to keep up with modern times, something the party is known for but since the 1980’s has struggled with. Now, this may be new to some people, but as an avid football attendee, I’ve seen signs and flags across stadiums of various communities within the fanbase that are being represented, and it’s a thing of pride, I’m sure, for many of those. Philosophically speaking, but I’m sure that many in these groups feel the same when they feel as if they have an area of discussion and debate, and can feel represented in the corridors of power that influence government policy.
The most harmful thing though, is the blatant attack on the Tory Reform Group. For those who don’t know, this is a group that forwards the principles of the One-Nation Conservatives, which is the more liberal side of the party. This idea was originally theorised by Disraeli and coined by Baldwin, but its principles actually predate Peel, the first Prime Minister of the Conservative party. This also has findings in the Tory party, with Pitt being one of the first Prime Ministers to call for the end of the slave trade, Liverpool, along with Castlereagh and then Canning, developing the idea of Liberal Toryism, and Canning’s Little Senate before his time with Liverpool boosting the principles of Liberal Toryism. Effectively, the left side of the Conservative party has a rich history within government and within the party, and has only been out of the limelight during the post-Thatcher period of the party, mainly following John Major. This attack of Conservative identity, ironically so, shows the true agenda of Robinson, as someone who solely wants his idea of Conservatism to be the dominant force in Conservative party politics, and brands anyone who disagreed as ‘not conservative’, yet the reality is that his form of conservatism clearly is not popular with the public, and in fact even with the short tenure of this new government, which is firmly more aligned with Robinson, has had a disaster with the mini-budget being a failure, and poll numbers showing 30%+ deficit to Labour. The reality is that the party needs the Tory Reform Group more than ever to save it from the hard right economics that in a time of a cost-of-living crisis, has freaked the markets out. The markets, for the record, is one of the basis for the hard right as ‘free-marketeers’.
What we have learnt through this look at what Robinson says is that commentators don’t always reflect realities of situations, and sure perhaps he is representing some people, but foundationally, it’s dripped in fiction and blindness through ideology to the realities of the Conservative party. This party should be welcoming to all who wish to contribute to the forward thinking history of the party, as Peel did what was best for the country, Sailisbury united people over unionism and Derby and Baldwin furthered democracy. Robinson is someone equally who deserves to be in the party, but his attitude to those who differ replicates that of the lard left in Labour and their attitudes to the moderates. He in fact argues against himself by wanting people united by Conservatism but then discounting those who disagree with him as people of the left. He is a hypocrite, and in my personal view, has discounted himself as someone who can be taken seriously as a Conservative commentator.
The Next Conversation 