It’s a bit weird writing anonymously, so I’ll give you something to work with- I’m a member of the Labour Party. I have been for nearly 5 years, been part of plenty of election campaigns, served in positions of responsibility in my local party, spent far too many hours on the door knock for someone my age, and thoroughly discussed many minutes of the last meeting. I’m what I’d hope to characterise as “proper Labour”, I’ve worked hard for the party, and I intend to continue doing so, but that isn’t what this article is about.

I’m in a relationship with a member of the Conservative Party. And I have been for a good while now. I love him. I really do. But other people aren’t so accepting. 

Telling people I’m dating a Tory elicits a response I should have seen coming, given the current state of division in our political discourse, but I’m far too much of an optimist to. “What are you doing that for?”, from someone who’s never met him. “I don’t know how you do that!” from someone who doesn’t know him. “I couldn’t do that!” from someone who doesn’t know what they’re missing! You’d think he had some contagious disease- and to be fair, I have had people move physically away from me after finding out! The sudden change in people I considered friends is really quite sad, especially given I’m more involved in Labour and the Left than they have ever been, and they’re trying to tell me I’m being a bad leftie, and what I’m doing is wrong. 

One girl, who I didn’t think was ever expecting to be this blunt in her dislike for real life Conservatives actually stood in front of her, upon meeting him, literally refused to talk to him, positioned her body language away, wouldn’t look at him, but was entirely willing to talk to me, sat next to him! 

People on the left, like me, have a habit of thinking they’re better than people on the right, and being intolerant and acting like engaging and debating them is beneath them, and thinking it’s justified because they’re Tories. They seem to forget who is running the country, and how winning means a thorough argument for Labour having to be made. Anyone who chooses to associate with a Tory is contaminated with the same brush, as a Tory- wrong and acting immorally. Thinking we’re better than Tories has really worked out well for us in the last few elections, right? The public agree we’re better than the Tories, right? Oh wait… 

The general public isn’t so black and white, they just want what’s best for their family and the country as a whole. 

Those Never Kissed A Tory shirts disgust me. They’re acting as though no world exists outside of politics. As though we’re lacking in division in this country. I thought the time of people being punished socially for who they loved was long over. What does this say about our national discourse? Our tolerance for other people? The expected purity, the desired purity, to never question the desired belief. What a scary pursuit- to want people who have never questioned, and thus strengthened their belief. They just say to people on the other side, that we don’t want to associate with you, we don’t want your votes, we don’t want you in our lives. And well, no matter where you stand politically, to seek to govern is to seek to represent the masses. Those shirts are bad for our political discourse because they inhibit the ability of the opposition to provide a strong alternative, because they reduce the ability to claim to represent the people. 

They’re not even a campaigning tool, they’re not pro Left, they’re just a pure instrument of division. And they’re exactly what Labour, in my opinion, doesn’t need. Do we forget people have personal lives, are well rounded people and aren’t just their political views? We seek to govern, so we need to seek to represent the people, by being tolerant of other people’s views. I thought the Left thought love trumps hate and love should never be a political statement.  

My relationship should not be a political statement.

I’d just like to see a political discourse where we can all debate freely as equals. None of the Tories I’ve come across are pursuing the values of the Conservative Party because they like watching people suffer or enjoy horrendous inequality in a society, they are doing what they believe to be right. So are we. So instead of attempting to demonise the opposition, we could just accept that we are bound to disagree and find a way to campaign against each other in elections, but love each other in life. 

Love is love, right? 

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.

Why we should return to two tier counties

It is often argued nowadays that local government must become more efficient and compact. The unitarisation that has followed has broken up or merged councils to create new unitary authorities in the name of this aforementioned “efficiency”. However this policy in itself is flawed in my opinion and is so for three key reasons; representation, collaboration and specialisation. These reasons are why I believe we should bring back Avon and the two tier counties.

In Defence of Representation

We cannot represent smaller communities with monolithic huge councils nor mid size unitaries. This is where small district councils hold their strength and utility. South Gloucestershire for example has to represent the urban communities of the wider Kingswood area, the northern fringe of Bristol and the rural communities around Yate and Thornbury such as Alveston or pucklechurch. This is quite difficult and builds a reliance on the often elderly tory dominated parish councils whose turnout figures would make any true democrat collapse in horror. District councils are small enough to represent communities but big enough to wield some political and financial power. County councils can then take the role of representing the larger communities and do the more strategic running of large-scale services in that wider interest that they can represent. This is representation done right, local people running local services for locals in their local area.

In Defence of Collaboration

Many hands make light work and this is true in the context of local government. District councils could trial out policies on behalf of county councils and county councils can help district councils collaborate. District councils can learn from their fellow district councils. The more councils we have the more the opportunity for innovations in the ways local councils provide services. Districts can consult on county council services while counties can help with procurement for their districts. We have already seen examples of councils in this way. Just look at Devon with the county council acting in a strategic role in tackling climate change, guiding the districts while councils like Mid Devon district council implement change. Bringing back two-tier counties would see more of this ideally . Now yes this is an ideal but shouldn’t we be building the ideal?

In Defence of Specialisation

A jack of all trades is a master of none but still better than a master of one. And the one virtue of unitary councils is their general ability to do anything while specialising in nothing. Two tier councils can develop specialised services for their area, for instance a more unique education provision over a larger area with an upper tier authority or a more personal way of providing welfare or employment support. Specialisation is why the NHS has many different trusts for different functions. One size fits all authorities just aren’t good enough for our health so why should we trust them for our local governance? Specialised services are what we need for local government. The central government with its eye watering bureaucracy can manage the generalised affairs and we can enjoy the fruits of specialised local labour. We can see this ever present in the juggling of BANES (Bath and North East Somerset) council which must provide for the needs of the urban city of Bath while doing the same for the rural north east Somerset area with vastly different needs. A generalist council is a council that can’t specialise for its local community and as a result we all suffer.

In Defence of Avon

Avon itself was a much maligned county. Avon was hated. Avon was the butt of jokes. But Avon was what we needed even if we couldn’t see it. It was a beauty and it is a beauty that we need now more than ever. So let’s bring back that beautiful county with new gorgeous districts, and many more pretty county councils so we may make local government work better. You may disagree, be disgusted by or detest my words but in defence of Avon I stand for what I have said and hopefully many of you will stand with me. Standing in defence of Avon County Council.

This Article was written by Valerian, an irregular contributor to The Next Conversation. If you have been inspired and would like to join us as a regular, or irregular, contributor, please message @aidancccc on twitter, join our discord or email us at thenextconversationuk@gmail.com