Common Ground Conservatism: Firm Foundations for a Broad Church and a United Congregation

Co-founder of Whole Nation Conservatives Miranda Jupp is a longstanding North East Conservative activist and approved candidate. Prior to the 2024 General Election she was Chief of Staff to Sir Simon Clarke.

In recent weeks, commentary around ‘red lines’ that prospective parliamentary candidates are expected to commit to and the decision not to restore the whip to Lord Barwell has led to some suggestions that Kemi's Conservative party is no longer a broad church movement. 

This has been both decried and praised from various quarters, with plenty of instances of people mischaracterising the position of those they disagree with. At times this has descended into absurdity (including me being labelled as a ‘wet’ escaping ‘Kemi's purge’ by Guido, which provoked hilarity amongst those who know anything about my politics!).

It is important to recognise the importance of a common, coherent world view amongst those seeking to represent our party, be it at local or national level. It is pretty uncontentious to state that as Conservatives we should be advocates for all those who work hard to build a better lives for themselves and their families. As Kemi has expressed well, a Conservative concept of fairness rests on hard work getting its just reward, and the expectation that people play by the rules (and that there are consequences for those who don't). The role of government is to set a framework which allows businesses and individuals to generate the prosperity which enables us all to enjoy a better quality of life; not dictating what that path should look like for each of us (provided we don't unreasonably infringe on others options through our actions). 

If voters are unclear what our party stands for then they are unlikely to be confident in our ability to make the right decisions to deliver for the country - this lack of clarity was a significant issue on doorsteps in 2024, with a muddle of manifesto announcements and attempts to be all things to all men during the tail end of the last Conservative government leading to some challenging conversations for canvassers.

There are of course differences of opinions on how an authentic, broad Conservative vision should translate into specific policy choices. Whilst this article will touch on some of the recent bones of contention, a more important topic if we are to return to Government and build a better Britain is how we handle differences of opinion and why some red lines do need to be non-negotiable if we are to offer the electorate a convincing plan for delivery.

This is why Kemi is right to expect parliamentary candidates, who will have a major role to play in implementing the plans of a future Conservative Government, to accept the policy direction she has chosen on key issues. The electorate will rightly be sceptical of our ability to deliver in the absence of agreement of common goals.

Whilst our policy programme is still under development, there has been extensive discussion around 2 ‘red line' positions that have already been set out: the rejection of the Net Zero by 2050 target as the basis for energy policy, and leaving the ECHR to return full control of immigration and borders policy to parliament. Some have implied that these are not comfortable decisions for many of those in the so-called One Nation wing of the party (what we mean by One Nation is an a whole article for another day, and it is a tradition with a strong Conservative history and a valid place in the party, though its proponents must be careful not to confuse the common ground and the centre ground!). It is however important to understand why these choices have been taken, and how there is still space for sensible discussion in the associated policy areas.

Firstly Net Zero. Caring for our environment and leaving a better inheritance for future generations is an inherently Conservative priority: as Burke stated, society is a contract between the living, the dead and the yet to be born. As Kemi set out in The Telegraph recently (1), our rejection of binding a Net Zero target is not based in climate change denial, but grounded in a realistic assessment of what is affordable and deliverable in a manner which considers both public consent and other important priorities such as energy security, national security and economic growth. The constraints of the post-pandemic and post invasion of Ukraine world require us to differentiate between nice to have aspirations and immediate national priorities. 

Like many Conservatives who care deeply about the environment I look forward to seeing some of the exciting technologies under development reaching the point where they offer consumers a better AND greener alternative. But we must also be realistic that in some areas we aren't there yet and committing national self-harm on green ideological grounds, for example by refusing to utilise North Sea resources at a point when we are not ready to totally move away from gas and oil, is neither sensible nor affordable. Indeed it isn't particularly green either if we end up importing higher carbon footprint LNG or offshoring manufacturing to coal powered China! 

This shift of direction from Kemi is measured, pragmatic conservatism. It is about taking a more holistic look at viable, sustainable solutions which work for communities across the country. Let's focus on how we can unleash the ingenuity of British brains and businesses to continue our progress on reducing our footprint on the world in a manner which doesn't kill jobs or make unrealistic hair shirt asks that reduce people's quality of life.

The commitment to leave the ECHR perhaps feels more totemic, particularly to Conservatives of a more internationalist disposition. It is also probably an area where the conversation in affluent metropolitan areas is very different to that in more provincial parts of the country. The conversation has also become an irrational one in certain circles: it is absurd to suggest that withdrawal from the convention will somehow turn the UK into Russia overnight. 

It is also a red line which really matters: the first duty of any Government is to keep the country safe. In a functional society, we accept that we give up some of our freedom in exchange for security, and to avoid a Hobbesian ‘war of all against all’. Rights do not exist in a vacuum, but in a context of responsibilities (see A Conservative Concept of Rights), and as a parliamentary democracy, it is for accountable, elected politicians to make decisions on balancing the balance of freedom and security. If we believe a Government isn't getting this balance right, we are able to vote for an alternative settlement. We have sadly seen too many incidents in recent years of lawfare compromising the ability of Parliament to make and enforce decisions seeking to protect public safety, as well as instances of unreasonable burdens being placed on the taxpayer. 

This situation (in many ways exacerbated by Blairite constitutional tinkering) has badly damaged public trust. The failure to follow through with plans to tackle illegal immigration through third country processing (be it in Rwanda or elsewhere) has made it harder to have the reasoned conversation regarding immigration which many uncomfortable with this red line aspire to. As an experienced activist with thousands of doorsteps in marginal Teesside seats under my belt, I can confidently state that taking back full control of our borders is an essential prerequisite if we wish to not only regain the seats we need to return to Government, but also to improve the quality of national conversations about immigration and integration. It is also important to note that the Onward Breaking Blue report highlighted that immigration was a top issue for defectors to the Liberal Democrats in 2024 as well as Reform defectors and those who stayed at home. Immigration continues to poll as an area of considerable public concern, so Kemi was correct to make this issue an early policy priority.

Conservatism is an inherently pragmatic, empirically grounded political philosophy. As such we can often bring together different experiences to strengthen the policy solutions we can offer to the huge challenges our country faces through robust debate, but we won't achieve that through personal insults or purity tests. We must also challenge ourselves to, at times, engage with ideas we find less comfortable: the scale of the fiscal and economic challenges we face mean there are more difficult conversations on the road ahead. Kemi is right that we need to be honest with the public that politics is about taking tough choices, and we will all need to work together to articulate the rationale behind difficult decisions and take people with us. This is the reality of grown up politics.

Almost everyone involved in politics chooses to make some sacrifices in the cause of improving their community and the country more widely: getting involved in campaigning or putting yourself up for election is not an easy thing to do and all activists know that we always want more good people to get involved. Poor handling of disagreement is probably the quickest way to put off good people from getting involved - there will always be a degree of rough and tumble in politics but civility and professionalism matter. I would encourage all fellow Conservatives to be particularly mindful of this before being drawn into open blue on blue confrontation as to the nature of ‘true’ Conservatism. Social media in particular often tempts people into exchanging quick insults rather than exploring the nuances of a debate, and it is easy for a heated disagreement over a relatively small issue to detract from how much common ground there is. As believers in judging people on their actions and character rather than identity politics we should also be careful to judge people by labels or groupings (whether self-identified or ascribed by others).

Common values, a clear big picture vision and a constructive approach to debate do a large part of the work of allowing a coalition of people to come together in pursuit of common goals. If some people do not feel able to stick with us on this mission that is their decision - without a common religion there is little holding a broad church together. If some who have previously wavered like what they see as we fill in the detail of our road map to a stronger, more prosperous Britain, we should encourage them to return to the fold. Where those who haven't been particularly political in the past consider stepping up we must support and encourage them to join us in our mission. Coalitions evolve over time, and our voter base in 2029 won't look the same as it did in 2019 or 2010. Our job is to ensure it is big enough to deliver the new direction our country desperately needs, and that requires backing Kemi and her team and communicating with clarity how we will make life better for those who work hard and play by the rules.

References

1. Net zero scepticism is not climate-change denial: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/ef13976c97beffde