Z0375723

BIBLIOGRAPHIC EXERCISE:
IDEOLOGY AND CONSERVATIVE PARTY HISTORY

Robert Eccleshall, English Conservatism since the Restoration: An introduction and

anthology (London, 1990).
Martin Francis and Ina Zweiniger-Bergielowska (eds.), The Conservatives and British
Society, 1880-1990 (Cardiff, 1996).
Michael Freeden, ‘The Stranger at the Feast: Ideology and Public Policy in Twentieth Century
Britain’, Twentieth Century British History 1 (1990), pp. 9-34.
E. H. H. Green, Ideologies of Conservatism: Conservative Political Ideas in the Twentieth
century (Oxford, 2002).
Philip Norton and Arthur Aughey, Conservatives and Conservatism (London, 1981).

The modern world is filled with men who hold dogmas so strongly that they do not even know that
they are dogmas.
G.K. Chesterton, Heretics (1905).

The Conservative Party is probably unique among political parties in that those who have
studied it have claimed that it ‘is not a creed or a doctrine but a disposition’.1 This claim has
been increasingly challenged in recent years, but so far no history has been produced which
documents comprehensively the force of ideas in the Conservative Party. The five works here
represent a distinctive idea-centred approach to Conservative Party history.
The question of the importance of ideas in the Conservative Party is significant because it
not only defines the historical method of historians of the Conservative Party but also helps
deepen the historian’s understandings of conservative methods. What is meant by ‘ideology’
is the central theme of this essay. However, it is the development of historians’
understandings of this concept that have been central to the revision of the orthodox view of
the importance of ideas in the Conservative Party’s history. The question of the definition of
ideology is implicit throughout the subsequent discussion.

1 Michael Oakeshott, Rationalism in Politics (London, 1962), p. 168.

 Z0375723 Review: Ideology and the Conservative Party

The first section of this essay briefly assesses the orthodox perspective of conservative
historians. The second considers the revisionist arguments in favour of a re-assessment of the
role of ideas in Conservative Party history. It reflects upon the problems of the approach
outlined in the first section, continued methodological problems, and the potential for future
study.

The claim that conservatism is non-ideological has persisted through the rhetoric of
conservatives themselves2 and through thinkers such as Oakeshott.3 The grounds for this
claim are the scarcity of formal doctrine, the party’s tendency to embrace the status quo and
the scepticism of conservatives towards codified political beliefs. The tendency to view the
Conservative Party as the ‘natural party of government’ has discouraged the study of its
ideology.
Political scientists typically write about conservatism, rather than the Conservative Party.
But they do so with the implication that the former roughly equates to the latter. The
traditional approach of political philosophy has been influential on conservative historians,
especially in the development of institutional studies.4 This reflects the fact that there are two
distinct approaches to the issue. The first, emerging from political science, is concerned with
ideas and asks ‘what is conservatism?’ The second, emerging from history, is concerned with
the historical force of ideas and asks ‘what was the force of ideas within the Conservative
Party?’ It is the latter that is the concern of this essay.
Most historians have avoided the study of ideas entirely, and this has imposed limitations
upon otherwise scholarly studies. It has meant that party histories are dismissive of ideas,
and that the opportunism of politicians has been emphasised.5 The willingness of orthodox
historians to disregard ideas reflects the fact that the ‘principles’ of the traditional approach
of political philosophy appear to be divorced from practice and so vague as to be valueless.
This approach is problematic for a number of reasons. It reflects the doctrinal scepticism
of conservative historians and, as Eccleshall has pointed out, ‘polemics of this sort are an
ideological exercise in themselves’ (p. 4). The origins of policy cannot be explained solely in
terms of expediency. The orthodox perspective has been influenced by the traditional
scholarly preoccupation with formal statements of doctrine.6 The approach casts the

2 e.g., Keith Feiling, What is Conservatism? (London, 1930); Ian Gilmour, Inside Right: A Study of Conservatism
(London, 1977).
3 Oakeshott, Rationalism.
4 e.g., John Fair and John Hutcheson, ‘British Conservatism in the Twentieth Century: An Emerging Ideological

Tradition’, Albion 19 (1987), pp. 549-578; John Ramsden, The Age of Balfour and Baldwin, 1902-1940
(London, 1978).
5 e.g., John Charmley, A History of Conservative Politics, 1900-1996 (London, 1996).
6 Michael Freeden, The New Liberalism: An Ideology of Social Reform (Oxford, 1978), p. 245.

Page 2
 Z0375723 Review: Ideology and the Conservative Party

Conservative Party as a ‘special case’ in which ideology is viewed pejoratively. This ‘self-
image’ has been of great importance to conservatives themselves.7 As a result, there has been
no discussion of the source of conservative ideas.
The orthodox position has also influenced a ‘cynical opportunism’ approach to the
question that sees conservative ‘ideology’ as opportunistic.8 Yet this view is fundamentally
coherent with the orthodox position, because political ideas are viewed as a function of the
party’s development. Because this view of the Conservative Party is so subjective, it only has
historical usefulness.9 It is the contention of the revisionist school that that the
historiography of the party needs to be reoriented in order to understand the central role of
ideas.

The ‘revisionist’ school reflects the consensus about the limitations of the orthodoxy. It is
labelled ‘revisionist’ because of the value it attaches to ideas as a force in the historical
development of the Conservative Party. It reflects growing attention to political discourse10
and a willingness to look beyond the Conservative Party’s self-image. In particular, it suggests
that the search for an over-arching ‘ideology’ has masked the importance of ideas in
discourse.

English Conservatism since the Restoration reflects the historiographical importance of

political philosophy in dealing with ideology. The relevance of this work is for the significance
of Eccleshall’s tentative conclusions for historians. Eccleshall points to the lack of objectivity
of earlier studies of the party and the tendency of historians to emphasise certain elements of
the party’s history depending upon their own political context (p. ix, 2).11 He is critical of the
‘doctrinal scepticism’ of ‘Oakeshottian’ studies because they are ‘intended to denigrate other
political doctrines by characterizing ideology as a negative mode of thought’ (p. 3). Moreover,
he argues, while certain principles are useful indicators of a typically conservative approach,
the ‘ideal type’ of the conservative is at best an approximation (pp. 1-2). Eccleshall argues for
an approach that takes into account ‘beliefs, intentions and methods’ (p. ix). He has pointed
out that the idea of a ‘conservative ideology’ can be misleading given the diversity this

7 Fair and Hutcheson, ‘British Conservatism’, p. 550.

8 e.g., Charmley, Conservative Politics; Robert Eccleshall, ‘English Conservatism as Ideology’, Political Studies 25
(1977), pp. 62-83. O’Gorman has suggested that the Oakeshottian approach ‘reduces [Conservatism] to the level
of incoherent opportunism’. Frank O'Gorman, British Conservatism: Conservative Thought from Burke to
Thatcher (London, 1986), p. xiii.
9 Robert Eccleshall, ‘Conservatism’, in Robert Eccleshall, et al. (eds.), Political Ideologies: An Introduction

(London, 1984), p. 81.

10 Stedman Jones has suggested that ‘historians have looked everywhere except at changes in political discourse

itself to explain changes in political behaviour.’ Patrick Joyce (ed.), Class (Oxford, 1995), pp. 150-154.
11 e.g., Fair and Hutcheson, ‘British Conservatism’.

Page 3
 Z0375723 Review: Ideology and the Conservative Party

encompasses.12 English Conservatism is also important because it is as a political scientist,

rather than as an historian, that Eccleshall questions the ‘desiccated contentions’13 of the
orthodoxy. Eccleshall’s book reflects the development of more nuanced conclusions that pave
the way for subsequent historical work.

Norton and Aughey’s monograph, despite being the earliest work on review, shows
promise in its understanding of the role of ideas. While acknowledging that the Conservative
Party is diverse, they suggest that organisational approaches explain only the ‘how’ of party
politics and not the ‘why’ (p. 10). The problem is that conservative history has artificially
divorced principle from practice (p. 1) and, like Eccleshall, they note the limited value of
generalisations. Nevertheless, their work contains a great many unproven abstractions. They
talk of an undefined ‘sense of common purpose’ (p. 270) and the evidential basis for many of
their claims is weak. This tendency to ‘generalise’, the lack of historical evidence, and the
authors’ clear desire to define ‘conservatism’ marks the limits of the book’s historiographical
usefulness. But the authors did not set out to demonstrate a new ideological approach to
conservative history. The motives for, if not the substance of, this book are distinctly
revisionist. The questions it suggests show promise and it demonstrates why more work
needs to be done. It implies that a study of conservative ideas and how they were applied
would be instructive.

Francis and Zweiniger-Bergielowska’s omnibus, The Conservatives and British Society, is

a reconsideration of Conservative history in the light of three themes: ideology, national
identity and gender. It is ideology that is the major theme that underpins the others. While
certainly not exhaustive, by demonstrating the relevance of themes not normally studied, the
book represents a considerable revisionist challenge. The authors’ introductory chapter is
particularly useful and begins with a review of the standing of the debate. Ideology, they
argue, is key to conservative electoral success (p. 1). They point to the dynamism of ideas (p.
8), the importance of language (p. 5) and of the study of policy and ideas as an interaction (p.
6). This is significant given the tendency of historians writing about ideas to write about them
without consideration of their historical importance.14 Francis and Zweiniger-Bergielowska’s
model contrasts with those such as that of Greenleaf who sees conservatism as a point on a
scale between libertarianism and collectivistism.15 Their introduction makes the case for

12 Eccleshall, ‘Conservatism’, p. 84.

13 Maurice Cowling, The Impact of Labour, 1920-1924 (Cambridge, 1971), p. vii.
14 e.g. P. F. Clarke, Liberals and Social Democrats (Cambridge, 1978).
15 W.H. Greenleaf, The British Political Tradition, vol. 2 (London, 1983), p. 195.

Page 4
 Z0375723 Review: Ideology and the Conservative Party

revisionism in a cogent way. Yet it remains almost entirely theoretical, and that is why
chapters by Smith and Packer are particularly valuable.
Both essays are historical accounts that identify ideas as a central theme and they
demonstrate the utility of their approach. Packer’s essay demonstrates the importance of pre-
war divisions over land ownership and Smith’s chapter examines the workings of ideology
vis-à-vis home rule in the same period. It was ‘ideological uncertainty’, Smith contends, that
led to conflict (p. 22). Smith’s essay is particularly valuable because he emphasises a more
inclusive definition of ideology (p. 19) and suggests that it has been misunderstood (p. 18).
He therefore emphasises the importance of the definitional problem, which has proven to be
the central theme of the debate explored in this essay. These contributions notwithstanding,
however, the problem with Francis and Zweiniger-Bergielowska’s volume is not its theory,
method or historiographical approach but rather the limits of its scope. Smith’s article, for
example, concentrates on just one issue (the Union) in a relatively short time period. The
work does not claim to be exhaustive, but rather to establish the importance of certain key
themes and approaches, and this it does, leaving the reader with the conclusion that this new
approach has a great deal of potential.

Freeden’s article borrows a phrase from Edgar Allen Poe in lamenting the fact that
ideology is the ‘stranger at the feast’. He shares with the other works here the desire to
broaden the definition of ideology and to emphasise its dynamism, though he approaches the
issue from a political science perspective.16 Like Francis and Zweiniger-Bergielowska, he also
emphasises the importance of the relationship between policy and ideas. The relevance of
multiple ‘ideologies’ is given particular emphasis. Freeden suggests a ‘new approach’ and his
argument that ideology should be understood through public policy is a compelling one.
Perhaps the most fundamental problem is the limited space in which he writes. The bulk of
his essay is an exposition of the flaws of existing literature, which are documented elsewhere.
What he fails to say is that all these ‘assumptions’ are a product of the failure to construct a
broader understanding of ideologies. Freeden’s article is a comprehensive critique of the
orthodoxy. But that is the limit of its revisionism. It is regrettable that it has not got more to
say about how ideas can be used to construct a new historiography of the Conservative Party,
something both Green and Francis and Zweiniger-Bergielowska do successfully. It is this
that is the central critical difference between the approach of political scientists and
historians.

16 Freeden, New Liberalism, p. viii.

Page 5
 Z0375723 Review: Ideology and the Conservative Party

Green’s recent book, Ideologies of Conservatism, is the latest in a series of studies from an
author who has throughout his career implicitly emphasised the importance of ideas in the
history of the Conservative Party.17 He echoes the criticisms of the other writers that
insufficient attention has been paid to conservative ideas. Like Francis and Zweiniger-
Bergielowska, he attempts to rectify this imbalance through a series of case studies.
His redefinition of what is meant by ‘ideology’ is useful and stimulates the subsequent
discussion. He emphasises the need to work on ‘operative’ ideas (ideas implicit in
conservative practice) rather than ‘fundamental’ ideas (those formally expressed). This
distinction is important given the tendency of conservatives to spurn doctrine, and has an
immediate practical applicability. This echoes Freeden’s complaint that scholars have failed
to consider that ideology can be non-doctrinaire (p. 15). For example, McKibbin has
demonstrated the methodological usefulness of ‘operative’ ideologies, and the fact that he
identifies ideology as having negative features is significant because it sustains this much
broader definition of ideology.18 Green’s identification of ‘conservatisms’ also overcomes a
major barrier to understanding the role of ideas in the Conservative Party in that he
acknowledges the diversity of views around specific objectives. This approach makes the
search for a single over-arching ideological framework less important than an understanding
of the framework that the discourse of ideas took place in at any particular time. This is much
more historically useful, for example, than Greenleaf’s approach to conservatism, which he
identifies as a point on a line between collectivism and libertarianism.19
Green’s methodology is to take examples from throughout the Conservative Party’s history
and examine the role of ideological concerns in various developments. He cites, for example,
the ‘battle of ideas’ over tariff reform as evidence of an ideological discourse within the party
(p. 5) and chapters include those on Balfour’s position on tariff reform and the repudiation of
the Lloyd George coalition in 1922. The similarity between Green’s approach and the
approach of those contributors to Francis and Zweiniger-Bergielowska’s volume
demonstrates the importance of demonstrating the relevance of historiographical methods.
This reflects the difference between an historical approach and a political science approach,
the latter of which is manifest in Eccleshall’s and Norton and Aughey’s books.
Significant though Green’s approach is, however, it is not without its problems. He selects
only certain examples so the work is a series of distinct essays (p. 4). This means that the

17 E. H. H. Green, ‘The Conservative Party, the State and Social Policy, 1880-1914’, in Martin Francis and Ina
Zweiniger-Bergielowska (eds.), The Conservatives and British Society, 1880-1990 (Cardiff, 1996); E. H. H.
Green, The Crisis of Conservatism: The Politics, Economics and Ideology of the British Conservative Party,
1880-1914 (London, 1995); E. H. H. Green, ‘Radical Conservatism: The Electoral Genesis of Tariff Reform’,
Historical Journal 28 (1985), pp. 667-692.
18 Ross McKibbin, ‘Class and Conventional Wisdom: The Conservative Party and the “Public” in Inter-War Britain’

in The Ideologies of Class: Social Relations in Britain 1880-1950 (Oxford, 1990), pp. 259-293.
19 Greenleaf, British Political Tradition, 2, pp. 15, 196.

Page 6
 Z0375723 Review: Ideology and the Conservative Party

essays do not contribute to an overall narrative. This is important because had Green applied
the approach he took to a specific period, the conclusions he reached might have been more
fundamental. A second problem is that Green does not define the underlying principles that
govern the application of ‘operative’ ideas. He concentrates instead upon disaggregated ideas,
but he does not relate these various ideas to any kind of broader scheme. How did the
intellectual scepticism of conservatives, for example, contribute to the discourse within the
party in the 1920s? There is no clear way of answering such questions. Green’s difficulty in
defining the ‘ideology’ of the Conservative Party reflects the fact that rules are less important
than the method by which ideological conflicts are exposed.

The works reviewed here reflect a nuanced understanding of the importance of ideas, as a
result of the questioning of the approach of conservative historians and of orthodox political
scientists. But they are just the beginning of the process of re-considering the value of ideas.
The value of the political science approach is demonstrated here by its willingness question
conventional wisdoms. The re-orientation towards ideas owes something to this trend. But
the revisionism of political science is essentially negative, and the task of the study of ideas in
the history of the Conservative Party has fallen upon historians, among whom Green and
Francis and Zweiniger-Bergielowska are foremost.
The search for an over-arching conservative ideology is not only misleading and
prescriptive but also the begetter of a methodologically unsound branch of the history of the
Conservative Party. Thus, the revisionist critique reflects the need to develop a less exacting
definition of ideology. This need not be reductive: ‘understanding the principles around
which… diversity is organised and given coherence [is] an important question’.20 Stedman
Jones has suggested that a ‘preoccupation’ with ideology is problematic because it misses key
dynamics, and instead more emphasis should be placed on political discourse.21 However,
‘political discourse’ is an expression of complex ideological undercurrents and owes a great
deal to a sophisticated understanding of ideas. The question that should be posed is not so
much ‘what is ideology?’ but, rather, ‘what are the operating ideologies at any one point in
time?’ This ‘polyideism’22 notes that diverse and conflicting ideas inform political dynamics
and create political discourse. These can be complex, inconstant and not always positive.
There is more work to do and histories of the Conservative Party where ideas are a central
component are still unusual. Any such history necessitates an investigation into the
development of ideas and arguably, the only way to do this is to approach a particular period

20 Joyce (ed.), Class, p. 129.

21 Ibid., p. 151.
22 Greenleaf, British Political Tradition, 2, p. 13.

Page 7
Z0375723 Review: Ideology and the Conservative Party

of conservative history. ‘Ideology,’ Green has suggested, ‘is central to the history of the
Conservative Party… politics is about argument, and arguments are about ideas’ (p. 14). This
is increasingly challenging the old orthodoxy. But it leaves significant work still be done.

2,981 words.

Page 8