Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T02:22:02.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factionalism within the Conservative Party: The Monday Club*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 March 2014

Patrick Seyd
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT FACTIONALISM WHILST APPARENT IN THE Labour Party has no counterpart within the Conservative Party. For example, the authors of a study on the opinions of backbench conservative MPs concluded that disagreements are amongst ‘ad hoc groups’ and that as new issues arise ‘the coherence of the former groups dissolves and new alignments appear. . . .’ A more recent survey of conservative backbenchers concurs with this and argues that the ‘criss-crossing pattern of cleavage (amongst conservative MPs) inhibits the development of Tory factions analogous to those in the Labour Party. Allies on one issue either become enemies on the next, or else simply do not feel strongly enough on the next issue to want necessarily to work together.’ A similar sort of conclusion has been reached by Richard Rose who states that the Conservative Party contains differing sets of political attitudes which remain constant whilst the party member will constantly shift from one attitude to another. Thus he concludes that the Conservative Party is a party of tendencies rather than factions; that it lacks a hard core of organized members within the party adhering to a set of principles which they are attempting to impose on the party in general. These conclusions are typical of a general belief about the political process within the Conservative Party.

Type
Articles
Information
Government and Opposition , Volume 7 , Issue 4 , 01 October 1972 , pp. 464 - 487
Copyright
Copyright © Government and Opposition Ltd 1972

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Finer, S., Berrington, H., and Bartholomew, D., Backbench Opinion in the House of Commons, 1955–1959 Pergamon, London, 1961, p. 106 Google Scholar.

2 King, A., ‘The Changing Tories’, New Society, 2 05 1968, p. 631 Google Scholar.

3 Rose, R., ‘Parties, Factions and Tendencies in Britain’, Political Studies, Vol. XII, NO. I, 1964, pp. 33–46.Google Scholar

4 A good example is Jackson, R. J., Rebels and Whips, Macmillan, London, 1968 Google Scholar. Terms such as cabal and faction are used indiscriminately.

5 See Harris, N., Beligs in Society, Penguin0, Harmondsworth, 1971, ch. 4.Google Scholar

6 Since 1945 the percentage of conservative MPs educated at public school has not fallen below 70 per cent, similarly the numbers with a professional or business occupational background has not fallen below 70 per cent. See also Blondel, J., Voters, Parties and Leaders, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1963, ch. 5.Google Scholar

7 Note, for example, the absence of any cohesive, organized group challenging the policy of appeasement. Although opposition to the policy existed the pressures on the dissidents to be loyal and the scrupulous sense of loyalty of such men as Austen Chamberlain ensured that collective action was ruled out. See Thompson, N., Tbe Anti‐Appeasers, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1971 Google Scholar. Also see Butler, Lord, Tbe Art of the Possible, Hamish Hamilton, London, 1971.Google Scholar

8 For example, the Tariff Reform League between 1903 and 1910.

9 For example, conservative MPs who are members of the Bow Group go out of their way to assure the Conservative Party whips that no faction exists in Westminster. See Rose, R., ‘The Bow Group's Role in British Politics’, Western Polifical Qarterh, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1961, p. 876.Google Scholar

10 It is interesting to note the terminology. Pressure group is an unacceptable term because it implies disloyalty.

11 Policy and Aims, Monday Club, December 1961, p. I.

12 The Aims of the Mondy Club, document produced by the Executive Council, February 1970, p. I.

13 Editorial, Monday World, Spring 1970.

14 Bury the Hatchet, 1962, pp. 7–8.

15 Interview with Paul Bristol, 27 January 1972.

16 See page 468.

17 As Foreign Secretary, Lord Home was willing to receive a Monday Club delegation which complained of the use of British‐made bombs against Tshombe's forces in the Congo.

18 Strike Out or Strike Bound, 1963.

19 Conservatism Lost? Conservatism Regained, 1963.

20 See the membership table on page 475.

21 Newsletter, 69, May/June 1971, p. 3. This membership figure includes individual and branch members; it is difficult to check on branch membership, so that the figure quoted is a very rough one. The author's own calculations based upon the income received from subscriptions in 1970, arrives at a national individual membership of between 1,600 and 2,500. But there is no doubt that the total membership rise had been considerable.

22 Those conservative MPs who were members of the Monday Club in 1970 are: (a) members of the 1966/70 Parliament—Harold Gurden, Edward Taylor, John Peyton, Joseph Hiley, John Biggs‐Davison, Stephen Hastings, Victor Goodhew, Wilfred Baker, Jasper More, Geoffrey Rippon, Julian Amery, Jill Knight, Ronald Bell, Patrick Wall, Mark Woodnutt, and Alfred Wiggin: (b) Members elected in June 1970—‐Anthony Fell, William Benyon, Geoffrey Stewart‐Smith, Peter Rost, Norman Tebbitt, Patrick Cormack, Robert Taylor, Piers Dixon, Robert Boscawen, David James, Harold Soref. Whilst the Monday Club claims thirty MPs are members this total figure is twenty‐seven. In fact three more MPs are ‘silent’ members.

The members of the government in 1970 were: Geoffrey Rippon (originally Minister of Technology, then Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster); Julian Amery (Minister of Public Building and Works); John Peyton (Minister of Transport); Edward Taylor* (Under Secretary, Scottish Office); Jasper More* (Vice Chamberlain of the Household); and Victor Goodhew (Whips Office). * Since resigned.

23 Monday Club subscriptions were raised in October 1965 from two to three guineas for full membership, from one to two guineas for those under the age of twenty‐five, and a new student subscription of one guinea was introduced. A

considerable gap exists, however, between income from subscription and expenditure. An action fund exists to raise money to meet this deficit. The Monday Club seems to be very successful in raising such money; for example, in April 1966 one donation of £5,750 was received.

24 Mody World. It has a circulation of about 2,500.

25 John Biggs‐Davison, MP (a member of the Executive Council) speaking at a Monday Club conference on z October 1971.

26 Newsletter, 68, March/April 1971, p. 10.

27 In one way the existence of the Monday Club was most convenient for the Conservative Party leadership. The party leadership could maintain its distance from Monday Club policies yet hope to pick up votes from the right which, by its membership of the Monday Club, might believe that the Conservative Party was worth voting for at the time of a general election.

28 There is no doubt that the Bevanite group established extensive contacts at the constituency party level in the 1950s primarily through the Tribune brains' trust meetings, but no formal organization existed.

29 No rival organizations are stated but the Monday Club is concerned primarily with the National Front. Interview with F. R. Stockwell, director of the Monday Club, 30 July 1969.

30 Very rarely have applications been refused. The only notable occasion was following the introduction of sanctions against Rhodesia in 1965 when officers of the Club believed that an influx of persons from the ‘lunatic right’ was taking place. Ibid.

31 A sample, of every twentieth name in the file, out of a total of 1,930 members was carried out on 19 August 1970. Analysis of membership was limited to the extent of the questions asked by the Monday Club on the membership form.

32 For the list of Monday club MPs see p.471.

33 I am grateful to David Butler for providing the cards on the Monday Club MPs on which the relevant material concerning their background is contained and from which the author has been able to make calculations and comparisons. The figures for the Conservative Party MPs are drawn from Butler, D. and Pinto‐Duschinsky, M., The British General Election of 1970, Macmillan, London, 1971, PP. 300–4.Google Scholar

34 At the 1969 and 1971 annual meetings only the position of meetings‐secretary was contested amongst the officerships, but there were keen contests for membership of the Executive. At the 1972 annual meeting four of the officerships were contested, including the chairmanship of the Club, and twenty‐five candidates contested for the twelve elected positions on the Executive Council. In a remarkable exercise of membership participation these elections in 1972 were conducted by a postal ballot of all national individual members of the Club.

35 The rules of the Monday Club stipulate that one of the purposes of the annual meeting is to ‘receive a statement on future policies and activities’. Rules: 16(f). p. 5.

36 Letter to The Times, 12 October 1971.

37 One member, at least, feels that the Club has failed to develop a comprehensive research programme but instead has concentrated, to its detriment, on the racial issue. See Hanna, M., ‘Immigration and the Monday Club’, Race Tohy, Vol. 4 (1), 01 1972, p. 5 Google Scholar.

38 The following is a list of Club pamphlets: 1961: Wind of change or Wbirlwind? 1962: Bury the Hatchet. The Caribbean: Chaos or Construction? You: Your Children; Your Job; Your Home; Your Umbrella. A Clear and Solemn Duty. Peers of Parliament. 1963: Conservatism Lost? Conservatism Regained? Strike Out or Strike Bound (published by the CPC on behalf of the Monday Club). 1964: Handmaidens of Daplomacy. Automation. 1965: The Role of Subversion in Foreign Affairs. Immigration into the United Kingdom. The Puppeteers. Collectivism or Individualism in Medicine. A Europe of Nations. 1966: The Wreckers. Rhodesia: A Minorig View. The New Scramble for Africa, J. Biggs‐Davison. The Monday Papers: I. Antecedents, J. Biggs‐Davison. 2. Housing, Housing study group. 3. Economic Affairs, Economic study group. 4. The Vanishing Individual, T. Stacey. 5. Conservatism Tomorrow. 1967: Incomes Policy, F. Abbot. A Realistic Approach to Present Day Housing. Land: Ours or Theirs? M. Carter. Europe: Should Britain Join?, V. Montagu and Sir A. Meyer. Europe: Faith not Despair, J. Biggs‐Davison. Leasehold Enfranchisement, Housing study group. 1968: One Man One Vote, T. Keigwin. Money: Yours or Tbeirs?, Taxation study group. Russia and the World. Defence study group. Self‐help Reborn, V. Goodhew. Stop Nationalising Our Schools, C. Buckmaster. Student Power, P. Wall and J. Smith. Economic Policy for the 2970S, Speeches from a special conference. 1969: A Personal Record, J. Braine. Right Angle, G. Rippon (published by the CPC on behalf of the Monday Club). Who Goes Home?, G. K. Young. No Mean City, A. Smith. The Centre Cannot Hold, J. Biggs‐Davison. British Defence Policy in the 1970s, P. Wall. Overseas Aid, P. Wall and S. Kay. The Housing Conference, Papers from the special conference. 1970: Capital; Yours or Theirs?, Taxation study group. Once Upon a Time, S. Hastings. The Conservative Dilemma, V. Montagu. Rents: Chaos or Commonsense, H. Cutler. A Defeatist America, T. Stacey.

39 For example, the Club's sole pamphlet on educational policy is written by a consultant on road maintenance techniques. This again is an assertion of the ‘sound, common‐sense’ approach of the Monday Club, reflecting the views of the ordinary party activist, in contrast to the ‘remote, specialized’ approach of the Bow Group. One of the few pamphlets to reveal a specialist knowledge is that on housing rents written by Horace Cutler, the Chairman of the GLC Housing Committee.

40 For example, G. Rippon, Right Angle and S. Hastings, Once Upon A Time fall into this category. Only V. Montagu, The Conservative Dilemma is of a higher quality.

41 See Beer, S., Modern British Politics, Faber, London, 1965, pp. 271–6.Google Scholar

42 A contrast should again be drawn between current Monday Club policy and policy prior to 1964. A pamphlet written in 1963 on industrial relations stressed the role of the state in improving industrial relations by establishing industries in areas of high unemployment, by providing greater security of employment, by stimulating better management and by encouraging fewer trade unions. See Strike Out or Strike Bound.

43 Ashworth, C., ‘Planning for Anarchy’, Monday World, Spring 1970, pp. 10–14.Google Scholar

44 Barney Hayhoe, coordinator of the Conservative Party policy groups from 1968 rejects any influence of the Monday Club on policy‐making. Letter to the author 17 January 1972.

45 See Rose, R., Politics in England, Faber, London, 1965, pp. 130–2.Google Scholar

46 Full Steam Ahead: Essay on Tory Reform, London, 1944, p. 21.

47 Montague, V., The Conservative Dilemma, 1970.Google Scholar

48 Ibid., p. 16.

49 Kopsch, H., The Conservative Party and the Development of Social Policy in the Coalition of 1940–1945, unpublished PhD thesis, The London School of Economics and Political Science, 1970.Google Scholar

50 One Nation (1950); Cbange is Our Alb (1954): The Responsible Society (1959); One Europe (1963).

51 Will the Tories lose? (1963?); Call an End to Feeble Opposition (1965).

52 It is also determined to elect Monday Club members to positions of authority within the Conservative Party at the national level. For example, officerships of the Conservative Political Centre have been discussed by a Monday Club committee and nominations made as a result of this committee's discussions.

53 See The Times, 25 October 1969, and ensuing correspondence. The author's discussions with Monday Club branch officers has revealed that many are pressurizing their sitting conservative MP where his or her views are disliked by the local Monday Club branch.

54 Analysis of the selection procedures within the Conservative Party reveals how little stress is placed upon a candidate's political opinions by the party activists. See A. Ranney, Pathways to Parliament, Macmillan, London, 1965.

55 Keigwin, T., Rhodesia: Those Foolish Five Principles, 1970.Google Scholar

56 Sheer pressure of time is also a major limiting factor. For example at the 1971 conference 766 resolutions had been submitted and only thirteen were actually called for debate.

57 Even the guarantee of debates on two balloted resolutions can be avoided. For example at the 1971 conference only one was debated since the Executive Committee of the National Union decided to move an emergency resolution.

58 The Tory Reform Committee had the support of the Political Research Centre which was financed by the Conservative Central Office. H. Kopsch, op. cit., p. 46.

59 See page 471.

60 In 1971 the Monday Club decided to nominate Evelyn King as chairman of the backbench Broadcasting Committee. Although not a member of the Monday Club he was regarded as sympathetic to its views. He was not elected.

61 The author's impression of the parliamentary left from observation of more recent factions is that it is loath to allow party activists much say in the running of the organization.

62 The Campaign for Democratic Socialism operated between 1960 and 1963 as a very highly organized faction. But its elaborate network of contacts was secret and it never admitted publicly that it was anything more than a propaganda organization supporting the party leadership. The fact that it was supporting the party leadership in its moment of defeat is another reason for its toleration.

63 See Roth, A., Enoch Powell: Tory Tribune, Macdonald, London, 1970.Google Scholar

64 The decision of the National Union in 1972 to change the procedures for selection and re‐adoption of conservative MPs with the establishment of a permanent constituency selection committee to approve the re‐adoption of a sitting conservative MP is symbolic of this mood.

65 Certain examples of this have been seen recently. For example, the decision of Honiton Conservative Association to demand, prior to the choice of a candidate to fight a by‐election in 1967, that the successful person chosen from the short list of names should live in Honiton resulted in Christopher Soames withdrawing his name. See The Times, 12 January 1967.

66 The demand for the greater democratization of the party resulted in the appointment of the committee under Lord Chelmer to examine means of improving the party organization in 1970.

67 Greater use is now being made of the ballot at annual conferences. Between 1950 and 1967 no ballot was held. In 1967 one ballot was held; in 1969 three (the leadership was defeated in one of them); and in 1971 one.