In Theresa May's view, the British people’s vote to leave the European Union signalled a deeper malaise with conventional Conservative policy. She displays a suspicion of Russia and China and opines that one should ‘engage but beware’ of President Putin.
For Theresa May, the British people’s vote to leave the European Union not only unlocked the door to the post of Prime Minister. In her interpretation the vote signalled a deeper malaise with conventional Conservative policy. Under her predecessor, David Cameron, policy had been focussed too much on successful individuals and too little concerned with the people’s interests. Vast areas of the country were impoverished by unemployment and poverty. It was she who in 2002 had defined the Conservatives as ‘the nasty party’.
In her first speech as Prime Minister in Birmingham, on 4 October 2016, she took the opportunity to move the party towards a ‘one-nation’ type of conservatism; that is, a policy embodying social justice and mutual obligation – particularly the responsibilities of the rich and powerful to those who are not. If her intentions are fulfilled, it will involve a major change in the UKs domestic, and more caution in foreign policy.
The government of David Cameron had adopted a neo-liberal policy. It had strongly subscribed to remaining in the neo-liberal European Union. Following the financial crisis of 2007-, it had adopted a severe austerity programme of public spending which had impacted on the poorest groups in British society. It was mildly regressive by reducing corporation tax and slightly increasing the inheritance tax threshold. While Cameron subscribed to the idea of the ‘big society’, he distinguished between ‘society’ which had to be encouraged, and the state – which had to be curbed.
Communitarian Values
Theresa May, the daughter of an Anglican (Church of England) minister and a graduate in geography from Oxford University, has worked at the Bank of England (6 years) and at the Association for Payment Clearing Services for 12 years. She was elected a Member of Parliament in 1997 and held the government job of Home Secretary for over six years. In the latter position she showed that she could stand up to hostile criticism when she publicly criticised the amount of corruption in the police and the lack of public trust in the force. She has some libertarian tendencies: she opposed the use of water cannons and advocated policing ‘through the consent of communities’. She also has endorsed same sex marriage.
Her future programme, she has contended, will be “… true to my party’s proud philosophical tradition of one nation – [it] will include big changes to the way we think about our economy, our society and our democracy,” No doubt influenced by her upbringing in the family of a Minister of the Church of England, she advocates a policy that “works not for the privileged but for everyone”. She promises a “new and radical programme of social reform”. Her first departure from the Cameron/Osborne administration promised to be a more interventionist role for the British state. ‘The state exists to provide what individual people, communities and markets cannot; and that we should employ the power of government for the good of the people’ (Speech to Conservative Party, Birmingham). She, somewhat like Angela Merkel, is more a pragmatic politician than an ideological one.
The enhanced powers for the United Kingdom following withdrawal from the European Union will enable the government to enforce restrictions on EU immigration which is popular and at the centre of her domestic policy. Earlier, as Home Secretary, by applying more stringent regulations, she reduced non-EU immigration to the UK from 151,000 in 2011 to 97,000 in 2013. Immigration control is central to her domestic policy: she believes it will enhance feelings of ‘belonging’, promote social solidarity and security. These ideas appeal not only to Conservatives but to the traditional Labour voter – whom she hopes to attract. Immigration policy will move away from the ‘rights of citizens’ (in the EU), to geographical mobility for those who have jobs to enter the UK. Immigration will be closely linked to the availability of jobs and will not disadvantage British workers.
Social Cohesion
Social cohesion is promoted by greater social mobility, fairness and respect for merit. ‘That means ... shifting the balance of Britain decisively in favour of ordinary working class people. Giving them access to the opportunities that are too often the preserve of the privileged few…‘ Her ambition is to make the United Kingdom ‘a Great Meritocracy’. In this respect one of her first proposals was the reintroduction of selective education in state (grammar) schools.
The new conservatism involves a positive economic and developmental role for the government. She promises a ‘new industrial strategy to address …long-term structural challenges’. The objective here is to identify ‘the industries that are of strategic value to our economy and supporting and promoting them through policies on trade, tax, infrastructure, skills, training, and research and development’. Unlike market based neo-liberalism, Theresa May’s philosophy moves decisively to positive state management. She calls for ‘putting in place a plan’.
What she has in mind is government support not only for financial services, but for ‘life sciences, aerospace, automobiles and the creative industries’. Her way of thinking is very much in line with that of ‘allocative planning’ rather than the formation of state corporations as in socialist societies. In the economy she turns to ideas of the social responsibility of corporations and promises that consumers and employees will have places on their boards.
These are all virtuous intentions and ambitious plans which will be difficult to implement. Indeed, one-nation conservatism has informed the party since Benjamin Disraeli’s administration in 1868 and still remains for Theresa May to put into operation. The ‘social responsibility of corporations’, while occupying an important place in academic discourse, has resulted only in marginal changes to company behaviour. Shareholder value will remain the predominant criterion of success.
Place in the World Politics
Theresa May endorses free trade and globalisation – if it works to the people’s good. Her foreign policies show a strong connexion with the bipartisan policy followed by the UK and the USA since the Second World War. She endorses the values of democracy and liberty. However unlike her predecessor, Tony Blair, she does not follow President George Bush’s assumption that economic policies promoted by the USA provide ‘a single sustainable model for national success’. But she points to the ‘common values’ between the USA and Britain who ‘have a joint responsibility to lead’ (Philadelphia Speech 27 January 2017). The UK’s departure from the European Union makes the USA a welcome ally.
She displays a suspicion of Russia and China and opines that one should ‘engage but beware’ of President Putin. If this is the logic of May’s position, then it is likely that there will be more prior deliberation and concern for national interests when foreign interventionism is considered. Moreover, a major change in foreign policy cannot be expected. She is a strong advocate of NATO and calls for all its member states to commit more resources to it. She shares with Donald Trump common assumptions about the ‘common values and interests of the West’ which depend on the protection of NATO.
She concedes that ‘The end of the Cold War did not give rise to a New World Order. It did not herald the End of History’. Like Donald Trump, she considers ‘Islamic extremism’ as the current threat to Western values and institutions. But the Brexit result, she believes, calls for a rethinking of Britain’s role in the world. She envisages stronger links with the USA. But she cautions that: ‘This cannot mean a return to the failed policies of the past. The days of Britain and America intervening in sovereign countries in an attempt to remake the world in our own image are over’.
