Talk:Republicanism in the United Kingdom/Archives/2007/September

Conservative republicans?

I'm not suggesting that being a conservative and a republican in Britain is an oxymoron, but are there any Tory MPs who have spoken in favour of a republic? Many still find the idea of an elected upper house hard enough to stomach! In Australia there is support for a republic on the right as well as the left, but in Britain, it is almost entirely centre-left, which is why it may be less successful. (Plus the fact that the Queen of Great Britain is a British person living in Britain, whereas the Queen of Australia isn't an Australian living in Australia, which is more likely to rouse nationalist sentiment on the right in that country.) Quiensabe 14:41 20 January 2006

This is from Republic's Imagine magazine "It may come as a surprise to some,but Republic does have members and supporters who are also paid up members of the Conservative party. Following on from Republic’s successful attendance at the Lib Dem and Labour party conferences some attention is now being turned to how best to attract those on the right who are disaffected with the monarchy. Graham Smith explained, “Campaigns like this are won when a substantial section of conservatives are convinced of our cause. One of the tasks ahead of us is to develop ways of communicating our message in a way that will appeal to the broadest political spectrum and therefore attract people from the right, centre and left of British politics.” Graham is asking any conservative supporters to get in touch, to help develop ways of targeting this key audience. “If we can appeal to those elements of the conservative tradition that are in line with republicanism then we can begin to make real progress in broadening our support base,” Graham concluded". I doubt that many Tories are republicans, but it's quite possible in the meritocratic US style republican groups, which probabaly do exist. Paj.meister 21:48, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

It hasn't really occured to that many people if a quick internet search can be trusted. An internet search on torries and republican yields only comparisons between the US conservative party and the Conservative party. Here is an Economist article1 questioning why the success of the US version of the conservative party out performed the UK version so drammatically. There could be many, many reasons for that of course. But no one seems to question the idea that Republican conservatism would have an advantage over aristocratic/monarchist conservativism. The idea of decoupling class warfare from fiscal or social conservativism must not be very common in the UK. Sandwich Eater 03:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been a while but there are some trends towards republicanism, but they don't manifest themselves much. However there has been a shift over time and with conservatism in the UK increasingly defined in terms of positions on the state, economics and public services, there is no particular reason why all Conservative members should automatically be monachists. The "From Estate Owners to Estate Agents" is a very telling comment about the change in the party over decades. I should also add that there's a difference between being an ardent supporter of the monarchy and happening to think it's okay/not worth the hassle of changing but not something to go out of the way to help.

As far as conservatives who'd support a republic go, very few regard the issue as being remotely a priority but amongst the reasoning that comes up in conversation:

The actions and style of the Blair government in particular have left many wondering about whether the checks and balances in the system (some of which, like the old composition of the House of Lords, have been removed) really do function as well as previously assumed. Would "President Blair" have been possible if there actually was a President? Of course a written constitution may also solve this and I suspect this would be the preferred option but to be honest neither is remotely near the forefront of constitutional discussion and priorities.

Then there's the perceived inevitability factor. Again recent constitutional changes have not really been inputted by the right and have left them fulminating against the results (the West Lothian Question, the position of the House of Lords etc...) and if the monarchy is felt to be doomed then rather than fighting a battle that will be lost, it may be preferable to be able to have influence over the form of a republic. But of course the extent to which this is regarded as inevitable is highly varied.

Some are worried about the position of the Established Church, especially if/when Prince Charles succeeds. If forced to pick between Church and Crown, some may pick the Church and support removing the Crown as a tactic to preserve the Church. (But since most republicans tend to support disestablishment this is not going to generate common cause.)

Plus some of the personalities involved, particularly Charles, can result in scratching heads.

"Just imagine... President Thatcher!" may be a good slogan for left-wing monarchists, but can evoke a very different reaction in some quarters on the right.

Remember also that it was a Conservative Prime Minister who oversaw the Abdication when making it clear Edward VIII could not have both Wallis Simpson and the throne - what is that if not a limited form of republicanism?

I don't want to mispaint a picture of a small republican core as it's not organised and the various different reasons are based on premises that not all Conservatives would agree with (e.g. reverence for the Church or Thatcher - indeed those two were not terribly compatible). A combination of "it ain't broke so don't mend it" and "don't care" is far more stronger than any active republican feeling. Timrollpickering 08:48, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason why one cannot find republican Tories is because the raison d'être of the Tory Party is to support monarchy. Republicanism and Toryism are fundamentally incompatible. It is like saying one is a "socialist capitalist" or a "anti-environment green".--Johnbull 02:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes but we're not talking about Tories, we're talking about Conservatives and the two terms are not synonomous. The Conservative Party does not have as its raison d'être monarchism as that is not an active issue in current UK politics around which parties divide. (And conservatives in other countries are not always monarchists - the Liberal Party of Australia has its fair share of republicans.) That's a very different thing from socialists and environmentalists. Timrollpickering 17:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I think my point still stands. I certainly do think that the Conservative Party's fundamental tenets are preserving the UK's constitutional traditions and national identity (including monarchy), this is what they have traditionally stood for. Conservatives abroad may well think differently, but this article is about British republicanism and inherent in conservatism is preservation of peculiar, distinct, national traditions and identity. I have never heard of a British Conservative being a republican.--Johnbull 00:40, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

There's some republican sentiment expressed at http://conservativehome.blogs.com/columnists/2007/07/andre-lilico-sh.html even if the author is arguing for an "elective monarchy", which no-one can see the difference to a republic. ConservativeHome is not exactly an obscure site. As for the Conservatives' fundamental tenets, in recent years far more emphasis has been placed on economics and individualism rather than defence of traditions that are not under threat, and the increasing internationalisation of ideology has meant that some aspects of Conservatism have become very detached from traditions. Thatcherism, for example, rode roughshod over traditions where they were perceived as wrong, and many Thatcherites would not be out of place in the US Republican Party. I'll just post my comments from that thread:

Certainly whenever people have tried to define what a [UK] "conservative" believes, it is very rare for "principled support for the continuation of monarchy" to be listed. "If it ain't broke don't fix it" is by no means the same.

There are some republican sentiments but hardly anyone considers it a priority (that may change under Charles) and potentially quite a lot of apathy who won't fight to keep it when others want to tear it down. Timrollpickering 10:09, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thatcherism actually halted devolution (and reversed the non-Thatcherite Heath's endorsement of it) and halted the abolition of the House of Lords for eighteen years (and Thatcher resurrected the hereditary peerage). That is an interesting link, and I see there is quite a lot of support for the idea that one cannot be a British Conservative and a republican. Trevor: "A central tenant of being a Conservative, is showing loyalty to the institution of monarchy". Malcolm: "am stunned that it should emanate from a Conservative". Bagehot: "if you don't support the British Monarchy you're not a British Conservative". A H Matlock: "Let us remember that we are Conservatives". Ash Faulkner: "Support for the monarchy is not universally conservative, because there is no such thing as universal conservatism. You seem to think there is which, in itself, is unconservative". Londoner: "Do we believe in a constitutional monarchy? Yes. Is such belief a key tenet of British Conservatism? Yes". Richard: "Seeing as the Tory Party was traditionally the party of the Monarchy it's a pity this isn't emphasised more. Was support for the Monarchy explicit in Built to Last? If not it should have been". Sepoy Agent: "I thought this was supposed to be a Conservative blog". I guess it now comes down to point of view since there are those who label themselves Conservative but who actually hold deeply anti-Conservative views.--Johnbull 14:31, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thatcher realised what any radical government has realised - devolution and reform of the upper house both redistribute power away from a Commons majority make it harder for a radical government to achieve bold controversial things. (And Thatcher's ressurection of hereditary peerages was limited - of the three she conferred, one should have been conferred twenty years earlier when they were still given out and the other two were to men without sons, so in practice were life peerages. I think Thatcher's motivation may have been rather more about getting a title for her son than anything else here...) Yes people made the case for Conservatives being strong supporters of the monarchy, but as you quote it hasn't been in recent policy documents (or for that matter on membership cards). And some of those posters played the Conservative equivalent of Godwin's Law - "if you don't support this view you're not a Conservative" as a poor substitute for debate. Timrollpickering 15:28, 30 September 2007 (UTC)