The Conservative Party: From Thatcher to Cameron

by Tim Bale

The Conservatives are back, and back with a bang – two election wins in a row and, providing they can hold things together, in a pretty good position to win another. But many questions about their recent past, present, and future still remain. Just why did the world�s oldest and most successful political party dump Margaret Thatcher only to commit electoral suicide under John Major? And what stopped the Tories getting their act together until David Cameron came along? Did Cameron change his party as much as he sometimes liked to claim, or did his leadership, both in opposition and in government, involve more compromise - and more Conservatism – than we realize? Finally, what does the result of the EU referendum mean for the Party in years to come?

The answers, as this accessible and gripping book shows, are as intriguing and provocative as the questions. Based on in-depth research and interviews with the key players, Tim Bale explains how and why the Tories lost power in 1997 – and how and why they have eventually been able to rediscover their winning ways, even if internal tensions and external challenges mean they still can�t take anything for granted. Crucial, he suggests, are the people, the power structures, the ideas, and the very different interests of those involved. This second edition of The Conservative From Thatcher to Cameronis a must-read for anyone wanting to understand what makes the Tories tick.

Genres: Politics, History, Nonfiction

632 pages, Kindle Edition

First published January 1, 2010

Reviews

[Yolanda · Rating 4 out of 5]

A book whose critical stance on people's motives can go overboard - for example, I do think IDS had genuine reasons for adopting a compassionate Conservative stance rather than just the desire to get power or give the Tory Party a mask of magnanimity. However, I found this an excellent read, giving me an academic analysis of the Opposition's activities during the Blair years - which I'd already read extensively about this year (in Nick Cohen's words and those of Blair himself.) I would be interested to learn what Bale made of the Coalition years and of how Cameron handled the recession in government. Actually, scratch that: I'd be most interested in what he made of the activities of, and motivation behind, Osborne.

Alarmingly, some of the wrong-headed retrenchment practised by various Tories while in Opposition may now be on the cards in government. Nobody should find that an appealing prospect, especially not because one main point this book makes is a) how much the Party in the media, especially Dacre's Mail, influences how individuals on the front bench act and react and b) what an utter self-licking lolly it is and how out of touch with what aspects of life the public are in fact conservative about. There was a lot of crowing by Corbyn fans at the last election about how people had 'finally seen through' the Murdoch press (which doesn't have a single editorial stance, guys, sorry to disappoint: the Sun was Leave and the Times was Remain at the referendum) and the Mail. I suspect Bale would find this patronising in the extreme and, having read his analysis, I do, too. Bale successfully, in my view, indicates a number of times that these papers have directed a Tory leader either to promise something impossible, promise something the public don't generally understand, or promise something they don't want.

Finally, with hindsight, I'd have said the referendum being called was a done deal years ago, when I was just a kid. You can see the buildup all the way through this book, even though that isn't why Bale wrote it.

[Rupert Matthews · Rating 1 out of 5]

I struggled through to page 167 before I gave up on this book. The author has clearly done a lot of research and spoken to a large number of people. On one level it is, therefore, a good history of the Tory Party from 1990 to 2010. But on another level this is a dreadful book. The author has a very clear view of politics, and in particular of what he thinks (writing very obviously with hindsight) the Party should and should not have done. In virtually every sentence the writer forces his views on the reader, and not in very subtle fashion. People who act in a way he approves of are "flexible", "pragmatic" or "sensible". Those who do not are "ideological", "blinkered" or "unreconstructed". The writer is entitled to his views, of course, but I am afraid that I found this constant stream of biased invective just too much to cope with. Ironically by his constant pushing of his own views and opinions as if they were clearly correct, the writer shows himself to be every bit as blinkered as those he criticised. I have other books to read, thank you very much.

[Sioned Raybould · Rating 4 out of 5]

A good book, although quite a heavy read. Took me six months to finish it although I'm glad I did. Very informative.

[Mills College Library]

324.24104 B183 2016