The undoing of the Telegraph mirrors a broader crisis in conservatism, which could leave a gap for Ukip to fill
To echo Professor Jay Rosen at New York University, the resignation of Peter Oborne from The Telegraph is ‘one of the most important things a journalist has written about journalism lately’.
The fact that the paper, or so Oborne accuses, could no longer decouple its advertising arm with its news content wing is itself huge news – something that should make us worry about journalistic standards more broadly.
The clickbait culture of such stories like the women with three breasts, which lo and behold was not true, along with the absence of big stories like Tesco false accounting, and even bigger ones on HSBC that Oborne himself worked on and was forced to send his research elsewhere, together spelled doom for the kind of independence that The Telegraph was typically noted for.
It would be too easy to say that The Telegraph is just a hymn sheet for whatever the Conservative party says at any given time (hence being dubbed the Torygraph).
After all it has given its support to the party through thick and thin, in times when the party has managed to capture the nation’s heart (somehow), and even when support slumped and other newspapers and their owners were throwing their weight behind Tony Blair.
But the paper was a lot more than that. It challenged the Conservative party from a small ‘c’ conservative position wherever it could. The Telegraph has never been afraid to attack David Cameron from the right, for example, and it’s no surprise that Cameron in his early days as leader of opposition, and then PM, that he looked for allies in liberal Guardian-reading Tories, rather than the high Tories and villa Tories among the Telegraph’s readership.
Though it doesn’t directly affect me, for example, a left winger and Labour supporter, I have always worried about what would happen in the absence of conservativism on two fronts: the drift of working class conservatism into other political expressions, namely with Ukip; and the further empowerment of neoliberalism.
As Phil Burton-Cartledge said in a blog post last night, the undoings of the Telegraph, with its high profile resignations and messy affairs with editors (with a lot of sub-editors cleared out of the newspaper’s towers), sort of resembles a crisis in conservatism more broadly. But with the view now, certified by Oborne in his resignation letter, that the Telegraph has lost its way – maybe indefinitely – another intellectual crisis of conservatism is forthcoming.
After all, where now will independent-minded conservatives, who don’t simply regurgitate the party line at CCHQ, look to for their daily news feed? Sure ConservativeHome is very good, but it doesn’t have the reach. Tim Montgomerie speaks his mind, but perhaps he is still too much like ‘think-tank’ material. Philip Blond? Well, the same problem again.
The next election, whether we like it or not, will rest a great deal on arguments around what it means to be centre-right and fiscally responsible, particularly in regards to carving out a dividing line between the Conservatives and Ukip.
Depending where in the country you are, Ukip will try to be the political chameleon, changing its colours where it suits them. But the real battleground is capturing real right-wing politics from that shadly liberal David Cameron.
But while you’ll find no love of Cameron from me, Ukip represents a very dangerous set of politics, quite distinct from conservativism proper, and more aligned to dog-whistle politics of the far right, or libertarianism where the crassness of money and power matter more than shared values and the retention of traditional institutions.
Say what you will about the Telegraph, but it was never given to the vice of market liberalism, or the city slickers and their contempt for ‘family, faith, and flag’, to borrow a phrase. That was, perhaps it could be argued, until the Barclay brothers took over, with whom according to Oborne a lot of the problems at the paper become most apparent.
Which leads me to my other worry about the absence of conservatism and the stranglehold of neoliberalism. But rather than explain what this means in detail, I’ll simply quote Oborne himself:
“The coverage of HSBC in Britain’s Telegraph is a fraud on its readers. If major newspapers allow corporations to influence their content for fear of losing advertising revenue, democracy itself is in peril.”
I think the Oborne resignation letter was important because it told some very stark truths: primarily that the Telegraph was not truly independent. Rather than making me jump for joy, this potential black hole for small ‘c’ conservativism worries me. Perhaps there is life left in Blue Labour? But we shall see.
Carl Packman is a contributing editor to Left Foot Forward and the author of Loansharks: The rise and rise of payday lending
45 Responses to “Why even left wingers need conservatism”
damon
Leon, you are just making stuff up.
I don’t give a monkey’s who lives in what part of the world and in what numbers.
I’d probably vote for ” open borders” of the kind that the online magazine ”Spiked” advocates.
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/4284#.VOYRCyi3QsIVOYRCyi3QsI
Do you understand that Leon? Those probably are closest to my own personal opinions.
Why should I care what happens in Britain? I won’t be alive to see the long term future, and I’m sure it will all work out OK one way or another.
You keep misrepresenting everything I say. If I defend the right of people to vote UKIP without being demonized, you insist I must be a supporter of their’s.
It would be the same as me defending the rights for people to draw Charlie Hebdo style cartoons, and you insisting I was a Muslim baiter.
Can you get that point?
You are slightly annoying Leon.
damon
Leon, you’re having a go at me just for saying what’s said in surveys.
This is from the Migration Observatory at Oxford University.
http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/uk-public-opinion-toward-immigration-overall-attitudes-and-level-concern
You probably think they are a racist outfit because they say things you would deny.
From that link:
Immigration is generally unpopular
Despite uncertainties involved in measuring and interpreting public opinion, the evidence clearly shows high levels of opposition to immigration in the UK. In recent surveys, majorities of respondents think that there are too many migrants in the UK, that fewer migrants should be let in to the country, and that legal restrictions on immigration should be tighter.
subtleknife666
There are genuine asylum-seekers and then there are those who try to cheat the asylum system. Just as with benefits, those who cheat should suffer the consequences — in the case of fake asylum-seekers, that would be getting sent back to their home countries. Just as with benefits, those who are NOT cheating should not be demonised by the Cameron regime and the right-wing media.
We should be VERY careful before sending people back, and I fear the UK authorities are not always being careful enough. If a guy claims to have been persecuted in his home country because he’s gay or the opinions he’s expressed don’t please the local despot, well, let’s be very careful not to send him back to be tortured or hanged. On the other hand, it’s difficult to prove a negative, isn’t it? How the heck do you try to prove a person has NOT been persecuted?
It’s not easy, none of it.
But when the Daily Mail etc. are busy portraying asylum-seekers and benefits claimants as evil parasites, well, it makes my blood boil and I want to pick up and throw something heavy!!
damon
Ha, I’m going to be more left than you now and say that I don’t think all asylum seekers who lied should get sent back. When they tightened up other immigration possibilities, that became a way to get into western Europe. So people lied – apart from nearly breaking the asylum system, so what?
My sister worked with young Afghan lads who even used to lie about their age so that the council would be forced to provide for them when they were deemed as vulnerable teenagers.
And they all have Taliban stories, even ounces from places controlled by other factions.
On the boats coming over from Libya now there is a total mix. Not all are from war situations.
Probably a minority are. And even then, we only take the young and strong who manage to get to Europe.
If it was only about asylum, then you could say that Sri Lanka is safe now. I was in the Tamil part just a couple of weeks ago and I was surprised how peaceful it was. I thought it would feel like an armed occupation, but it was nothing like it. Even the new prime minister has said all Sri Lankans can return without fear of persecution. But I don’t think Tamils in the UK should have to leave.
Although there’s no reason they shouldn’t perhaps. Plenty have been coming back and forth for years anyway.
In my opinion, asylum is a bit of a scam, and was never designed to take substantial numbers of a region’s population in. Maybe some groups will have to be resettled in the West, but it can not be that we empty regions of whole ethnic groups. Or that a Nigerian in fear of Boko Haram should first think of leaving for the UK rather than another city in their own country.
Leon Wolfeson
Yes yes, keep trying to misinterpret things, Lord Blagger.
Everyone must hold your anti-trade, isolationist views, blah blah.
Those studies are heavily self-selecting and there is widespread misinformation.
Moreover, the economic costs are not discussed. “Do you wish your salary to drop 30% or more” is part of the discussion.
Except you’re happy for that.