‘In the years 1997 to 2007, no Conservative leader was able to heal the party’s divisions.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Level
A Level
Year Examined
2022
Topic
The Making of Modern Britain, 1951–2007
👑Complete Model Essay
‘In the years 1997 to 2007, no Conservative leader was able to heal the party’s divisions.’ Assess the validity of this view.
Assessing Conservative Party Divisions (1997-2007)
Following their landslide defeat in 1997, the Conservative Party entered a period of prolonged introspection and leadership upheaval. The assertion that "in the years 1997 to 2007, no Conservative leader was able to heal the party's divisions" holds considerable weight, though it perhaps underestimates the scale of the challenge and the incremental progress made.
Arguments Supporting the View:
The Conservative Party's internal divisions, particularly over Europe and social policy, were deeply entrenched by 1997. William Hague, inheriting the wreckage of John Major's premiership, struggled to bridge these divides. His "Save the Pound" campaign and hardline stance on immigration, while appealing to the party's core, alienated moderate voters and did little to broaden the party's appeal. His attempts to modernize the party's image often felt contrived and failed to resonate with the electorate.
Iain Duncan Smith, elected leader in 2001 largely due to negative sentiment towards rivals, fared little better. Largely unknown outside Westminster, he reopened the Eurosceptic wounds within the party and his socially conservative views held limited appeal. His support for the Iraq War further alienated potential voters disillusioned with Tony Blair's Labour government.
Michael Howard, a veteran of Thatcher's cabinet, offered experience but little in the way of fresh ideas. He was seen as a throwback to a bygone era, his campaign labelled the "Victor Meldrew manifesto" – echoing Hague's struggles to connect with a changing electorate. While he brought a degree of stability, his leadership offered no clear vision for the future, leaving the party seemingly anchored to its past.
Even David Cameron's election in 2005, while marking a decisive shift towards modernization, did not fully heal the party's divisions. His rejection of core Thatcherite principles, particularly on social issues and the environment, alienated some on the party's right who remained skeptical of his "hug a hoodie" approach.
Throughout this period, the Conservatives were locked in a seemingly intractable "civil war" between the "mods" (modernizers) and "rockers" (traditionalists). Leaders struggled to reconcile these factions, resulting in policy confusion and a public perception of a party still grappling with its identity and purpose.
Arguments Challenging the View:
Despite the challenges, there were glimmers of progress. Hague did manage to unite the party around Euroscepticism, evidenced by their strong performance in the 1999 European elections. His "Listening to Britain" campaign, while ultimately unsuccessful, demonstrated an awareness of the need to connect with voters beyond the party's core.
Duncan Smith, though largely ineffective, attempted to articulate a vision of "compassionate conservatism," aiming to soften the party's image and appeal to a broader range of voters. This laid some groundwork for Cameron's later modernization efforts.
Howard, despite his Thatcherite credentials, appointed modernizers to his shadow cabinet, signaling a willingness to embrace change. He also benefited from a more disciplined approach, improving party organization and morale.
Crucially, by 2007, under Cameron's leadership, the Conservatives began to look electable again. His focus on issues like the environment and social justice started to detoxify the party's image and broaden its appeal. By the end of this period, the Conservatives appeared significantly more united and strategically focused than at any point since their 1997 defeat.
Conclusion:
The assertion that no Conservative leader between 1997 and 2007 managed to heal the party's divisions is broadly accurate. The divisions, stemming from years of ideological battles and the legacy of Thatcherism, ran deep and proved resistant to quick fixes. Nevertheless, it's important to acknowledge the scale of the challenge and the incremental progress made. Leaders like Hague, Duncan Smith, and Howard, though largely unsuccessful, laid some groundwork for Cameron's eventual modernization project. By 2007, while divisions remained, the Conservatives were a significantly more united and electorally viable force, demonstrating that the healing process, while slow and arduous, had begun.
Note: History Study Pack Required
Score Big with Perfectly Structured History Essays!
Prepare effortlessly for your A/AS/O-Level exams with our comprehensive...
History Study Pack.
✅ 1200+ Model Essays: Master your essay writing with expertly crafted answers to past paper questions.
✅ Exam Boards Covered: Tailored materials for AQA, Cambridge, and OCR exams.
🍃 Free Essay Plan
In the years 1997 to 2007, no Conservative leader was able to heal the party’s divisions. Assess the validity of this view.
This essay will assess the validity of the view that in the years 1997 to 2007, no Conservative leader was able to heal the party’s divisions. It will consider arguments supporting this view, including the perceived ineffectiveness of leaders such as William Hague, Iain Duncan-Smith, and Michael Howard, as well as the lasting impact of divisions over Thatcherism and Europe. Conversely, it will examine arguments challenging this view, which highlight the attempts at healing divisions made by these leaders, the successes of David Cameron in modernizing the party, and the wider context of the party's situation as a two-party system.
Arguments supporting the view that no leader could heal the divisions
A strong argument can be made that in the years 1997 to 2007, no Conservative leader succeeded in healing the party's deep divisions. William Hague, despite attempts to rebuild the party and present a more modern image, struggled to overcome the legacy of John Major's premiership and the damaging divisions over Europe. The 2001 election was a devastating defeat, with Hague's key policies failing to resonate with the electorate or unite the party. His attempts to appear ordinary were often perceived as awkward and unconvincing, further hindering his ability to gain public trust.
Iain Duncan-Smith, who replaced Hague in 2001, was also ineffective in bridging the party's divisions. His leadership was largely unknown outside Westminster, and he re-opened Eurosceptic divisions with his socially conservative stance. His decision to support the Iraq War further alienated many within the party, preventing him from capitalising on Blair's increasingly unpopularity. Michael Howard, who succeeded Duncan-Smith in 2003, arguably learned nothing from the mistakes of his predecessors. His 2005 platform was described as the 'Victor Meldrew' manifesto, highlighting a perception of the Conservative Party as out of touch and stuck in the past. Howard's close association with the Thatcher and Major governments further contributed to this image.
Even David Cameron, who emerged as the leader in 2005, faced significant challenges in unifying the party. His rejection of key Thatcherite elements alienated many on the right-wing, who remained skeptical of his 'modernising' tendencies. Despite his efforts, the party remained deeply divided between the 'mods' and 'rockers', reflecting the ongoing struggle over the party's direction and identity. By 2007, none of the leaders had been able to fully bridge this divide or overcome the public perception of the Conservatives as the 'nasty party'.
Arguments challenging the view that no leader could heal the divisions
However, it is important to acknowledge the efforts made by these leaders to heal the party's divisions and the potential for progress. Hague did manage to heal some of the divisions over Europe, evident in the party's strong performance in the 1999 European elections. He also attempted to create a more modern, caring image with initiatives such as the 'Listening to Britain' campaign.
Duncan-Smith introduced elements of 'compassionate conservatism', which attracted support from both the socially conservative and socially liberal wings of the party. Howard, despite his right-wing leanings, promoted modernisers into his shadow cabinet and received support from both 'mods' and 'rockers'. His strong performance in the Commons against Tony Blair and his efforts to improve party organisation and morale suggest he was able to maintain a degree of stability and unity.
Cameron's arrival as leader in 2005 marked a significant shift. His success in detoxifying and modernizing the party was evident in his ability to attract a wider range of voters and present a more inclusive and forward-looking image. By 2007, the party was more united than at any point since the end of Major's premiership, suggesting the possibility of a future electoral success.
Conclusion
While the Conservative Party faced a period of significant internal division from 1997 to 2007, it is difficult to argue that no leader was able to make progress in healing those divisions. Each leader, from Hague to Cameron, made efforts to bridge the gap between different factions and modernize the party's image. While some were more successful than others, the division between 'mods' and 'rockers' persisted throughout this period, reflecting the long-standing ideological conflicts within the party. It is also important to consider the wider political context, particularly the rise of New Labour and the Labour Party's capture of the political center ground. This made it particularly challenging for any Conservative leader to unite the party and attract a wider electorate.
Overall, the view that no Conservative leader was able to heal the party’s divisions during this period is overly simplistic and overlooks the efforts made by individual leaders and the changing political context. While the party remained deeply divided, it is clear that progress was made in bridging the gap and laying the foundations for future electoral success. Ultimately, the legacy of these leaders is a mixed one, but it is undeniable that they played a crucial role in shaping the Conservative Party’s path towards eventual political resurgence.
Extracts from Mark Schemes
Arguments Supporting the View
Arguments supporting the view that in the years 1997 to 2007, no Conservative leader was able to heal the party’s divisions might include:
⭐
Hague was largely ineffective in rebuilding the party and the divisions of Major’s premiership remained; the 2001 election was a catastrophe: his key policies, ‘the fight to save the pound’ and a hard line on immigration, failed to resonate with the electorate or unite the party; he found it difficult to be taken seriously, especially his attempts to appear ordinary.
⭐
Duncan-Smith was similarly ineffective: he replaced Hague in 2001 only because of negative voting against Clarke and Portillo; largely unknown outside Westminster, he re-opened Eurosceptic divisions, was socially conservative and his decision to support the Iraq War made it impossible to capitalise on Blair’s unpopularity.
⭐
Howard showed he too had learned nothing from Hague’s mistakes: Portillo described Howard’s 2005 platform as the ‘Victor Meldrew’ manifesto – a grumpy old man complaining about the state of modern Britain; he was too closely associated with the governments of Major and Thatcher and it seemed to voters that the Conservative Party he led had barely changed since the 1980s.
⭐
Cameron’s rejection of key elements of Thatcherism alienated many on the right-wing of the Conservative Party who remained sceptical of his ‘modernising’ tendencies.
⭐
By 2007, none of the leaders had been able to resolve the party’s ‘civil war’ between the ‘mods’ and ‘rockers’; all, with the exception of Cameron, failed to bring clarity of future direction and the vision to overcome public perceptions of the Tories as the ‘nasty party’.
Arguments Challenging the View
Arguments challenging the view that in the years 1997 to 2007, no Conservative leader was able to heal the party’s divisions might include:
⭐
Hague was able to heal some of the divisions over Europe; the party outperformed Labour in the 1999 European elections; he did attempt to build a more modern, caring image, such as his ‘Listening to Britain’ campaign.
⭐
Duncan-Smith tried to initiate elements of what he called ‘compassionate conservatism’, which attracted some support from both the socially conservative and socially liberal wings of the party.
⭐
Howard brought experience and stability; he promoted modernisers into his shadow cabinet, even though he himself was on the right of the party; he had support from both ‘mods’ and ‘rockers’; he performed strongly against Tony Blair in the Commons and improved party organisation and morale.
⭐
Cameron started to make the Conservative Party look electable again; he had success in detoxifying and modernising the party; by 2007 the party was more united than at any time since the end of Major’s premiership.
⭐
It can be argued that the Conservative Party experienced the natural swings of a two-party political system, suffering the staleness of 18 years in office and a Thatcherite legacy that had created deep divisions over ideology and direction, which any leader would have struggled to manage, particularly given the circumstances of Labour revitalised as New Labour and capturing the political middle ground.