In one sense, Martin Kettle is correct to observe that the Conservative party of the post-Covid-19 era will be a different creature (After coronavirus, Boris Johnson’s Tories will be a very different party, 16 April). In the historical sense, however, little will have changed. The government’s response to the pandemic has featured suppression of individual liberty, suppression of commercial freedom, a substantial extension of state economic intervention, and an expansion of state expenditure on a scale previously associated with major wars.
To those conditioned to regard Margaret Thatcher as the embodiment of Conservative philosophy, this is undoubtedly striking. However, Thatcher was an exception. Her philosophy owed more to 19th-century liberalism than to conservatism. The Conservative party’s heritage includes supporting powerful monarchical government, suppressing free trade, and supporting the heavily statist political consensus of the 1945-1979 era. It was far more comfortable with wartime government than the old Liberal party.
More recently, David Cameron was rather more comfortable wearing the mantles of Harold Macmillan and Tony Blair than that of Thatcher, and Boris Johnson appears to be happiest when dabbling in environmentalism, NHS worship and fiscal incontinence. The political landscape might well change after this year, but the Conservative party need not.
Deri Hughes
London
• As Martin Kettle notes, it may well be that the Covid-19 virus will change the course of the Tory party. But it won’t change its character. What is evident to many is that at this time of terrible crisis, we are subject to an administration that is made up of many individuals whose records show them to be liars and manipulators, with some closely connected to the financial elite that are using this situation to make profits for themselves. No one can trust this administration. The one certainty is that their exit strategy will be characterised by deceit, fabrications, and false accounting – oh, and hypocrisy.
Adrin Neatrour
Newcastle upon Tyne
• Martin Kettle’s expectation of a significant shift in this government’s values post-crisis is confronted by the fact of the Tory/Lib Dem assault on the state after the 2008 crash. Then, the ballooning public sector deficit was used as a fig leaf by neoliberal ideologues for deep and sustained cuts in public expenditure. Why would the same arguments not be rolled out again, by an administration enjoying a large majority over a currently punch-drunk opposition? While there may be some dancing around the NHS, is there any realistic prospect of recovery for other areas excoriated since 2010?
Pete Fenwick
Chelmsford, Essex
• It is deeply ironic that the party and its small-government, Britain-alone philosophy, which gained a huge stamp of electoral approval only four months ago, is now having to handle a crisis that demands big government and international cooperation. Martin Kettle is right that this provides a real dilemma for Johnson. A reversion to the Cummings script and a failure to recalibrate the economy in a way that recognises who the true key workers are would surely spell electoral disaster. But the opposite course of action would take the PM and his party in a direction that is totally counter to their beliefs and instincts. Parking his tanks on Labour’s lawn would be a huge political risk.
Robin Pickering
Exeter
• Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com
• Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters
• Do you have a photo you’d like to share with Guardian readers? Click here to upload it and we’ll publish the best submissions in the letters spread of our print edition
