The left has conquered the language of political debate

While the Conservative Party may soon agree on a new leader, the crucial task that will then be faced will be to restore consensus on the country’s core political values ​​- and in particular on the balance between the individual and the state. That, in turn, will mean reclaiming the language of political debate that has inexorably turned towards a grand state worldview.

Perhaps the most damaging shift in language has been the changing meaning of individual rights. The essence of conservatism is to emphasise the opportunities for individuals to advance themselves through initiative and hard work, alongside their responsibilities to themselves, their family and the community. Since Magna Carta, the word ‘rights’ has referred to the individual liberties that support this – freedom under the law to live one’s life without discrimination or unfair persecution. Gradually, however, the concept of rights has morphed to include ‘entitlements’ granted and funded by a benevolent state.

All parties in the UK agree that a welfare state is needed that supports those who are truly in need. The EU Charter of Fundamental Rights defines the right to social benefits and social services, as well as to social and housing assistance, as a legal “right” “in order to ensure a life of dignity for all”. Few could dispute this principle, but even though the UK is no longer bound by the Charter, there is ongoing political pressure from the left to expand the range of entitlements to which individuals are entitled.

Does a decent life include a TV subscription? How much choice should individuals have as to what work they are prepared to accept? The question must remain open as to which entitlements guarantee unrestricted rights – and to what extent they conflict with the balancing concept of duties and responsibilities and with the budgetary considerations of paying the bill.

This implicit acceptance of big government in the language of political discussion is reflected in the frequent demand that “they” – the government – should do something about every problem, leading to a flood of knee-jerk legislation and short-sighted initiatives. Conservatives need to challenge the concept that “they” are always the state, and ask themselves whether responsibility does not lie first and foremost with families and communities. Unfortunately, the last government’s adoption of the term “levelling up” was a reinforcement of language that gave the impression that the state’s job was to redistribute wealth, rather than seeing its role as promoting wealth-creating enterprises.

Another shift in meaning is the way in which equality is now often interpreted as equality of outcome rather than equality of opportunity. Conservative values ​​respect the performance of top performers and recognize their enterprise and merit accordingly. They recognize individual success as the main driver of social progress. The new concept of equality too often denounces such unequal outcomes as unfair and undeserved, justifying state intervention and envy policies to replace the old class struggle.

Likewise, the word “elite” has now become a critical term – it suggests a privileged group or culture that excludes ordinary people. But without those at the forefront of science, business, music or the arts, standards for everyone will eventually begin to fall. Being part of the elite is still a source of pride when applied to the military or football, but is seen as unacceptable when applied to schools or universities. We need to restore pride in the achievements and contributions of elites in all areas of life.

And “multiculturalism” is no longer understood as a society with tolerance and acceptance of other cultures, but is used by social justice campaigners to undermine anything that reflects pride in our historic national culture or our identity as a nation.

Judging the actions of famous historical figures by current social values ​​will never work, but conservatives believe that pride in our nation and its achievements creates social cohesion and community spirit.

These are just a few examples of how the changing meaning of words affects the debate. To regain support, conservatives must be bold in calling out the changes in our language that undermine conservative values. They must also be confident that they will strike a chord with a public that still holds those values. If they fail to do so, the center of the debate will inevitably move away from them.

Lord Blackwell was Head of the Prime Minister’s Policy Unit from 1995 to 1997 and is a former Chairman of the Centre for Policy Studies.