NatCon UK: How a ‘Confidence-Building’ Conservative Conference Left Me Dejected

Member of Parliament Michael Gove appeared full of confidence as he told the National Conservatism conference that its youthful ranks made him “look forward with optimism” about the future of their movement. Perhaps he would have felt a little less smug had he heard the attendees, who told me that this comment prompted them to think: “But we hate you!”

Many were confused as to why the conference, which claimed to be about moving conservatism beyond this “crossroads,” was so dominated by Tory grandees. Three years ago, an MP was scolded for—and just avoided suspension after—attending a NatCon event, where the views presented were “utterly condemn[ed]” by Tories. Yet this time, the party, in a “fight for its life,” following disastrous local elections and a slump in the polls, sent some of its leading lights to shore up support.

Some Tories were reportedly “rolling their eyes” at the “unhelpful” appearances of their colleagues. Still, these could be described as positively enthused compared with guests at the conference, who reserved their most hearty applauses (and, on some occasions, standing ovations) for speakers who criticised the ‘Conservative’ Party. These Tory critics said the party ought to be “sued” for calling itself conservative while acting like (or, more correctly, as) liberals; to be “thoroughly ashamed” of the position in which it has placed the country it claims to hold so dear.

Mr. Gove, Home Secretary Suella Braverman, Jacob Rees-Mogg, Tory Deputy Chairman Lee Anderson, and a smattering of others were almost certainly invited to get the conference some press. As expected, plenty of journalists did come, many (though, I should stress, not all) of them arriving moments before the “keynote” speeches, flicking through Twitter during these addresses, and duly leaving as soon as the bigwigs had said their bit.

And said what exactly? That Mrs. Braverman, who spent a painfully long amount of time discussing her family history (hence the claim she has her sights on leadership), comes from a “hard graft” background, which she will put to use—like all those who have offered empty promises before her—by lowering both legal and illegal immigration. (Perhaps she could start by eagerly attending parliamentary votes on the subject.) That, in Mr. Rees-Mogg’s own words, the Conservative Party is pursuing “pathetically unambitious” and “fundamentally anti-conservative” policies, but must be supported because the alternative is “far worse.” That, as Mr. Gove reminded us, “I would say that I was a liberal” (translation: I disagree with what you stand for), but the Tories are a “broad church” party, so one should back it anyway.

Imagine the heckles that would erupt if a speaker—an alleged representative, in fact—addressed a room of Green activists to declare “I would say that I was a climate skeptic.” But this room was more dejected than enraged.

Its attendees were, after all, quite used to a party that has presided over record-high immigration numbers, despite constant pledges to bring these down. To cite one small yet illustrative example, consider the post-Brexit return of the blue British passport, replacing the EU’s burgundy document, as a sign of our regaining sovereignty—despite handing production rights to a French company operating in a Polish factory, rather than to an historic British manufacturer. This Tory party has done nothing to stop the devaluing of British schools, where previously students got into tougher institutions because of their ability but are now selected based on the wealth of their parents. This Tory party stood idly by as crime-preventing ‘Bobbies on the Beat’ were taken off the streets and placed into cars and offices, from which they could only respond to horrific incidents, all the while the rigorous jury system was weakened at the cost of justice. This party claims to care first and foremost about the institution of the family, despite its assessment of the natural family unit as, in Mr. Rees-Mogg’s own words, “fundamentally anti-conservative.”

Or maybe, like politics often are, the room was simply too two-faced—frustrated by a party that continually does the opposite of what it promises, yet excited by the prospect of a lavish meal attended by some of its leaders, and still willing to vote for it at general elections. (Some speakers, who I know were unhappy with the guest list, actually stood before their audience and thanked the organizers for the “wonderful” conference.) In fairness, it is possible the three people, including the head of a well-known conservative publication, with their eyes closed and mouths open during Mr. Gove’s appearance would have kicked up a stink had the talk, in which the minister referenced the Right’s “intellectual energy,” not bored them to sleep.

All of this is to be expected of individuals representing a political force that has spent the past 13 years giving the good talk while stabbing conservatives (who ought to know better by now) in the back. Guests outside the conference hall described their disappointment with Mr. Rees-Mogg and Mrs. Braverman’s “uninspiring” speeches: “The problem with the politicians,” one said, “is they talk too much like politicians.” But I can’t say I was overly excited by the non-Tory speakers either.

There are only so many times you can hear about the evils of the politically correct, radical Left ‘woke’ lobby (about which the same joke was repeated by at least two speakers), the need for Britons to have more babies, and—though I indulge in the same vice here—just how awful the Tory party is.

The three eight-hour days saw speaker after speaker, almost without fail, preaching to the converted, complaining about issues most attendees would be able to speak about as eloquently themselves, while offering nothing in the way of a solution.

The “crossroads” all conservatives know themselves to be at was circled in thick red and the map was then thrown to the floor. This is not to say that a bit of groundwork isn’t always necessary. But couldn’t the organizers have pushed invited speakers to say a little more about what the conference was supposed to be about? “NatCon speakers,” we were told, “believe in rebuilding confidence in our national inheritance of values and institutions.” 

But perhaps there is simply nothing to say about where conservatism can go next.

It would have helped, too, if guests at the conference were given a reasonable amount of time for questions. The ‘panel’ discussions were, in fact, anything but; each speaker talked for 20 to 30 minutes, rather than the usual 10, leaving little-to-no time for discussion among those on the stage, never mind interrogation from the audience.

I was sixth in line to question GB News’ Darren Grimes on his particularly ridiculous speech championing the alleged “brilliance” of Boris Johnson, who he said shares “many of the same views” as traditionalist ‘Red Wall’ voters—despite his urging Britons to “stop moaning about the dam burst” of mass immigration; his (at best) questionable desire for Brexit, and his problematic private life. But with only about eight minutes of the nearly two-hour session left open for questions, I didn’t even get close to the microphone. Needless to say, the Tory grandees didn’t accept any questions at all.

One mainstream newspaper journalist, who is far more used to this conference game than I am, said this is now fairly typical at ‘conservative’ conferences: thoughtful engagement, even at fringe Tory events, appears to be dead, whereas there is often far more discussion at left-wing conferences.

The topics that I and many others felt needed to be discussed only featured very rarely, and even then primarily as mere footnotes to lengthy talks. Some contributors, Philip Pilkington standing out among them, debated where conservatives should stand economically. Mr. Pilkington brought into question the laughable Thatcher-loving, Tory-held view of capitalism as an “unalloyed good.” (I heard that one fairly well-known Thatcherite was wandering around the conference building making his frustration with the bashing of the ‘Iron Lady’s’ conservative credentials well-known to attendees.)

Ed West, the author of “Wrong Side of History” Substack, admitted to being rather nervous but gave, what I found, to be one of the most gripping speeches, highlighting the importance of making “our ideas more popular and … overcom[ing] the feeling of malaise and despair that overcomes our country at the moment,” a feat made nigh impossible to overcome by Britain’s housing market, which is essentially closed to most of the nation’s young. Tory voters who block housebuilding in their areas have a lot to answer for in this regard, Mr. West added, to somewhat hypocritical applause. All the talk about Britons needing to have more babies, he suggested, was futile without the resolution of this issue.

Many speakers drew attention to the damage being done by the Conservative Party, but I can remember no speaker other than Professor Matthew Goodwin offering potential solutions to this. Should genuine conservatives try to change the party from within, he asked, or focus their efforts on growing a smaller force instead? Sadly—no, disastrously—these questions were hardly picked up by other contributors.

Tim Stanley, a columnist at The Daily Telegraph, was quite good too on the need for conservatives to be a little more intelligent; to expect more than soundbites and to aspire towards “nuance” and “generosity.”

There were also some good contributions on the role religion should play in a revival—I’d write the revival if I could see it—of conservatism in Britain, including by my colleague Sebastian Morello.

Much more time should have been given to properly discussing these themes, rather than talking about the dreaded Left.

Throughout the course of the conference, I felt at times as though I was back at university, surrounded by careerist types who stand in awe at the very politicians they enjoy berating over a glass of wine; listening to speakers who took pleasure in shoving more Burke, Fortescue, and Aquinas references in their lectures than those who spoke before them—and boasting about how close they were to Sir Roger Scruton. The lecture hall experience was complete when media reports of these addresses appeared to be products of wholly different events: Indeed, some journalists at the conference described the three days in far different terms than their papers later portrayed.

By the final day, the conference hall looked utterly dejected. Well, they had been subjected to three long sessions of talks with next to no space for participation—itself a deflating experience. Yet, I couldn’t help but feel as if I’d been immersed in an exaggerated dejection, and not just because the final keynote address was given by Tory MP Lee Anderson, who went on about his working-class credentials and talked about being “conned” by big Labour figures. No; I got the impression that many came to be nourished with hope, and were left still wanting. Who can blame them? If this is the future of British conservatism, then conservatism, outside of a few moralist households, has no future.