Morality and Politics

Do Moral Principles affect our politics and if so what are they?

 

In his book The Righteous Mind the author Jonathan Haidt sets out six moral principles.   They are:

·   Care/harm evolved in response to the challenge of caring for vulnerable children.   It makes us sensitive to signs of suffering and need, it makes us despise cruelty and want to care for those who are suffering.

·    Liberty/oppression shows concerns about political equality and are related to a dislike of oppression and a concern for victims, and no desire for reciprocity.

· Fairness/cheating evolved in response to the challenge of reaping the rewards of cooperation without getting exploited by free riders   It makes us sensitive to indications that another person is likely to be a good (or bad partner) for collaboration and reciprocal altruism.   It makes us want to shun or punish cheaters.   It is primarily about proportionality.   When a few members of a group contribute far more than the others most adults do not want to see the benefits distributed equally.   

L Loyalty/betrayal evolved in response to the challenge of forming and maintaining coalitions.   It makes us sensitive to signs that another person is (or is not) a team player.   It makes us reward the team player and it makes us want to hurt, ostracize those who betray us or our group.

·  Authority/subversion evolved  in response to the challenge of forging relationships that will benefit us within social hierarchies.   It make us sensitive to signs of rank or status and to signs that other people are (or are not) behaving properly, given their position.

·   Sanctity/degradation evolved initially in response to the dilemma, and then the broader challenge of living in a world of parasites.   It makes us wary of a diverse array of symbolic objects and threats.   It makes it possible for people to invest objects with irrational and extreme values- both positive and negative – which are important for binding groups together.

 It appears that people rely upon these principles in different ways or to different degrees.   Socialists rely primarily on the Care and Liberty principles. Whereas those on the right of politics use all six.   If so, does that give Conservative politicians a broader variety of ways to connect with voters?

The political left tend to rest most strongly on the Care/harm and Liberty/oppression principles.   These support ideals of social justice, which emphasize compassion for the poor and a struggle for equality among the groups that comprise society.   Social justice groups emphasize solidarity – they call for people to come together to fight the oppression of bullying domineering elites.

Everyone cares about Care/harm but the political left turn out to be more disturbed by signs of violence and suffering compared to Conservatives.

Everyone care about Liberty/oppression but the left are most concerned about the rights of certain vulnerable groups ( e.g. racial minorities, children, animals) and they look to government to defend the weak against oppression by the strong.   Conservatives, in contrast, hold more traditional ideas of liberty as the right to be left alone and they resent programmes that use government to infringe on their liberties in order to protect the groups that the left most care about.   For example, small business owners support Conservatives because they resent government telling them how to run their businesses under its banner of protecting workers, minorities, consumers and the environment.

The Fairness/cheating principal is about proportionality.   It is about making sure that people get what they deserve.   Everyone cares about proportionality, everyone gets angry when people take more than they deserve, but Conservatives care more. Employees who work the hardest should be paid the most.   The left are ambivalent but Conservatives in contrast endorse this enthusiastically.

Conservatives think it is self evident that responses to crimes should be based on proportionality, as shown in the slogan “Three strikes and you’re out”   Yet the political left are uncomfortable with retribution.   After all retribution causes ham and harm activates the Care/harm principle.

The remaining three moral principles show the biggest and most consistent partisan differences.   The political left are ambivalent about these principles at best, whereas Conservatives embrace them.

The political left embrace the three moral principles of Care/harm, Liberty/oppression and Fairness/cheating but are often willing to trade away fairness when it conflicts with compassion or with their fight against oppression.   Conservatives believe in all six moral principles although they are more willing to sacrifice Care and let some people get hurt in order to achieve their many other moral principles.

Moral psychology can help to explain why the Labour Party has had so much difficulty connecting with voters, whilst Conservatives speak more directly to the voters because they have a better grasp of the theory of moral principles because they trigger every single principle.

One of the great puzzles about democracy at the moment is why rural and working class voters choose to vote Conservative when it is Labour that wants to redistribute money more evenly?   Labour often say that Conservatives have duped  these people into voting against their economic self interest, but from the perspective of Moral Principles, rural and working class voters were in fact voting for their moral interests.   They don’t want to eat at expensive restaurant, they don’t want their nation to devote itself primarily to the care of victims and the pursuit of social justice.

For 130 years the Conservative Party understood these Moral Principles  and targeted the voters accordingly, which is why it dominated UK politics during this period.   Unfortunately it lost sight of them in the last 25 years and has suffered accordingly.   The question is can it recover and get them back?

The Conservatives have one further problem.   They have allowed their membership to decline to an insignificant level.   This is fatal.   People love groups, we develop our virtues in groups, even though these groups necessarily exclude non-members.   If you destroy your group you dissolve all internal structure, you destroy your moral capital.

Real Conservatives understand this point.   The subdivisions add up to the greater whole.   Edmund Burke said it in 1790:

To be attached to the subdivision (e.g. Christian Conservatives, Conservative Friends of Israel etc.)  to love the little platoons we belong to in society, is the first principle (the germ as it were) of public affections.   It is the first link in the series by which we proceed towards a love to our country, and to mankind.

Mark Littlewood in conversation with Jonathan Gullis

Mark Littlewood of Popcon talks with Jonathan Gullis.   Click on the heading below:

 Jonathan Gullis talk with Mark Littlewood

Plus ca Change! Conservative Candidate Selection for London Mayor

 With thanks to BBC Newsnight.

Speculation has started regarding who will be the Conservative Candidate in the London Mayor election. As per Camilla Tominey of the Daily Telegraph 10 January 2026 "James Cleverly is being lined up as the Conservative candidate for mayor of London.   This video shows what happened  in 2006 when James Cleverly last put forward his name to be a candidate for mayor.   It was at the height of the controversy over David Cameron's "A" List. 

    I had been asked by the Party Board to research the operation of the "A" list which was proving to be very unpopular with the grass roots Party members.  To my surprise I found that the number of women applying to be candidates was approximately 30% and the number of women candidates being selected was also 30%. In my report I stated that the "A" list was not a solution to the problem of few women candidates and research should be done as to why so few women applied.    The report was accepted by the Party Board and David Cameron told me that the "A" List was to be dropped privately with no public announcement.   He went on to say that he only brought in the "A" List because he thought it would get him the women's vote in the Leadership election.

"Conservatives Together" & Grant Shapps - Selection of Parliamentary Candidates

 

On 29 December 2025 the article below by Grant Shapps appeared on the ConservativeHome web site:

 Here is my response;

 Grant, CCHQ's responsibility is to conduct due diligence on candidates. No more no less. It is the right of the ordinary members of the Party to select their candidate without interference by CCHQ. Conservatives Together are training people to go through a selection process which should not be taking place. All it is doing is giving the Party Establishment the opportunity to manipulate the process of selection by eliminating people they do not like or whose views they do not like. If I may say so, the quality of candidates was much higher pre the new Constitution of 1998 when the Constituency Associations were autonomous and chose their candidate without CCHQ interference.

Recommendation to Constituency Associations:

Unless you want an Establishment clone, your Constituency Association should not include a Candidate who has had training by Conservatives Together. 

They will have been taught to present themselves in the best possible light, so you will not get the real persons’ views.

If they really wanted to be a Member of Parliament they would have found out what it entails before applying to be a Candidate, so why are they applying now?

A six month course but not a mention about Conservative objects, values or principles!   Do you really want a greasy pole kind of candidate who does not think for themselves but just trots out the propaganda they have been given?

 

You don’t win elections with just slogans and spin but by having enough credible people ready to stand.

by

Grant Shapps

Grant Shapps is a former Defence Secretary, Transport Secretary, and Party Chairman and was MP for Welwyn Hatfield 2005-2024

The most important Conservative revival work is happening outside the spotlight.

A few months ago, I found myself in a room with twenty Conservatives who had almost nothing in common – except ambition and impatience. One had been running a business since their early twenties. Another had spent years in local government, quietly fixing things without ever being noticed. One had given up a safe professional career because they believed politics could still be a force for good. None of them were household names. None of them were part of a faction. All of them wanted to serve.

What struck me wasn’t their ideology. It was their seriousness.

That room was the first cohort of the Conservatives Together Fellowship Since then, we’ve run a second cohort and are about to start our third, with applications remaining open until 31st December. Sixty people in the programme so far. Remaining on track, that will be 500 trained by the time the country next goes to the polls.

That number isn’t accidental.

It reflects something uncomfortable but obvious: parties don’t win elections because of slogans and spin. They win because they have enough capable, credible people ready to stand. People who can persuade voters on doorsteps, survive hostile interviews, and govern competently when they’re elected.

After the 2024 General Election, the Conservative Party has been doing what it should do: reassessing, arguing, renewing. But while ideas matter, infrastructure matters too. And one part of that infrastructure – how we identify, prepare and support future candidates – has been quietly underpowered for years. I know this because as a former Conservative Party Chairman I appreciated there wasn’t time or capacity in-house to do this longer term work.

That is the gap Conservatives Together exists to fill.

CTog is not part of the party machine. It isn’t a pressure group, a faction, or a rebrand of something familiar. It is a not-for-profit organisation, sitting outside the formal party structure, with a simple aim: to help grow a deeper, stronger pipeline of Conservative candidates, free of charge to those taking part.

Why outside the party?

Because it allows honesty. About what works. About what doesn’t. About the reality of standing for Parliament and being elected, as opposed to the myth. It allows us to focus on skills, judgement and resilience, rather than box-ticking or networking for its own sake.

The Fellowship is a six-month programme. It is demanding. Participants are challenged on policy, communications, campaigning and leadership. They are exposed to the pressures of modern politics as it actually is, not as it used to be. They are supported by an Expert Network that includes MPs, peers, former parliamentarians and specialists who give their time because they believe the future of the party is worth investing in.

What we do not do is select candidates. That remains, rightly, the job of CCHQ and the party’s democratic structures. What we aim to do is ensure that when selection panels meet, they are choosing from a broader, deeper pool of people who are actually prepared for what lies ahead.

This matters because politics is getting harder, not easier. Voters are more sceptical. Media scrutiny is relentless. Populism thrives where serious politics retreats. If conservatives want to win again – and govern well when we do – we need people who are grounded, capable and motivated by service rather than celebrity.

Which brings me back to that room.

At the end of the session, one Fellow said something quietly revealing. “I didn’t realise,” they said, “how much work this would be. But I also didn’t realise how much it mattered.”

That, in the end, is the point. The next Conservative revival won’t arrive in a briefing note or a clever line. It will come, slowly and unglamorously, from people willing to do the hard work. Conservatives Together exists to help find them – and to make sure they’re ready when the moment comes.