OK, it's an old quote but just as appropriate today.
"Happy Victoria Day, the day we honour an old queen by giving her not a moment's thought. A year or two back, some professor thought we should change Victoria Day to Heritage Day to "strengthen our heritage." We strengthen our heritage by obliterating it, apparently. "
Of course, we do not strengthen our heritage by obliterating it. What this sort of thing is supposed to do is enable a different kind of "heritage" to take precedent over the established heritage - and hence the relentless machine of "multiculturalism" grinds on, it's purpose to obliterate the glories from the past and only to remind us of the bad we did before progressive liberalism opened our eyes to the "truth".
Thus children are taught that British sailors endured weevils in their bread and rough punishment, but not that the Royal Navy was the spearhead by which the British Empire rid the world of the abomination that was slavery - an abomination which, in case people forget, was in place long before Britain was a nation in its own right and has since resurfaced since traditional conservatism was replaced by social liberalism.
People like myself are criticised for harking back to some golden age of the Victorian era as if we want to take Britain back to the "good old days" of workhouses, rickets and horse drawn carts - but the reality is that people like myself seek only to remind people that the Victorian era was a time when modernity worked hand in hand with traditional conservatism and created the environment that resulted in greater social progress for the majority of people than at any other time in history.
In other words, traditional conservatives are not afraid of change, progress or technology - we just recognise that real progress comes by applying change and using technology in conservative ways.
It's liberal progressivism that has taken us back decades in terms of societal progress, education, health, industry and morality - and we're far more likely to end up with poor houses, rickets and horse drawn carts if we stick with it than if we restore traditional conservative values. Given a choice between the golden age of Victoriana or the seething cesspit of immorality, crime and truly grinding poverty that preceded it I'll choose Victoria any day of the week.
Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label conservatism. Show all posts
Monday, May 24, 2010
Friday, May 21, 2010
New Model Tories
It's telling that the day after the coalition published its manifesto -which, incidentally, nobody had the opportunity to vote for or against - Dave has penned an article telling us that he remains a Conservative.
And I believe him.
The trouble is, the Conservative Party is a conservative party in the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic. - in other words, it isn't - and Dave knows this which is why he calls himself a progressive and has branded the coalition with the Lib Dems as a "progressive alliance".
Since Cameron took over the leadership of the Conservative Party he has pushed through the changes initiated by the likes of Howard and purged the Tory Party of any last semblance of conservatism. They are now the New Model Tories and they are not the party that the majority of people who voted for them thought they were.
Curiously though, those people who voted in this copy of Blair's "New Labour" are uncommonly quiet about the fact that they have been led up the garden path.
Where are all those people who were telling me "just wait till Cameron gets in" and "he has to do this to become PM"? Well, he got in, he is PM and he is exactly the same as he was before.
No - that's not fair. He isn't exactly the same as he was before because now he has thrown away any pretence at being a conservative. Now he's our Prime Minister he is all progressive this and progressive that - talking about "radical change" and "moving on" and other meaningless progressive phrases.
Almost eleven million people voted Tory at the election - they might just as well have voted Lib Dem or Labour because that is what they have got. And yet, for some reason, they refuse to admit they were wrong even though they privately know they were.
Give it a couple of years and I doubt whether you'll be able to find many people who admit to voting for Cameron in 2010 - just like few people admit to voting for Blair. It doesn't really matter - because those people know they voted for Cameron and they know that they voted for a fraud.
I did keep trying to tell people that is what they would get - because Cameron's whole campaign was built on a monumental fraud. The only thing we weren't sure of is whether it would be the fraud of pretending to be progressive when he really was a conservative or the fraud of being conservative when he is really progressive.
Well, now we know that it was the latter. You people voted for a man who was deliberately perpetrating a deceit in the vain hope that he was deceiving the enemy. He was - but his enemy was conservatism.
And I believe him.
The trouble is, the Conservative Party is a conservative party in the same way that the Democratic People's Republic of North Korea is democratic. - in other words, it isn't - and Dave knows this which is why he calls himself a progressive and has branded the coalition with the Lib Dems as a "progressive alliance".
Since Cameron took over the leadership of the Conservative Party he has pushed through the changes initiated by the likes of Howard and purged the Tory Party of any last semblance of conservatism. They are now the New Model Tories and they are not the party that the majority of people who voted for them thought they were.
Curiously though, those people who voted in this copy of Blair's "New Labour" are uncommonly quiet about the fact that they have been led up the garden path.
Where are all those people who were telling me "just wait till Cameron gets in" and "he has to do this to become PM"? Well, he got in, he is PM and he is exactly the same as he was before.
No - that's not fair. He isn't exactly the same as he was before because now he has thrown away any pretence at being a conservative. Now he's our Prime Minister he is all progressive this and progressive that - talking about "radical change" and "moving on" and other meaningless progressive phrases.
Almost eleven million people voted Tory at the election - they might just as well have voted Lib Dem or Labour because that is what they have got. And yet, for some reason, they refuse to admit they were wrong even though they privately know they were.
Give it a couple of years and I doubt whether you'll be able to find many people who admit to voting for Cameron in 2010 - just like few people admit to voting for Blair. It doesn't really matter - because those people know they voted for Cameron and they know that they voted for a fraud.
I did keep trying to tell people that is what they would get - because Cameron's whole campaign was built on a monumental fraud. The only thing we weren't sure of is whether it would be the fraud of pretending to be progressive when he really was a conservative or the fraud of being conservative when he is really progressive.
Well, now we know that it was the latter. You people voted for a man who was deliberately perpetrating a deceit in the vain hope that he was deceiving the enemy. He was - but his enemy was conservatism.
Saturday, May 15, 2010
Men of no substance
It must be obvious to even the most ardent conservative pre-election supporter of David Cameron that the man is an unrepentant social liberal by now, but I wonder if they are now aware of just how ignorant he is too?
By ignorant, I do not mean uneducated - it is quite obvious that Mr. Cameron has had the most lavish education money can buy - but it is one thing to educate someone and something else for that person to be able to use that education.
And is only ignorant people who brush aside a centuries old constitution to introduce something as unconstitutional and anti-democratic as the fixed five year parliamentary term and the requirement of a 55% majority in the House of Commons to force an election before that time.
I've not mentioned this before, because it was always obvious to me that Cameron is no defender of Britain and therefore no defender of our constitution - I'm just keen to know what Tory voters who thought I was wrong about this think now.
I know that there are traditional conservatives who read this blog and voted for Cameron in the belief that he was only playing the social liberal game until he was in power - but the first thing he does when he achieves that power is jump into bed with the nearest social liberal he can find and embark on the continuation of the vandalism of our historic constitution begun by New Labour.
What do you people think now?
I'm not trying to say "I told you so" - even though I did - I just want to know that there are real conservatives out there who are prepared to say "this is not what I Tory voted for".
Otherwise, what is the point?
By ignorant, I do not mean uneducated - it is quite obvious that Mr. Cameron has had the most lavish education money can buy - but it is one thing to educate someone and something else for that person to be able to use that education.
And is only ignorant people who brush aside a centuries old constitution to introduce something as unconstitutional and anti-democratic as the fixed five year parliamentary term and the requirement of a 55% majority in the House of Commons to force an election before that time.
I've not mentioned this before, because it was always obvious to me that Cameron is no defender of Britain and therefore no defender of our constitution - I'm just keen to know what Tory voters who thought I was wrong about this think now.
I know that there are traditional conservatives who read this blog and voted for Cameron in the belief that he was only playing the social liberal game until he was in power - but the first thing he does when he achieves that power is jump into bed with the nearest social liberal he can find and embark on the continuation of the vandalism of our historic constitution begun by New Labour.
What do you people think now?
I'm not trying to say "I told you so" - even though I did - I just want to know that there are real conservatives out there who are prepared to say "this is not what I Tory voted for".
Otherwise, what is the point?
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
What now, conservatives?
This is a question for all those people who kept telling me that Cameron really was a proper conservative and that we'd all see his true colours once he was Prime Minister.
Well, he's Prime Minister and we've already seen him sell out to the Liberal Democrats. So what now?
Do you still think Cameron is a conservative or have you now realised that he really is the "heir to Blair"?
And do you now understand that the party you support is closer to the philosophy of John Smith than it is to that of Margaret Thatcher?
Cameron has pulled off one of the greatest coups in modern times - not by becoming Prime Minister, but by fooling the Tory party into believing they were still a conservative party and capturing the last free-thinking political party for the progressive left.
Now he's openly thrown his lot in with the progressive left and revealed his true colours after all - and they have turned out to be another shade of red, not Tory blue.
So what now?
More constitutional vandalism, a parliament ever more detached from the people and a ruling elite who sneer at the things you believe in and that you thought they stood for.
So what now?
Well, he's Prime Minister and we've already seen him sell out to the Liberal Democrats. So what now?
Do you still think Cameron is a conservative or have you now realised that he really is the "heir to Blair"?
And do you now understand that the party you support is closer to the philosophy of John Smith than it is to that of Margaret Thatcher?
Cameron has pulled off one of the greatest coups in modern times - not by becoming Prime Minister, but by fooling the Tory party into believing they were still a conservative party and capturing the last free-thinking political party for the progressive left.
Now he's openly thrown his lot in with the progressive left and revealed his true colours after all - and they have turned out to be another shade of red, not Tory blue.
So what now?
More constitutional vandalism, a parliament ever more detached from the people and a ruling elite who sneer at the things you believe in and that you thought they stood for.
So what now?
Wednesday, May 05, 2010
Opportunity knocks
In a comment to the previous post, Steve suggests that it may take two generations or more to rebuild our nation once the progressives have finally disappeared up their own backsides - as they very shortly will. To be honest, up until a few years ago I shared this view, but my viewpoint has changed somewhat due to events.
First of all, let me say that Britain - or an independent England - will never be the nation it once was in terms of economic and political clout, but it doesn't need to be. The main reason for this is that the economic power base has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific and this is unlikely to change back again quickly. So whatever happens, we can never be anything other than on the periphery. That doesn't really matter - and in many ways it is no bad thing.
What matters is that we restore our nation to where it was before the progressives took over and that can be done in a very short space of time. It always has been possible to reverse the damage done by the progressives, but the longer they held power the harder it would be - as long as things remained stable.
But thanks to the economic mess that the progressives - both here, in Europe and in the USA - have wrought, things will not remain stable - and this is the crucial point. While there was the semblance of normal economic stability (I say that because it is now apparent that the economic "miracle" of the progressive era was founded on substantially dodgy ground) it would have taken decades to reverse the damage.
We have become so dependent on the state in so many ways that it would have been impossible to roll back these barriers. That was always part of the plan of progressives - make the people dependent and then they will never give up those things on which they depend.
However, so great is Britain's public debt liability that total economic collapse is now not just a possibility, it is an inevitability. To understand why that is, I suggest you read this piece on the American Thinker. They are obviously talking about the USA, but the same things apply here in Britain.
When this happens all of the structures that the progressives put in place to protect their dominance will come tumbling down. It will not be pretty and it will not be easy, but it will happen and when it does it will be end of the progressive era for good.
From that point on, the rebuilding can begin under social conservative leadership. It will be hard work and it will require strong governance, but the rise will be rapid and in ten years we will have restored our nation to a self-reliant, independent, fully functioning country once more.
The problem for social conservatism has always been the existence of the dependency culture. The economic crisis that is about to hit us - much much harder than the depression of the thirties - provides an opportunity which must be taken.
I'd rather it hadn't happened and I'd have preferred it if it wasn't necessary - but it has and it is and when opportunities like this present themselves we must grab it with both hands. Even if we don't and the opportunity passes us by I still believe that we will roll back the damage of the progressive era. As I said in the last post, the coming generation show every sign that they are not keen on the progressive ideology - but that way will be slow and just as arduous.
If we miss this opportunity then we will be struggling for the next 50 years to overcome our problems, but if we take it when it comes then we will have restored our nation to the peaceful, independent, self-reliant and contented nation it once was inside of two decades. Who knows, I might actually live to see Britain great again!
First of all, let me say that Britain - or an independent England - will never be the nation it once was in terms of economic and political clout, but it doesn't need to be. The main reason for this is that the economic power base has shifted from the Atlantic to the Pacific and this is unlikely to change back again quickly. So whatever happens, we can never be anything other than on the periphery. That doesn't really matter - and in many ways it is no bad thing.
What matters is that we restore our nation to where it was before the progressives took over and that can be done in a very short space of time. It always has been possible to reverse the damage done by the progressives, but the longer they held power the harder it would be - as long as things remained stable.
But thanks to the economic mess that the progressives - both here, in Europe and in the USA - have wrought, things will not remain stable - and this is the crucial point. While there was the semblance of normal economic stability (I say that because it is now apparent that the economic "miracle" of the progressive era was founded on substantially dodgy ground) it would have taken decades to reverse the damage.
We have become so dependent on the state in so many ways that it would have been impossible to roll back these barriers. That was always part of the plan of progressives - make the people dependent and then they will never give up those things on which they depend.
However, so great is Britain's public debt liability that total economic collapse is now not just a possibility, it is an inevitability. To understand why that is, I suggest you read this piece on the American Thinker. They are obviously talking about the USA, but the same things apply here in Britain.
When this happens all of the structures that the progressives put in place to protect their dominance will come tumbling down. It will not be pretty and it will not be easy, but it will happen and when it does it will be end of the progressive era for good.
From that point on, the rebuilding can begin under social conservative leadership. It will be hard work and it will require strong governance, but the rise will be rapid and in ten years we will have restored our nation to a self-reliant, independent, fully functioning country once more.
The problem for social conservatism has always been the existence of the dependency culture. The economic crisis that is about to hit us - much much harder than the depression of the thirties - provides an opportunity which must be taken.
I'd rather it hadn't happened and I'd have preferred it if it wasn't necessary - but it has and it is and when opportunities like this present themselves we must grab it with both hands. Even if we don't and the opportunity passes us by I still believe that we will roll back the damage of the progressive era. As I said in the last post, the coming generation show every sign that they are not keen on the progressive ideology - but that way will be slow and just as arduous.
If we miss this opportunity then we will be struggling for the next 50 years to overcome our problems, but if we take it when it comes then we will have restored our nation to the peaceful, independent, self-reliant and contented nation it once was inside of two decades. Who knows, I might actually live to see Britain great again!
Wednesday, April 07, 2010
The love that dare not speak its name
I've been quite critical of Simon Heffer recently - justifiably in my view, I might add - so it's nice to see him coming back to the fold somewhat in his latest comment piece for The Telegraph.
OK, Heffer is pointing out what is, to many of us, the blindingly obvious - that the three main parties are all basically the same and that the lack of real alternatives will mean that millions of people won't be visiting their local polling station on May 6th - but at least he's one of the few journalists who seems to recognise this.
Only yesterday in The Telegraph we had an editorial eulogising the Tories grand plan for a "big society" and how it was so different from Labour's "big government", but Heffer squashes this completely as he refers to Cameron as ....
.... a PR spiv whose "big idea" is to appoint 5,000 commissars to assist the development of "communities".
I'm glad Heffer sees through Dave's rhetoric and it's about time that there was some serious criticism of the Conservatives from "conservative" media - it's just a shame that Heffer is something of a lone voice on The Telegraph and a rather inconsistent one at that.
Even so, it's a good article and one which I more or less agree with entirely. However, I do have one quibble.
Heffer correctly notes that all the main parties are "social democrat" parties - I prefer to call them progressive liberals, but it's the same thing - and that they are pursuing the same broad agenda using broadly similar methods.
OK, Heffer is pointing out what is, to many of us, the blindingly obvious - that the three main parties are all basically the same and that the lack of real alternatives will mean that millions of people won't be visiting their local polling station on May 6th - but at least he's one of the few journalists who seems to recognise this.
Only yesterday in The Telegraph we had an editorial eulogising the Tories grand plan for a "big society" and how it was so different from Labour's "big government", but Heffer squashes this completely as he refers to Cameron as ....
.... a PR spiv whose "big idea" is to appoint 5,000 commissars to assist the development of "communities".
I'm glad Heffer sees through Dave's rhetoric and it's about time that there was some serious criticism of the Conservatives from "conservative" media - it's just a shame that Heffer is something of a lone voice on The Telegraph and a rather inconsistent one at that.
Even so, it's a good article and one which I more or less agree with entirely. However, I do have one quibble.
Heffer correctly notes that all the main parties are "social democrat" parties - I prefer to call them progressive liberals, but it's the same thing - and that they are pursuing the same broad agenda using broadly similar methods.
No one from the main parties will tell the truth about the need to sack hundreds of thousands of people on the public payroll in order to ensure we live within our means. Nobody will tell the truth about how lower taxes increase revenue, because there are too many cheap votes in bashing bankers who earn lots of money. Nobody will properly defend capitalism as an essential ingredient of a free society. Nobody will champion selective education, which gives such a chance in life to bright children from poor homes, and nobody will be truthful about the pointlessness of much university education.
Nobody will dare to be radical about the corrupt effects of the welfare state. Nobody will take the radical approach needed to counter the results of unlimited immigration. Above all – and that last point leads on to this – nobody will confront the public with the realities of our membership of a European Union governed by the Treaty of Lisbon, which has left us with a choice of staying in on Europe's terms, or getting out.
Actually, the choice with the EU has always been one of staying in on Europe's terms or getting out - the idea that it can be reformed from the inside and that we could reform it has always been ridiculous as every Prime Ministers has discovered since Edward Heath first signed us up to the damned thing.
Anyway - that's not what irritates me with Heffer's comment. It's the fact that Heffer is spot on in describing the main parties and their policies as "social democratic", but doesn't ever mention what the alternative to such dogma is - social conservatism.
It's as if one dare not say that you are a social conservative these days. To some extent, that is understandable as the social democrats always jump on that to portray those of us who are social conservatives as gay-bashing, racist, sexist Jew hating, parochial "little Englanders"
We're not. We're just people who love our nation and want it to remain the country we love. To paraphrase Oscar Wilde ....
Social conservatism in this century is such a great affection of an Englishman for his nation and such as you find in the sonnets of Shakespeare and the prose of Wordsworth. It is that deep, spiritual affection that is as pure as it is perfect. It dictates and pervades great works of art like those of Shakespeare and Constable. It is in this century misunderstood, so much misunderstood that it may be described as the "Love that dare not speak its name," and on account of it I am placed where I am now. It is beautiful, it is fine, it is the noblest form of affection. There is nothing unnatural about it. It is intellectual, and it repeatedly exists between a patriot and his nation. That it should be so, the world does not understand. The world mocks at it and sometimes puts one in the pillory for it.
I'm a social conservative and proud of it. Heffer should be too and ought to come right out and say it. We're not "non-social democrats" - we're social conservatives. Yes, the bigots of the establishment will mock us, call us names as and try to portray us as something we are not just as the establishment did to Oscar Wilde - but we must stand up for what we believe in and not be afraid to say it
Thursday, March 25, 2010
All in the same boat
Over on The Telegraph comment page, Toby Young (no, I have no idea who he is either) wonders why the Tories and Labour are running neck and neck in the polls.
So what, exactly, is going on here? Why can’t the Tories put clear blue water between them and Labour?
A good question, Mr. Young.
It's not really - I was being sarcastic. It's a stupid question. The Tories can't put "clear blue water" between them and Labour in the polls because there is no "clear blue water" between them and Labour in general policy and the fundamental aims of their parties.
Whichever party gets elected to form a government we're going to get a progressive liberal government. Labour and the Tories may squabble over the minutiae of detail, but basically they are both pushing in the same direction.
Given that there is so little difference between Labour and Tory policy, it's actually quite surprising that the Tories are as high in the polls as they are - but the reason for that is that most people who say they will vote Tory at the next election will vote that way just because they always vote Conservative. Of that 36% from the latest poll, I would guess that at around 90% of those will always vote Tory (i.e. they are guaranteed around a 30-32% share of the vote just from their core vote).
And it's not as if Labour have moved to the right either. The centre ground of British politics is way to the left of where it was fifty, forty or even twenty years ago. The "centre ground" has been moving inexorably to the left of the political spectrum since the sixties and the pace of that move has, if anything, increased over the last five years since Cameron became leader of the opposition.
Even if the Tories do win the next election, those who voted for them are going to be disappointed - because they will still have the same government they had before. The only real difference will be that the new administration has even less experience and even fewer truly talented people to draw upon to form a government than the Labour party.
The Tories have spent fifty years paddling their battered craft closer and closer to the good ship Labour - discarding conservative ideals as they go - and now they've jumped aboard and cast the remnants of conservatism to drift with the tide.
The Conservative Party is no longer a conservative party - and more and more people are beginning to realise this. They can't open up clear blue water between them and the Labour party because they are all in the same boat and they are not fighting over which direction to steer the ship - only about whose flag is to fly from the main mast.
So what, exactly, is going on here? Why can’t the Tories put clear blue water between them and Labour?
A good question, Mr. Young.
It's not really - I was being sarcastic. It's a stupid question. The Tories can't put "clear blue water" between them and Labour in the polls because there is no "clear blue water" between them and Labour in general policy and the fundamental aims of their parties.
Whichever party gets elected to form a government we're going to get a progressive liberal government. Labour and the Tories may squabble over the minutiae of detail, but basically they are both pushing in the same direction.
Given that there is so little difference between Labour and Tory policy, it's actually quite surprising that the Tories are as high in the polls as they are - but the reason for that is that most people who say they will vote Tory at the next election will vote that way just because they always vote Conservative. Of that 36% from the latest poll, I would guess that at around 90% of those will always vote Tory (i.e. they are guaranteed around a 30-32% share of the vote just from their core vote).
And it's not as if Labour have moved to the right either. The centre ground of British politics is way to the left of where it was fifty, forty or even twenty years ago. The "centre ground" has been moving inexorably to the left of the political spectrum since the sixties and the pace of that move has, if anything, increased over the last five years since Cameron became leader of the opposition.
Even if the Tories do win the next election, those who voted for them are going to be disappointed - because they will still have the same government they had before. The only real difference will be that the new administration has even less experience and even fewer truly talented people to draw upon to form a government than the Labour party.
The Tories have spent fifty years paddling their battered craft closer and closer to the good ship Labour - discarding conservative ideals as they go - and now they've jumped aboard and cast the remnants of conservatism to drift with the tide.
The Conservative Party is no longer a conservative party - and more and more people are beginning to realise this. They can't open up clear blue water between them and the Labour party because they are all in the same boat and they are not fighting over which direction to steer the ship - only about whose flag is to fly from the main mast.
Tuesday, February 09, 2010
The future of "broken Britain"
I don't know if you saw that report of a poll in The Times online which suggested that most people now agree that we are living in a broken society, but there were a couple of interesting revelations in it. The first was this one .....
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
It is obvious from those results that the policy of multiculturalism - implemented without the consent of the people - has caused seriously divisive issues. I know how those people feel as the town I grew up in is utterly alien to me now even though I still live there. Would I emigrate, though? No - but I'll leave Slough when the time is appropriate.
The other surprising result was this one .....
Three fifths (60 per cent) of those polled say they look to the future with optimism, against 38 per cent who are looking forward with anxiety. While 45 per cent say Britain’s best years are behind us, 50 per cent say that they are still to come.
I say surprising, but this doesn't actually surprise me. It reflects my own view that Britain is about to enter a new era of conservatism as the age of progressive liberalism dribbles away to its entirely expected end. When I say "conservatism" I mean proper conservatism, not Conservatism.
It is not the Tory Party who will lead us out of broken Britain, but a new era of social conservatism. The people have had enough of progressive liberal policies and are not prepared to endure another fifty years of experiment and failure. They want this country restored to how it used to be and they expect to get it.
You see, you can't have 70% of people believing that we're living in broken Britain and 50% believing that we're basically heading in the right direction. Those results demonstrate that the British people really do remain socially conservative and that they really have had enough of social liberalism.
The times they are a changing - and this time they are going back to what works.
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
Nearly three fifths of voters say that they hardly recognise the country they are living in, while 42 per cent say they would emigrate if they could.
It is obvious from those results that the policy of multiculturalism - implemented without the consent of the people - has caused seriously divisive issues. I know how those people feel as the town I grew up in is utterly alien to me now even though I still live there. Would I emigrate, though? No - but I'll leave Slough when the time is appropriate.
The other surprising result was this one .....
Three fifths (60 per cent) of those polled say they look to the future with optimism, against 38 per cent who are looking forward with anxiety. While 45 per cent say Britain’s best years are behind us, 50 per cent say that they are still to come.
I say surprising, but this doesn't actually surprise me. It reflects my own view that Britain is about to enter a new era of conservatism as the age of progressive liberalism dribbles away to its entirely expected end. When I say "conservatism" I mean proper conservatism, not Conservatism.
It is not the Tory Party who will lead us out of broken Britain, but a new era of social conservatism. The people have had enough of progressive liberal policies and are not prepared to endure another fifty years of experiment and failure. They want this country restored to how it used to be and they expect to get it.
You see, you can't have 70% of people believing that we're living in broken Britain and 50% believing that we're basically heading in the right direction. Those results demonstrate that the British people really do remain socially conservative and that they really have had enough of social liberalism.
The times they are a changing - and this time they are going back to what works.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Will UKIP take the opportunity?
Despite the best efforts of the media to minimise the damage to their appointed successor to Tony Blair becoming Prime Minister at the next election, David Cameron's Tory party is in complete disarray.
Call Me Dave's "cast iron pledge" has turned out to be nothing more than a sandcastle washed away by the tide of EU integration and he knows damn well that his promise of a referendum over future powers being ceded to the EU is pure hogwash. The Lisbon Treaty is designed to make it possible for the EU to take new powers without the need for future treaties and therefore bypass member states requirements to hold referendums.
Meanwhile, many current and experienced Tory MPs are furious over the way they've been treated by Cameron regarding their expenses. While Cameron has stamped hard on certain MPs for their misdemeanours he has let those close to him off with the merest slap on the wrist and Cameron himself is far from squeaky clean on this matter. Consequently, some MPs have decided to stand down at the next election while others have been forced out against their will .
All of this provides a huge opportunity for UKIP. I said after two Tory peers defected to UKIP a couple of years back that UKIP now need to get similar defections from MPs - but, as usual, UKIP missed the opportunity preferring instead to indulge in another round of internal wrangling and argument.
But now they have the perfect opportunity to snap up a number of disaffected and highly experienced Conservative party members. UKIP need to be reaching out to those Conservative MPs who feel hard done by and convince them to join UKIP and to stand for UKIP in the next election.
It will only take a couple of successful defections of former Tory MPs to make others consider their options and if by doing so UKIP manage to capture a seat or two in parliament then the conservative grass roots support which the Tory party relies on may well start to support UKIP in growing numbers.
Will UKIP seize this fantastic, once in a lifetime opportunity? I have my doubts. The problem is that the UKIP leadership will worry that a bunch of experienced former Conservatives - particularly if there are one or two well known names - will represent a challenge to their own ambitions.
It would be great if, for a change, UKIP could actually put the future of this country ahead of their own personal ambition, but I fear this will not be the case. It's a shame - because I believe this is a golden opportunity for UKIP and if they fail to take it then they will fail as a party.
Call Me Dave's "cast iron pledge" has turned out to be nothing more than a sandcastle washed away by the tide of EU integration and he knows damn well that his promise of a referendum over future powers being ceded to the EU is pure hogwash. The Lisbon Treaty is designed to make it possible for the EU to take new powers without the need for future treaties and therefore bypass member states requirements to hold referendums.
Meanwhile, many current and experienced Tory MPs are furious over the way they've been treated by Cameron regarding their expenses. While Cameron has stamped hard on certain MPs for their misdemeanours he has let those close to him off with the merest slap on the wrist and Cameron himself is far from squeaky clean on this matter. Consequently, some MPs have decided to stand down at the next election while others have been forced out against their will .
All of this provides a huge opportunity for UKIP. I said after two Tory peers defected to UKIP a couple of years back that UKIP now need to get similar defections from MPs - but, as usual, UKIP missed the opportunity preferring instead to indulge in another round of internal wrangling and argument.
But now they have the perfect opportunity to snap up a number of disaffected and highly experienced Conservative party members. UKIP need to be reaching out to those Conservative MPs who feel hard done by and convince them to join UKIP and to stand for UKIP in the next election.
It will only take a couple of successful defections of former Tory MPs to make others consider their options and if by doing so UKIP manage to capture a seat or two in parliament then the conservative grass roots support which the Tory party relies on may well start to support UKIP in growing numbers.
Will UKIP seize this fantastic, once in a lifetime opportunity? I have my doubts. The problem is that the UKIP leadership will worry that a bunch of experienced former Conservatives - particularly if there are one or two well known names - will represent a challenge to their own ambitions.
It would be great if, for a change, UKIP could actually put the future of this country ahead of their own personal ambition, but I fear this will not be the case. It's a shame - because I believe this is a golden opportunity for UKIP and if they fail to take it then they will fail as a party.
Friday, September 11, 2009
Progressives don't do voluntary
A fair few years ago - long before I started writing this blog and not long after rediscovering Christianity - I had an argument with a friend who, trying to convert me back to socialism, insisted that "Jesus was the first socialist".
This annoyed me for several reasons. Not least because I found it hugely offensive for my friend to attempt to impose a political doctrine on an historical figure who was particularly apolitical. I don't wish to make the same mistake, but if anything Jesus was a small c conservative - certainly socially and morally. That said, many socialists - particularly old school ones - remain socially and morally conservative themselves.
But the reason it annoyed me more than anything is that it simply is not true. My friend claimed that Jesus was in favour of wealth redistribution - which is true - but what he neglected to say was that Jesus believed it should be entirely voluntary. Further more, it is quite clear from the Bible that Jesus believed that tax collectors were "sinners" who had to be saved and from that we can deduce that Jesus clearly was not a socialist.
Socialism doesn't do voluntary. Perhaps one of the biggest myths about socialism that has grown out of the last 50 years or so is that it is all about "fairness". The idea that progressives have some sort of hegemony in fairness is ludicrous to conservatives like me - but it depends entirely on what you define as fair.
For example, progressives don't think it's fair that someone well off should have a nice house in a nice area, good quality clothes and a smart brand new car in the drive while someone less well off has to make do with a run down council flat, cheap tat from a supermarket and run a ten year old, fifth hand Ford Fiesta.
Someone like me, on the other hand, doesn't think it is fair that those who work hard to provide for themselves and their families should have more and more money forcibly removed from them under threat of imprisonment just so that some lazy, feckless good for nothing can continue to live their lives of indolence. What that does not mean is that I believe that those who are genuinely in need should not receive some sort of help - far from it.
But I believe that the vast majority of that help should come from voluntary sources and not through state coercion. Over the last ten years or so we have seen an increase in the number of so-called "charities" which are nothing more than agencies of the state. Most, if not all, of their funding comes not from voluntary sources, but is handed to them by the government - and the government, as we know, does not have any money. It all comes from the taxpayer (note: taxpayers are only from the private sector. There are no taxpayers in the public sector as they receive their salary out of taxation in the first place. Taking £10 and giving £2 back does not make you a contributor!).
Part of the reason for the government doing this is that, over the last 50 years or so the amount of money voluntarily given to charity fell considerably. However, that is not a surprise to me. Indeed, it is an inevitable consequence of an increasingly socialist society whereby the burden moves from the voluntary to the coercive.
Jesus was no socialist and progressives are no more "fair" than conservatives. Socialism will always make society less less voluntary and more coercive and that is the biggest difference between conservatism and progressivism.
This annoyed me for several reasons. Not least because I found it hugely offensive for my friend to attempt to impose a political doctrine on an historical figure who was particularly apolitical. I don't wish to make the same mistake, but if anything Jesus was a small c conservative - certainly socially and morally. That said, many socialists - particularly old school ones - remain socially and morally conservative themselves.
But the reason it annoyed me more than anything is that it simply is not true. My friend claimed that Jesus was in favour of wealth redistribution - which is true - but what he neglected to say was that Jesus believed it should be entirely voluntary. Further more, it is quite clear from the Bible that Jesus believed that tax collectors were "sinners" who had to be saved and from that we can deduce that Jesus clearly was not a socialist.
Socialism doesn't do voluntary. Perhaps one of the biggest myths about socialism that has grown out of the last 50 years or so is that it is all about "fairness". The idea that progressives have some sort of hegemony in fairness is ludicrous to conservatives like me - but it depends entirely on what you define as fair.
For example, progressives don't think it's fair that someone well off should have a nice house in a nice area, good quality clothes and a smart brand new car in the drive while someone less well off has to make do with a run down council flat, cheap tat from a supermarket and run a ten year old, fifth hand Ford Fiesta.
Someone like me, on the other hand, doesn't think it is fair that those who work hard to provide for themselves and their families should have more and more money forcibly removed from them under threat of imprisonment just so that some lazy, feckless good for nothing can continue to live their lives of indolence. What that does not mean is that I believe that those who are genuinely in need should not receive some sort of help - far from it.
But I believe that the vast majority of that help should come from voluntary sources and not through state coercion. Over the last ten years or so we have seen an increase in the number of so-called "charities" which are nothing more than agencies of the state. Most, if not all, of their funding comes not from voluntary sources, but is handed to them by the government - and the government, as we know, does not have any money. It all comes from the taxpayer (note: taxpayers are only from the private sector. There are no taxpayers in the public sector as they receive their salary out of taxation in the first place. Taking £10 and giving £2 back does not make you a contributor!).
Part of the reason for the government doing this is that, over the last 50 years or so the amount of money voluntarily given to charity fell considerably. However, that is not a surprise to me. Indeed, it is an inevitable consequence of an increasingly socialist society whereby the burden moves from the voluntary to the coercive.
Jesus was no socialist and progressives are no more "fair" than conservatives. Socialism will always make society less less voluntary and more coercive and that is the biggest difference between conservatism and progressivism.
Monday, September 07, 2009
Define "bad parent"
The head of Barnardo's may have stirred up some controversy amongst the progressive liberals with his view that children of bad parents should be taken away and offered for adoption as quickly as possible, but it's a view that I tend to agree with - with some concerns.
You see, the problem is how you define a "bad parent". For me - and probably most people who read this blog - it's quite a simple thing. A bad parent is one who tends to indulge in feckless and risky behaviour - serial partners, drug taking , excessive alcohol consumption and so on.
But our social services are not full of people like me or those who read this blog - they are stuffed to the brim with Guardian reading liberal lefties who have a very different idea of what constitutes bad parenting than you or I.
To them, a bad parent is someone whose kid might be 5lbs "overweight". Their child may be very happy, well dressed, regularly doing well at school and developing perfectly normally in every other way - but to the liberal left an "overweight" child is a sign of abuse and "bad parenting".
To the progressive fools who inhabit our social services offices a bad parent is someone who prefers to school their kids themselves at home rather than entrust them to one of the many appallingly bad state comprehensives and primaries where discipline does not exist and bullying and intimidation is rife.
This is the difficulty we have and will always have as long as our social services remains in the hands of the liberal left - and this is why, before we do anything else, we need to change this. We need our institutions - such as social services, the police, criminal justice system, education services and so on to be more conservative as they once were.
As long as they remain under the control of the liberal left there isn't a hope in hell that we can begin to address the problems we have - and as long as we have a government that subscribes to the progressive orthodoxy then nothing will change.
The current Tory party isn't going to do it.
You see, the problem is how you define a "bad parent". For me - and probably most people who read this blog - it's quite a simple thing. A bad parent is one who tends to indulge in feckless and risky behaviour - serial partners, drug taking , excessive alcohol consumption and so on.
But our social services are not full of people like me or those who read this blog - they are stuffed to the brim with Guardian reading liberal lefties who have a very different idea of what constitutes bad parenting than you or I.
To them, a bad parent is someone whose kid might be 5lbs "overweight". Their child may be very happy, well dressed, regularly doing well at school and developing perfectly normally in every other way - but to the liberal left an "overweight" child is a sign of abuse and "bad parenting".
To the progressive fools who inhabit our social services offices a bad parent is someone who prefers to school their kids themselves at home rather than entrust them to one of the many appallingly bad state comprehensives and primaries where discipline does not exist and bullying and intimidation is rife.
This is the difficulty we have and will always have as long as our social services remains in the hands of the liberal left - and this is why, before we do anything else, we need to change this. We need our institutions - such as social services, the police, criminal justice system, education services and so on to be more conservative as they once were.
As long as they remain under the control of the liberal left there isn't a hope in hell that we can begin to address the problems we have - and as long as we have a government that subscribes to the progressive orthodoxy then nothing will change.
The current Tory party isn't going to do it.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
On a promise
Over on The Telegraph comment section, Simon Heffer discusses an issue I raised the other day - Scottish independence - and seems, more or less, to reach the same conclusion as me.
But he inadvertently (at least I assume it was not intentional) raises another issue - about the Tory Party. Mr Heffer refers to the information on "the West Lothian question" available on the Conservative party website which claims ...
" ..... that a Tory government will address the West Lothian Question and give English MPs a "decisive say" in matters that affect only England."
Mr Heffer then goes on to say .......
"I am not entirely sure what that means, but it sounds promising."
That, in a nutshell, encapsulates the Cameron doctrine. It all sounds very promising, but remains starkly devoid of detail and nobody really knows what it means.
Mr Cameron and his party have made a myriad of statements that often sound "very promising" but when you actually try and make sense of any of it you will find that their position is either almost identical to that of Labour and/or the Lib Dems or just so vague that it could mean almost anything to anybody.
In some ways that is a clever plan. It allows conservative voters to still cling - vainly, in my opinion - to the vague hope that the Tory party might yet prove to be conservative while allowing progressive liberals the hope and belief that the Tory party really has changed (which it has).
Ultimately, though, one group or the other is going to feel very let down come a Tory election victory and my money would be on those hoping that the Tories will come out of the conservative closet after the next election.
They won't - and I will tell you why. If you want to get an idea of what a national Tory government will be like then take a look at any of the Tory run councils. You will find those councils as wedded to the progressive doctrine as any Lib Dem or Labour council. You will find they are as committed as any to promoting the favourite causes of progressive liberalism and have virtually abandoned any pretence at conservatism whatsoever.
But he inadvertently (at least I assume it was not intentional) raises another issue - about the Tory Party. Mr Heffer refers to the information on "the West Lothian question" available on the Conservative party website which claims ...
" ..... that a Tory government will address the West Lothian Question and give English MPs a "decisive say" in matters that affect only England."
Mr Heffer then goes on to say .......
"I am not entirely sure what that means, but it sounds promising."
That, in a nutshell, encapsulates the Cameron doctrine. It all sounds very promising, but remains starkly devoid of detail and nobody really knows what it means.
Mr Cameron and his party have made a myriad of statements that often sound "very promising" but when you actually try and make sense of any of it you will find that their position is either almost identical to that of Labour and/or the Lib Dems or just so vague that it could mean almost anything to anybody.
In some ways that is a clever plan. It allows conservative voters to still cling - vainly, in my opinion - to the vague hope that the Tory party might yet prove to be conservative while allowing progressive liberals the hope and belief that the Tory party really has changed (which it has).
Ultimately, though, one group or the other is going to feel very let down come a Tory election victory and my money would be on those hoping that the Tories will come out of the conservative closet after the next election.
They won't - and I will tell you why. If you want to get an idea of what a national Tory government will be like then take a look at any of the Tory run councils. You will find those councils as wedded to the progressive doctrine as any Lib Dem or Labour council. You will find they are as committed as any to promoting the favourite causes of progressive liberalism and have virtually abandoned any pretence at conservatism whatsoever.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
The right tools for the job
I don't understand why it is that just because I'm a conservative I shouldn't be in favour of nationalised industries. I think it's partly due to the fact that people still wrongly assume capitalism to be a political system - even though it clearly is not - and therefore, if you are even moderately right wing you must favour private enterprise over state owned industry.
I really don't see this as being the case. Capitalism is simply an economic system which is used, by and large, by virtually every kind of government there is regardless of whether they are left or right wing. It is used because, although far from perfect, it is by far the most effective economic system there is - but that should not distract us from its shortcomings which are many.
I think it was Churchill who said that democracy was the worst kind of government there is apart from all the others - well so it is with capitalism and economic systems. Just as you need to have effective checks and balances on democracy you also need to have effective checks and balances on capitalism too and, as I have always maintained, this can only be done effectively within a national context.
The thing is, private enterprise is not always the best way forward for certain industries. The Victorians understood this which is why the Royal Mail was a state owned industry as that was the only way a universal, nationwide service could be maintained - as a state owned monopoly. Could it be done better by a private enterprise? Almost certainly where the service is profitable - but most definitely not where it isn't.
You won't be surprised, therefore, to learn that I totally oppose the sell off of any part of the Royal Mail and believe completely that it should remain a state owned industry More than this, I believe that the services provided by the Royal Mail should once more become a monopoly as this is the only way to enable Royal Mail to regain much of the profitable areas of its business that it lost out on to private companies who get to cherry pick what they can offer and to whom.
I have similar views, as I've noted before on the railways. The only way you can ensure that you have a fully integrated and universal rail service is by making the whole damn network - track, stations, rolling stock etc. - a state owned monopoly. I know people point to the British Rail of the seventies as demonstrable proof that this won't work - but that ignores completely the realities of that time with underinvestment and all too powerful and militant unions.
I'm also in favour of the utilities being state owned - water, gas and electric - for the same reasons. Beyond that I'm more or less in favour of everything else being open to private enterprise free market capitalism
However, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes free market capitalism and private enterprise fails and when it does I believe it is the duty of a national government to step in and help out in certain cases - particularly in industries which are vital to our economic and national well being.
I think this is especially important in key manufacturing and production industries such as defence, car/truck manufacture, coal and steel, aerospace, shipbuilding and other major, "heavy" industries.
Let me make it clear that I would always prefer - if and when possible - that these industries would not be state owned and open to the vagaries of free market capitalism (but, as always, within the context of the nation - I'm just not into the whole global free market thing which, as I've made it clear elsewhere, is going to be a monumental disaster for the west in general and Britain in particular).
However, if capitalism is failing to deliver what we require from these industries then I believe it is right and proper for the national government to step in and either take over ailing companies or, if we are completely lacking in a certain field , start new companies to fill the void.
I would hope that this would be done always with the intention of privatising those companies when it is prudent to do so - but with certain provisions that they must remain wholly British owned and with measures in place to prevent aggressive takeovers of other companies in those sectors which would once more reduce competition and leave the resulting conglomerate as a private monopoly.
I don't believe this is left wing "socialist" thinking - I believe it is a sensible policy for any government to pursue. These industries are vital to a nation as they are often the lifeblood of the innovation and technological advancement that drives a national economy forward. They are also vitally important to our education system as these major industries need quality graduates and skilled workers.
It's one of the most overlooked failings of our education system that one of the reasons the quality of education has declined so significantly is simply that there isn't the same need to produce highly educated school leavers anymore. The law of supply and demand is just as important in education as it is in selling televisions.
State owned industry, conservatism and a fundamental belief in free market capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Far from it - it makes eminently good sense for any government to keep all available tools in its tool box and to be prepared to use them if and when necessary. And sometimes only one tool will do the job right.
I really don't see this as being the case. Capitalism is simply an economic system which is used, by and large, by virtually every kind of government there is regardless of whether they are left or right wing. It is used because, although far from perfect, it is by far the most effective economic system there is - but that should not distract us from its shortcomings which are many.
I think it was Churchill who said that democracy was the worst kind of government there is apart from all the others - well so it is with capitalism and economic systems. Just as you need to have effective checks and balances on democracy you also need to have effective checks and balances on capitalism too and, as I have always maintained, this can only be done effectively within a national context.
The thing is, private enterprise is not always the best way forward for certain industries. The Victorians understood this which is why the Royal Mail was a state owned industry as that was the only way a universal, nationwide service could be maintained - as a state owned monopoly. Could it be done better by a private enterprise? Almost certainly where the service is profitable - but most definitely not where it isn't.
You won't be surprised, therefore, to learn that I totally oppose the sell off of any part of the Royal Mail and believe completely that it should remain a state owned industry More than this, I believe that the services provided by the Royal Mail should once more become a monopoly as this is the only way to enable Royal Mail to regain much of the profitable areas of its business that it lost out on to private companies who get to cherry pick what they can offer and to whom.
I have similar views, as I've noted before on the railways. The only way you can ensure that you have a fully integrated and universal rail service is by making the whole damn network - track, stations, rolling stock etc. - a state owned monopoly. I know people point to the British Rail of the seventies as demonstrable proof that this won't work - but that ignores completely the realities of that time with underinvestment and all too powerful and militant unions.
I'm also in favour of the utilities being state owned - water, gas and electric - for the same reasons. Beyond that I'm more or less in favour of everything else being open to private enterprise free market capitalism
However, as I mentioned earlier, sometimes free market capitalism and private enterprise fails and when it does I believe it is the duty of a national government to step in and help out in certain cases - particularly in industries which are vital to our economic and national well being.
I think this is especially important in key manufacturing and production industries such as defence, car/truck manufacture, coal and steel, aerospace, shipbuilding and other major, "heavy" industries.
Let me make it clear that I would always prefer - if and when possible - that these industries would not be state owned and open to the vagaries of free market capitalism (but, as always, within the context of the nation - I'm just not into the whole global free market thing which, as I've made it clear elsewhere, is going to be a monumental disaster for the west in general and Britain in particular).
However, if capitalism is failing to deliver what we require from these industries then I believe it is right and proper for the national government to step in and either take over ailing companies or, if we are completely lacking in a certain field , start new companies to fill the void.
I would hope that this would be done always with the intention of privatising those companies when it is prudent to do so - but with certain provisions that they must remain wholly British owned and with measures in place to prevent aggressive takeovers of other companies in those sectors which would once more reduce competition and leave the resulting conglomerate as a private monopoly.
I don't believe this is left wing "socialist" thinking - I believe it is a sensible policy for any government to pursue. These industries are vital to a nation as they are often the lifeblood of the innovation and technological advancement that drives a national economy forward. They are also vitally important to our education system as these major industries need quality graduates and skilled workers.
It's one of the most overlooked failings of our education system that one of the reasons the quality of education has declined so significantly is simply that there isn't the same need to produce highly educated school leavers anymore. The law of supply and demand is just as important in education as it is in selling televisions.
State owned industry, conservatism and a fundamental belief in free market capitalism are not mutually exclusive. Far from it - it makes eminently good sense for any government to keep all available tools in its tool box and to be prepared to use them if and when necessary. And sometimes only one tool will do the job right.
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Why do we keep falling for the same old lie?
It's incredible. It's been thirty six years since we joined the EU - or the Common Market as it was then. Since then we've had a succession of Prime Ministers - Heath, Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair and Brown - and a number of party leaders - Foot, Smith, Steel, Owen, Jenkins, Williams, Ashdown, Kennedy, Campbell, Clegg, Hague, Duncan-Smith, Howard - all telling us that we can change the EU better from inside.
And not one of them ever has.
Nobody - ever - has changed the EU in any way that it did not want to change.
Now I hear Cameron make one speech full of empty promises which he knows he can not keep and we're all falling for the same old lie. Return power from Brussels to Britain! Yeah - like that has EVER happened before. Thatcher tried - Thatcher failed. All she managed to achieve was a minor rebate on our expenses as a concession for giving away even more of our sovereignty - and that concession was time limited and eventually given up by Blair.
And yet I still hear what I would normally consider to be reasonably sensible, rational conservatives saying that Cameron can change the EU!
How many times are you people going to fall for this garbage?
The objective of the EU is to achieve political union into a single EU state. For the first 30 years they didn't actually admit that, but for the last five years or so it has been more or less openly admitted.
It will not be stopped. It will not turn back. It will not change.
Come on conservatives of Britain - WAKE UP!!!!
And not one of them ever has.
Nobody - ever - has changed the EU in any way that it did not want to change.
Now I hear Cameron make one speech full of empty promises which he knows he can not keep and we're all falling for the same old lie. Return power from Brussels to Britain! Yeah - like that has EVER happened before. Thatcher tried - Thatcher failed. All she managed to achieve was a minor rebate on our expenses as a concession for giving away even more of our sovereignty - and that concession was time limited and eventually given up by Blair.
And yet I still hear what I would normally consider to be reasonably sensible, rational conservatives saying that Cameron can change the EU!
How many times are you people going to fall for this garbage?
The objective of the EU is to achieve political union into a single EU state. For the first 30 years they didn't actually admit that, but for the last five years or so it has been more or less openly admitted.
It will not be stopped. It will not turn back. It will not change.
Come on conservatives of Britain - WAKE UP!!!!
Monday, May 18, 2009
The democracy lie
Over on The Times comment section, William Rees-Mogg believes he has a solution to the MPs expenses row - an elected House of Lords (no, I can't work out how that fixes the MPs expense abuses either).
I now believe that the parliamentary crisis can generate the energy to create a fully elected House of Lords. In some ways that would be less efficient and less well informed than the present House, and it will certainly be more expensive. Yet an unelected House lacks representative authority.
But the House of Lords is not supposed to be a "representative authority". That entirely misrepresents the role and purpose of our second chamber which is not to reflect party politics but to act as a vital check and balance to the House of Commons to prevent abuses of power and the concentration of power.
An elected Lords will not be able to do that. If we have an elected Lords it will inevitably end up dominated one way or the other by either the party of government or the party of opposition resulting in a government with no effective check and balance or one unable to operate effectively - a lame duck government.
Anyone who doubts this needs only to look to the USA to see what that means. In George W. Bush's first term the Republicans dominated both houses leading to an overly powerful president. In his second term the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and Bush was dead in the water for the next two years.
And that is in the USA where representatives are free to vote according to their conscience whereas an elected Lords would be as prone to the whip system as the Commons where any dissent is ruthlessly crushed and any ambition is impossible unless you conform to the official party line. It's a recipe for disaster.
Over the last 12 years Labour has sought to undermine the Lords with "reforms" which were in fact barely disguised class warfare and amounted to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. The whole point was not to make the Lords work better, but to make it more compliant. When the Lords refused to play ball Labour resorted to the Parliament Act almost indiscriminately and then bullied the Lords with threats of more "reform".
I maintain that an elected Lords will not make Britain more democratic. It really makes me sick that so many people think that more voting will mean more democracy. It won't - it will just mean more power concentrated in party hands and lead to the final erosion of the only effective check and balance on our government.
That check and balance is vital to ensure that we have a properly accountable government and to ensure that no government passes laws which are contrary to the principles, traditions and history of our long held and hard won democracy.
There is a clear warning from history of how this can be used to subvert democracy. The (written) Weimar constitution was described as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." - but this did not stop Adolf Hitler rising to power and then using that constitution to entrench his power.
That could never have happened here because of the Lords - but if the Lords were elected? When an unscrupulous party attains power it is essential to have an effective check and balance to prevent that party abusing that power. Some might say that it couldn't happen here - I would argue that this Labour administration demonstrates that it already has.
Labour's motivation was not about making democracy work better - nothing could be further from the truth - it was about making the socialist advances of progressive liberalism over the last decade irreversible. Because so few people actually understand that true democracy isn't just about having a vote it doesn't surprise me that the moves are quite popular amongst the electorate, but it worries me that even staunch conservatives like Rees-Mogg are falling for the lie.
I now believe that the parliamentary crisis can generate the energy to create a fully elected House of Lords. In some ways that would be less efficient and less well informed than the present House, and it will certainly be more expensive. Yet an unelected House lacks representative authority.
But the House of Lords is not supposed to be a "representative authority". That entirely misrepresents the role and purpose of our second chamber which is not to reflect party politics but to act as a vital check and balance to the House of Commons to prevent abuses of power and the concentration of power.
An elected Lords will not be able to do that. If we have an elected Lords it will inevitably end up dominated one way or the other by either the party of government or the party of opposition resulting in a government with no effective check and balance or one unable to operate effectively - a lame duck government.
Anyone who doubts this needs only to look to the USA to see what that means. In George W. Bush's first term the Republicans dominated both houses leading to an overly powerful president. In his second term the Democrats gained control of the House of Representatives and Bush was dead in the water for the next two years.
And that is in the USA where representatives are free to vote according to their conscience whereas an elected Lords would be as prone to the whip system as the Commons where any dissent is ruthlessly crushed and any ambition is impossible unless you conform to the official party line. It's a recipe for disaster.
Over the last 12 years Labour has sought to undermine the Lords with "reforms" which were in fact barely disguised class warfare and amounted to nothing less than constitutional vandalism. The whole point was not to make the Lords work better, but to make it more compliant. When the Lords refused to play ball Labour resorted to the Parliament Act almost indiscriminately and then bullied the Lords with threats of more "reform".
I maintain that an elected Lords will not make Britain more democratic. It really makes me sick that so many people think that more voting will mean more democracy. It won't - it will just mean more power concentrated in party hands and lead to the final erosion of the only effective check and balance on our government.
That check and balance is vital to ensure that we have a properly accountable government and to ensure that no government passes laws which are contrary to the principles, traditions and history of our long held and hard won democracy.
There is a clear warning from history of how this can be used to subvert democracy. The (written) Weimar constitution was described as "on paper, the most liberal and democratic document of its kind the twentieth century had ever seen ... full of ingenious and admirable devices which seemed to guarantee the working of an almost flawless democracy." - but this did not stop Adolf Hitler rising to power and then using that constitution to entrench his power.
That could never have happened here because of the Lords - but if the Lords were elected? When an unscrupulous party attains power it is essential to have an effective check and balance to prevent that party abusing that power. Some might say that it couldn't happen here - I would argue that this Labour administration demonstrates that it already has.
Labour's motivation was not about making democracy work better - nothing could be further from the truth - it was about making the socialist advances of progressive liberalism over the last decade irreversible. Because so few people actually understand that true democracy isn't just about having a vote it doesn't surprise me that the moves are quite popular amongst the electorate, but it worries me that even staunch conservatives like Rees-Mogg are falling for the lie.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Nuts in May
Is it me or has everyone gone a bit barmy over the MP expenses row?
It's something that I really find hard to get excited about, but it seems to be just about the only thing occupying the thoughts of not only the MSM but the blogosphere as well. I know it's an important issue, but it's not THE important issue and with a major election coming up I'm sure there are some important issues which are being overlooked.
Not least the fact of the EU. We're about to have a vote for the EU Parliament where expenses abuses and gravy trains abound far more than they do in our own parliament. There's the EU constitutional treaty to worry about and the various vague promises to hold a referendum on that disgraceful document.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems have been remarkably quiet on the issue of expenses - hardly surprising as they are up to their neck in it as well - but they've not exactly been vociferous in debating the issues that this up coming election is all about either.
As far as I can see, although these revelations have been embarrassing they aren't going to change our voting preferences in any substantial way. All the main parties have been exposed by this, but they know damn well that they operate in a closed shop - voters will still vote Lib Dem, labour or Tory and they'll still dominate parliament come the next General Election.
It's time we started having a proper debate about the issues at the heart of this election - and the fact is that all three parties are once more operating a closed shop. There is no debate because they all agree. The expenses row actually gives them the opportunity to avoid talking about those issues and the fact that they do all agree - so, in a way, we're actually letting them off the hook.
With even a Tory grandee like Tebbit telling voters not to vote for the main parties, this should be a great opportunity for UKIP to make some political capital. Although he never mentioned them by name, his words are a clear indication that he is backing UKIP - I doubt they could get a better endorsement bar Margaret Thatcher wearing a UKIP rosette.
It's also being suggested that Tebbit will be expelled from the Tory party for failing to back the Conservatives. What an opportunity that would be for UKIP!
Personally, I've still not decided who I will vote for - if anyone - but if there is any party I suppose it is UKIP. They are, after all, the party which reflects my own views closer than any other, but I do find them utterly infuriating. They have such potential, but they fail to maximise it again and again. If UKIP could be as motivated, organised and direct as the BNP they could really make some progress. I really believe there is a huge untapped, disenfranchised, conservative voter base crying out for UKIP to make themselves more electable - but they always seem to muck up any opportunity that comes their way.
A lot of that comes from UKIP wanting to run before they can walk. They've failed to build the core support at the grass roots in the way BNP does and their electoral gains in 2004 went to their heads.
From what I understand, the UKIP share of the vote in the coming election is likely to collapse substantially - they will have only themselves to blame if it does. Whatever happens, UKIP must start to concentrate on building that core support in the way the BNP does. You may not like the BNP, but you have to admire the way they've built their share of the vote - slowly and determinedly.
UKIP must learn from that. Are they able to? I'm not sure.
It's something that I really find hard to get excited about, but it seems to be just about the only thing occupying the thoughts of not only the MSM but the blogosphere as well. I know it's an important issue, but it's not THE important issue and with a major election coming up I'm sure there are some important issues which are being overlooked.
Not least the fact of the EU. We're about to have a vote for the EU Parliament where expenses abuses and gravy trains abound far more than they do in our own parliament. There's the EU constitutional treaty to worry about and the various vague promises to hold a referendum on that disgraceful document.
Both the Tories and the Lib Dems have been remarkably quiet on the issue of expenses - hardly surprising as they are up to their neck in it as well - but they've not exactly been vociferous in debating the issues that this up coming election is all about either.
As far as I can see, although these revelations have been embarrassing they aren't going to change our voting preferences in any substantial way. All the main parties have been exposed by this, but they know damn well that they operate in a closed shop - voters will still vote Lib Dem, labour or Tory and they'll still dominate parliament come the next General Election.
It's time we started having a proper debate about the issues at the heart of this election - and the fact is that all three parties are once more operating a closed shop. There is no debate because they all agree. The expenses row actually gives them the opportunity to avoid talking about those issues and the fact that they do all agree - so, in a way, we're actually letting them off the hook.
With even a Tory grandee like Tebbit telling voters not to vote for the main parties, this should be a great opportunity for UKIP to make some political capital. Although he never mentioned them by name, his words are a clear indication that he is backing UKIP - I doubt they could get a better endorsement bar Margaret Thatcher wearing a UKIP rosette.
It's also being suggested that Tebbit will be expelled from the Tory party for failing to back the Conservatives. What an opportunity that would be for UKIP!
Personally, I've still not decided who I will vote for - if anyone - but if there is any party I suppose it is UKIP. They are, after all, the party which reflects my own views closer than any other, but I do find them utterly infuriating. They have such potential, but they fail to maximise it again and again. If UKIP could be as motivated, organised and direct as the BNP they could really make some progress. I really believe there is a huge untapped, disenfranchised, conservative voter base crying out for UKIP to make themselves more electable - but they always seem to muck up any opportunity that comes their way.
A lot of that comes from UKIP wanting to run before they can walk. They've failed to build the core support at the grass roots in the way BNP does and their electoral gains in 2004 went to their heads.
From what I understand, the UKIP share of the vote in the coming election is likely to collapse substantially - they will have only themselves to blame if it does. Whatever happens, UKIP must start to concentrate on building that core support in the way the BNP does. You may not like the BNP, but you have to admire the way they've built their share of the vote - slowly and determinedly.
UKIP must learn from that. Are they able to? I'm not sure.
Friday, May 08, 2009
The definition of irony
If you've got kids, you'll know how they love to ask questions. I'm quite proud of the fact that both my kids are avid readers, but that does mean they occasionally come across the odd word they don't know which usually results in the question "Dad, what does this word mean?".
Most of the time I'm able to deal with these, but the other night my youngest asked me one that had me flummoxed. What is "irony"?
Have you ever tried to explaining irony to a nine year old? It's tricky to say the least. Contrary to what Alanis Morrisette might think, it's not rain on your wedding day. I still haven't found a good way to explain it to a nine year old - but I do think I've found the perfect example of irony.
It's the fact that after a long, inexorable drift over many decades the Conservative Party under David Cameron is looking like it might finally achieve its goal of becoming a social liberal party in power - just as the rest of the country is starting to turn back to social conservatism.
Isn't that ironic?
Most of the time I'm able to deal with these, but the other night my youngest asked me one that had me flummoxed. What is "irony"?
Have you ever tried to explaining irony to a nine year old? It's tricky to say the least. Contrary to what Alanis Morrisette might think, it's not rain on your wedding day. I still haven't found a good way to explain it to a nine year old - but I do think I've found the perfect example of irony.
It's the fact that after a long, inexorable drift over many decades the Conservative Party under David Cameron is looking like it might finally achieve its goal of becoming a social liberal party in power - just as the rest of the country is starting to turn back to social conservatism.
Isn't that ironic?
Wednesday, May 06, 2009
Will an outbreak of social conservatism be the next pandemic?
It looks like it's starting over at The Independent with Dominic Lawson weighing in with some insight into the Baby P story.
Seldom can so many inquests have been held over a single, tiny, corpse. Last night BBC1's Panorama carried out yet another, under the title, "Baby P – the whole truth?" The question mark conveniently allows for a further such investigation, whenever the public mood demands it.
This set in motion the other media ritual in such circumstances – an interview on Today with Lord Laming, author of two reports following the deaths of children on Haringey Social Services' at-risk register. Laming produced his now familiar litany of suggestions for social working "best practice", accompanied by the chilling observation that "the state should become a responsible and effective parent to more children".
Such "chilling observations" are now rather common place in so-called social democracies, but that isn't the point I wanted to emphasise. Lawson goes on to make a very good point regarding how we've come to rely on tackling symptoms rather than the underlying problems.
Last December the head of Ofsted, smarting from the criticism her organisation had received over its invigilation of Haringey Social Services, pointed out that over the previous 16 months 210 children had died in this country as a result of abuse, and of the 21 babies who had died, only two were known to the social services.
That on it's own tells us nothing. The idea behind the comment from the Ofsted head is to ram home the oft repeated leftist assertion that mums and dads are far more likely to kill their kids than anyone else, but Lawson pulls that myth apart
While it is true that there are cases in which a child is killed by his or her natural father, this is, in statistical terms, unusual. Baby P is a more typical case, in being murdered by someone in the home, but with whom there is no proper parental tie. It is simply a fact that the growth in "broken homes" has led to a vast increase in the number of children deemed to be "at risk" – no fewer than 1.5m now fall into this category.
Lawson goes on to wonder about a welfare system that rewards family break up and penalises real families - the traditional nuclear family - that stick together.
In this context, it is truly astounding that the Government sees nothing untoward in a benefits system which actively rewards what we might still be able to describe as "non-traditional families". I don't think that the answer to the breakdown of the nuclear family is to tilt the tax system sharply in favour of marriage – these are essentially moral rather than financial matters – but it is definitely perverse to do the opposite.
Perverse indeed - but if you aren't going to tip the tax system in favour of marriage then where is that "morality" going to come from?
Perhaps the clearest example of this perversity was the Government's decision to warn Catholic adoption agencies that they faced prosecution under discrimination laws unless they dropped their insistence that children in care should be assigned to married couples. An independent report two years ago noted that the Catholic agencies, while frequently taking on the most difficult cases, have a much more successful record than the average in avoiding "failed" placements.
So, Lawson seems to think the church has a role in this, but ......
I am not, as it happens, a Christian; but it is simply a fact that the great 19th-century campaigns against drunkenness and depravity on the streets of Britain would have been unimaginable without the involvement of the churches, notably those of an evangelical disposition. There is need of a similar re-moralisation today, although I doubt very much that it could come from our established church.
I really can't see how this can happen in a state where religion - or rather, the Christian form of religion - is quite frequently and openly pilloried by the state and where aggressive secular atheist influencers pour scorn on the concept of Christian morality, but fundamentally, I agree with Lawson.
To be honest, even though I've read the article several times now I'm still not entirely clear what it is that Lawson is suggesting we do about all this. On the one hand he seems to be saying that we need a more assertive religious influence from an established religion while admitting that it really isn't possible for the church to do this without some state recognition. It's a little confused and a little confusing.
What is refreshing is the tacit acknowledgement that social conservatism was right all along. Decades of socially liberal policy have resulted in broken and dysfunctional families and a fundamental decline in moral standards - as social conservatives such as myself always felt it would.
That this is coming from a secularist non-Christian writing in a very left wing newspaper is very encouraging.
Seldom can so many inquests have been held over a single, tiny, corpse. Last night BBC1's Panorama carried out yet another, under the title, "Baby P – the whole truth?" The question mark conveniently allows for a further such investigation, whenever the public mood demands it.
This set in motion the other media ritual in such circumstances – an interview on Today with Lord Laming, author of two reports following the deaths of children on Haringey Social Services' at-risk register. Laming produced his now familiar litany of suggestions for social working "best practice", accompanied by the chilling observation that "the state should become a responsible and effective parent to more children".
Such "chilling observations" are now rather common place in so-called social democracies, but that isn't the point I wanted to emphasise. Lawson goes on to make a very good point regarding how we've come to rely on tackling symptoms rather than the underlying problems.
Last December the head of Ofsted, smarting from the criticism her organisation had received over its invigilation of Haringey Social Services, pointed out that over the previous 16 months 210 children had died in this country as a result of abuse, and of the 21 babies who had died, only two were known to the social services.
That on it's own tells us nothing. The idea behind the comment from the Ofsted head is to ram home the oft repeated leftist assertion that mums and dads are far more likely to kill their kids than anyone else, but Lawson pulls that myth apart
While it is true that there are cases in which a child is killed by his or her natural father, this is, in statistical terms, unusual. Baby P is a more typical case, in being murdered by someone in the home, but with whom there is no proper parental tie. It is simply a fact that the growth in "broken homes" has led to a vast increase in the number of children deemed to be "at risk" – no fewer than 1.5m now fall into this category.
Lawson goes on to wonder about a welfare system that rewards family break up and penalises real families - the traditional nuclear family - that stick together.
In this context, it is truly astounding that the Government sees nothing untoward in a benefits system which actively rewards what we might still be able to describe as "non-traditional families". I don't think that the answer to the breakdown of the nuclear family is to tilt the tax system sharply in favour of marriage – these are essentially moral rather than financial matters – but it is definitely perverse to do the opposite.
Perverse indeed - but if you aren't going to tip the tax system in favour of marriage then where is that "morality" going to come from?
Perhaps the clearest example of this perversity was the Government's decision to warn Catholic adoption agencies that they faced prosecution under discrimination laws unless they dropped their insistence that children in care should be assigned to married couples. An independent report two years ago noted that the Catholic agencies, while frequently taking on the most difficult cases, have a much more successful record than the average in avoiding "failed" placements.
So, Lawson seems to think the church has a role in this, but ......
I am not, as it happens, a Christian; but it is simply a fact that the great 19th-century campaigns against drunkenness and depravity on the streets of Britain would have been unimaginable without the involvement of the churches, notably those of an evangelical disposition. There is need of a similar re-moralisation today, although I doubt very much that it could come from our established church.
I really can't see how this can happen in a state where religion - or rather, the Christian form of religion - is quite frequently and openly pilloried by the state and where aggressive secular atheist influencers pour scorn on the concept of Christian morality, but fundamentally, I agree with Lawson.
To be honest, even though I've read the article several times now I'm still not entirely clear what it is that Lawson is suggesting we do about all this. On the one hand he seems to be saying that we need a more assertive religious influence from an established religion while admitting that it really isn't possible for the church to do this without some state recognition. It's a little confused and a little confusing.
What is refreshing is the tacit acknowledgement that social conservatism was right all along. Decades of socially liberal policy have resulted in broken and dysfunctional families and a fundamental decline in moral standards - as social conservatives such as myself always felt it would.
That this is coming from a secularist non-Christian writing in a very left wing newspaper is very encouraging.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
The rise of social conservatism
One thing about the previous post I didn't mention was the possibility that the surprising number of prospective Tory candidates who are socially conservative is indicative of a growing trend in Britain which may at last be filtering through into the political class.
I've mentioned before that at least part of the reason why the BNP is making progress is that they combine a mixture of Old Labour socialism with working class social conservatism - a mix that strikes a chord with a considerable number of working class people who would, traditionally, consider themselves Labour supporters. This is nothing new among the older generation who were used to social conservatism from both main parties before they switched to the progressive agenda.
What is new, in my opinion, is that many of the next generation are turning to social conservatism as a reaction to the progressive agenda. This shouldn't really be a surprise either as they have grown up with progressive liberalism and have been the ones most affected by it.
We're now seeing people come into politics who were going through the education system in the nineties by which time the progressive dogma had been firmly entrenched in our schools and universities, but was also the time when those who were going through that system were being exposed to explosively high rates of crime, rampant political correctness and unrestrained immigration which was causing massive social upheaval and division in their local communities - and, as is often the case - the young are often the ones most affected by these things.
My generation - the generation of Blair, Cameron et al - grew up during a time when Britain was still predominantly socially conservative, more ordered, more law-abiding and more certain. The progressive policies of the time being pushed through by the likes of Roy Jenkins and David Steel were seen as "liberal" and forward thinking, but the full impact of progressivism and those policies was not to be felt for another 20 years or more.
This is why the generation of power today - my generation - is so arrogant about the progressive agenda. Their experience of it was almost entirely positive and by the time it became apparent that those policies were having a detrimental effect on the ordinary people and the nation as a whole, they had moved away from "ordinary" into the political class and were completely detached from the reality of high crime, teenage pregnancy, rising abortion rates, rising divorce rates, family breakdown and so on that was ravaging our society.
To them they were nothing more than statistics which could be dealt with by more of the same progressive medicine - only it didn't work, but they have no other solution and are so deeply engrossed in progressivism that they could not see the wood for the trees.
The next generation - the one breaking through now - were still, for the most part, ordinary people during those times when all these things were going wrong and were much more effected by it than my generation or the previous generation. They lived through the hell of progressive liberalism first hand, experienced it at close quarters and aren't particularly happy at what they were forced to endure. As a result, more and more of them are looking back to the times before Britain went progressive and thinking "why can't we be more like that?" Without knowing it, they are becoming socially conservative.
And from what I've seen, the generation after this one currently breaking through is likely to be even more socially conservative. It is this which gives me hope for the future of Britain - even though I believe we are going to be living through some very tough and troublesome times for the next decade.
As I've said before, in a hundred years time the historians will pore over the last 50 years of progressivism and use it as a lesson for future generations of what must be avoided. They'll wonder at how we could have allowed such a thing to happen in the first place and point out that this nation is a precious heirloom which it is our duty to care for and nourish - not a toy to be played with, pulled apart and left smashed and broken for the next generation to fix.
I've mentioned before that at least part of the reason why the BNP is making progress is that they combine a mixture of Old Labour socialism with working class social conservatism - a mix that strikes a chord with a considerable number of working class people who would, traditionally, consider themselves Labour supporters. This is nothing new among the older generation who were used to social conservatism from both main parties before they switched to the progressive agenda.
What is new, in my opinion, is that many of the next generation are turning to social conservatism as a reaction to the progressive agenda. This shouldn't really be a surprise either as they have grown up with progressive liberalism and have been the ones most affected by it.
We're now seeing people come into politics who were going through the education system in the nineties by which time the progressive dogma had been firmly entrenched in our schools and universities, but was also the time when those who were going through that system were being exposed to explosively high rates of crime, rampant political correctness and unrestrained immigration which was causing massive social upheaval and division in their local communities - and, as is often the case - the young are often the ones most affected by these things.
My generation - the generation of Blair, Cameron et al - grew up during a time when Britain was still predominantly socially conservative, more ordered, more law-abiding and more certain. The progressive policies of the time being pushed through by the likes of Roy Jenkins and David Steel were seen as "liberal" and forward thinking, but the full impact of progressivism and those policies was not to be felt for another 20 years or more.
This is why the generation of power today - my generation - is so arrogant about the progressive agenda. Their experience of it was almost entirely positive and by the time it became apparent that those policies were having a detrimental effect on the ordinary people and the nation as a whole, they had moved away from "ordinary" into the political class and were completely detached from the reality of high crime, teenage pregnancy, rising abortion rates, rising divorce rates, family breakdown and so on that was ravaging our society.
To them they were nothing more than statistics which could be dealt with by more of the same progressive medicine - only it didn't work, but they have no other solution and are so deeply engrossed in progressivism that they could not see the wood for the trees.
The next generation - the one breaking through now - were still, for the most part, ordinary people during those times when all these things were going wrong and were much more effected by it than my generation or the previous generation. They lived through the hell of progressive liberalism first hand, experienced it at close quarters and aren't particularly happy at what they were forced to endure. As a result, more and more of them are looking back to the times before Britain went progressive and thinking "why can't we be more like that?" Without knowing it, they are becoming socially conservative.
And from what I've seen, the generation after this one currently breaking through is likely to be even more socially conservative. It is this which gives me hope for the future of Britain - even though I believe we are going to be living through some very tough and troublesome times for the next decade.
As I've said before, in a hundred years time the historians will pore over the last 50 years of progressivism and use it as a lesson for future generations of what must be avoided. They'll wonder at how we could have allowed such a thing to happen in the first place and point out that this nation is a precious heirloom which it is our duty to care for and nourish - not a toy to be played with, pulled apart and left smashed and broken for the next generation to fix.
Maybe there's hope for the Tory party yet
David Cameron may be just another progressive as are the majority of the "inner circle" and quite possibly a substantial number of current Tory MPs, but the fact remains that if Cameron is to win the next election he needs another 150 or so new Tory MPs - and this suggests that there may be life in the old party yet.
David Cameron will head a party dominated by MPs more socially conservative and less concerned with the environment than their leader, an analysis of Conservative parliamentary candidates suggests.
It seems the majority of Tory candidates who are likely to become new, first time MPs are socially conservative - unlike their leader. This on its own is not significant, but when you add on this ....
Mr Cameron has told close colleagues that he believes he is on course to win 140 new Tory MPs after the next election, The Times has been told. While such a net gain would give Mr Cameron an overall majority of about 15 ....
... it becomes very significant indeed. A majority of fifteen is a slim one indeed - and such a slim majority means that Cameron will not be able to be dismissive of or risk alienating social conservatives within his own party. With potentially more than a hundred new socially conservative MPs that majority will need looking after. Yes, he could rely on support from Labour and Lib Dem MPs to force through issues which socially conservative Conservative MPs object to - and may vote against - but that risks creating splits in the party which those other parties and the media will seize on with glee.
So, by the sounds of things, Cameron is going to have to do some pretty fancy dancing on the head of a pin to keep everyone on board if he's going to push the progressive side through or risk seeing the party split into factional divisions.
To be honest, it could go either way - the Conservative Party under Cameron may be forced by the makeup of its Parliamentary Party to revert to being more socially conservative or it could become riven with splits which will only hasten the end of the party. It might not happen at all I suppose - in which case either Cameron is a more skillful politician than I've given him credit for or The Times has severely overestimated the social conservatism of these prospective new Tory MPs.
And, of course, it could be that the events of the times overtake any agenda Cameron may have. I have to admit that I think this is far more likely than any of the above and a Tory administration will find themselves in the position of being an almost entirely reactive government forced to implement a sequence of emergency measures to try and stave off the impending economic collapse of our nation.
Only time will tell, I guess - but all in all it just confirms my opinion that a Cameron led Conservative win at the next election will result in Dave becoming the next Ted Heath rather than the next Thatcher - lurching from one crisis to the next while his party dissolves around him and the nation crumbles towards oblivion followed by a long long time in the political wilderness.
David Cameron will head a party dominated by MPs more socially conservative and less concerned with the environment than their leader, an analysis of Conservative parliamentary candidates suggests.
It seems the majority of Tory candidates who are likely to become new, first time MPs are socially conservative - unlike their leader. This on its own is not significant, but when you add on this ....
Mr Cameron has told close colleagues that he believes he is on course to win 140 new Tory MPs after the next election, The Times has been told. While such a net gain would give Mr Cameron an overall majority of about 15 ....
... it becomes very significant indeed. A majority of fifteen is a slim one indeed - and such a slim majority means that Cameron will not be able to be dismissive of or risk alienating social conservatives within his own party. With potentially more than a hundred new socially conservative MPs that majority will need looking after. Yes, he could rely on support from Labour and Lib Dem MPs to force through issues which socially conservative Conservative MPs object to - and may vote against - but that risks creating splits in the party which those other parties and the media will seize on with glee.
So, by the sounds of things, Cameron is going to have to do some pretty fancy dancing on the head of a pin to keep everyone on board if he's going to push the progressive side through or risk seeing the party split into factional divisions.
To be honest, it could go either way - the Conservative Party under Cameron may be forced by the makeup of its Parliamentary Party to revert to being more socially conservative or it could become riven with splits which will only hasten the end of the party. It might not happen at all I suppose - in which case either Cameron is a more skillful politician than I've given him credit for or The Times has severely overestimated the social conservatism of these prospective new Tory MPs.
And, of course, it could be that the events of the times overtake any agenda Cameron may have. I have to admit that I think this is far more likely than any of the above and a Tory administration will find themselves in the position of being an almost entirely reactive government forced to implement a sequence of emergency measures to try and stave off the impending economic collapse of our nation.
Only time will tell, I guess - but all in all it just confirms my opinion that a Cameron led Conservative win at the next election will result in Dave becoming the next Ted Heath rather than the next Thatcher - lurching from one crisis to the next while his party dissolves around him and the nation crumbles towards oblivion followed by a long long time in the political wilderness.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)