Can I just say – I endorse many of the ideas central to this post, by Paul Evans?
Indeed, much of my post about Red Toryism (and my view more generally about the conservative task) is to regenerate our political being; my enthusiasm for localism (rightly understood) is very much one of enabling and encouraging people to come together again, and re-learn the art of being a community, working through disagreements to compromise.
For that reason, I do share some of Evans’ reservations about the Tory proposals for local government, especially the use of plebiscites on… well, just about anything. I also am not enamoured of elected police chiefs – they’ll either be toothless whingers or petty tyrants; elected executive mayors, however, I think have significant potential, given the changed nature of the relationship between bureaucracy and voter. (Much of the rest of the world seems to survive fine with them, as well.)
So, yes, I’m with Paul – for politics before any ideological principle. I think it was Martin Diamond who said that the American Founding Fathers designed their constitution on the premise that “the common people are usually sensible, but rarely wise” - and it’s a sound principle. Most people have, well, lives, which means that their engagement in politics is changeable, transient. We need a politics which engages them to understand their aims and aspirations, but as a part of dialogue, not to passively adjust.
Political institutions should be designed to achieve good government – decisive where it matters, deliberative where it doesn’t. Because of heated passions and concentrated interests, pure democratic majoritarianism doesn’t work* – referendums (I believe this was Thatch) “are devices of dictators and demagogues”.
I say all this, and I remember too that it was a Labour Government which, with the support of its members, brought us plebiscites on devolution in Scotland and Wales (the Welsh one passed with about a quarter of the electorate backing it), on local mayors, and a mania (as Evans alludes) for relentless consultation which undermined the political authority of local government institutions. I recall that it was a Labour Government which gave this country its only nationwide referendum (on membership of the EEC in 1975; this was the occasion for the Thatcher quote).
So, while I agree with Evans that the drift of Tory policy is “dangerous”, I can’t agree that it’s necessarily “reactionary”, except as maybe a gamble; indeed, typically, the notion of institutions providing pure democratic rule is something considered Left, progressive.
It may be that the times have changed and tables turned. Possibly, the unmet demands of democratic majorities (or, anyway, pluralities) now lean more to the concerns of the Right (increasing police authority, NIMBYism, taxcapping) than of the Left (redistributionism, diversity). This is probably part of why I’m enthusiastic for a political localism; that people, empowered to govern themselves, will typically help to regenerate our social and cultural fabric. But note that Evans and I (Left and Right) would seem able to find some consensus on means here, even as we may differ significantly on ends; so let’s not damn referendum madness as a sickness only (or even primarily) of the Right.
* Incidentally, because of transient engagement and our tendency to tribalise, proportional representation model tend to undermine good government; too often, they finish up approximating a proof of the Schmittian critique of Parliamentarism.
Filed under: Politics
It seems likely, for reasons well rehearsed, that the Tories will form the next government. This is for me a cause of some celebration – I look forward to the imminent arrival of the opportunity to cry “betrayal”… It’s been so long, after all.
I am a supporter of David Cameron and his leadership of the Conservative Party over these past several years. I am not without my criticisms, but I think he has led us well and has the makings of being a competent Prime Minister. In fairness, he doesn’t get the credit he deserves for almost having made the Conservatives a live option for alternative government in a time of prosperity; his road to crisis-leader has not been smooth, but he has taken it… But it’s fair to say the prospect of power is now very different to what it was in the early years of Cameron’s leadership.
For all of these reasons, I’m beginning to worry a little about how the party carries itself and talks in Opposition, for how this will bear on us once in Government. It’s fairly standard form to promise things which won’t be delivered in fact (poor Will Hutton can tell you a story…), and people will often accept that. But it’s important that the grand scheme of expectations are managed and, most of all, we do not sign up to rhetorical tropes which will look very different from office. I have in mind two narrative themes which the Conservative Party (or its identifiable figures) have embraced as critiques of the New Labour era:
“The Broken Society.” It is not that I do not understand the point being made, or the importance of the issues the narrative refers to. In fact, I’m probably more interested, more convinced of the problems raised, and more willing to talk about meaningful solutions than most Tories are. But the idea is too much. The Times had it right last summer, when it said that we have broken communities, but we are not a broken society. This is not just a matter of language. First, if British society were broken, there really is nothing left for conservatives to conserve – repairing a broken thing smacks surely of social engineering, something which should be anathema. Second, this one will come back to bite us, especially if we’re lucky enough to win two consecutive terms – inasmuch as the Broken Society narrative is a coherent analysis, it highlights wounds which will take generations to heal, even where the necessary treatment can be administered in full (which will require a heroic effort of political will). David Cameron will be tortured by a Labour Leader ten years from now, heart bleeding tax-funded promises all over the shop, “didn’t you promise to heal our Broken Society? Isn’t it still broken now?”
“The Davis Agenda,” by which I mean, civil liberties, Gitmo, etc. This one will come back to bite us much sooner. Although I’m doubtful of the present Government’s proposed means (I think ID cards a ridiculously bad idea, and I think some of the police powers sought are a bit too much), I’m fairly in sympathy with their ends and I am no civil libertarian. I think that maintaining the security of the nation is pretty much the essence of the State, and am fairly supportive of all means necessary (there’s the question) to achieve it. I’m happy to justify this all in moral terms, but think of the politics for a Tory Government which scales back security measures only to see a terrorist attack in its early years; I think it’s the same fear which is causing Obama to be more circumspect on these issues now he’s in office. The problem is that there’s now an internal constituency (surrounding Davis) which demands action on this front, and will become still louder if no action is taken when we’re in office. The fact that Davis’ inside man (see the link) is Dominic Grieve is particularly troubling on this front; his devotion to the ECHR makes the point.
In both cases, it is not that I don’t think the critique has merit; but we need to be sure that we don’t take them too far; language matters, because it is only through our language that public expectations can be shaped right now. There are also some areas where the inverse is true, where we aren’t promising too much so much as we’re not getting the harsher messages across – I’m thinking here about preparing the grounds for the fiscal consolidation (read: spending cuts and tax hikes) which will become necessary come 2012 (say); and also, a subject for another day, managing expectations, especially within the Party, on what can and cannot be achieved with regard to our role within the European Union.
“When it is not necessary to change, it is necessary not to change.”
Lucius Cary, 2nd Viscount Falkland
The occasion for this post is further reflection on Tim Montgomerie’s ongoing attempt at formulating a statement of conservatism, upon which I have previously (negatively) commented. I remain of the same basic opinion, but (and Montgomerie’s efforts are to be commended for this at least; at least by me), it has made me think a bit more about what it means to be a conservative today.
It’s entirely possible that I’ve missed it, but in Montgomerie’s original statement, I find no statement to the effect of that quotation above – or any one of a number of others, be they from Burke, Kirk, Salisbury, or whoever – praising continuity over change. The closest we get is Montgomerie’s no.20, which even then is a brief for change; just not quite so fast, please. That struck me as more than a little odd, and the thought has nagged at me. After all, surely that’s where we conservatives, like, get our name from?
This is apparently the view of the Amnesty International spokesman* Nicola Duckworth, discussing the Abu Qatada case. In logical terms, it’s obviously true – human rights attach to humans, after all. But I don’t believe in human rights as such; I think the real experience of anarchy (Somalia, Congo, Afghanistan, wherever) tells us that history is fairly indifferent to such notions. Rights as we have them exist in particular contexts, created by civil practices and institutions which can also enforce them.
Viewed in those terms – that rights are rooted in our society, rather than our humanity – Ms Duckworth’s assertion seems to me to be wrong. States not only can pick and choose which ‘people’ (i.e. humans) have the full panoply of civil rights, they are pretty much obliged to do so. States have citizens, and the protection of those citizens, and the exercise of the civil rights which they enjoy as such, is one of its primary duties. Protection of those citizens is necessary from enemies within (i.e. criminals and traitors) and from enemies without (i.e. aggressor states or terrorists); the first group have to be dealt with through due respect for their rights; the second group only through respect for the rules we consent to for the use of force.
Abu Qatada was allowed to stay in this country as a guest; but he has no right to remain here. As a host, we expect our guests to meet up to certain basic standards of behaviour, and applauding attacks on our country and counselling other people to join in such attacks, do not seem to me to meet them. What right he did have to remain was granted by the British government’s own administrative decision-making process; and what the State giveth, the State taketh away – once that same decision-making process decides that he has outstayed his welcome, then he must go.
The question raised by Abu Qatada’s defenders (including his oddly-named hasn’t-met-an-enemy-of-the-state-she-didn’t-like lawyer Gareth Peirce) is whether the State has the obligation to give a non-citizen, who has made himself undesirable through his own conduct, the right to stay in our country for as long as deportation to their own land might result in an unfair trial and potential mistreatment. The Law Lords said that the use of torture-based evidence does not produce an unfair trial as such; and the Jordanians’ use of it is their business as a matter of justice – the British government can hardly be expected to offer residence to all criminal suspects from countries using torture (we’re already densely populated, after all).
This seems eminently sensible to me; as it goes, I don’t accept the idea that the British government is responsible for making up for all of the inequities of other states. The world is a pretty chaotic place, and our privilege to live under the rule of law does not give us the obligation to offer its benefits to all and sundry. The idea that anybody facing trouble upon their return to their country (often because of their own previous conduct) therefore has an unconstrained right to stay in this country, regardless of their celebrating the efforts of our declared enemies, and seeking to sow unrest among other people, can only mean our becoming a safe haven to all of the world’s Bad Guys. Not a good plan.**
* I am impressed that the BBC and/or Amnesty International styled her as ’spokesman’ rather than ’spokesperson’ – gender-neutral terms are just so hollow, aren’t they? After all, being a Chairman is authoritative – but Chairs just get sat on.
** Since the judgement on the administrative imprisonment of the Qatada and his like at Belmarsh, if the Law Lords hadn’t accepted the right of the Government to deport such people with only basic safeguards in place, it would’ve effectively disarmed them against any foreign terrorist operating on the edge of the law.
Filed under: Politics
This Tom Harris discussion, thinking about if Labour win next time, is interesting but, as many commenters point out, horrifically misguided about the current mood among Tories. I don’t think there is any arrogant assumption about winning for most of us; if it had arisen, the Brown bounce quelled it a bit, and the knowledge that constituency boundaries and our inability to gain significant traction in Scotland and Wales both leave no small amount of nerves. There’s an old Woy Jenkins line about Blair having been given a precious vase and just having to carry it without dropping it; but these times are nothing like that.
For one thing, and this is a bugbear of mine, the Tories aren’t Labour and 2010 (or 2009) is not 1997. So when people point out the limited popular enthusiasm for a Tory government, they are missing the different relationships the parties have with the electorate. The Labour Party is historically the one that has an emotional tie to a broad part of the electorate – their election-winning offer is traditionally one of values. The Tory Party is different; its offer is traditionally one of competent governance. The consequence is that Labour (and before them the Liberals) sometimes get elected from Opposition with an enthusiastic landslide; the Tories with a cautious victory which, if successful becomes a landslide.
Filed under: Economics
Chris Dillow helps Charles Bean with what he should’ve said about quantitative easing – and to dispel some of the myths around it, as it is fundamentally only a different means of adding to the money supply.
Here’s what I don’t get about the Bank’s position (or is it the Government’s position?) right now: why not initiate a substantial quantitative easing now (or even, a month or two ago), of a few tens of billions of pounds? Why wait until rates are already down near zero, and it’s seen as a desperate measure?
The most common explanation as to why they won’t do it seems to me to make the case. The explanation is the one Chris links to – the fear that any step towards easing will trigger a crisis of confidence, causing capital flight in fear of hyperinflation. But surely, lurching into quantitative easing as a desperate act is more likely to do that than a planned and declared intervention?
Doing it in a planned way could also be shored up by explicit commitments against deficit monetisation (best backed by a clear plan for fiscal consolidation in the medium term, unlikely though it is) and to a price-level target over the next five years (more suited to managing expectations in a highly uncertain environment).
Significant quantitative easing before interest rates hit zero might trigger a bit of inflation, but at least the relative changes in interest rates needed to counter this would then be more modest (2% to 5% is less drastic than 0% to 5%). If interest rates are already at zero and quantitative easing is used as a desperate measure, there must be some question over the credibility of the Bank in raising interest rates to choke off any inflation amidst recovery? Better to take the decisive action sooner and deal with its potential downsides in an orderly way, or so it seems to me.
Long and windy, even by my standards… Be warned.
I voted for the other Dave in the 2005 Tory leadership election. I was suspicious of Cameron and the siren calls of Blue Labour.
Since then, I changed my mind, and am now a loyal and dedicated follower of the Leader of the Opposition. Why the change? Partly, history since then proved him right and me wrong. Partly too, I guess I changed in my view on certain points; conservatives above all should be accepting of new lessons from experience. And finally, he showed himself to be a genuinely conservative Conservative – his 2008 conference speech is a truer Tory statement than has been uttered from that stage in many years – and that, I liked.
All the while political progress has been slow but steady, resulting in a solid polling lead which withstood Gordon’s surge at the end of last year, I’ve had a lingering fear. The Cameron project is an elite project; it is driving the Party, but the Party does not embrace it. There’s no cynicism there – the Party is bored of losing and follows the lead; much like Labour in the 1990s, and to some extent, the Tories in the 1970s. Change is like that.
There’s one, big difference with those two historic precedents. When Thatcher took the leadership in 1975, she wasn’t on her own; there were plenty of intellectual backing in the think-tanks and in the press who could circle the wagons whenever the Thatcher campaign came under attack. Their work was of sufficient quality that some of it can be read with interest and relevance today (I did so the other day). The same applies to Blair in 1994, for whom there were plenty of opinion leaders who had been hankering for some years for a “Thatcherism with a human face” – and plenty more who were sufficiently annoyed with the Labour Party’s descent into lunacy that they would back Blairite political realism to advance their own goals (Giddens, say).
The Cameron project has no such intellectual hinterland. Much of the Right-leaning press remain unengaged, and occasionally sees outburstsof naked hostility (have you read Heffer recently?); the think-tanks too tend to fellow-travel but not buy – Policy Exchange used to be close, but perhaps too close, and has since distanced itself. ConservativeHome’s support is strongest where Cameron’s priorities coincides with Montgomerie’s hopes for an American-style movement conservatism; the goals are clearly different though. The general chatter on the Right seems to be shot through with a sense of “yes, yes, Dave – but when can we have tax cuts?” – even the broadly sympathetic seem only to add “but it’s great that we’re nice now.”
The leadership might argue that it doesn’t matter – if we lead, they will follow, especially in power. I’m not so sure, especially amidst troubled and turbulent times. What’s more, the leadership’s articulation of what I take to be (and support as such) its broad case is weak, with concepts poor and underdeveloped. The idea of a “post-bureaucratic age”, but when it amounts to eBay Government, colour me unimpressed. It’s all very well to call for an end to target culture – but what comes after? Outside schools policy, the arguments seem thin.
So, it is in that context that I welcome the discussion in this month’s Prospect, around an article on ‘Red Toryism’ by Philip Blond. It’s an attempt at genuine critical engagement with the leadership, to give an exposition of Toryism for the years ahead.
Filed under: Economics
Over the past few decades, we’ve become less and less trusting of each other, living more and more apart. How many of us really know our next-door neighbours? How able are we to strike up a conversation with a stranger? The causes of this are probably many, and some of them might be good things in other ways – more multiculturalism, more careerism, fading socal hierarchy.
But it seems to me fairly obvious that since the homogeneity (warm bath or stifling hell, whichever’s your poison) of the 1950s, we now have a much more isolated, anonymous, fissiparous society. It’s not that we distrust each other; it’s just that we don’t really trust each other either?
And yet, the super-smart people being paid millions of pounds to run our banks in this new world thought that it was OK to lend sums worth several times earnings to pay more than 100% of a house’s value, and even to allow earnings to be self-declared. They invested in securities which represented other institutions lending to those kinds of purchases, without a thought to what their exact composition might be, just because it was another bank offering them for sale.
Isn’t it a bit funny that, just as we’ve all stopped trusting people in general as much as we used to, banks went in completely the opposite direction? Back in the 1950s, they were famously closed institutions: in a world where people had a common culture and experience with which to understand each other, banks just didn’t lend unless they were absolutely sure. By the late 1990s, anybody who’d previously paid back a credit card bill but had only vague work history and vague plans for the future could get an advance.
Just sayin’.
Filed under: Uncategorized
Haven’t seen the film.
I think the British Government’s case would’ve been stronger if they’d have refused entry on the grounds of his haircut.
Message over.
Filed under: Economics
As the Spectator asks… my BSc.-level prejudices on display.
