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.
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: Politics
Ken’s back. Good.
Eric Pickles seems a good move, if only to replace the ineffective (and damaged) Caroline Spelman; he also, like Ken, brings a great contrast to the Cameron-Osborne (and Grieve, Letwin, Hunt, etc.) public schoolboy on-the-make type. Grayling’s move to home affairs also has something of the same effect, and his attack-dog style will find easy prey shadowing Jacqui Smith.
I’m intrigued by the thinking behind putting Theresa May in at Work and Pensions. I’m not May’s biggest fan – she seems competent, but not inspiring; whereas Purnell, love him or hate him (being a Tory, I incline to the former), is very sharp. My guess is that Cameron’s realised that amidst recession, and with the Government already doing the lifting on welfare reform, any attempt to outflank them on reform (as headline-chasin’ Grayling probably would’ve tried) will be easily portrayed as “the same old nasty Tories…” - so probably easier to support all that they do while pointing out the elements (like lone parent return-to-work rules) which their own supporters won’t like.
On the wider politics, I think Liam Murray’s got a good point that appointing Ken looks like an attempt to shore up possibly limited Shadow Cabinet credibility, but I wouldn’t go that far myself, and for two reasons. First, and most obviously, times have changed: before the economic crisis, we didn’t need the Old Bruiser, but now we do – Ken’s statement plays up to this point. Second, times have changed in a different, more positive, way; earlier on, Cameron had to build his team – a reliance on Ken (or Michael Howard, equally) would look like an admission that the ‘novice’ hasn’t got what it takes. Now, Cameron’s position is beyond question, and his Shadow Cabinet is no longer being looked at by people purely as spokesmen, but as an alternative governing team*; the former factor gives him the freedom, the latter factor the necessity, to draw on what talents he does have available. Taking that step demonstrates that he is both secure in his leadership and willing to make the compromises necessary for power.
There might be some chatter about the European question with Ken; already I’ve seen replays of old Britain in Europe TV footage. Fine. Even if Ken causes a bit of rumbling, there’ll be no great movement – in the parliamentary party the pro-Europeans are a diminishing and ageing number, not to worry. The problems the Tories will have with Europe will come from the other direction, and will happen in office… But we have to get into office first.
Update: Iain Martin has the inside story.
* To see this shift in action, see here, in which New Labour loyalist Jessica Asato (who seems to be the kind of person who repelled me from student politics) lays into Cameron’s “sub-standard team”. Incidentally, if this is the kind of article in which labourlist.org is to specialise, Dolly’s wasting his time.
Nosemonkey points to the launch of this year’s new pro-Euro campaign. Apparently driven by the notion that Britain’s economic troubles could be solved (or, anyway, ameliorated) by our rapid entry to the Euro, they’ve got a 256-page collection of essays against the eeevil Eurosceptics.
As NM says, the list of contributors includes some good names – Michael Artis, Willem Buiter, Peter Sutherland, to pick out a few… But from my look over them, they’re all the same old names we’d have seen back in the period when it all seemed a live possibility, and probably less convincing because they seemed to be the true committed Euro advocates from some time back, rather than those arguing strictly on the empirical merits (this is no disrespect; we all have our priors, and mine go the opposite way – my point is that you have to have some on your side who obviously might’ve split the other way if you’re to win the argument… I don’t see any).
And anyway, no campaign will be won by the economists. The public figures are what matters here, and the same problem applies – that it’s the same old rump. We’ve got John Stevens and Brendan Donnelly (former Tory MEPs who formed the Pro-European Conservative Party – you may have missed this), Dick Taverne (Labour-turned-SDP-turned-Lib Dem), Chris Haskins (Labour-supporting former industrialist), and Will Hutton. Only Will Hutton, who manages to be both media fave and deep macroeconomic thinker* even before breakfast, is a leading public figure; the rest are all rather second- or third-tier has-beens, all with cards well marked for their head-banging pro-Europeanism (Stevens, Donnelly and Taverne effectively left mainstream political careers because of their commitment).
But the really worrying sign if you believe that Britain should join the Euro is the sheer incompetence of its presentation. I obviously think that joining the Euro would possibly be the worst mistake since the passage of the Third Reform Act or the execution of Laud**, (more…)
Filed under: Politics
Two articles in The Times today command my attention.
Daniel Finkelstein quite correctly points out that the seeming return to old economic battles does not warrant an end to the Cameron project of finding a kindler, gentler reaction. I think he overstates the case a little, but I am in entire sympathy with his message – that we Tories have to give a positive prospectus if we wish to engage people in how we want the country to be, especially if we end up governing in tough times.
The supposed alternative, as Finkelstein says, is that we can jettison all the fluffy stuff and stand clear as the Party of Cruel-but-Efficient, because being Kind-and-Efficient is either too difficult or doesn’t allow you to make crass jokes at constituency dinners (I guess). The main problem with this is that people don’t actually see us as especially efficient; the polling data’s a lot more positive than it used to be, and Labour are no better, but many people distrust claims of competence as such – and we’ve been out of power so long that people won’t give any of our claims credence until we can prove it in power. This is no time for one-club golf, ahem. (I’m assuming of course that we can prove it.)
I think Finkelstein overstrates because although the critics of Kind-and-Efficient as such are wrong, they might be right that we need more work on demonstrating the Efficient, given the political mood. What I’m thinking about here is that we seem too much to lack the ability to deploy brute force in political discussion; on the economy most obviously, at times we seem to lack either the thinking or the willpower to deliver the sharp, incisive critique when the Government blunder. There’s narrative that says not only what we want Britain to be like, but immediately, instinctively how we’re going to get there still seems vague.
Peter Riddell talks about Ken Clarke. Now, it is true that I have said some harsh things about KC in years past, and I think it is a good thing he was never elected leader. But I think Riddell is too hard on what he offers. Clarke coming back to the Cabinet would not just add another high-profile, big-hitting figure (much needed ahead of a General Election), but also signal that the Cameron leadership is big enough and mature enough to have some rivals on the inside. (That said, I agree with Riddell that there are big risks. Cameron needs to extract watertight promises from him, but I think it’s doable – Clarke would love another time as a senior Cabinet Minister before he retires.*)
Also, Riddell says:
“I am a fan of the Tory websites, which carry stories not reported elsewhere. But bloggers feed a frenetic mood that militates against long-term thinking. Another result has been a flood of statements and initiatives by party spokesmen.“
Quite. And as he says, much of it is for little actual effect.
* Try this possibility: Ken Clarke renegotiates the EU relationship. Ah, paradox: Nixon goes to China, in reverse.
