The Daily Mail’s print headline screamed “You gave him a bloody nose!” and the Sun snickered that Tony Blair had been given a “Kick in the Ballots”.
Excuse me? Blair wins a historic third term with a good sixty plus seat majority and this is being portrayed as something less than a major political triumph for the Labour party? If ever there was an instance of how the mainstream media has a remarkable talent for making an ass of itself, this is it. This was not a ‘vindication’ of the Tories (as suggested by the print edition of the Telegraph), it was just another confirmation that they have become utterly irrelevant. One way to see this is that Labour has pulled off a historic victory (which is an indisputable fact). Another way to look at this is that the Tories have suffered a historic defeat. That even after all these years they still cannot be accepted as a viable alternative shows that they are far worse historically speaking than any other British Tory party for a very long time indeed.
So I got the result I wanted. Sure I loath Labour’s ghastly regulatory statism and contempt for civil liberties but Michael Howard is now no longer leader of his party and the cabal around him which turned the Tories into Labour-Lite has been shown to be losers of quite some magnitude. Now maybe, just maybe, something better can come along as the scale of their failure starts to sink in.
In the comment section of my previous post on this blog, many people seemed to think I was urging ‘libertarians’ not to vote for the Conservative party because it was not the small government libertarian leaning party of my dreams. Well sure, but that is not who I had in mind. I was really not thinking about ‘libertarians’ at all when I urged people not to vote Tory, I was thinking about Tories. The reason I am delighted that millions of conservatives did not vote for Michael Howard was that the Tory party is not a conservative party and enough people realised that for the right result to happen. For as long as the Conservative party is peddling nothing more than the same old “give us your money for skoolzandhospitals” crap as Labour and the LibDems, they really should be shunned by millions of people who describe themselves as, well, conservative.
And that is exactly what happened.
Wouldn’t you have said that anyway though?! At least he did better than almost anyone was going to predict…
and without any further ado, I present the new Work and Pensions Secretary….
Big Blunkett(Link)
Yes, Phony Tony has said he’s got the message and will listen more in future, then the first thing he does is bring Blunkett back into the Cabinet. It seems that Blunkett has had enough of his little lad and wants to get back to the important business of bossing us all around. Amazing, quite amazing. Start as you mean to go on Tony.
This morning Peter Hain was waxing lyrical about the mix of Markets & social justice citing Sweden as an example of what Labour hopes to achieve.
Last night Gordon Brown targeted full employment. Considering the fact that British manufacturing is in the doldrums and within the last couple of weeks Rover and Marconi have made redundant a large number of workers and the fact that private sector job creation is now negligible, all of that employment is going to be in the public sector.
Economically wise the Tories maybe wishy washy and follow a more Australian model rather than an American one but the fact is Social Democracy is now the orthodox in Britain and the European model of government is what we have to look forward in the next 5 years.
I am already thinking about the forthcoming recession Investment s I sugest you do to.
I would say that I cannot believe this man, whose personal life is a disgrace and whose sobbing, whining public behaviour is a spine-tingling embarrassment, has been brought back, but we all knew that that was why he didn’t have to give up his ministerial residence. Talent in the Labour Party is very thin on the ground.
Perry
How is this the result you were looking for? Your previous piece stated that you want the Conservative Party to lose so heavily that it is effectively finished:
If anything this result is hopeful for Tories. Sure, they received a mere 33% of the popular vote, but Labour received just 3% more. It is a structural bias towards Labour which has resulted in this ‘hammering’. The Tories and Lib Dems together received 55% of the popular vote against Labour’s 37%, yet Labour has 96 more seats than the Tories and Lib Dems combined. It’s a bias which means the Tories must poll 10% more of the popular vote then Labour in order to win more seats. This ‘heavy defeat’ is an illusion. The Tories polled more votes in England than Labour did. It is the irredeemably socialist Scotland and Wales, with far lower populations than England, which have put Labour into government.
I agree with your comments on the Tory Party itself but considering where it was dragging itself up from the party and its supporters will be encouraged by it.
“Better than anyone was going to predict”?
Ha!
Can you imagine what a Conservative Party voter would have done on May 1st 1997 if someone could have shown him today’s score?
His party would get less than a third of the vote EIGHT YEARS LATER, and less seats in Parliament than Michael Foot’s quasi-Marxist Labour Party in 1983?
Margaret Thatcher reportedly left the country for the last week of the election campaign, in “disgust” at the feebleness andawfulness of the Conservative effort. Hard to disagree with her.
Michael writes:
“I am already thinking about the forthcoming recession Investment s I sugest you do to. ”
Yes. Cash. I started a year ago. Now is not the time to be suckered into City scams.
Two final points:
1) In fairness to the print media, headline writers had to write up their copy before midnight, when there was very little data. So the problem here is more technology not bias.
2) Michael Howard clearly felt that he needed to do better than 200 seats to stay on. In deciding to stand down when his party has sorted out its internal election system (again), I reckon he’s done the right thing.
What bothers me most is that George Galloway got elected for the SWP – er, sorry, Respect – in London.
He is total slime, I find it hard to believe that anybody – left or right – would give him the time of day.
At least the Beast of Bolsover is straightforward and presumably fairly honest about the way he conducts his politics.
For what it’s worth, our experience in Canada with conservative parties suggests things with the UK Conservatives may not play out as Perry hopes. The longer our conservatives (both parties, now united as one) were out in the cold, seat-wise and popular-vote-wise, the more they tended to emphasize “schoolzandhospitals.” They now differ from the other parties only in the manner by which they propose to manage the “schoolzandhospitals” bureaucracies, which is not very different but which, nevertheless, is regarded as radical by a substantial portion of Canadians.
TLTB writes:
“He is total slime, I find it hard to believe that anybody – left or right – would give him the time of day.”
Well yes, he is. But what matters more is what it tells us about the people who voted for him. If minds weren’t welded shut by political correctness, this would raise some vitally important questions about what is happening to the UK.
Pete_London writes:
“It is the irredeemably socialist Scotland and Wales, with far lower populations than England, which have put Labour into government.”
Well, yes. Quite. I’m in two minds where to take this. On the one hand, the Union is important and fragmenting it is a Europhile dream.
On the other, if the denizens of the Celtic twilight are so wedded to their parasitic existence, then maybe they should be cast adrift to fund it for themselves.
At which point, pennies would finally drop.
I agree with Perry. The Lib Dems ate away the far-left of the Labour vote, but the Tories…? Pah. Nothing. That their share of the vote did not even increase, in light of the horridness of Labour and the fact of three consecutive terms, I can view no other way than appalling. And their vote share will absolutely need to increase, to swipe the Lib Dems as well. Howard, I’m guessing, was pushed.
GCooper
Agreed. I regard myself as English and British and I realise that the very point of Blair’s tribal politics is to split the Union in order to hand us over, in bite-size regional chunks, to Brussels. Yet the political and economic disparity between England and the Celts means there must be a reckoning. If they want to go, let them go. Even if they don’t want to go, maybe they must be pushed. It’s a critical discussion worthy of it’s own thread.
“they received a mere 33% of the popular vote, but Labour received just 3% more. It is a structural bias towards Labour which has resulted in this ‘hammering’. The Tories and Lib Dems together received 55% of the popular vote against Labour’s 37%, yet Labour has 96 more seats than the Tories and Lib Dems combined.”
This obsession with vote share is naïve. How are the boundaries biased? They have the roughly the same number of constituents. Perhaps they should be organized such that they have equal numbers of potential Tory/Labour/LibDem/Other voters and then we can see how they fall out at elections? What fun!
No, the fact is that vote share is an irrelevance when it comes to determining a mandate because of the voting sytem we use. It must be blindingly obvious that it doesn’t represent voter preference since the explosion of tactical voting in 1997, which continues today.
If we had a different system, say PR, then you can bet you life that the share percentages would change dramatically if people could actually vote for whom they wanted to represent them. On the other hand, PR would eliminate the opportunity to register a protest while being confident that the preferred candidate would win: such as voting LibDem in a Labour stronghold.
Like it or not (and I do) Labour has a mandate to represent the country because it has a clear majority in the Commons. Vote share is just a not very interesting statistic.
Vote share is interesting to you, but you prefer to ignore it because you’re a Labour supporter. And which country does Labour have a mandate to represent (by which I assume you mean ‘govern’)? If it’s the UK then your recognition of the UK as a ‘country’ is noted. Of course, in that case, you will oppose the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Thingy.
How nice to have someone to tell me what interests me and what I do and don’t oppose. Saves me having to think for myself:)
Vote share only matters where it contributes to the distribution of representation. In the FPTP system it doesn’t. It’s quite simple really. If you want it to matter then change the system, only don’t then complain about inequities that might arise in other statistics: it would still be perfectly possible for the dominant force in a national (UK) parliament to be biased in terms of representations towards, for example, one particular region. The point is that, if/when it ever reflects preferences rather than votes, the numbers will be very different from the ones we have today because they will mean something different.
Oh, and I have no more objection to the Scottish and Welsh thingies than I do to English county council thingies:))
Kim, give us a call when you have something new to say. Or maybe not even then.
Actually, I agree with G Cooper – as one with 100% Scots ancestry (and my family all vote Conservative, but that is because they are achievers and not passengers) –
I think the Celts should be cast adrift to float into the welcoming arms of taxpayers who cannot even afford their own citizenries’ pension funds and medical care, never mind ours. As were the Irish, they’ll be subsidised for a while, and then the EU will go scampering off after a new bride, maybe Turkey – in fact, probably Turkey – and the Scots and Welsh will have to fend for themselves during payback time, when they have to provide housing and schooling and social services for immigrants. With no EU funding.
OTOH, should we be brainwashed into going along with the Bliar’s agenda? He wants our kingdom broken into chunks and, to my mind, what one little power mad twit wants isn’t really on the agenda. What people have failed to realise is, Tony Blair isn’t important. He’s a shade. He’s never had any reality, and now he’s fading fast. He’s morphing from Blair to blur even as I write.
Is it important, though?
Speaking as a resident of Scotland but with English & Scottish ancestry, it seems to me that the union with the Celtic fringes is of use now only to those fringes. It is a drag, both politically and economically, on England, and it no longer has the strategic importance it previously had. I have long thought that Scotland will get independence only when England decides it doesn’t want the bloody place any more, and I think this time is not far off.
England is far more conservative (and Conservative), not to mention Eurosceptic, than Scotland or Wales. It would benefit greatly from casting off the historical baggage of reluctant partners. Celtic independence would be hugely beneficial for England, but disastrous for the People’s Republic of Scotland. Overall, I think it would be the best thing, but not until I move to England.
As for Europhiles, I think the heavy socialist bias introduced into UK politics by the Celts does much to keep Britain in the EU. Dismantling the Union would benefit the Eurosceptics, as well as reducing state expenditure in England.
EG
If you subtract the Celtic element all you’ll be is Germans lilting with a French accent. Right on! 🙂
In England the Conservatives polled more than Labour, yet they received nearly 100 fewer seats. This has nothing to do with PR: it is due to the boundaries being drawn so that working class constituencies have fewer voters.
And, yes, the Conservative platform was New Labour lite, but I doubt that those additional voters attracted to the LibDem anti-war high tax programme would have found a more radical tax-cutting Tory approach more congenial.
In England the Conservatives polled more than Labour, yet they received nearly 100 fewer seats. This has nothing to do with PR: it is due to the boundaries being drawn so that working class constituencies have fewer voters.
And, yes, the Conservative platform was New Labour lite, but I doubt that those additional voters attracted to the LibDem anti-war high tax programme would have found a more radical tax-cutting Tory approach more congenial.
Further to the last message (and apologies for double posting) a proportional system of voting such as Single Transferable Vote in multi-member constituencies would produce similar (though admittedly less pronounced) imbalances between Labour and Conservative representation if the constituencies had the same number of representatives but differed in size between urban and rural areas.
The imbalance produced by the first-past-the-post system is a different phenomenon which impacts more on the third party, particularly if its support is fairly evenly spread around the country (e.g. the Alliance in 1983).
It is important to distinguish the two different sources of inequality.
“Kim, give us a call when you have something new to say. Or maybe not even then.”
How very polite.
If simple logic defeats you then clearly I’m wasting my time anyway.
I agree with Euan (!!!!) that the Union is not realy in the interests of English people (or Scots/Welsh come to that). An independent England, far from being a Europhile’s dream, would be its worst nightmare
Kim “How very polite”. I’m sorry to hear that. I meant to be very rude.
No, “simple logic”, or even complicated logic, doesn’t defeat me. When you have something logical to say … uh, say it to someone else.
The BBC has as its lead story Blair’s reshuffle of the dead meat collectively known as “the cabinet”. To illustrate this story, they have a big picture of Blair, which is relevant enough, holding his kid (whose privacy the Blairs protect fiercely, of course). How the hell does this kid (who the Blairs refuse to exploit) merit being featured in a political story about the cabinet? What is the nexus that would connect Blair’s kid (who must not under any circumstances have his picture taken by the media) with changes in the seat of government? Just asking.
I notice that the UKIP didn’t poll that highly nationwide, but did split the Tory vote in quite a few marginals, denying the Conservatives 15 or so seats where they were only a few hundred votes away from winning.
Perry de Havilland writes:
“An independent England, far from being a Europhile’s dream, would be its worst nightmare.”
It might very well turn out that way. Nonetheless, the balkanisation of the UK is what the Europhiles are trying to do, under the pretence of ‘regionalising’ government.
It’s just divide and rule under another name.
On the subject of the Celtic fringes, today’s Telegraph printed a coloured map of which parties won in which locations.
It is hard to imagine a more eloquent statement of what is going on.
I don’t think it matters, in the great scheme of things, what happens to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. All three are no longer relevant to England, and as such can be and probably will be dispensed with.
Regionalisation in northern England was heavily defeated in the referendum, and the scheme is a dead duck for now. Even Prescott accepted that. It is highly unlikely to raise its head in this parliament. By the time of the next election in 2009/10, it is safe to say that the nature of the EU will be considerably different than it is today – either it will be much closer to a federated state with a constitution, or the ultimate collapse of the constitution will lead to a different way ahead, possibly without Britain. The desires of Europhiles then could be quite different in changed circumstances.
It’s been going on for the past quarter of a century. England and the Celts are moving further apart as the strategic imperative of hanging together fades. This is hardly unexpected.
EG
Euan Gray writes:
“It’s been going on for the past quarter of a century. England and the Celts are moving further apart as the strategic imperative of hanging together fades. This is hardly unexpected.”
If all it demonstrated was the benighted condition of the Celtic fringers, I wouldn’t have used the word eloquent.
Speaking personally, I wouldn’t at all mind parting company with Scotland, not least because of the absurdly unfair West Lothian Question – though stemming the flow of the Scottish raj would be a huge improvement, too.
The problem is, where does one stop? Should we excise Merseyside, or Yorkshire, too?
Worse than that. There were 27 seats where UKIP and Veritas polled enough votes to deny the Conservative candidate a narrow victory. If all those voters had voted Conservative, the Labour majority would have been only 30. Of course, not all of these would have necessarily voted Conservative, but even so, Labour came tantalisingly close to disaster.
Verity: Kim “How very polite”. I’m sorry to hear that. I meant to be very rude.
No, “simple logic”, or even complicated logic, doesn’t defeat me. When you have something logical to say … uh, say it to someone else.
Oh dear. Irony is too much for you too.
I would set out the argument in simple, formal terms for you but since abuse, the first and only resort of the muddle-headed, is all I can expect in return then I shan’t bother. A pity: I expected more from this site. Still, if it’s going to be allowed to degenerate into just another boring forum for the egocentric then I’ll happily stay away. Do, please, be as abusive as you like. I shan’t be here to read it but I’m sure it will make you feel better – and curl many another lip in contempt.
Agent Smith: and that is exactly what I hoped the UKIP would do. Thus if the Tories want to cure this running sore, they are faced with doing the one thing that will make UKIP disappear almost overnight… adopt their policies.
Agent Smith writes:
” If all those voters had voted Conservative, the Labour majority would have been only 30. Of course, not all of these would have necessarily voted Conservative, but even so, Labour came tantalisingly close to disaster.”
And been replaced with what – Za-NuLabour Lite?
I don’t dispute that a Conservative victory would have been preferable in some respects, but not if one has a sense of perspective.
The UK’s economy is about to suffer a major reverse. While Brown has pretended its success of the past few years has been due to his wonderful ‘prudence’, the truth is that he has simply been making hay while the sun shone – basking in the work done by his Tory predecessors.
Had the Conservatives won this election, they would have inherited Brown’s miserable legacy and when the hard times came, the economic illiterates would have blamed them for the inevitable collapse.
If the UKIP helped keep the Tories out, then they should be praised.
This was an election better lost than won.
Perry de Havilland writes:
“Thus if the Tories want to cure this running sore, they are faced with doing the one thing that will make UKIP disappear almost overnight… adopt their policies.”
Quite!
Given the repeated showing in the polls of a majority wanting rid of EU statism, what (apart from the shrieks of horror Broadcasting House) would the Tories have had to fear?
The loss of moderate votes. A simple “out” policy would reduce the Tory vote and reopen the EU wounds within the party. This is not what the party needs.
I am inclined to agree with your assessment that it probably was better for the Tories to lose this election, given the impending economic problems. By the time of next election, we might see:
a more socialist government under Brown (almost certain);
economic stagnation and rising unemployment (ditto);
the EU question partially resolved following either a referendum or the prior rejection by others of the constitution (ditto);
a dawning recognition that something really does need to be done about welfare bloat and healthcare reform (highly likely, but not certain);
a Conservative party firmly in the control of a generation unscarred by the internal conflict over Europe and keener to shift the consensus a little to the right (probable).
The Tories would then be ideally poised to capitalise on a worsening economic situation. However, to help this happen UKIP needs to disappear. On reflection, it has achieved something useful, but now it needs to shut up and go away. The debate on Europe has been kicked into life, BUT it needs to be recognised that although Britain seems pretty Eurosceptic it is not Europhobic, by and large, and there seems to be little popular desire for complete withdrawal.
EG
I hope that if the economy does go wrong, Gordon Brown will take the blame for it, though of course so much depends on what happens in the United States and what Greenspan and his successor do.
One fact worth mentioning is that the Lib Dems failed to make any serious dent into the Tory shires. Quite the opposite. The LD’s support for increasing the top tax rate, their fanatical pro-EU stance, etc, clearly was a bomb in places like the southwest, East Anglia, etc. The LDs have become so leftwing that I think the Tories need not fear them so much. Also, as the LibDems get more media exposure in the next Parliament, we will have a chance to look a lot harder at them than before.
Euan, I know we have debated this issue before, but the fact that a government gets to wield such power with only 36 pct of the total vote does not really say a lot for the supreme power of parliament doctrine that you champion. In fact, it further strengthens my belief that we have to re-order the British constitution, starting with a strengthening of the House of Lords, the independence of our courts, etc.
Euro membership is a dead duck. The Constitution is probably going to be voted down here if the French don’t beat us to it. The internal contradictions introduced by all these new mendicant member states have barely begun to be felt in Brussels, and the MEPs have yet again refused to give up their swindling gravy train ways.
So why rock the boat? Watch the EU come down or be reduced to drivelling impotence– no need to campaign actively for withdrawal.
Meanwhile, back home, watch Blair laid low by a huge. long-suppressed backlash from his MPs. And then watch Brown grapple with a financial and pensions crisis partly of his own making. Get the leadership contest over quickly and allow the next leader (David Davis, I hope) plenty of time to exploit Labour’s increasing demoralisation and internal wrangling.
With only a three-point gap to close in the popular vote, the electoral boundaries will be overhauled by the next election, so the Tories won’t be dragging so large a ball and chain around; while the draining of votes to UKIP and Veritas in key marginals should have become a thing of the past as the issues they fought on resolve themselves.
The Conservatives have taken in some fresh thinkers in this parliamentary intake, and the NuLab-Lite tendency will be on the defensive as the Redwoodite smaller-state philosophy (see ‘Singing the Blues’, 2004) gets passed around. Big cutbacks in government activity to pay for big tax cuts, lifting the working poor out of direct tax– that’s the One Nation way forward now, and there’s plenty of scope for those of the libbo inclination to push economic freedom policies along. (All Brown can offer is mammoth rises in council tax and NI.)
Nothing is in the bag yet. Labour might nick one more term as the Tories did in ’92. But there are more grounds for confidence than a year or two ago. Above all, Blair has totally cacked himself as NuLab’s winning ingredient by his performance over the war. A party as presidential as he made it will find it hard to stage an encore.
Luniversal writes:
“The Conservatives have taken in some fresh thinkers in this parliamentary intake, and the NuLab-Lite tendency will be on the defensive as the Redwoodite smaller-state philosophy (see ‘Singing the Blues’, 2004) gets passed around.”
Are you sure? Having looked at the runners and riders in yesterday’s Telegraph, I don’t feel at all confident that the Conservatives have shaken-out the Labour-Lite fleas.
There will be immense pressure (and not all of it from the BBC – wets like the Telegraph’s Matthew D’Ancona are just as bad) for a return to Clarkeltine policies.
Euan, I know we have debated this issue before, but the fact that a government gets to wield such power with only 36 pct of the total vote does not really say a lot for the supreme power of parliament doctrine that you champion
This is because you are conflating two quite separate matters. Parliament is supreme in the sense that absolutely nothing and no-one can lawfully set aside its legislation. If Parliament passes law that conflicts with other law, the courts can enforce one over the other, BUT if this is not what Parliament wants it can change one of the laws to suit its desires and NOTHING can stand in its way. This is the doctrine of the supremacy of Parliament – it is supreme in law, not in its ability to provide the government the people want.
The issue of how well Parliament reflects the will of the people is a completely different thing. 36% of those who could be bothered to vote voted for Labour, 64% actively voted for someone else. Some 40% of the eligible electorate could not be bothered to toddle down to the polling station. Despite all that, Labour has a majority of 66, which is more than enough to see it through a full term – it’s a bigger majority than Thatcher got in 1979 (43), and she had no difficulty getting her way.
I do think Parliament needs to be reformed. However, the manner in which this is to be done is a huge question. Other reforms need to be considered too, and not just dismissed out of hand – compulsory voting (works fine in Anglospheric Australia), restricted franchise (no representation without taxation, sort of thing), ability of electorate to impeach MPs, popular votes on specific policies as well as general platforms, etc.
EG
Sorry, first paragraph should be a blockquote.
Another idea – make votes in a constituency invalid if less than a certain percentage of electors vote. Suppose you had non-compulsory voting as at present, but simply said that if less than 75% of the registered electorate in that constituency actually voted then the ballot is invalid and another one must be held.
EG
Euan Gray writes:
“Another idea – make votes in a constituency invalid if less than a certain percentage of electors vote.”
And another is to have a ‘none of the the above’ box which, if it gets a majority, means the election has to be re-run.
It would be an effective way of stopping centralised parties enforcing candidates on a local electorate.
In passing, I hear from my friend in S. London, whose local Conservative candidate was a ‘stop the war’ moslem, that the pretend Tory (chosen to appeal to the local Asian population) was trounced by the Labour candidate.
It would be nice to think that the lesson would have been learned, but I bet it hasn’t.
It is rather touching to read that, with the trouncing of the Tories and the chastening of Blair something will rise from the ashes which will be better.It won’t, what you see is what you are going to get,effectively a socialist one party state ruling its fiefdome for Brussels.
This is the future,we are there now,there is not going to be a great libertarian upsurge,the country is just going to keep on descending into the socialist miasma until the next disaster,whereupon the Civil Contingencies Act will be invoked and the doors will be closed for ever.
Stop dreaming.
I think Mr Howard has stepped down with elegance and grace. He is correct that he would be too old to lead the party into another election four years hence and they need to get the scrappy, unpleasant business of choosing a new leader out of the way as soon as possible – so the unpleasant business will be long forgotten by the electorate by the time of the next election – which I think will be in three years. Brown’s a cock-up. Everything about him is stupid and unappealing, dictatorial and bloodless. And he understands neither the market for the economy.
The one clanger – the one thing Howard said wrong in his resignation speech was “We have got our first black MP.”
This is a matter of national interest in the resignation speech of the leader of an important British party? How did this get on the agenda? Why did he think it deserved a mention, other than that the Tories are still frightened pee-less of the socialists. I have nothing against a black MP if they are an effective and clever debater and have some major ideas that would benefit Britain, but I’m damned if I give a monkey crap about having one for the sake of it..
While I’m at it, I think the Tories need to be think very carefully about running any representatives from the religion of peace. They should inform themselves about this peaceful religion first, and understand that these people – not just some of them; every single one of them – believe that everyone needs to “revert” to Islam (they think everyone is born Islamic – that this is the natural state of humankind – which gives you something to chew on). They are all obliged to work for Dar-es-salam.
Utmost care should be taken.
GCooper: for “none of the above”, I prefer rather than forcing a rerun, it leave the post vacant for some fixed duration (eg: until the next election). Forcing a repeat election is bad because it’s like what the EU does, ask the question over and over until it gets some preferred answer. If the voters choose “none”, they should get none.
I think that’s a good idea of GCooper’s, and Julian’s amendment makes it fantastic.
I like Julian’s amendment, too! If the majority of voters said they want “None”, then that should legally be what they are entitled to. Excellent suggestion.
Tough shit, Jock, we are here to say so get used to it. The Tories either support *us* or we keep them out off office until hell freezes over.
Euan, you defend the supremacy of parliament doctrine but surely, the doctrine depends on the vast majority of people believing that parliament is the legitimate repository of our loyalties. It seems that with such a tiny mandate that Labour has, that legitimacy is called into question. I may be wrong, but the low level of turnout does bother me as to how much support our supposed democratic institutions really have.
On the voting issue, I am against compulsion, however. If people are too dumb, bored or uninterested to vote, I don’t see why it is my business to coerce my fellow citizens into voting. People who carp about government but don’t vote are being silly. (Their attitude is all the more shocking considering the human sacrifice involved in defending our democracy).
I am, however, in favour of your idea of linking the franchise to something like tax or property. I like the idea of confining the vote to people who own property or who have paid taxes in this country for a minimum of 5 years. I also favour term limits and a law which says that no person should be able to stand as an MP until they are 40, which would force most of our political elites to get a real life and real job first.
rgds
Ever the authoritarian, eh? I do not ust oppose the parties on offer, I despise the system and I will sure as hell not tolerate being conscripted into validating it with a vote. And Australian politics are far more corrupt that Britain (cue Michael Jennings to rant on that subject!), so levying fines on people who refuse to vote does not make the politics any more legitimate.
Johnathon – aren’t you mixing your ideologies a bit there, ie. the laissez faire non compulsory voting with the very much non-laissez faire minimum age requirements of politicians? Why aren’t politicians allowed the same freedoms as adults in other professions? There is some merit in ensuring politicians need to find a profession outside of politics before they embark upon a political career, however there is some merit in pretty much all varieties of harmful regulation.
Perry – at the (important) federal level, they’re reasonably clean. Unless Johnathan has some insider knowledge I haven’t heard about…
Sorry, Michael, not Johnathan. & One or two state govts and most local govts are dodgy.
I rather think not. You are a single issue party, whatever pretence to the contrary may be made, you have done nothing in the election except boost Labour’s majority, and you reflect the opinion of only a tiny proportion of the people. You will get nowhere and you will never have MPs elected. The most you will achieve is to hand the political field to Labour and the Liberal Democrats by virtue of promoting public discord and argument in the Eurosceptic side of politics, thus rendering it unelectable. Asserting that you wish the UK to leave the EU, you will do nothing other than ensure it is embedded further in it. It has been said that UKIP sees the Tories as a bigger enemy than the EU, and if it is your desire to defeat them you must realise that in so doing you are defeating the only mainstream political party which has any degree of opposition to the EU. If you did not exist, the EU commission would doubtless have to invent you.
Your party has done what needed to be done. It can do no more of any utility. As the late Lord Protector said to his parliament: in the name of God, go.
EG
To you, perhaps. However, he seems to appeal to large sectors of the electorate.
Perhaps to remind people that the Tories are not a party of quasi-racist Little Englanders, whatever the liberal propaganda might suggest. It’s important, even if you don’t understand why.
Not at all. It is a legal doctrine, not an article of democratic faith.
Then don’t complain when it does what you don’t like.
EG
Euan Gray writes:
” As the late Lord Protector said to his parliament: in the name of God, go.”
If an unconcious choice of source from which to quote, an apt one.
Your attitude to the UKIP is as wrong-headed as it is hysterical – most particularly so when you accuse it of representing the views “of only a tiny proportion” of the people. In terms of their votes, perhaps, but people vote for all sorts of reasons. In terms of what the UKIP stands for, a great number of people agree with it, many (but by no means all) of whom voted Conservative. To dismiss UKIP’s ideological relevance on the basis of a general election is just absurd.
Now that Michael Howard has tended his resignation, we shall see whether we will be forced into voting UKIP next time around. Assuming there is any government in the UK worth voting for and that even more power has not been stolen by the EU. A look at the Tories considered to be hopefuls in the forthcoming contest certainly doesn’t suggest to me that there is no need for the UKIP – far from it!
Brown’s a cock-up. Everything about him is stupid and unappealing, dictatorial and bloodless
“To you, perhaps. However, he seems to appeal to large sectors of the electorate …” Large economically illiterate sectors of the electorate who think he has engineered a brilliant economy. He has engineered the downfall of a dazzling economy.
This is a matter of national interest in the resignation speech of the leader of an important British party? How did this get on the agenda?
“Perhaps to remind people that the Tories are not a party of quasi-racist Little Englanders, whatever the liberal propaganda might suggest. It’s important, even if you don’t understand why.”
Thanks, Euan, as patronising as ever. I understand why he did it, obviously, and think it was a mistake. There is plenty of time for the Brits to become aware of a black MP, if that is deemed important to middle England. It was wrong to mention it in speaking of a matter as grave as resigning the leadership of Britain’s other major political party. Frankly, it is too trivial. Howard has no need (or excuse) to play by Za-Nu Lab’s rules. The assumption should be that competent people who are trusted to perform well have been elected to Parliament. The Tories must not fall into the Za-Nu Lab trap. If we believe skin colour is irrelevant, it should not be mentioned. The Tories supposedly don’t believe in quotas or reverse discrimation. This mention of a black MP was a clumsy mistake.
G Cooper and Euan Gray may wish to go to effect of UKIP and Veritas for some eye-openers.
GCooper,
UKIP may be ideologically relevant, but it is electorally destructive and is never going to be otherwise. If the Tories reform to be sufficiently Europhobic to neuter the electoral effect of UKIP, they will lose many more votes from the moderate majority than they will gain from the shrill minority. As long as UKIP insists on contesting domestic elections, the Tories will struggle and all we will get is continued Labour governments.
My choice of Oliver’s words was not unconscious. Britain’s only military dictator laid the foundation of modern parliamentary democracy. His experience and legacy repays study.
EG
To my complete lack of amazement, I did the link wrong and it doesn’t work. Anyway, I refer to a release from http://www.brugesgroup.com It provides some very interesting polling figures.
I’m already aware of them. Hence my comments on the destructive and ultimately counterproductive effects of UKIP in domestic elections.
EG
Euan Gray writes:
“If the Tories reform to be sufficiently Europhobic to neuter the electoral effect of UKIP, they will lose many more votes from the moderate majority than they will gain from the shrill minority.”
Codswallop. All the Conservatives needed to do was rule out the Euro (already achieved) and harden their stance on withdrawal to that already privately held by many Tory MPs.
The BBC might have screamed but as long as the Conservatives didn’t make the same mistake as IDS, by having it as the sole platform for their election, they would have done perfectly well, and brought with them most UKIP voters, if not the gadfly-chasers who backed Kilroy-Silk.
“My choice of Oliver’s words was not unconscious. Britain’s only military dictator laid the foundation of modern parliamentary democracy. His experience and legacy repays study.”
The irony is lost on you, clearly. And, thank you, I spent quite long enough studying the beliefs of this inflexible, bigoted man, so sure of his own convictions and so dogged in his pursuit of them that he was prepared to sacrifice anything and anyone.
As Verity says, “patronising”, as Perry says, “authoritarian”. Small wonder with such a role model.
The liberal opposition to the Tories believes that Tory supporters believe that skin colour is important, therefore it is important to stress the point right now – when everyone is paying close attention to what Howard was saying – that the Tory party does not think it does matter.
EG
The last I heard we are still meant to be a free country. If people want to form a political party and electors want to vote for it that’s the essence of democracy. It does not matter if it’s a single issue party or if it takes votes off another party. If people wish to be in UKIP and other people wish to vote for UKIP that’s their business. If they take votes from other parties why should they care?
Euan Gray – “The liberal opposition to the Tories believes …” .
The liberal opposition to the Tories isn’t going to vote conservative, so they can believe the moon is made of blue cheese for all the difference it makes. We are not trying to convince the liberals. We are trying to reassure Tories that their party hasn’t lost the plot and isn’t chasing ever little irrelevant politically correct little balloon instead of concentratingon issues.
Run a good person with ideas that are in tune with the electorate, and who the electorate feels they can trust, and that person will get the votes regardless of what Blairy Fairy “liberal oppositions” have to say and regardless of that person’s skin tone or sex. Surely you know better than to let the opposition dictate the agenda?
Verity writes:
“Surely you know better than to let the opposition dictate the agenda?”
Mr. Gray may, or may not. But today’s Sunday Telegraph was deeply depressing in this regard, with, in addition to the usual soggy columnists, contributions from Frances Maude and Stephen Dorrell, yapping for a turn to ‘progressive’ Conservative policies. To become Za-NuLabour Lite, in other words.
This tosh is supported by the paper’s main editorial.
As far as I can make out, the Conservatives polled 32.3% and Labour 35.2. I fail to see that can be any reason for the Tories to start borrowing Labour’s increasdingly tatty-looking clothes.
And it is THAT which would lose votes.
Yes, that bigot who allowed Jews openly into England for the first time since 1290, that inflexible man who didn’t object to Catholics privately celebrating the Mass (unlike many of his peers) and who spent frustrating years trying to get parliament to live up to its responsibilities. Without Cromwell, this country would have continued under absolutist monarchs until violent revolution in the late 18th or early 19th centuries – like France. There would be no Bill of Rights without him and his legacy. It may be paradoxical that much of Britain’s liberties are owed to a fundamentalist military dictator, but it is nevertheless true. Perhaps instead of studying his beliefs you should have studied what he actually did, how he did it and what effect it still has 350 years later.
It’s not patronising to explain a simple and obvious tactic which one’s interlocutor has utterly failed to apprehend.
I believe any non-primitive society needs some form of government to some extent, and that this government must have recourse to compulsion (otherwise it cannot govern). I believe that where government is competent to act it must be able to do so with authority. Call it authoritarian if you like, but I think it’s more a case of accepting the reality of human nature.
No, Verity, but the liberals would like people not to vote Tory. The liberals are not unknown to portray Tories as racist Little Englanders, and hence it is a good idea to point out in advance that such arguments (which will inevitably be made) don’t hold water. It’s not a case of convincing liberals, but letting everyone else know that some liberal arguments are bilge. It’s not a difficult concept.
EG
G Cooper – Agreed. 68% of the electorate rejected the Za-Nu Lab party. That’s a lot of people who said, “No, thanks.” And Za-Nu Lab’s patron saint from whom all blessings recently flowed, is getting a kicking from his disciples. I think people are hungry for sanity and pragmatism. The days of the outreach street football diversity coordinator may be numbered.
Howard is right to take himself out of the equation. Now the Tories need to take their lead from his selfless behaviour and knuckle down to some hard work, and that means alternatives to Za-Nu Lab’s meaningless Kumbayah twaddle with real ideas that will benefit the entire country.
I am sorry Mr Howard rejected Lord Saachi’s idea of taking the entire bottom level of wage earner right off the tax rolls. That is the kind of imaginative and pragmatic thinking they need to listen to and that the voter is hungry for. It’s unjust that these people have to pay tax out of their little pittance to support salaries and pensions of real nappy coordinators.
Mr Gray the English Civil War was violent revolution, bloodier than any in 18th century.
Euan Gray said: “No, Verity, but the liberals would like people not to vote Tory. The liberals are not unknown to portray Tories as racist Little Englanders, and hence it is a good idea to point out in advance that such arguments (which will inevitably be made) don’t hold water.”
No. You are wrong. Never get drawn onto their battlefield. Never let them set the terms.
What to do? Don’t be drawn. No one had to whine accusingly about sexism for 10 years before Maggie got into office – because she spoke for the Tory Party and Middle England and they judged she could do the job. If a black PPC presents himself/herself in a constituency, all people are going to care about is, can this individual speak for my concerns in Parliament? If people suspect (as they will, if skin colour starts being bruited about) that someone was selected for the colour of his/her skin, there will be no confidence in that person. If he/she is presented as the person who got through the selection process on merit, people will take them seriously.
Quotas are disgusting, and so is singling out a black MP because of the colour of his skin. Like a freaky little novelty. And it’s not the Conservative way and I’m surprised at Mr Howard. Although, to do him justice, he must have been beyond exhausted when he wrote, or approved, that speech.
Indeed, but it resulted in parliamentary democracy, the Bill of Rights and a constitutional monarchy. The 18th/19th century revolutions in Europe resulted in just as much blood and violence, but also in ideology, dictatorship and the over-mighty state. Which would you prefer?
No, Verity dear, YOU are wrong. This is not about getting drawn onto their battlefield, it is about making sure they CAN’T draw us onto their battlefield. It’s called pre-emption.
EG
Quotas are disgusting, and so is singling out a black MP because of the colour of his skin
True, look at Blaenau Gwent, rock solid Labour for ever, but an independent was elected because people rejected the Labour candidate foisted on them through an all woman shortlist. The man they elected was a respected local who they trusted, they did not want some cloned Blair babe imposed on them to meet metropolitan quotas for sex and race targets.
What Verity said. Getting drawn onto this battlefield means the Tories will always be on the defensive, always taking a ‘look, we’re not racist’ position. The only long-term, intellectually sound and right moral stance is to ignore race and appoint the best candidate. After all, this is what a true meritocracy demands, isn’t it? To play the liberal game is to constantly provide the race-baiting liberals with ammunition to fire at the Conservative Party.
The inevitable consequence of not doing the right thing is mentioned by John K above. One day the Tories will then impose a black candidate on a constituency in order to prove their ‘look, we’re not racist’ credentials, only for the candidate to be rejected, not because of race, but because it is right to reject quotas. Result, the entire left-wing, liberal establishment invoking white hoods and burning crosses in the Tory shires. Don’t play their game, don’t give them a stick to beat you with, don’t give them fuel for their race-baiting.
One other thing about Howard and his speech. That the local Conservative Party selected a black man, one who was elected to Parliament by local Conservative voters, is plainly self-evident. There was no need to mention it. He should have let the fact speak for itself.
Euan Gray, I know that the supremacy of Parlt, is a legal doctrine but that doctrine needs support from breathing human beings in the form of widespread popular consent. Otherwise it is just an empty husk, a slogan.
It is interesting that you quoted Oliver Cromwell. He banned things like dancing and Christmas. Sounds like EG’s kinda guy.
Cromwell’s reputation is somewhat at variance with the facts.
He didn’t ban dancing – but the Puritans frowned on excess and licence. In some areas, some forms of public dancing were prohibited, but this was not a command of the Protectorate government.
He didn’t “ban” Christmas, but considered it to be just another day. In fact, from a theological point of view he was correct since (a) according to the Christian story Christ was born in March, and (b) Christ’s date of birth is irrelevant and the only key date in Christianity is that of the resurrection – i.e. Easter, not Christmas. Even then, Easter is not an excuse (theologically) for excess. It is true that strictures against excess and waste at Christmas were enacted, that organs were removed from churches, and that various other measures seen as being anti-Catholic were imposed. But it’s not quite as some strands of history would have it.
Cromwell was no enemy of enjoyment. He was not the teetotal Puritan killjoy some think. He enjoyed entertaining, and it was commented at the time that supposedly solemn dinners often descended into food-fights in which he was an enthusiastic participant. He is known to have enjoyed a drink now and again (sometimes to excess, it seems), and would happily relax with friends and colleagues, enjoying tobacco (which he considered one of God’s mercies). It’s probably quite safe to say that he was rather less strait-laced, repressed and uptight than the majority of modern politicians.
EG
Well Jock, the whole damn point of UKIP is to do what you “blame” us for doing. We WANT to make the quisling right unelectable, so it aint a bug, it is a feature, mush. A few weeks ago Perry wrote the most clear headed analysis of why former tories should not vote tory (sorry I do not know how to do links) and that is exactly why if we can bugger up the right and FORCE them to adopt our policies (force is something you seem to understand), then we are doing well.
Oh, and take your god (and Cromwell) and stick ’em where the sun don’t shine.
And you are going to put in its place what, exactly? Other than a succession of left-wing pro-EU governments, that is.
So since the founders of UKIP couldn’t PERSUADE the right to adopt their ideas, now they try to FORCE it to do so? How democratic. But you won’t actually achieve this, for the simple reason that it will cost the right more votes than it will gain them. The right will do one of three things:
1. Argue about your policy and whether or not it should adopt it, thus condemning itself to electoral oblivion;
2. Adopt your policy, thus condemning itself to electoral oblivion;
3. Ignore you and accept a policy of constructive engagement towards Europe.
Option 1 was tried during the 1990s and was the cause of the destructive conflict within the party, contributing in no small measure to defeat in 1997.
Option 2 was tried under Hague as a way of silencing the internal dissent, and failed to resonate with the people to any measurable extent.
Option 3 is now going to be tried, whether you like it or not. Your policy is a vote loser and will not be adopted. The right is not going to repeat the 1990s just so you and your merry band can get your way. It just isn’t going to happen.
In British politics, you have a choice of three parties which could realistically form a government – Labour, Tory, LibDem. Labour is pro-EU, if lukewarm in some areas. LibDem is insanely pro-EU, but is least likely to form a government because it has no experienced people and no realistic chance of getting to 35+% of the vote. Tory is more Euro-realist, verging on outright scepticism on some policies. This is they best you’re going to get because the people by and large DON’T want withdrawal – they can’t see any great practical (as opposed to theoretical) benefit in it.
EG
So your argument (if you can call it that) is that even though UKIP supporters regard the Tory party’s alleged promises to stand up to the EU are having been nothing but lies since Thatcher fell, we should vote for them anyway? The idea that Hague did what we want shows you are beyond clueless. If he had, UKIP would not exist now.
Give the choice between slow death-by-Europe and fast death-by_Europe, I would demand no death-by-Europe, thanks very much. You just cannot stand seeing people who refuse to see the three main parties as the inevitable be al and end all. Get this through your head, the Tories are not going to get the option of “constructive engagement towards Europe” because we are going to make them unelectable unless they give us what they want. Don’t like that? Tough shit, Jock, we are going to do it anyway.
There’s the fundamental UKIP logic – given a choice of two options, you a demand a third which is not on offer. Ho hum.
And if by giving you what you want they crash to even worse defeat, what then?
You certainly can render them unelectable by taking from them enough votes to mean the difference between Labour or LibDem on the one hand or Tory on the other. In effect, the net result of UKIP’s participation in domestic elections is to increase the number of LibDem seats and make it more rather than less likely that we will have a Labour government.
This is obvious from the results of the recent election – without UKIP participation, Labour’s majority would be about 30-35 and the LibDems would have gained only 2-4 seats. But no, you insist on participating and in the process not only boost the Labour majority but increase the LibDem return. I don’t think this is terribly clever, and it is a pretty clear illustration that UKIP is opposed to the Conservative party far more than it is genuinely opposed to Europe.
Perhaps you would be so good as to explain why shifting parliament to the left and towards Europe is in some way beneficial? Perhaps you could also explain how facilitating the return of Euro-friendly governments actually helps your supposed aim of leaving Europe?
EG
Because things have to get worse for the Tories before they get any better. Given creeping Eurofication, YOU are the one with no solution as given we regard voting for the Tories as just in no way going to lead to a harder line on the EU. If ever there was a time for undermining the whole rotten process which got us here, it is now. If it take more and more given away to the EU before people get REALLY pissed off to start throwing rocks, well so be it.
So the institution should change to reflect the increasing apathy of the people? I rather think the people should be encouraged to make use of the perfectly good institution that already exists and which has existed for centuries. Before anyone moans about what Parliament has led us to, consider that it was the same Parliament system which had supremacy during the time of Britain’s peak of liberty and prosperity. It is not that the system is defective, but that the unwillingness of the people to use the system properly and their desire for instant fixes at someone else’s expense that causes the problems.
EG
Suppose they don’t get better, though? Suppose the Tories refuse to give you what you want, in the recognition that they might get 250 seats not doing it and 150 seats doing it, what then?
Your plan is predicated on the assumption that if you hurt the Tories they will necessarily adopt your policy in order to end the hurt. However, I’m pretty confident you haven’t thought about what would happen if they choose not to do that.
So it’s better to mount a destructive electoral campaign aimed at destroying the one mainstream Euro-relaist party we have? Again, what if it doesn’t work?
A superficial glance at the election results suggests the electorate has shifted to the left. This view suits Labour and the LibDems, so they are likely to accept it. It’s not beyond the bounds of possibility that the Tories could, as a result, forget the whole Europe issue and themselves go more for One Nation stuff closer to the centre-left. If that happens, your policy will have achieved nothing other than firmly cementing us inside Europe.
People don’t generally like intrusive and petty regulation, but on the whole if it doesn’t get in their way too much they tend to ignore it. Who cares whether you can or cannot sell carrots by the pound? It might be a point of principle, but in the real world people just don’t give a stuff. They adapt. They HAVE adapted.
EG
Mr Gray It is not a matter of what one prefers,I find your standard either/ or copout somewhat specious.Outcomes are just as much the result of what follows in the years after tumultuous events than those events themselves,at the time outcomes are unknown and merely hoped for.Your point of view has more than a whiff of the ends justifying the means.
What tumultuous event has happened? The only one on the horizon is the EU constitution, which appears at present unlikely to be approved in its current form. I remain unalarmed.
What ends am I proposing? What means?
EG
Euan Gray – Pete_London is correct. Do not give the enemy a stick to beat you with. Just run the party according to your instincts and beliefs. This will involve putting forth black candidates who have made it through the rigorous selection procedure as being the cleverest and most motivated individual of those interviewed. Or women. For no other reason than that this is the Tory way.
You can never “pre-empt” , Euan and you are very naive if you think you can, in politics. The socialists, having no principles to lose, can always go you one further. “OK, you’ve got a quota [and yes, if you want to placate the socialists into not calling you names, it would come down to matching them quota for quota] for blacks and people who practise the religion of peace and Chinese [although you had to press gang them in a Chinese takeaway because the Chinese traditionally have little interest in politics] and Zorastrians. But what about dwarves? Labour has, let’s say, three dwarf MPs. [Obviously, I’m not referring to intellect, otherwise they’d have 355.] So where are the Tories’ “little people” MPs to represent the dwarf and midget communities?
So the Tories trawl around for dwarfs and the socialists say, “You are the prejudiced party! Where are the representatives of the Santerria community?”
Euan. Grow up.
Blair lost seats as a repudiation of his (and your) war and the lies used to justify it. A result of this could be his getting dumped like Thatcher was and an anti-war Labor govt installed. This isn’t the election result you wanted, no matter how you try to spin it.
I’m looking forward to your head exploding when Britian joins the rest of the world in leaving Iraq.
Theres a good article in today’s telegraph by maurice saatchi. He says tories need to have idealist fervour like old labour and new labour have. The problem according to MS is not so much the right mix of focus group issues but the language used. The keywords are ‘hope’, ‘modern’, ‘prosperity’ and ‘freedom’. He feels that everything from the tories should be presented in the context of the four words. Of course the man’s dead right.
Euan, you cannot deny that low voter turnout, destruction of civil liberties etc does not exactly give much sense of widespread support for the supremacy of parliament. You can assert the legal fact of said supremacy until you are blue in the face but it won’t alter the reality of the world we now live in – drastic loss of respect for parliament and many other institutions. We need to reform said institutions to get that respect back. Those reforms do not, however, include such oppressive measures as compulsory voting. It must be a right of any person to refuse to vote if they want since that acknowledges that there is more to civil society than political participation.
Some pointers for reform:
Democratic elections to the House of Lords (perhaps via PR rather than FPP). I’d be interested in suggestions.
Term limits for ALL politicians.
Minimum age limit for all would-be MPs: 45, say.
Raise the voting minimum age to 21, and tie the franchise to paying tax/owning property/service in the armed forces.
Root and branch reversal of all assaults on the Commons law (double jeopardy, trial by jury, habeas corpus, the lot).
A written constitution, on the American model and a formal and rigorous re-assertion of separation of powers and the idea of a truly balanced constitution, not the dangerously centralised mess we have now.
That, coupled with renegotiation of relations with EU, perhaps transfer to associate trading status, and respect for Mother of Parliaments will be restored. All else is trimming and pissing in the wind.
Jonathan – What an interesting post!
For sure, the House of Lords needs to be elected, although I think PR is asking for trouble. But definitely elected, with all the placemen currently in with “life peerages” (and we should put a swift end to this particular foolishness) being ejected. I wouldn’t even mind a small percentage of real peers (elected by the Lords themselves) being added to the mixture.
Term limits for all politicians? Why? If they can get themselves elected, by should they be disqualified by the duration of their service?
Minimum age for MPs – I agree heartily with this, although I think 45 might be a bit too harsh. Personally, I think 40 or 42 would be adequate for ensuring that the candidates all had plentiful experience of life out in the real world. I would, incidentally, disqualify anyone in the public sector from standing. The country would benefit from being run by people with a hard headed knowledge of how wealth creation works.
Minimum voting age 21. Check. A certain amount of adolescent lunacy has worn off most people by then. And we wouldn’t have students voting for larger student grants.
Root and branch reversal of all assaults on our Commons Law. Check. Priority.
A written constitution. Yes.
I’ll be interested to see arguments put forward by others.
Verity, I used to dislike term limits for the sort of reason you claim, but I believe there is a lot to be said for the idea that politics holds out so many dangerous temptations that it ought to be a temporary vocation.
What is definitely needed right now are a lot of creative ideas on how we reinvigorate our institutions along libertarian lines. There are actually quite a lot of ways we could go about it. That is the beauty of blogging, of course. We can use this medium to throw some ideas out there.
Verity, I used to dislike term limits for the sort of reason you claim, but I believe there is a lot to be said for the idea that politics holds out so many dangerous temptations that it ought to be a temporary vocation.
What is definitely needed right now are a lot of creative ideas on how we reinvigorate our institutions along libertarian lines. There are actually quite a lot of ways we could go about it. That is the beauty of blogging, of course. We can use this medium to throw some ideas out there.
I think I, too, broadly agree with Johnathan’s proposals, though I share Verity’s dislike of term limits. If people want to keep voting someone in, then that should be good enough.
I cannot, however, imagine a set of circumstances in which a raised voting age or enfranchisement only for tax payers and property owners could ever come about. Like the Poll Tax, they’re good ideas, but I simply don’t think the public would stand for it.
One idea I’ve toyed with for a number of years is actually banning political parties – or, at least, the whipping system. It seems quite wrong to me that MPs will vote against their consciences and their constituents’ wishes and interests to follow a party line and one way of doing this would be to prohibit whipping.
I get the impression that US politicians are rather less under the direct control of their parties and I think it would be preferable if ours had a similar degree of independence.
I think we could also slice off around half the ministers without missing a beat. All these silly jobs (minister of sport! I ask you!) were only invented to be rewards for drones’ loyalty to the party at the expense of real wage/salary earners. They serve no purpose.
I also think that a country as small as Britain probably doesn’t need 650 MPs. They could be reduced by a third, or at least a quarter.
Jonathan, broadly welcome proposals of course but the masses aren’t about to storm the barricades demanding them. It’s up to each of us to work on those we can contact and persuade.
I’ll be meeting my MP soon. He’s relatively sound for a Tory MP and agrees that that they need to get up off of their knees but they all need to be prodded on a regular basis.
Economic reform (lower taxes, deregulation, free trade, lifting the burden of red tape etc) I believe must go hand in hand with a reform of the political culture. It’s all too easy for the left to paint a demand for lower taxes as mere greed, a slur which is difficult to overcome in battling for votes. When set within a context of greater individual freedom however, it’s surely easier to persuade others to the cause. I’ve always believed that our side always does better when discussion the big issues, ideas, philosophies. The arguments are unbeatable. We have to drag the argument back onto this ground. Frankly, for the Tories to settle on a £4bn tax cut and leave it at that for the election was pathetically weak.
It’s such a change which must provide the foundation for all others. Having a written constitution is all very well, but such is the political and moral corruptness which has developed that existing bedrocks of our current constitution, such as Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights, can be ignored with impunity.
I know we’re in the business of reducing the number of laws in this country but one I would like to see is that of political fraud. In ’92 John Major stated that VAT would not rise. One of his first acts in office was to raise it. In 2001 Blair said that NI would not rise. When back in office it rose. This is nothing less than a outright fraud against we, the people. When they can get away with such blatant acts it’s no wonder when what they do becomes ever more perncious to the individual and the country as a whole.
It was the parlous economic state of late-1970s Britain which not only brought Margaret Thatcher to power but also swung support behind her major economic reforms. Blair’s Britain demands a similar moral and political reform but the Tories (if anyone else is about to supplant them as the only party with a remote chance of bringing about the change I’d love to know) must be pushed at every opportunity to take up the challenge.
If none of that made any sense then don’t blame me but the bottle of Barolo (now empty) which sits on the table. Today I discovered that an anti-hunting ex Labour MP called Peter Bradley lost his seat at the election. If that doesn’t demand a toast then nothing does. After the ban he stated
Well I ought to own up to it: I think Peter Bradley’s an arrogant bastard and I’m glad he’s unemployed.
Pete_London hit the nail on the head. “The masses aren’t going to storm the barricades” demanding freedom to run their own lives.
The Tories have to regain the ground of being perceived as battling for normal people, not for “the rich”, which is the corner they have allowed Toneboy an’ ‘is mates to paint them into. Maggie did it by pulling the rug out from under Labour by selling off council flats and allowing people who couldn’t otherwise have done it to become homeowners. For that alone, she gets my unalloyed admiration and respect. She hugely broadened the middle class.
Again, Pete, on another posting on Samizdata, we opposed Euan Gray who thinks fighting the Gramscians on their own ground is a realistic idea. Get even more black MPs!! He argues that this is “pre-empting” Labour and thinks it rather a clever ruse. [Who cares about black MPs?????? Let’s send effective people onto the field!] This is the talk of losers.
I totally agree with you regarding a provision for political fraud, and think it should be a criminal offence, because someone has stolen an election (if it can be proved so, of course).
I think minimum age requirements are a bad idea, for reasons I detailed above (May 8th, 6.26pm). It is a regulation we can do without.
Verity – Euan has espoused a few rather odd opinions over the course of this election. On matters of opinion (as opposed to technical concerns, where his authority is strong), his tactic seems to be – as GCooper said recently – one of attrition. He makes a point, is rebutted, then, over the period of several posts, refines and refines and repositions his argument until he has fashioned a more or less watertight case. Trouble is, this final position is often far removed from his original argument. And it’s such a drawn-out process that those who are disagreeing with him have long given up. Although as a tactic, it works; he usually has the last word.
However, on this issue his original statements are so unusual (IMO patently incorrect) that they’re incredibly difficult to defend, even by someone with the stamina and perspicacity of Euan. Take his assertion that the Tories could do without a libertarian faction, or factionalism per se. This is crazy – all parties have factions and, on the whole, it doesn’t lead to public disunity. Party discipline keeps factionalism away from the public eye, and this is something that the Tories have lacked of late.
It’s also the same deal with his talk of beating Labour at their own game. This is precisely what has kept the Conservatives out of power. You’re right, it is the talk of losers. The Conservatives need to find themselves a distinct new agenda. This should be a lot easier to do when the British economy comes unstuck and the New Labour/Blairite project fails. That should arrest the leftward trend Euan detected, and make a Tory transformation far more warmly received by the electorate.
Rubbish. Where I make the same point over and over it is generally because people who try to rebut it haven’t understood it. Gradually understanding dawns, and some readers appear to think the position has changed when in fact it is their understanding of what I am saying that has changed.
But in the Tory party it does, and it has done so with devastating effect. It doesn’t work and needs to be stopped. Factionalism leading to public disunity destroyed the Tories in 1997 and kept them out in 2001. There is a difference between a civilised debate on principles on the one hand and fratricidal factionalism on the other, and it is this latter to which I object. It seems Tories are incapable of debating key issues without destroying their party in the process, due IMO to a chronic lack of internal discipline and firm leadership.
Funnily enough, the Labour party is IN power because it beat the Tories at THEIR own game – economic competence. If you cannot defeat your enemy your way, you have no option but to take him on on his terms.
I didn’t “detect” any leftward trend. I said that a superficial reading of the results would indicate such a trend. In fact there is no such trend, but since it suits Labour and the LibDems to see one, so they will see it. The danger is that the Tories might also be persuaded to see it. Another example of people not reading what I have written and seeing only what they want to see.
EG
EG:
Well, you certainly kept on making the point that the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution did not recognise an individual right to keep and bear arms, but was merely some sort of collective right of states to arm their militias.
Where I took issue with you was your assertion that the matter was closed. You said that it was specious even to suggest that the 2nd Amendment related to any sort of individual right to keep and bear arms.
The fact is that it is a live question, which has not been resolved by the US Supreme Court. That is why the Dept. of Justice has released a position paper explaining why it thinks the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. You never seemed keen to address that point. Has understanding gradually dawned by any chance?
Well, Euan, I have been in a couple of long haul stoushes with you and I remember thinking at the end of both…wow, we’re a long way from where we started. Not exactly a case of you making the same point over and over.
It *has*. It doesn’t have to in the future. Like I have said at least twice now, it’s about party discipline. The Tories need, and most probably will, find some. In that case, a powerful libertarian faction isn’t going to cleft them in twain.
That really is loser politics. If the Tories operated by your rules, they’d be constantly playing catchup. Far better for them to try to drive the agenda. Here’s a “new” agenda for them (that’s worked before) – economic competence *and* small government. See, it’s not rocket science, and Labour are hardly likely to follow suit. What do we have there? A clear demarcation between the two parties.
There’s a great example where you are creating something out of nothing and having it masquerade as your argument. You’re making an irrelevant point about semantics, whilst completely ignoring what I said. That’s what I mean about refining and repositioning.
Wot [Long] Suffering said.
Crap. Not only did I address the matter, I did so repeatedly. Read the thread again.
It’s called developing an argument. You may have heard of the concept. My basic position doesn’t change, however, even though the debate gets more detailed and reveals exceptions and caveats that invariably need to be dealt with. I’m not an ideologue, and I don’t write or speak in “Janet & John” language – perhaps this is the problem, posting on an blog dominated by ideology and where simplistic solutions seem to be intellectually satisfying.
But unless there is strong discipline and firm leadership, it will. The right has fragmented over the past decade, and it is Labour and the LibDems which have reaped the rewards. The Tories have beaten themselves up over Europe and now we have the anti-Tory UKIP which seems to see the destruction of the Tory party as a higher aim than withdrawal from Europe, motivated, it would appear, by petulance and spite. Who has gained? – Labour with a third term and the LibDems with more seats than any time since 1929.
Nevertheless, it is fact. That is what happened – Labour beat the Tories at their own game of economic competence. Then the Tories beat Labour at their own game of internal strife.
Indeed, but so far they have failed to do so. The case for small government can be attractive, BUT it needs to avoid being spoiled by the loony fringe within the party. A libertarian approach to the issue is a major turn-off for the electorate, and libertarians really need to understand this. Even more of a turn-off is the internal squabbling over the issue that is bound to arise without good discipline.
You again fail to understand what I have said. A SUPERFICIAL reading of the results might give the impression the electorate is trending leftwards – in reality it isn’t, though. That’s what I was saying. How the hell you can misconstrue such a simple concept simply put I cannot for the life of me understand.
The danger, as I pointed out, is that the Tories may also perceive a leftward trend and move further in that direction themselves. This, I think, would not only be a mistake but would also be unjustified by the situation.
As for what you were saying – well, what was your point? That a new Tory agenda will arrest a leftward trend in the electorate that doesn’t exist? Or that a more rightist Tory agenda will prevent the emergence of a more leftist Tory agenda?
A more thorough analysis of the results will, I am quite sure, reveal that the electorate are pretty fed up with the government, but don’t really want a leftist alternative. At the same time, many of them are not wholly convinced about the Tories and their sudden access of reason and order. A lurch to the right by the Tories will not convince these waverers – and in fact will likely put them off even more. The Tories, IMO, need to move a LITTLE to the right on economics and especially taxation, but at the same time they need to accept (as I think most of them do) that the people want and expect things like welfare and the NHS.
The initial question is how to run these things more efficiently, and the later question which need not be addressed now, is how to minimise state involvement in them. Glib and unthinking proposals such as “privatise the lot” will simply not work, and a more intelligent longer-term strategy is needed.
EG
That is why the Dept. of Justice has released a position paper explaining why it thinks the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective one. You never seemed keen to address that point
Crap. Not only did I address the matter, I did so repeatedly. Read the thread again.
Crap is it? Temper, temper.
What you said was that the DoJ paper was just their opinion, not a defintive statement of the law.
I totally agree. Of course it is. It carries more weight than most opinions of course, but it’s still just an opinion.
The final word must come from the Supreme Court. This is where you are wrong. Not wrong in my opinion, wrong as a matter of fact.
You have repeatedly asserted that the case is closed. The Courts have decided. The 2nd Amendment is a collective right, it does not grant any individual the right to keep and bear arms. You said it was specious even to suppose that it did.
You are wrong. Not in your collectivist opinion, you are wrong because the matter has not been settled by the Supreme Court.
If you consult the paper on the DoJ website you will find this comment on page 1:
“The Supreme Court has not decided among these three potential interpretations, and the federal circuits are split. The Executive Branch has taken different views over the years.”
Now that is a statement of fact. So could you please tell me, is the Office of Legal Counsel at the United States Department of Justice talking crap, or might it just possibly be someone a bit closer to home?
The Office of the Legal Counsel uses arguments in support of the individualist doctrine that have been rejected by the courts in the past – for example, supposed protection offered by the 14th amendment under incorporation. When the SC has addressed the issue in the past, it has always taken a collectivist view of the amendment. Other than the 5th (I think) Circuit relatively recently, the US federal courts have consistently taken a collectivist approach too. The opinion considerably overstates the degree of dissent in the courts, but then one would expect this since it is a political document created for political reasons.
The DoJ paper is not without its flaws and reaches conclusions somewhat at variance with the consistent findings of the courts over the past century. Had you actually read and understood the entire opinion, and had you also reviewed the numerous federal court (and supreme court) rulings on the question, you would of course know all that.
I have stated my position quite clearly before, and have given consistent, comprehensive and detailed explanations of why I hold that position. I am not going to repeat it here, and nor am I going to be drawn into another debate on the issue.
EG
Then you are a fool and would do well to avoid commenting on the subject. If you cannot see that the endgame is unfolding before your eyes, you are blind.
The opinion considerably overstates the degree of dissent in the courts, but then one would expect this since it is a political document created for political reasons
So you actually accept that there is dissent in the courts? How then can the matter be closed?
It is a fact that lower Federal courts have come to different views on the collectivist/individualist question. This means that the question is still open. The Supreme Court has not finally ruled on this question. Of course, you may know better, in which case I urge you to write to the Attorney General and let him know. Either that or admit that you have overstated your case and misrepresented the facts. That’s “facts”, not “opinions”.
What part of “nor am I going to be drawn into another debate on the issue” do you not understand?
All your questions have been addressed at length previously. The facts are not as you wish to present them. Deal with it.
EG
What part of “nor am I going to be drawn into another debate on the issue” do you not understand?
All your questions have been addressed at length previously. The facts are not as you wish to present them. Deal with it.>
Poor Euan, he’s wrong but he won’t admit it. Why don’t you learn to deal with that big man?
I’ve got no respect for someone who makes big claims as if he knows what he’s talking about, and when he is wrong, objectively wrong, is too much of a ponce to admit it.
I’ve got no respect for someone who makes big claims as if he knows what he’s talking about, and when he is wrong, objectively wrong, is too much of a ponce to admit it.
For the last time:
1. Your points have been addressed at length elsewhere and will not be repeated here. It is frankly pathetic of you to interpret my lack of interest in getting into a repeat of what I have already posted as some admission that I am wrong – I stand by my position as stated elsewhere and would do nothing other than repeat it here. If anyone wants to see my thoughts on the matter, let them look at the earlier threads and not this one, because my opinion has not changed.
2. The DoJ opinion is at variance with a century of legal judgement. This is FACT, not opinion, and needs consideration. The DoJ opinion carries no more weight than any other scholarly legal opinion, whatever you may think (think “separation of powers” here if you don’t understand why).
EG
Sometimes it is. However you’re pretty good at going off on tangents. See below for evidence of this.
Euan, that’s the whole goddamn point. What I and others are talking about is a change of direction for the Tories. You are constantly looking backwards, and arguing with me as though I’m disputing history. I’m not, I’m talking about the future!
Sigh. There you go again. Out of interest, when you drive your car, do you see what’s in front of you by looking in the rear vision mirror? Because that’s how you’re twisting what we’re saying. I say something like the Tories need to find some party discipline for a libertarian faction (or any faction) to exist without causing publicly displaying disunity. You counter with “well they haven’t had any in the recent past!” Nobody. Is. Disputing. That. You should take your own advice and read my posts more carefully.
This is really funny. You know why? Because it is *you* who has again failed to understand *my* point. You’ve gone off on a tangent that was totally peripheral to my argument, you’ve forgotten you’ve done it and you assume I’m arguing with you regarding the wild goose you’re chasing! Maybe you don’t even realise you’re doing it. Or maybe you think chasing irrelevant points is “developing your argument”. That would explain a lot. Anyway, I should clarify. I understood perfectly what you were getting at about the ‘superficial shift leftwards’. The point is that you didn’t need to develop your argument because that’s not what I was talking about. Go up and read the sentence in question. I’m sure you’ll see what I’m getting at.
Aha, now here’s where it gets interesting. If you scroll up to where you first mentioned the “superficial shift to the left”. Here’s what you said –
You DID NOT say “A superficial glance at the election results suggests the electorate has shifted to the left, but actually this is not the case.” which is what you now seem to suggesting you said. Well, you didn’t say that. Go and see for yourself. I took you on face value – I accepted you were correct when I used you as the source to say that the electorate had shifted to the left. Now, you’re right, to quote you properly, I should have said “the leftward trend Euan detected from a *superficial* reading”. However, even if I did say that IT WOULDN’T HAVE MADE ONE JOT OF DIFFERENCE TO MY ARGUMENT. Now, if you had said “superficially, the electorate has moved to the left, however this is not the case.” then my point would not have made sense. HOWEVER you tacked that little annex onto your argument in a later post, long after I had made my original point. Anyone who can be bothered to scroll up and read the sequence of posts will see that this is the case.
Nope. Euan. You should read my posts more carefully. Or are you trying to be deliberately deceptive? I was saying that the leftward trend (which I referenced to you because I believed that you knew what you were talking about) would be arrested when the lefty New Labour project fails and the economy sputters to a halt. See how it doesn’t make a difference whether it was a superficial reading or not? Sure, it does if you had said that there was actually no leftward trend. Sadly, only much later did you come back with “there actually was no leftward shift” so don’t try to pretend it’s what you said originally.
Okay, I’ve had enough of this.
It should be blindingly bloody obvious to the meanest intellect that using a phrase like “a superficial glance” in conjunction with “suggests” would indicate that the author does NOT assert that what the glance suggests is happening is actually happening. This is perfectly normal English usage, which indicates a degree of scepticism. Patently you missed it, which has caused all the other difficulties you seem to be having.
Do I have to use “Janet & John” language after all?
EG
Sorry, Euan, I’m not buying it. I just read the paragraph again, and contrary to your assertion, it isn’t “blindingly bloody obvious” that you didn’t actually mean there was a leftward shift. Here’s the paragraph in question in its entirety if anyone’s still following this thread. Please judge for yourselves.
No, Euan. You just have to communicate more effectively so that you aren’t misunderstood.
Oh. Hold the phone! Here’s what you said just now:
And, you know, you’re absolutely right. However, here’s what you said a few posts ago, and this is what I was objecting to:
See how they’re different? First you stated that you originally said the superficial reading was not correct. Now you’re saying that it’s not necessarily correct, but perhaps it is, or, to paraphrase, the author makes no comment on whether it is or it isn’t. Will you please get it clear in your mind what you said over the course of this thread. It would make the discussion much more succint.
succinct 😛
I stand by my position as stated elsewhere and would do nothing other than repeat it here. If anyone wants to see my thoughts on the matter, let them look at the earlier threads and not this one, because my opinion has not changed.
You can stand on your head for all I care. I know your position has not changed, because you will not admit you are wrong on this or anything.
The US Supreme Court has not, repeat not, that’s N.O.T made a final judgement on this question.
That’s what the Justice Department says. That’s what the Attorney General says. That’s what the 5th Circuit of the US Federal Court says.
You know what Euan? For some strange reason I believe them before I believe you.
Why do you think the 9th Circuit holds a collectivist view, and the 5th Circuit holds an individualist view? Because the Supreme Court has not decided the issue. This is a childishly simple concept which you simply cannot bring yourself to accept, because how can you ever be wrong? It’s never happened before has it?
Your view of what the 2nd Amendment means may be right, it may be wrong. But what is “frankly pathetic” is your stubborn refusal to admit that, no matter how often you assert it, the Supreme Court has not made a final judgement one way or the other.