We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
What the Tory Party needs… …is Kenneth Clarke to defy the odds and end up the head honcho of the Conservative Party. Why? Because appointing a Europhile statist would be the absolute best way to split the party so irretrievably that it writes the party off once and for all.
Then maybe we can work on getting a proper opposition party that actually has a coherent ideological position, well, at least as coherent as a main stream party can even be. Hell, it can even call itself the ‘Conservative Party’ for all I care.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
Nu-Conservative anyone?
Perry, you start it I’ll vote and campaign.
I saw on the beeb website earlier that a Clarke/Cameron team up was the dream ticket.
(Link)
No! it’s no dream of mine.
Not too sure that Ken Clarke would split the party. After 8+ years out of power Tory MPs are pretty desperate to get back in power. If he wins then he will have convinced a majority (or at least plurality) of the party that he’s the man and because he is a fairly popular figure in the nation as a whole there will, when combined with Blairs difficulties, be quite a noticeable honeymoon period.
You may be right Perry, and it would be a good thing if you were, but somehow I suspect that the next few months will be their most politically radical for the next 10 years and still won’t amount to much. If they lose the next election they will win the next but one by default without shifting policy very much just because the country will want a change of faces.
There are still the likes of Ann Widdecombe saying they need to win an election rather than create a winning platform. I think David Davies has made a few decent noises about “what he believes in” but I’ve not been too impressed with him. If there were to be a new party who would it come from and what would they be proposing?
Who would leave the Conservative Party? Those on the Right who fear it’s not conservative at all or those on the left who simply don’t want it to be?
As a CP activist I want the non-conservatives to make the move. Realism though suggests that proper conservatives may become so frustrated with the nonsense coming from some of the other lot that they may have to jump sooner rather than later.
Because the longer Labour – or a Conservative Party Labour-lite – runs the show the greater the danger that the British decline will become permanent.
GM
Sadly I think the central problem for the conservative party is exactly the same as the problem that the majority of the electorate are facing. That is that New Labour have grabbed that central-right ground that typified say the Major government, yet mixed with a Potpourri of Euro-style socialism. Its a dog’s-dinner politic that cannot work economically or socially and its certainly given the country indigestion.
Then they can rip Tony’s “Thatcher Wig” off and start running the economy again.
It’s reassuring to see Ken Clarke getting some support at long last, although I’m worried he could be a bit past his sell by date. Whilst I personally agree with much of the Tory right, one has to admit that they generally come across as a dour, humourless, and largely anonymous collection of individuals.
Ask yourself these questions:
Is there any point having the right policies if nobody is going to vote for you?
Did we enjoy the three terms of Blair. If not why did we keep voting for a succession of right wing non-entities as party leader?
Are we going to stick resolutely with our principled stand through the next three terms of Brown?
For goodness sake Tories, stop being pure, holier than thou idealists and show some political savvy. Give cuddly avuncular Ken a chance. We can work on the rightward drift of policy later once we are in power.
Well said Perry. Exactly right.
Split the party, leave those with their tongues up the left’s arse to themselves (John East take note), and form a new party that unequivally assumes the moral righteousness that freedom deserves.
Tim, your great idea of a new right wing party might find things a little bit crowded on the fringe. Whilst you might split the UKIP/BNP vote in a general election, you would be lucky if many of your candidates retained their deposits. By all means go ahead, I’ll almost certainly vote for you as I suspect would a significant number of right wing idealists so you would certainly get a few thousand votes.
To sum up, I think you would do far less harm to the cause of the right if you joined the Respect party.
Ken Clarke has one thing and one thing only going for him: he’s lazy. After 10 miserable years of being battered by a messianic, egomanic, hyperactive, destructive halfwit, someone who doesn’t care whether Parliament ever passes another law would be an enormous relief.
Well I wouldn’t vote for a party with an ideology. Ideologies have a nasty habit of becoming more important than people (French revolution, Marxism, etc.) and often are used to justify the whatever oppression someone wants to foist on others.
A coherent philosophy or set of principles, yes. Ideology, no.
It was always said that the strength of the Conservative party is that it has no ideology. Dismayed as I am with its inability to propose a coherent alternative to the current government, I can’t help believe that this is still true.
Excellent point Verity, very funny and probably true. I wish I’d thought of that.
I’m struggling trying to put together a cogent argument here. My philosophy is well to the right of Clarke, but trying to be practical I’m unsure the Tory right under yet another little known leader can strike a chord with the millions of state funded workers, those on the wide range of state benefits, or those whose sole criterion when they vote is, “What’s in it for me in the short term?”
Thatcher did it by selling empowerment and the prospect of personal advancement against a background of a failed socialist government. This will be a much more difficult task today.
However, I accept Clarke’s day has likely passed, so I suppose I will have to give Davies my tentative support on the basis, “ By the law of averages we’re bound to pick a good’un sooner or later”.
Thank you, John. Sadly, I have to say that Clarke is the only one with a national profile and face that is recognised by millions. I do not like him – probably for the reason that would make him electable … he comes across as someone who would wile away an evening with his elbows on the pub bar having a good natured pub argument. Meaning, millions could relate to him and think he was “aw right.” He’s probably the only Tory who could attract sufficient numbers of the vast public sector and entitlement army to turn the tide. They might even think he was on their side, whereas David Davis, David Cameron et al are all obviously “other”.
There seems to be confusion over what a conservative is and what a ‘right’ winger is. A person who is more conservative isn’t necessarily moving along a line towards the BNP.
Conservatives are pragmatic. We believe the people will make a much better (not perfect – but much better) job of running their lives than stuffed suits in Parliament. We believe that democracy requires the people to have meaningful influence over the framing of the laws that they then have to live by. We believe the nation’s history and culture are the glue which binds us together, fosters a sense of togetherness and understanding and helps build cohesive communities and a united country.
We don’t believe in dogma; rather, it is better to have a general philosophy which can alter somewhat to accomadate local conditions.
I consider myself to be politically conservative. Yet I can, for example, comfortably regard the uncompromising maintenance of law and order as an essential aspect of a government’s job whilst simultaneously opposing the death penalty.
A conservative can recognise the self-evident benefits of free enterprise with the profit motive leading inexorably towards better and cheaper products, improved services and all-round benefits for all – whilst simultaneously recognising that some services need to be provided for society’s good and that, occasionally, the profit motive is contrary to that good (the privatised railways could be an example of this).
A conservative can abhor multiculturalism and reject any notions of the UK’s culture being treated as ‘just an alternative’ to anybody else’s. There’s very little need – if any – for immigration (family reunion aside). Yet, as a conservative, I am also married to a non-British Indian lady and recognise no contradictions at all. Appreciating society and the things it needs isn’t a hatred of the alternatives. It’s simply a considered choice.
Conservatives have faith in the ability of people to provide for themselves and reject the idea that a perfect society can be designed on a sheet of A4 with that design then being implemented via (necessarily)authoritarian legislation.
Most of these basic conservative ideas could find a home in the BNP. No conservative could ever consider lending that party his or her support.
Kenneth Clarke, in his enthusiasm for bureacracy-led government (the EU), hs disdain for the sovereign right of the people to pick and choose their own rulers (the EU again) and a disregard for the institution of family – the singularly most important buffer against hunger, failure and state oppression – means he is not a conservative.
He is charming, relaxed, a good speaker and very voter-friendly. I’d like him as a next-door neighbour. And he would do very well in his own party. But not my party, not the Conservative Party.
GM
Gary, I agree with most of what you say. But I think as an election issue, the EU’s been defanged now and is obviously on the wane. I expect the euro to become a parallel currency within two or three years, as Italy and, for sure, Germany return to their own currencies. Others will follow, with possibly only France and maybe Spain, Portugal, Greece and Malta hanging on to the euro as their national currencies.
While I’m on the subject, I think the EU is already showing cracks and I expect the northern countries to drift away and form their own alliance, probably with NAFTA. France, Spain, Portugal, Greece and Malta will form a new alliance with Tunisia, Libya, Algeria and Morocco.
I don’t think Kenneth Clarke would be stupid enough to bang on about the EU any more – or he’ll tamp it down and keep it extremely low key.
Agreed Verity although the question of the EU (a) will not go away – it’ll fade occasionally but is crucially important to the UK’s future – and (b) illustrates clearly the dividing line between those in the Conservative Party who are conservatives and those who are not.
And conservatives MUST stop thinking in terms of elections and get their heads straight first. You don’t determine your beliefs by what you think will appeal to others. Beliefs are sincerely held views on what constitutes the good life; all else are just the vacuous spoutings of opportunists.
GM
It’s high time we had a really libertarian party in Britain. One that believes in legalising drugs, abolishing Church of England schools and the Monarchy, cutting the NHS down to size and sending our troops wherever GW Bush wants in the name of Freedom.
Bring it on! Sounds good for, I mean to, me.
Shut up, twittering fathead! I’m running this show, remember?
Gary Munro: UKIP is the party for you, come and join us?
Gary – i thought your post was an excellent one but i remain convinced that the Conservative Party are dead and buried.
The simple reason for this is their total lack of support from anyone under the age of 40. Even in the private sector, almost noone i know would admit voting Tory.
However, and this is the key point, the majority of working young people hold more conservative views than their parents.
This is an image problem comparable to John Smith’s Labour. Davis, Rifkind, Cameron and Clarke are just not the Conservatives’ answer to Blair.
A Clark/Cameron “dream ticket” would finish the Tories off for good, which is probably no bad thing.
Amidst the ashes, a new liberal party would form which would appeal to working people of working- and middle- class backgrounds and to the retired. Lets call it the Enterprise Party.
It would recruit from outside politics, journalism and the law.
It would emphasise the individual over the state
It would favour low taxation
It would emphasise personal responsibility and would roll back the welfare state
It would be pro-immigration but insist on integration
It would be unashamedly British
Provided a few appealing people could be attracted early to the cause, it would rapidly become a major force.
One surprising outcome of the events of 7/7 has been to awaken the comatose conservative majority of this country. They just need the right vehicle to express their views.
Pommygranate,
Unashamedly “British” or unashamedly “English.” I would like a party which matched my own libertarian values. One possible way to have such a party be victorious would be for it to be unashamedly English, campaign for an end to the Union with Scotland, Wales and Ireland and concentrate on majority support in England.
The only rational way to ‘run’ the economy is to STOP trying to ‘run’ the economy.
I think you have that 180 degrees wrong… is there any point of voting for a party unless they have the right policies? People still supporting the ‘Conservatives’ (who are not really a conservative party at all any more) just because they were The Conservatives (rather than because they had the best policies) is how they ended up loosing three election rather than reforming themselves with a coherent ideology.
I abandoned the Conservatives not because they could not get elected (they were in power at the time) but because they had adopted policies that would (and did) lead to someone like Tony Blair, who is truly a creation of Tory ineptitude.
Perry is right. The conservatives are not the Conservatives any more. They’re floundering around looking for ways to win an election rather than following their conservative instincts and I am sorry to add that, I think there are very few on the national level with conservative instincts. Most of them would gladly be complicit in the decline of Britain if only they could get into the driver’s seat.
Long and short – they want to win an election without formulating guiding principles which, on the evidence, few of them have anyway. I have never seen it said before, but this quote from Perry, above [the Conservatives] had adopted policies that would (and did) lead to someone like Tony Blair, who is truly a creation of Tory ineptitude. defines the entire problem.
“Most of them would gladly be complicit in the decline of Britain if only they could get into the driver’s seat.”
Wow Verity, sometimes in a simple sentence you can capture the essence of the whole problem. Not just in Britain, either. I was thinking of here in the US Congress.
Robert Alderson:
One possible way to have such a party be victorious would be for it to be unashamedly English, campaign for an end to the Union with Scotland, Wales and Ireland and concentrate on majority support in England.
I’ve pondered that in the past. It would require calling the bluff of the nationalist parties in other parts of the UK to work, though. And they too have rather deprected their principles of late. (Even if there is a case for saying the Scots Nats remain the most coherently principled party in Westminster, there’s small competition. And New Labour’s skill in the indirect buy-off is astounding.)
What a wonderful thing blogs are for refining or changing ones opinions. OK everybody you’ve changed my mind. I’ll drop the idea that the Tories should say anything to get Blair out, and support either a principled NuCon party or any new entity which might arise espousing traditional conservative values with perhaps a splattering of libertarianism.
My only regret is that in the absence of a fairly major economic depression we will be left with business as usual for the foreseeable future.
Oh ma Gawd! Kenneth Clarke, yesterday’s man, Europhile. me-too Brussels welfarist (have I left anything out?). A lazy man would let us drift into a Euroconstitution without anyone noticing, now the planned alternative to actually asking the public whether it agrees is “off”.
Even Mrs Thatcher was hoodwinked by her civil servants into approving the Single European Act – what chance would Clarke stand, even supposing he didn’t want a Euroconstitution, which he probably does.
Enough rant, but has anyone noticed that parties LOSE elections, they don’t actually WIN them? Perhaps (it was long ago now) people forget that no one had any idea what social changes Mrs Thatcher would bring about – including herself. The electorate would probably have been too scared to vote her in, had they had any idea of the future she brought about. And remember – then – she was not charismatic.
People get fed up with one party and then try another, or a party somehow loses its will to govern. That’s the way democracy works
As Findlay said.
Ken Clarke might have been a bit of a thruster 30 years ago, now he’s a lazy bastard who boasted that he had not bothered to read the Maastricht Treaty. He has never been able to get over the 70’s belief that the “Common Market” was young and exciting and the future.
And remember: it’s the economy stupid. With full employment and low interest rates, most people had no reason to vote against nuLabor. Gordon Brown’s luck will not hold forever, and I feel that he may well become Prime Minister in time to preside over a recession. Support for nuLabor is wide but not deep. There’s no need for the Conservative party to take the insane step of making Clarke leader. He is the day before yesterday’s man.
John East – you are right. Most voters prefer to stick to the devil they know. Thatcher was elected because the entire country was on strike, Blair because we couldn’t stomach any more Tory-sleaze.
Hence the near term future of the Conservative party is likely to be decided by homeowners in Florida.
Robert – good point. Everyone expects Gordon Brown to automatically follow Blair as leader of the Labour party and hence the country. However, i wonder for how much longer English voters will tolerate a Scottish PM now that Scotland has its own represenatation and with stories like (this)
“couldn’t stomach any more Tory sleaze” …. What “Tory sleaze”, for example? The “Tory sleaze” that Alastair Campbell invented and Tony Blair waggled his empty head and squawked? Of course, there was Jeffrey Archer … but anything the Tories did has long, long, long been surpassed by genuine low-lifes like Peter Mandelson, David Blunkett, Cherie Blair, Tony Blair, Tessa Jowell’s husband … et al.
Somehow I feel the Conservative Party has not yet plummetted to its lowest depth of uncertainty and dithering. If the party feels that Ken Clarke, who only is hanging on in some desperate Gordon Brown-style of ‘Buggins turn’ politics, has a chance of leadership then they are in a lot worse state that I previously imagined.
They should elect the petrified gerbil (Sir Malcolm Rifkind, to you and I) as leader, finish off with a spectacular public implosion and let someone who is actually capable of maintaining an opposition to Tony and Cherie Blair take over.
Julian – I agree with you and I’m coming, more and more, to agree with Perry.
The beginning of the end for the Conservatives was the weak, ineffective, unleaderly John Major. He was the unwitting Trojan Horse that carried in Blair and the horrible, corrupt stew in which he operates.
The socialists are so terminally wrong and morally debased, and they’d been all but vanquished. One more term of Conservatives in government and they would have been finished. Instead, I think, through the weak John Major, it is the Conservatives who are finished.
I think if they’d left IDS in place, they’d have done much better. He was loathed and jeered at by the chatterati, but he spoke to the man-in-the-street and he had done something in his life, for god’s sake. He’d been in the military, which people respected. And he had the strong, pure flame of loathing for Tony Blair and everything he stands for. Michael Howard doesn’t hate Tony Blair because he respects him as a politician. IDS loathes Tony Blair as a person. It was the Conservative metropolitan elite who shot themselves in the foot when they ejected him because he simply wasn’t smart and amusing enough. That’s when Tory voters saw their hopes for someone like themselves, who related to his country the way they do, to represent them brutally ejected for no reason other than the cartoonists at The Telegraph and The Times didn’t like him.
There’s nothing wrong with Michael Howard, but he’s a brilliant London barrister and a former Home Secretary, a million miles away from most people’s lives.
And even now, they’re twittering in the bars and corridors of Westminster Village, looking for someone just like themselves. They never learn.
So why hasn’t a new liberal/free trade/small state party originated from the blogosphere?
Are bloggers just geeks in pyjamas or people of action?
Pommygranate,
I’m hopefully standing in next May’s council elections as a conservative Conservative. It’s not actually much of a political role but it’s a start. Does it count?
Of course, I may still be a geek and I do occasionally wear pyjamas so perhaps I meet all your criteria!
GM
Strange no-one’s mention the LibDems. I read an interview with Charles Kennedy before the last election and he claimed that they were going to ‘reclaim’ the libertarian agenda. Then the next day they were on about increasing income tax. I think they’ve got the social liberty thing OK, but maybe they need to brush up on the economic liberty concept.
The problem with the Conservatives was for me summed up by Alan Duncan’s ‘Tory Taliban’ comment.
The Conservative Party has, by far, the best political ideology. If any political party needs to be irrevocably split it is the Liberal Democrats, if they had won the last General Election, our great nation would be permanently damaged through their policies.
The Tories are finished, bring on Ken Clarke and give it the terminal send off it has been begging for. The enter stage right English Democrats and the pro English agenda which has for far too long been smothered by the obsessional Unionist mind set! Yippee – we smell liberation!!