In response to a US article that talks about David Cameron, Conservative Party leader, and some other prominent figures, such as Iain Duncan-Smith and his own brand of Toryism, I left this comment:
“I am not sure what is so libertarian about Mr Cameron’s brand of soft-paternalist Toryism. For sure, they are tolerant on certain social issues, but as we found a year ago on issues like Green taxes on cheap airlines, the instincts of this lot are to regulate, to tax, to “nudge” us unwashed masses in the direction they want us to go.”
“IDS may moan that Mrs Thatcher and others were unduly focused on economics; what these critics miss is that the underlying problem in the UK right now is, still, about the relationship between the individual and the state. The state takes about half of our wealth, and regulates a good deal of the rest of it. How anyone with a claim to be called conservative can defend this state of affairs, or criticise those who would push the state back to a more modest role in our lives, is a total mystery.”
While the Tories may have pledged to shut down the odd quango and scrap ID cards (but not, as far as I know, the underlying database), anyone expecting the Tories to lead us to the sunlit uplands of freedom is a fool.
It is often said that “David Cameron believes in nothing”, but that is better than believeing in bad things.
For example, if David Cameron really believed that comming out of the E.U. was the only way he would become Prime Minister (or stay Prime Minister) he would go against the E.U. in a second – whereas “Ken” Clarke would die to prevent Britain regaining freedom.
It is the same on domestic policy – convince David Cameron that cutting government spending (to prevent national economic collapse) is the only way he will become Prime Minister, or stay Prime Minister, and he will go that way.
Of course it would be better to have a politician with passionate pro freedom beliefs (supporting the ancient traditions of this country) – but having one who is interested in votes is not all bad.
It is a matter of convincing him about where the votes are.
Well I don’t think Cameron is any break with the tradition of the Tories. The Tories have generally been somewhat more in favour of private enterprise than their opponents, but they’ve always been a statist party and never pretended to be anything else, other than the Thatcher years to some degree- and in the end she was ousted by her own party. This is why e.g. Sean Gabb has it wrong about the “quisling right” betraying “conservatives”. The Tory party, and indeed conservatives in general (though not all conservatives as individuals of course) are statists. They’ve always been statists. When they do statist things they’re not betraying anybody or being un-tory. THey are a statist party.
I’ve just been rereading one of my favourite books, a history of the Electric Telegraph (by JL Kieve if anyone’s interested). The reminder from this book is that the telegraph was nationalised. In 1868. Before Marxism, before communism, before a distinct “socialist” tradition. It was nationalised for all the reasons given ever since for nationalising things- you can’t leave an important “national asset” in the hands of “people driven by profit”. Both parties- the liberals and the tories- were in favour of it. It was the Liberals who happened to pass the Act, but the Tories would have done had their administration survived that long.
My point? There is a deep throbbing vein of statism- socialism- in our polity that predates, and is distinct from- marxism (which I have pompously christened “anglosocialism”). It is the default- “culturally hegemonic”) viewpoint of our entire polity and has been for well over a century. It is not Marx’s workers state, it is a paternalist “the great and the good looking after the masses” type state. It is moralistic, and nannying, and was economically corporatist long before fascism, which is why accusations that progressives are fascist are wrong. The corporatist state is a part of our heritage.
Something hinted at in the book which teases, is the author suggests that the public will had changed considerably regarding state intervention in private enterprise in the period just before the Telegraph Nationalisation. His view is that it was a consequence of the Great Reform Act of 1832, since it was now felt that the parliament was more representative and responsive to the public. Whether this is true I don’t know, but it’s an interesting idea- that perhaps the biggest problem with democracy is it encourages trust in government, thus leading to a statist catastrophe.
Anyway, the Tories. Bunch of statists. Always have been. We shouldn’t expect anything else from them, nor be disappointed when they fail to do anything libertarian. Pastoral care of the masses is their traditional creed, not liberty.
Anyone who has ever claimed Cameron is in any shape or form “libertarian” is either using the language in an Orwellian way or just does not know what the word means.
Cameron has pledged to scrap the underlying database:
http://ukliberty.wordpress.com/2007/03/26/david-cameron-commits-to-scrapping-id-card-scheme/(Link)
Unfortunately the video referred to is no longer up, but I viewed it at the time and the pledge was unambiguous (UK Liberty’s translation was accurate).
See also this recent article from the Register(Link) for a direct recent quotation from Shadow Home Secretary Chris Grayling reaffirming the commitment to scrap the database (on page 2).
I suspect you will continue to hear more “Obama-ese” from the Tories and much less about liberty & freedom. The lot in charge are really not at all libertarians of any ilk and to have them mention the word is downright funny. They are statists in the Heath-sense and I suspect will govern that well.
Just talk to any party hack about the issues of freedom & liberty to watch them waffle.
Have just read Cameron’s letter on Con Home website. Lots about patriotism and “being British” not a lot about liberty. It reads just like a PR handout and, I suspect that is all it is. Here today, gone in seconds.
Is Cameron a Libertarian? No, but if he was he wouldn’t be odds on favourite to become the next Prime Minister. You really should remember that Libertarians are currently on the political fringes, there is very unlikely to be any libertarian party even close to government for the foreseeable future. However if you listen to Cameron’s speeches one message that come though is that he does believe in a (slightly) smaller state. He just wraps it up in more soft and fuzzy language to avoid scaring people and to colonise some of the Left’s political territory with ideas which might actually work. The Tories are also the only existing party that is has any record of reducing the state even slightly. Currently they are the least worst option.
Methinks Chris has not been paying attention to Cameron then. He has been bending over backwards to make it absolutely clear that he does NOT believe in a smaller state in any meaningful way whatsoever. He just believes in growing the size of the state a little slower than the other main party.
I do not mean this as a personal attack on Chris but his comment demonstrates why Cameron is not the least worst option, Cameron is the worst option… because he gives an illusion of opposition whilst in fact being in complete accord on the fundamental role of the state with the Labour party. Thus people will delude themselves that they are voting against what labour stands for whilst voting for people who actually stand for exactly the same thing.
The only party worth voting for you actually want a smaller state, not a larger state at a slower rate, is UKIP.
UKIP is the only conservative party in Britain at the moment.
Perry, libertarianism != conservatism, not in Britain anyway. It never has. THe idea that these two distinct philosophies have something in common is due to American definitions of conservatism, which do contain an element of libertarianism… right up until you ask them about sex, drugs and rock’n’roll, at which point the yankee conservative reveals himself as a big government man.
Hardcore libertarianism here is indeed on the fringe, but there is a quite widespread desire for less interference from the state in everyday life, which is why Cameron feels obligated to pretend to want that, with rhetoric that sounds a bit liberal but is actually more corporatism via contracted out governance. Historically there is a reasonably distinct liberal element in the British people, which has rarely been reflected in the political class. This is our biggest problem. We really need to get past the idea that it is all New Labour’s fault. The paternal (maternal?) state has a long history. One could argue that the history of british politics is simply a battle between paternalism and maternalism, with the conservatives as the Paternal side and Labour (previously, the Liberals) on the maternal side. But that gets a trifle Freudian.
We have been for so long now basically been voting between which sort of big intrusive government we want, that the idea of genuine liberalism seems cranky, just as a party in the theocratic world suggesting women having rights would appear cranky. Neither of the British political traditions is liberal. They are both considerably less liberal than the people over whom they take power.
People keep voting for one or the other in the hope of something better, and never get it. They will probably vote Tory next time, and suffer another disappointment. The Tory Party has got to go. It would be far better, in the longer term, if Labour win the next election, if that precipitated the destruction of the Conservatives.
Cameron’s Tories do seem to have got it about the database state. I do not know whether they don’t explicitly promise to shrink the state in general because they don’t believe it is desirable or because it would be politically suicidal to do so. But here is the shadow Home Secretary on Monday, in a debate called by the Opposition in order for him to say it:
(What’s most amazing about that debate is that the handful of fanatical supporters of ID cards in the house seem still not to understand the legislation that they so fervently support, nor even, in some cases, to have read it.)
For me Paul Marks got it in one. All we have to do is persuade Mr. Cameron that the votes are for liberty and we’re there- best done I think by making it so, then if he doesn’t get it someone else will.
Sorry, but I can’t resist.
Two hundred years ago an Irishman at the head of a British army faces a serious problem. His enemy had a large array of artillery which it used to cut down opposing infantry by heavy pounding (Tory toff cuts, repeated ad infinitum). They also used a large number of skirmishers to cut down officers, and disorganise his army (Campbel, Mandleson, McBride come to mind). With an Army so weakened they simply sent a large column of infantry (unthought out policies) to finish their job
His response (partly fortuitious) was to ally with partisans (Guido, Samizdata, even the Devil himself) who disrupted communications, and assassinated enemy officers, to employ riflemen as skirmishers of his own, to take out enemy officers and see off enemy skirmishers (Ian dale, Fraser Nelson, Tim Montgomery). To protect his troops (policies) he formed them up on the reverse of the hill, where the enemy couldn’t see them and so didn’t know where to aim, and made them lie down so that even well aimed shot passed harmlessly overhead. As a result of his tactics “40,000 Englismen decided the fate of Europe” (in the interest of British fair play I should point out that many of the “Englishmen” were in fact Irish or Scottish- and that there were a lot of Portuguese and Some Spanish also involved).
My problem is this- 1/ without knowing his policies how do I know whether or not to support him?
but2/ if I could see his policies so could the enemy- and the enemy would likely shoot them to bits- and thereby win.
all I can do is pick the man I dislike least and hope.
Mr. Brown is not at present the man I dislike least.
Ian B.
You may reject my study of conservatism and libertarianism – but you should at least study W.H. Greenleaf’s “The British Political Tradition” (a classic text if there ever was one).
Reading about the “libertarian strand” might lead you to understand that many conservatives (going back as far as one cares to look) have been libertarians in many ways.
As for liberty being a fringe position in this country – to some extent this is about how these things are framed.
For example, I just stayed at the home of a lady from a lady from a Labour party family (not even a Tory family), but the man and wife were hostile to regulations crushing freedom (such as those on speech – or those on firearms) and negative towards the whole “cradle to grave” control (and endless expense) or an out of control Welfare State.
Of course if pro liberty ideas are expressed in the vilest terms a person can think of then they will not get much support – but that is not the fault of liberty, or the fault of the British public.
It is the fault of those who present themselves as Jedi (if I may use the idea), and perhaps once really were Jedi – but now are Sith.
As for me, I stand with Edmund Burke and (yes) even with the Association for the Defence of Liberty and Property in the defence against Revolutionary France (private artillery and all).
And I am happy to stand with the Liberty and Property Defence League of the 19th century, and the Personal Rights Association of the same period also.
And with pro freedom associations of the 20th century also – such as Freedom Assoication (for all its faults). And the national association for freedom (going all the way back to the Liberal party man Sir Ernest Benn – because Liberals like him were friends of liberty also).
I was also present when that organization was taken over (by shouting and thugish behavour) and its assets looted.
I helped the elderly men and women with their coats and so on and said how sorry I was that they had been treated so badly – but I did not do anything.
In that I did wrong – doing nothing was doing wrong.
For I still trusted people I no longer trust.
Or I told myself I trusted them.
I was a fool or a coward – or both.