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]
|
Samizdata quote of the day – the never-ending uselessness of “One Nation” Conservatives The historical record is clear; “One-Nation” Conservatism is an unelectable platform. It is completely toxic, politically. The existence of challenger parties on the Right is possible only because the Conservative Party is still under the malign influence of individuals who believe that vast legal immigration is an unmixed economic good which creates ‘concerns’ which must be addressed by listening. Who think that ‘trans’ and ‘woke’ are just culture war distractions from the next bold investment in Britain’s ever nascent life sciences industry. Who think that we must be a ‘Net Zero superpower’ if we want to maintain our ‘soft power’ abroad. There is no political constituency in Britain for these people. They are kept in Parliament because of tribal Tory voters and the fact that the alternative is usually worse.
– Sydney Carton, The Critic.
|
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.
|
There is no such thing as ‘soft power’.
The author’s identification of the problem(s) is reasonable. His solutions are not.
One of the worst portions of Cameron’s woeful legacy was more central power in CCHQ, with the inevitable outcome of unconservative carpetbaggers posted in over the heads of locals, lacking in knowledge of, or indeed interest in, the concerns of their constituents.
It’s too late to reconstitute the rotting corpse of the Conservative Party.
What Britain needs is a new approach, untainted by triangulation, Blairite ‘consensus’, PR wafflegarble, Westminster style rot.
The reason the mostly useless Alexander Johnson was unaccountably popular was because he seemed to speak straight.
Kill the people, burn the buildings, salt the earth. Put a stake in the corpse. Shoot it with a silver bullet. Bury it in a garlic infused coffin.
Of course Labour will be a travesty and a disaster, but Britain deserves better than zero carbon zero fat Conservanothingism.
But the reason one triangulates is because your base constituency isn’t large enough to prevail, and so you need to bring in supporting votes from groups outside of your usual main principles. You need to alter and soften your primary driving philosophies until you become acceptable to enough new voters to prevail in an election.
Does Britain have such a constituency that will support conservative principles? Or has triangulation always been necessary to build winning coalitions?
Will the rump Tory party – what’s left after y’all quit it in disgust – merely re-triangulate further to the left, in order to grab more centrists from the left? (That would actually be the only route to success I see in your abandonment of the Tories – the possibility of them moving left, and then you eventually ending up with three main parties, left, center, and right, which at least allows for interesting coalitions, but doesn’t give control to any singular party.)
Yes and no. I’d say, compare Romney to Trump.
Romney’s strategy was all about winning over the 5% to 10% “in the middle”.
Trump ignores the “political spectrum” altogether (and therefore the concept of a “middle” to be won over) and instead tries to appeal to the people who have been dispossessed by the current system, and yet have been politely ignored by the Romney types.
That’s why Trump was #45 and Romney wasn’t.
Some people triangulate more successfully, more well-aimed, than others. I’d guess that Trump would have lost to Obama. Obama triangulated quite competently. Hilary, not so much. She was willing to insult everyone outside of her club, but failed to realize that her club was smaller than she thought. She should have triangulated more.
We can speak about how “the mass of voters” hate the current regimes, but we keep losing elections, so obviously we’re not speaking for or to the masses. Good triangulation makes us less of a hard NO to wavering voters.
In the UK, only one person born in the last hundred years has won a General Election for the Labour Party. That would be the Blair creature, and, yes, he did win three but the point is there. So, the Conservatives win a lot over here. It’s just that having won they don’t behave Conservatively.
And btw I would think that the most conservative small-c section of the population of the UK is that vast section of upper working to lower middle class folk who are struggling to get by but who still get themselves out to work, and their kids out to school. These people’s parents voted Labour back in the days of mass unionised industry.
White van men and the like are there to be won still. Long years ago Maggie won them for the first time, and only last time, Bojo won them almost effortlessly with the simplest of ideas. The One Nation lads and their two soft coups have lost them again.
The problem with this strategy becomes clear when you consider the “primary driving philosophies” Obama chose to “alter and soften” in order to “become acceptable to enough new voters to prevail in an election.”
If you’re talking about his personal philosophies, he had a notably short record that had a low measure of accomplishments per unit time. He altered little because there was little to alter.
If you’re talking about how Obama was himself a change from the previous Democrat platform? He campaigned on vacuous platitudes; the biggest difference between him and most of his colleagues is that he never voted to authorize force in Iraq. You can easily argue this was the right choice, but it’s the opposite of softening the previous Democrat platform.
My first impression of this is that you’re making my point for me.
I think they win a lot because they don’t govern “Conservatively.” They triangulate their policies and planks and beliefs so that they can attract non-Conservative voters to their coalition.
And, as you say, that has been a successful strategy for them, if the aim is to win elections. “Cons” won a lot of those over the years.
If the aim, however, is to have a true Conservative government, then their strategy has failed. But I doubt that was their aim.
But if they thought they could keep triangulating to the left and grab disaffected centrists and independents – and win elections – without bothering to keep their right flank satisfied, well, Reform might change their minds about that. 😉
On a less-serious topic, take a look at the avatar of the guy arguing in favor of “triangulation”.
I assumed they were assigned based on a hash of commentors’ connection data…
… but maybe that’s what THEY wanted me to think!
Oh, I quite agree with that. The object is career and power and has nothing to do with honour and delivery. Years ago, my teenage son at some school election debate thing made the mistake of saying that surely one voted for what was good for the country rather than what was personally advantageous. The schoolmaster ruuning the gig led the laughter. Best lesson the boy ever got from that place. We are alwaus outside the tent pissing in but politicians are issued with wellies the first day.
But the other part of my point was that there is now no longer a passion for the political elected left in the UK. I think it died in the sixties and was buried in the seventies and eighties. Unfortunately, the civil service marches half a century behind the people.
Busted. I am the triangulation-bot.
Nudes in bio.
Just to be pedantic, not arguing “for it” so much as arguing that we need to accept it as a profitable political tool for some, and find ways to deal with it that help us the best.
Triangulation is great if you occupy a place on the continuum that is between the major parties. You are a valuable and treasured possible asset over which they fight with each other. They will buy you if they can. Everyone enjoys being bought.
But if you lie outboard of the two parties, you’re like the unloved stepchild. You’re expendable. They’ll go only so far to keep you happy, since they know that, even if they lose you, you’re never going to vote for the other major party.
Each interior voter is worth two votes to the outboard voter’s one vote, in that respect.
Being an outboarder, I’m not a fan of triangulation.
And . . . (I keep remembering topics too late):
Obama . . .
I had experience in Chicago municipal legal circles back when Obama first appeared on the national scene. The man, with the help of some rich Chicagoans and a tame media, completely rebuilt himself in order to become the hot new thing. He had a new persona and set of principles manufactured and publicized for him very shortly before he spoke at the Dem National Convention (his first big national exposure.)
He was guided – he was made – by master triangulators.
Observations about effective triangulation need to be viewed in the context of the irreversible demographic and cultural changes instigated by three time winner Blair and then enthusiastically emulated by four* spineless conservative pygmies who triangulated so bloody hard that they and their party became indistinguishable from their supposed opponents.
*Liz Truss gets a pass. Her commendably frank interview on Lotus Eaters which has got the likes of Jess Phillips in such a tizzy shows the lady in a far better and more sympathetic light – to me at least.
Quite a lot of the problem comes from the lazy division of people into ‘left’ and ‘right’, with the ‘centre’ defined as somewhere between the two.
It’s really not a very good explanation for where we are now. Whether one calls it ‘Globalists’ v ‘Nationalists’ or ‘Somewheres’ v ‘Anywheres’, these are opposing views that really don’t fit well into a left v right lens.
The Tories have been under constant attack from the ‘Left’ since the end of the Thatcher era for extreme right policies, despite their unwavering commitment to leftish policies on Health, Welfare, Education, Taxation,Immigration (in practise, if not in theory), the EU and so on. At hardly any point have they deviated from the Left Liberal ‘consensus’.
The effect of this has been to neuter the anti-Globalist tendency found across all parts of the political spectrum. But especially the patriotic, small c conservative tendency found in all parts of Britain (and especially England))outside the metropolitan middle class.
There are plenty of parties representing the Globalist consensus view, Blairite Labour, Janus LibDems, Greens, even (ironically) Nationalists. The destruction of the Conservative Party would enable a new authentically anti-Globalist political force to prosper. The success of UKIP in the EU Referendum and EU elections shows that this commands substantial and motivated support.
I think what bobby b says about triangulation is (at least) largely correct but he missed mongoose’s point.
Mongoose said
-meaning, I take it, that the manifesto promises were quite (small c) conservative, but what was delivered was left-of-centre globalist bull and prissiness.
That’s the source of a lot of the rage on this topic on this blog and elsewhere: “fool me 12 times and I’m going to destroy you” is the response.
Starkey said Disraeli invented One Nation Toryism and it was based on uniting the upper and lower classes who were broadly patriotic opposed to the progressive middle classes.
Not much has changed except ONT has now being hijacked by the progressives it appears.
The triangulation that has been successful on the continent, and could be successful here, is “right wing” on law and order, immigration and the culture wars, but left-wing on most other matters. I.e. “kick out the foreigners and fund the NHS”. I reckon Reform could pick up some extra votes just by including a bit of red in their logo.
I am inclined to think that bobby got the arrow of causation the wrong way around:
The Conservatives don’t govern conservatively because they win a lot.
If you are confident that you are going to stay in power after the next election, what’s the incentive to reduce the power of the State?
(Although, yes, the culture wars during the Blair era made a big difference.)
The German and Italian Christian Democrats were largely responsible for the “economic miracles” in their countries after ww2. Was it despite or because of that, that they turned increasingly statist?
See also Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy.
The economic aspect of “One Nation” doctrine goes back to Disraeli (“two nations – the rich and the poor” with his assumption, it is an assumption – he provides no evidence or argument, that state intervention would create one nation out of these supposedly two nations) and Lord Stanley, later the Earl of Derby, who never met a state intervention he did not like – J.S. Mill said that the philosophy of Stanley-Derby could be summed up in one word “liberticide”.
For example, the state education system in Ireland was created (without the taxpayers in Ireland having a say on the matter) on a whim of Lord Stanley’s – and he was not even in government at the time, he sent a letter off to his friends (he was a Tory they were Whigs such as Lord Russell – but they were still pro state intervention, the idea that Lord Russell believed in laissez faire is one of the worst myths of the 19th century British history) and that was that.
However, there is also a modern element in “One Nation” doctrine that seems to date back no further than Harold Macmillan and his follower Edward Heath…..
The modern element in “One Nation” doctrine is opposition to the independence of the nation – a weird element indeed.
“One Nation” types are, ironically enough, very much opposed to the nation – and wish to see it ruled by international organisations.
Indeed to join the “One Nation” group of Conservative Party MPs one has to accept a statement of principles to this effect.
They are certainly not a majority of Conservative Party MPs – but there are quite a few of them.
In short…..
“One Nation” doctrine is based on ignorance of basic economics, which leads these people to support endless state interventions (which they call “Social Reform”) without understanding that such interventions make the situation worse (worse – not better) than it otherwise would have been. And, in modern times, a bizarre hatred of the nation – a belief that the British people should not govern themselves, but (rather) should be governed by international Corporate State bodies such as the World Health Organisation.
Again these people are certainly not a majority of the Parliamentary party – but there are quite a few of them.
Sydney Carton mentions two specific matters…
The “One Nation” support of mass immigration – again “One Nation” now means “no nation”, it is based on dislike (to put the matter mildly) of the British nation and the desire to see this cultural polity removed from the world. This is certainly not something that Disraeli or Lord Derby would have been in support of – it is a very much a modern (not 19th century) element in “One Nation” doctrine.
And “Net Zero” – even if one believes that C02 is some sort of deadly thing and that it (rather than the sun) controls the climate, it is hard to see why anyone would obsess about United Kingdom C02 emissions – which are about 1% (one-per-cent) of the world total.
Destroying the United Kingdom will not (repeat not) really reduce world C02 emissions.
Yet again – these people are a minority of the Parliamentary Party, but they are certainly a problem.
My apologies – I forgot Sydney Carton’s point about the “Culture War”.
The reality is, a Sydney Carton knows, that the left launched this conflict – and that their Frankfurt School of Marxism stuff (Freedom of Speech denounced as “Repressive Tolerance”, any traditionalists, i.e. cultural conservatives, denounced as “ists” and “phobes”, and the final insanity of intersectionalism) is designed to destroy Western society.
“One Nation” types take a different view – and hold that we should work with the “Woke” Marxists in persecuting “ists” and “phobes” and in pushing intersectionalism in the name of “Equality, Diversity and Inclusion” (EDI).
Again this would have been rather weird to Disraeli and Lord Derby – they would most certainly have opposed it (not supported it).
What to make of all this?
Well I suppose the modern “One Nation” types went through school and university nodding away at what the teachers and lecturers were saying (rather than understanding that what was being taught was both evil and insane) – but not fully understanding the Marxist roots of the doctrines being taught (to be fair the word “Marxist” or even the term “Frankfurt School” is normally NOT used – instead what is taught is described as “anti racism” or “anti” something else, or “equity” or “equality, diversity and inclusion”) so they think they can accept the doctrines that are taught and still be conservatives – they think this way because they have no real understanding of the doctrines they have been taught.
As Ludwig Von Mises pointed out more than a century ago – it was the most intelligent students who became fully fledged Marxists as they took the doctrines they were taught to their logical conclusions, the doctrines they were taught being utterly false – but students (including the most intelligent) not suspecting that. For a young person to suspect that everything around them is a lie, is not a sign of intelligence – it is a sign of a particular type of mind (the person may be intelligent or unintelligent – that is not the defining feature) and, as Jordan Peterson has pointed out, this sort of mind may not be healthy in normal circumstances (full disclosure I am one of these people – which means I am useful if you want someone to resist brainwashing in an “Ipcress File” situation – but probably NOT someone you want around you in normal life).
The less intelligent students became confused interventionists – not Marxists, they did not challenge the doctrines they were taught, but they did not fully understand them – and so thought they could combine the (utterly false and destructive) doctrines they had been taught with normal life, they did not wish to destroy society (as the Marxists did), but their confused interventionism had the same result – over the long term.
Finally, Paul Marks recognizes the difference between intelligence and sanity!
🙂
But, speaking for myself, i have become a slightly less disagreeable person as my insanity has decreased.
Maybe 20 years ago (probably when I had a TV anyway), I saw a programme with some ‘Tory’ hack glowingly and smugly describing the Conservative Party as the most successful political machine in history, given its long record of gaining power.
However correct that was as a statement, the tone of it illustrated that the only thing that the Party’s upper echelons want to do is gain office so a few MPs can pfaff around as Ministers and call themselves Lord Privy Seal or whatever and eventually get peerages etc., and the backbenchers can baa and cheer from the benches of the House of Commons. There is no point gaining office to manage decline, decay, defeat and death.
Mr Ed:
Mrs Thatcher understood that, but they got rid of her in the end.
JohnK – yes the removal of Margaret Thatcher (and, indeed, the removal of Liz Truss) was a disgrace.
Mr Ed – yes there is no point in being in office to manage decline, if one does that one turns into Prime Minister Heath or President Nixon.
I would only vote for a Member of Parliament who votes against decay and decline in the House of Commons – and I am fortunate to have such a candidate.
But how do these “One Nation” (really NO NATION) candidates appear in the first place?
The brutal truth is that Central Office sends them in.
If is far easier to get on the “Candidates List” (which should not exist – any paid up Conservative Party member should be able to present themselves as a potential candidate to a Constituency Association) if one has “Progressive” “up-to-date” opinions (for example on “Net Zero”) and such candidates are actively pushed.
It even happens in the Reform Party – with, for example in the recent Rochdale byelection, leftist candidates being selected.
I suppose the idea is to win over leftist voters – but it does not work as leftist voters would never vote Conservative, regardless of who the candidate is.
Selecting a leftist candidate does NOT win over leftist voters – it just means that Conservative voters stay home in despair, which is (of course) the basic argument of the article.
Trying to win over the Guardian newspaper (for example by giving Paul Marks and King Lawal a good kicking – and that is just two names from my local area) never works – for Guardian types hate the Conservative Party regardless-of-what-it-does. And ordinary Conservative voters (who agree with the opinions of the targets of a “good kicking”) get discouraged from voting.
Elections are won by standing for clear principles and getting the people who believe in those principles to vote for you – elections are NOT won by trying to win over people from the other side.
I don’t really know what they mean by ‘one nation conservatism’ now. Whatever they are, the conservatives today have almost nothing in common with Benjamin Disraeli or Stanley Baldwin.
I have been hoping the past twenty years the Tories would sort their act out. Right now I think Jonathan Bowden perhaps had it right in 2009 when he said regarding the whole British political elite:
Here is what the Conservative Party manifesto has to say about the BBC (materially). It should be five words long starting as it does and ending with ‘not exist’. 76 pages says it all. 1 side of A4 would be a sensible length.
Martin – I have already explained what “One Nation” means today.
Economically it has a lot in common with Disraeli (whose legislation helped set Britain off to relative decline), but with an added hatred of the nation that Disraeli did NOT have – so “One Nation” means “No Nation” today.
Mr Ed – the manifesto of the Conservative Party is good as far as it goes, but I-agree-with-you it does not go far enough.
For example, on the BBC – Conservatives have been complaining of its bias since at least 1963 (“That Was The Week That Was”) – but all efforts to get the BBC to stop having a leftist bias have failed, indeed it has got vastly worse over the last 61 years.
Yet still the policy is reform the BBC in such-and-such a way – rather than abolishing it.
And abolishing the despicable “Ofcom” which (ask Mark Steyn) makes “freedom of speech” impossible in television and radio.
The love of “independent agencies”, Quangos, is baffling – as such agencies always get captured by leftists.