As people involved in this blog know I am not exactly shy about attacking Conservative party policy either nationally or locally. So it is only fair that I present good news when there is some.
The other night the MP for Kettering, Mr Philip Hollobone, was formally readopted as the Prospective Conservative Party candidate for election as member of the House of Commons for Kettering.
Why is this “good news” or a “reason to proud”?
Because of what he said.
Mr Hollobone informed the score or so people who had come for the meeting of the Executive Council, of the local Conservative Association, that he believed that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland should leave the European Union – and that he had said this publicly and would continue to do so (which is why I can mention it here) whatever Mr Cameron thought about this matter (although, in the interests of fairness, I must make clear that Mr Cameron has not said that a person may not hold this opinion).
Mr Hollobone then left the room and a secret ballot was held. It is a rule that numbers can not be given. However, in this case they are not needed – as there were no spoilt ballot papers and no opposing votes (work it out).
Both good news and a reason to be proud.
By the way, in case anyone thinks I had something to do with any of the above, I did not say a word in the entire Executive Council meeting. As the meeting was not public I will not mention what other people said. However, there were no comments opposing Mr Hollobone’s position.
Passport to Kettering?
Dutchy of Burgandy
and margaret Rutherford?
I’d be perfectly happy to get back the left hand side of France we used to own when Henry V was king.
Do us Brits fine for holidays and let the rest of the continent go hang itself.
Seriously, If your man was standing in Bristol West, Paul, I would vote for him, howevermuch I distrust iDave.
Alas I will waste my vote on UKIP again, as they havent a chance round my way. But I always vote my concience as I’ve said before.
I agree with you RAB
If a Conservative party candidate for Parliament is not prepared to commit himself to comming out of the E.U. (or at the very least taking back SPECIFIC powers – the David Davis line) then I will not vote for him or her.
If that means “wasting a vote” – fair enough.
As for “Passport to Kettering” – now if it was “Passport to Stamford”.
By the way that reminds me of something I should have said to RAB
As you are a man of the West you might like to visit Ludlow (unless you have already done so), I was able to visit last year – and the council had yet to ruin the place (although the plans are in the works).
If we used the Single Transferable Vote for Parliamentary elections, it would be possible for political parties to field more than one candidate without the disadvantage of splitting their vote. Given that, parties with a more disparate membership of views would be able to seek the opinion of the whole electorate on those policies where they are divided, rather than go in for factional infighting.
STV has other advantages too.
Best regards
Paul, I suspect that on the occasions you exercise it, your silence is the most deafening noise in the room. It’s not like there is any doubt about what you would say.
In this country any form of proportional representation would remove any chance of reform (in the anti statist sense of the word).
As even if a polical party actually wanted to get us out of the E.U. and roll back the state at home and got (say) 43% of the vote in a general election (as Mrs Thatcher got) it would still not have a majority in Parliament.
“But no party that wanted a bigger government would have a majority either”.
They do not need a majority.
Take the example of Switzerland.
The Social Democratic Party has never got vast numbers of votes – but, because of P.R., it has been part of the government since 1959.
And Switzerland has moved from the limited government that it used to have (and which many people think it still has) to having a government whose spending (Federal, Canton and local) is almost 40% of G.D.P.
If policy is a matter of a committee then we lose.
And P.R. means government by committee – a group of parties in charge making deals.
“Are you really saying that if relatively antistatist people have to work with statists then the statists are going to win”.
Yes that is exactly what I am saying.
Once it is “well let us get round the table and ….” we have already lost.
It is the same with E.U. meetings (or any other international government).
The best policy is to avoid these meetings. To simply state what policy is – not to “talk about it”.
Nice one Paul.
What’s the complexion in Dorset these days?
Apart from that bastard Brown trying to infect the place with Slack-Jaw?
Lord Committees !!
You are so right there Paul.
I have sat on several in my time and they are best avoided altogether!
They invariably make even a placid genial chap like me into a screaming lunatic when invariably they are hijacked by a few brain dead statists who always seem to get their way, whatever the balance of opinion is. I’m sure there is a science to committees that these buffoons seem to know, and the rest of us are powerless to resist.
Ludlow is a beautiful place I have had long assocation with. Last time I was there the wife and I were having a beer and a chat to Pete Postletwaite in the beer tent of the castle whilst around us paraded people in Medieval costume, playing ancient instruments like mechanical underarm hurdy gurdys and Cumberland pipes.
Bishop’s Castle is the place to spot the demarkation line between the Welsh and the English come Market day though, being smack on the badlands border as it is.
You can spot a Welsh farmer from an English at a thousand yards!
Whatever the protestations of a few people in our neck of the blogospheric woods, there are a few Conservative candidates worth supporting- remarkably, one or two have even been A-Listers…
Paul, with PR, how do you feel about its effects on the traditional three-party system? I’m inclined to believe that the Conservatives would eventually split, as might Labour. I’m instinctively supportive of such a split in the Party, from the perspective that there could be real prospects for a properly liberal party emerging from it (a bit like the PDs in Ireland), but then I wonder about the long-term consequences of not being able to influence from ‘within the big tent’, so to speak, and what influence any party might have, if any. How the benighted majority of the electorate would perceive liberal policies is also a bit of a worry…
“although, in the interests of fairness, I must make clear that Mr Cameron has not said that a person may not hold this opinion.”
I seem to recall though that he has said that a person may not hold this opinion and expect promotion to the Shadow Cabinet?
I remember reading that Zac Goldsmith, a snobby environmentalist freak, is on David Cameron’s A-list. Are the British Tories going back to their roots- anti-modern, anti-industry, anti-trade, pro-feudalism?
RPW – quite correct.
James – you hit on the one advantage of P.R.
Yes I think that the Conservative party would split (I do not think that either the Labour party or the Liberal Democratic party would).
And this would make me feel better, as I would be part of the Conservative party (or whatever it was called – if it did not get the name) that was in favour of national independence and smaller, in size and scope, government.
Of course we would lose the next general election if it was faught under P.R. – but then the Conservative party will loose the next general election anyway.
“But would such a relatively free market party ever get over 50% of the vote?” I doubt it.
And if it had to “make a deal” with a party to even get 2% more support (say it got 49% of the vote and wanted 51% of the seats in Parliament) then no antistatist reform worth a tinker’s curse would get done. Of course statist “reforms” would go through on the nod (such things can only be stopped if a strongly antistatist party has a majority – and sometimes not even then).
So resisting statism becames impossible – ever. And the nation is doomed (but then, I suspect, it is doomed anyway).
RAB
C. Northcote Parkinson explained how committees operate (you use humour enough yourself to understand that there was a serious argument behind the book “Parkinson’s Law: Or the Pursuit of Progress”).
Once it is a matter of “let us get round a table and talk about the matter” we have already lost (on anything).
“No you are not having my stuff – and you are not robbing anyone else”.
“No you are not ordering me about – and I am not letting you threaten anyone else”.
“No you are not destroying this wonderful old place – it is not yours”.
This should be our line.
Any mention of “let us talk about it” should be replied to with “there is nothing to talk about”.
By the way I would love to be able to tell a Welsh farmer from an English one.
As a Northamptionshire man I was told (many years ago) that Welsh farmers used to herd their cattle to Northampton – but this has not happened in my lifetime.
Still there is no reason to go to Northampton these days (or much of the rest of the county).
A sense of place and local traditions are part of the world we have lost (at least mostly lost).
The powers-that-be seek to convert everyone into “atomized individuals” with no traditions or knowledge of their past, and no institutions of civil society. Such “atoms” are easy to control.
Martin PLEASE do some fact checking before you write.
I do not mean that as an insult – I mean it (as will become clear) as a matter of avoiding irritation at having to correct your errors. Well I suppose you could reply that my stuff is full of spelling errors and other such.
I actually agree with the thrust of your comment in that I despise David Cameron and “Zac” Goldsmith, but your errors put the teeth on edge of anyone who knows anything about British politics or history.
First of all “feudalism” is meaningless in an English context and has been for centuries.
Even when talking about the so called “Wars of the Roses” in the 1400’s people (if they talk about “feudalism” at all) talk about “bastard feudalism” (based on money and other such) – as things like serfdom were already of no importance.
The word “Tory” (originally an insult – Irish bandit, such as in the spirit producers of Tory island “romote, cold and ruled by brigands”) is not used in politics before the 17th century.
“Anti industry” – sometimes yes, if you mean anti havng their land stolen (by Act of Parliament) in the 19th century to be given to Railway companies and such (nothing anti libertarian about opposing that) or being anti having the private property in rivers or air supply polluted (a tort – before certain court cases went the wrong way).
But this is NOT what “Zac” Goldsmith is about – he really is “anti industry” (in a sense that the Tories certainly were not – indeed many Tories loved science and industry, including the railways, Lord Salisbury [1830-1903] is a good example of this – they just did opposed industry that violated private property).
As for “modern”.
Zac Goldsmith and David Cameron are arch “modernizers” that is what the whole “Cameron project” is about.
Get a clue.
The Tories supported the Corn Laws and factory acts, they opposed free trade, they tried as hard as they could in the early 1900s to bring back protectionism, they supported brutal measures against the Irish, supported ‘one nation toryism’, supported all the conquests by the British in Africa, and were not only positively enthusiastic about World War One but also really enthusiastic for the draft.
Real bunch of liberty loving folk.
The real heroes in Britain were radical liberals like Cobden and the Manchester school, who supported free trade and hated imperialism, not the goddamn Tories.
As I said “get a clue”.
These matters take study (not much, but some) – if you are not going to bother then do not write.
“One nation” stuff is from Dizzy – did you not see what I wrote about him?
Factory Acts – yes the first was from Peel. But the main force behind such thinking was Edwin Chadwick (a liberal – of the untilitarian sort).
“Brutal measures against the Irish”.
The Acts of Parliament that discriminated against the Irish Catholics (in things like the ownership of property) past in the 1700’s were Whig (of course they were Whig – a lot of the Tory folk were pro Stuart the Tories split, did you not know?).
And if you think the Irish famine in the 19th century was mishandled (as Americans normally do) I think you will find that Lord John Russell was in charge when things fell apart.
“Russell” does that family name not ring any bells in your head? Or do you think it is a Tory name?
Free trade – there you DO have a point.
But not an 18th century one (which was what you were talking about before) a 19th century one.
The Tories split on the Corn Laws.
Repealing them was what brought Sir Robert Peel down (by the way even Murry Rothbard accepted that factory act or no factory act Sir Robert Peel was a free market man) and only a minority of the party supported him.
Gladstone and some other free trade Tories became “Peelites” – but then Peel died (riding accident) and the Peelites gradually went off into the emerging Liberal party, although (sadly) they never controlled it.
Gladstone was nearly undermined by Joe Chamberlain (of the Radical Birmingham machine – full of ardent statist liberal ideas as early as 1865) but Ireland (specifically Gladstone’s “Home Rule” idea) led “Radical Joe” to break with the Liberals.
He never became a Conservative, but as a “Unionist” he made various deals (basically anti Gladstone deals).
Gladstone was eventually defeated by radicals like Harcourt in the early 1890’s (although I suspect that Rosebery regreted siding with Harcourt on things like the death tax).
Richard Cobden – a fine man I FULLY AGREE WITH YOU HERE. Although he made a very serious mistake in supporting the establishment of the Manchester corporation (he was really a Sussex man, one of my favourate counties, he did not really understand the north).
But “Manchester” you really should not have raised the name of that city (although I know you meant it in terms of “Mancherster free trade school”).
The Liberals gained control of the new Manchester Corporation (after 1835) and pushed through all sorts of statism. I lived just outside of Manchester for a year and made a point of doing some research into the history of the place. The foes of the liberal statists in Manchester were Tory.
Of course a few decades later the Conservatives were copying them in Liverpool (showing a similar contempt for private property and faith in government power).
But the Conservatives of Liverpool were hardly Tory (as the term had once been understood).
They were merchants and traders often with a dodgy past. Actually Gladstone was from one of these families – he had to live down his first speech in the House of Commons for the rest of his life (it was a pro slavery speech – due to Liverpool merchant interests in the West Indies).
Slavery is a good example in many ways.
Some of its foes were Tory and some were liberal (of the country Whig tradition, not the court Whig tradition).
My own hero in politics was NOT a Tory – it is Edmund Burke (a man of the country Whig tradition).
“It all sounds a bit complicated” it is. There were good and bad – both under the names “Tory and Whig” and “Conservative and Liberal” – in the end one must ask “who are you talking about – what tradition under that vague name do you mean”.
My apologies Martin. You may not have read what I wrote about the despical Disraeli – it is on the other thred.
Dizzy was certainly a man who deserved all the names you can throw at him (and more besides).
Again I apologize to you for assuming you had read comments that are on another thred.
On the other thread I was unfair to Pitt the Elder a “court Whig” but he was a war-for-trade man (what Martin, following the tradition of Adam Smith, would call a “mercantalist”).
People under the vague names “Whig and Tory”, or “Liberal and Conservative” could be all over the place (even in the same time period). Some Tories were so anti the government doing anything that they might be best described as “Tory Anarchists” and some were ardent statists (who wanted the government to do all sorts of things).
Some Whigs were ardent antistatists in domestic policy (country Whigs like Rockingham and Edmund Burke), but some were so obsessed with the constitutional question of “who got power” (Parliament not the King) that they did not care about limiting power – indeed, as long government was in the “right hands”, they wanted it do all sorts of things. This is (although most libertarians do not this) the tradition of Thomas Paine and John Stuart Mill – and of Radical Joe Chamberlain and the rest of them.
As for the 19th century. I think my favourate Whig-Liberal poltician was Joseph Hume (an example of a “radical” anti statist, as opposed to a radical pro statist).
The 1820’s were interesting a lot of good men were operating – Canning, Robinson, Huskinson. However, they were not liberals.
Although one could say they grow out of the alliance of Pittites (Pitt the Younger not the Elder) and those Rockingham Whigs that remained true to the vision of Edmund Burke.
People who followed the Duke of Portland into alliance with the Pittites.
Pitt the Younger is sometimes called a Tory – but this is not really true. He was a Court Whig (indeed almost a parady of one – he was 24 years of age when George III backed him to victory in the 1784 elections). However in the disputes over policy that marked the division between “court and country” in the early 18th century Pitt the Younger had some sympathy with Country ideas.
He was in favour of less govenment spending and in favour of peace. However, the French Revolution messed up his plans.
Whatever one may think of Iraq, having a hostile power only a few miles away (and, in the case of Revolutionary France, a hostile power whose population was much greater than that of Britain at the time) could not be ignored.
Certainly the statements of the Revolutionary government (right from 1789) meant that they were not going to ignore Britain.
“But private associations could have defended the country – there was no need for government”.
Well we could argue about that.
However, there was an effort in this direction.
John Reeves set up the “Association for the Preservation of Liberty and Property against Republicans and Levellers”.
And, contrary to the standard history texts, this was a lot more than a political pressue group. It had a very large numbers of people under arms – and even controlled artillery.
It might almost be seen as a private army.
See Robert R. Dozier “For King Constitution and Country: The English Loyalists and the French Revolution” University of Kentucky, 1983.
Paul,
Do you feel that there is enough of a buzz within the Party to support such a split?
I ask because I suspect that (or at least ‘hope’) there is more traction for a properly liberal movement further south than where I am (the North West coast).
How does your philosophy fit in with your work as a councillor? Is it reflected in your work? Does it fit in with the rest of your council Group and Association? If not, how do you reconcile issues with the Whip?
“Energy” is not a word that springs to mind when thinking of Conservative party folk (including me) James.
However, P.R. would mean the party would split almost automatically (as there would no longer be the fear of “splitting the vote” and “letting the other side in”).
Actually if “Ken” Clarke had been elected leader so much of the party would have left (including me – yes I know I have left before, but if people had said to me “no we do not accept you have left” I would have replied “I f****** well have” if Mr Clarke had been leader).
Do my libertarian beliefs have an impact on me as regards Council work?
Well I speak against more spending and stuff.
However, policy is largely made by national government and local government officers (i.e. it is made by the Guardian newspaper letters page – as national government, and local officials follow standard attitudes which are relected in the Guardian newspaper letters page).
This means, for example, we have a “fair trade” policy (i.e. we give money to politically connected people in the “third world” as opposed to non politically connected people who may be poorer rather than richer – and offer better quality goods at a lower price), and we have lots of other “policies”.
There was even an effort to hand ouy money to various racial and relgious groups recently – without any vote by councillors.
I helped block that (for the moment) – but my words were even kept out of the minutes of the committee meeting.
To speak against modern fads is blasphemy you see.
The “joke” is that I am fairly sure that the local government officers do not actually believe in all the nonsense, and I know that most of the councillors (including at least one of the Labour councillors) do not.
But the same old (sorry “new”, “modern”) nonsense keeps appearing – as it has done in Kettering council since about 1960.
Well I tried to reply to you James (honest), but sadly I activated a killer bot.
Have no fear – I am unharmed. However, my comment is yet to escape from the bot.