Whilst the media is interested in the Labour leadership struggle (the issue of when statist Blair is going and whether he is going to be replaced by statist Brown or statist Reid or statist someone else), my interest has been directed towards the latest antics of the ruling group within the Conservative party.
A couple of days ago some of Mr David Cameron’s senior people (Oliver Letwin, David W. and so on) came out with a ‘turning point’ for the Conservative party, a major policy matter. This was to state that the Conservative party would commit itself to much more taxpayer’s money for the ‘public services’ (i.e. the government education, health and welfare programmes). The “traditional Conservative hostility” to such things was wrong (although the idea that the Mrs Thatcher cut government spending is a myth – in reality its growth was just restrained, but even that is now considered a crime against humanity). Indeed it is “part of being human” to support government spending increases without limit – so anti-government types may look human, but we are really not human at all. Mr Cameron himself took time out from his trip to India to denounce the idea of tax cuts in an interview with BBC radio.
Of course Mr Cameron may be in India to learn how to create an even bigger budget deficit than Britain already has (rather than just go and try and get some reflected glory from visiting the tomb of Gandhi – much in the way as he tried to get some reflected glory from the Nelson Mandela stunt last month), but it would be nice if he noted that India has far lower taxes than Britain has (total taxes – as a percentage of the economy) which is one of the basic reasons that its economic growth is faster.
If India tried to have the level of government ‘public services’ spending that Mr Cameron and his people would suggest (even as a percentage of the economy) its government deficit would be wildly greater than it already is – and the economy would collapse (which, given how poor many Indians already are, would mean starvation).
But then Mr Cameron does not want economic growth, he wants economic “stability” – but then he does want economic growth because he wants to “share the proceeds” of it, in order to fight “social injustices” and support the cause of “social justice”. Not just in Britain – but by providing government aid to all the poor countries of the world (far more than this mean Labour government is giving). We non-human, or sub-human, anti-big government types may think that Welfare State spending has never been bigger than it is now, and may even say that the present Labour government (under the guidance of the finance minister Gordon Brown) has increased this spending at one of the fastest rates in history (especially if the so called “tax credits” are included as they should be – and we should not forget the spending on the “have now, pay later” principle of the ‘PFIs’ either). However, Mr Cameron and his comrades know that government spending in Britain is far too low and must be increased – and not just increased a little bit, increased a lot (in order to show how much we “value the public services”).
When the revolution comes, the oppressed masses of old Etonians and other rich kids will smash what is left of ‘capitalist society’ (‘capitalism’ was one of ‘-isms’ that Mr Cameron announced he hated, in his first major speech as leader of the Conservative party) and build ‘social justice’ in our land. There is plenty of space to the left of the Labour party and people are bound to vote Conservative if the party occupies this space (after all the line must be working, otherwise the Conservative party would not be ahead in the polls – the fact that Labour party is in meltdown is not relevant).
This morning (Wednesday 6th of September) I happened to be listening to B.B.C. Radio 4 (the Today Programme). A representative of ASDA (the British arm of Walmart) suggested the end of European Union’s ‘Common Fisheries Policy’ (CFP) or that Britain get out of the CFP if the EU would not end it. This was because the policy does not conserve fish (they are sometimes caught and put back dead in the water, or sometimes just given over to non British fishing boats – it depends on the regulations) and ASDA was concerned that there would be no British source for many types of fish if Britain stayed in the CFP.
It is very rare for a retailer (or any major corporation) to buck government policy (there are all sorts of ways that the government can make things difficult for a corporation – and they know it, so many of them even give money to the Labour party as a sort of protection racket) – so ASDA must be scared indeed. A spokesman for the Conservative party came on to the show. He was the Conservative party’s fisheries spokesman in (I think) the European Parliament (sadly my-sub human or non-human brain did not register his name – but he was clearly one of Mr Cameron’s boys).
Now the Conservative party used to have a policy of getting out of the CFP – it was virtually the only power that the Conservative party was pledged to take back from the EU. However, even this was too much for the Cameron Conservative party.
The suggestion of getting out of the CFP was “facile” said the ‘Conservative’ – all power must be with the EU because that was our “treaty obligation”. Yet, less than minute later, the Conservative party spokesman said that Mr Cameron might “reconsider”, and just might possibly get out of the CFP after all. The ‘Conservative’ could not even be consistent in his crapness.
“But surely not all Conservatives are like this” – of course not. For example, my local MP (the member for Kettering – Philip Hollibone) has just written an article arguing that Britain get out of the EU, not just take back one or two powers.
But what does it matter if even the great majority of Conservative party members (and many Members of Parliament) are okay. (or “not human” as Mr Cameron’s people would put it) when the democratically elected leadership is like it is. Of course the absurd set of “aims and values” that is “Built to Last” is up for the approval of party members right now. I voted no (in what may be my last act as a member of the Conservative party), but what are the chances that it will be voted down?
“We agree that it is nonsense Paul, but we can not vote against it because the leadership support it, the best we can do is not vote”.
Sorry but that is not good enough.
And to think, I used to vote for these bastards.
And this, Paul, is Thatcher’s tragic legacy. Fifteen years on, the supporters of low taxes or less government are regarded slightly lower on the food chain than baby eaters.
As a marketer of great ideas she was truly dreadful.
Cameron is only saying what he needs to say to get his party elected. He faces no opposition from his fellow MPs because they can sense he’s right. And good people don’t enter politics to sit on the Opposition benches.
Don’t be so hard on Mr Cameron. He just wants to find some eye-catching initiatives with which he can be personally involved.
Best regards
this is quite a development
Economic growth is nice, but China has that – and so does Blair’s New Britain. What I want is economic freedom and the rule of law in business – an end to tax-farming SEFRAs and DTI and treasury commissars, and end to licensing and ‘planning’ extortion. If the consequence is more growth – I suspect in practice a bit more, and very different – then fine
A step towards that is halting the spew of new regulation, new taxes and new inspectorates. Stability is not to be despised. But I can’t stop paying my rent until I have somewhere cheaper to live.
He denounced capitalism? Who IS this f—— fool? Dear, Lord. He’s a flaming Marxist, and that’s all there is to it.
Is there a link to where he says low tax lovers are sub human?
I am sure Paul will correct me if I am wrong but I think Paul was inferring that from where The Man said supporting welfare statism was “part of being human”… so by implication those of us who regard welfare statism as kleptocratic idiocy cannot be human in official Tory eyes.
Yesterday, Rachel from north London posted what I found a very interesting view.
I think it should be compulsory reading for Mr Cameron, and for all members of the Tory Party.
Best regards
pommy makes a good point that Mrs Thatcher and her Cabinet ministers did not really do a very good job of selling the moral case for tax cuts. Hence anyone these days who argues thus labours under the idea that they are “greedy” and “selfish” (as if it is terrible to want to retain the wealth that one has earned rather than give it to the State).
The problem is that only a smattering of senior Tories ever really tried to make the case. Even most classical liberal intellectuals tend to defend tax cuts on the grounds of economic efficiency or a sort of consequentialist argument that individuals spend money more wisely, most of the time, than governments. It is rare to see any senior pol. or writer argue that shrinking the burden of the state is not just smart, but also just.
And that is where that tiresome little woman Ayn Rand comes in. Almost alone, she made the case that we have a right to live for own sake, neither sacrificing our lives to others or expecting others to sacrifice for ours. And from that she drew out the moral case against taxation.
To pick up that argument and run with it will take years and a lot of guts to withstand the ridicule of a chattering class drugged on decades of collectivism. The sad truth is that this effort has barely started.
Johnathan Pearce writes:
“pommy makes a good point that Mrs Thatcher and her Cabinet ministers did not really do a very good job of selling the moral case for tax cuts.”
That’s not really fair of either of you. Mrs Thatcher and others in the party made a perfectly good case and they made it well.
But it was drowned out by the howling chorus of baboons in the media. Hence the quite deliberate misinterpretation of Mrs T’s, “There is no such thing as society…” quote, the Left’s version of which has become received wisdom.
During the 1980s it was impossible to turn on the TV, listen to the radio or read most adult newspapers, without hearing the whoopings and screechings of Mandrillus Tonynbeensis , or Papio Eltonius .
Much the same as has been done to George W. Bush, of course.
Concerning no such thing as society, Mrs Thatcher effectively said it twice in the same article.
In contaxt, what she actually meant is quite clear to me, and also totally acceptable.
[Shall we do “Rivers of Blood” too?]
Best regards
GCooper, I think that if Mrs T. had done the sort of excellent and persuasive job on tax cuts that you state, that we would not now be in the situation where talk of tax cuts prompts such skepticism from so many people. I just don’t think her message went far enough, and I think her style of rhetoric had a bit of a part in that.
All that said, she made a great push in the right direction, I’ll happily concede. It needs to be follow through relentlessly.
Cameron is simply terrible. Great article, Paul.
There is no real conservative party (lower case) in Britain, and there is no help for it except re-forming the Whig Party. All you need is a slight tweaking of the original wording: “The power of the government has increased, is increasing, and ought to be diminished.” The Conservative Party is nothing but Labour with more money and caution, and their platform is nothing more than a series of “Yes, but…” responses to Labour initiatives.
Why the fretting about what Cameron says? Once he is elected he can do as he likes, and what he thinks is best. Cameron is giving the voters what he knows they like to hear. There is no reason to suppose that is what he will do if he gets elected, nor will he be under any obligation to do so.
pete writes:
“Cameron is giving the voters what he knows they like to hear. There is no reason to suppose that is what he will do if he gets elected, nor will he be under any obligation to do so.”
So we are constantly being told by Cameron apologists.
Personally, I would consder it foolish in the extreme to vote for somebody in the belief that he means the opposite of what he says. Particularly without a shred of evidence to support such a belief.
Pete, I think you made the same “argument” on anothe thread. Like GCooper, I am not convinced. Sure, Cameron may blarney a bit in order not to frighten the horses, but really, at some point, with Labour in such a dire state, the Tories should have the cojones to at least hint that they would like to shrink the state, cut back the thicket of regulations on business, etc. And instead, we get a sort of warmed up Big Government/hug-a-hoodie-save-the-planet bsfest.
It is not good enough and I am afraid any serious believer in liberty, limited government and property must look at Cameron as a waste of time.
It is blairingly obvious what “Dave” is doing, trimming (fibbing) to get elected, as the present, soon to be dismissed, PM did to get office. Statism is alive and well in the old Ted Heath tradition, just without the shoulder shrugging laugh.
Chris Tame predicted that this sort of thing would happen, so folks just grin and put up with it and don’t let them grind you down. Time for a rework of the FCS?
GCooper
Mrs Thatcher and others in the party made a perfectly good case and they made it well.
That Thatcher did more good for this country than any other PM of the 20thC is even now being (reluctantly) conceded by many on the Left.
However, she was appallingly ineffective at selling her ideas. She was elected back into office in 1987 because people could see that he policies worked, not becuase they liked her.
The media now likes to look back on this era as the “yuppie” or greedy era. That is her legacy to the Conservative party.
The Tories need a communicator of the calibre of Blair to put forward the moral case for low government and low taxes.
Who is that person?
pommygranate wrtes:
“However, she was appallingly ineffective at selling her ideas. She was elected back into office in 1987 because people could see that he policies worked, not becuase they liked her.”
Quite. As you say, they believed her policies worked. Thus, the point had been, at least to some extent, communicated.
The ‘greedy and seedy’ meme was promulgated by an astonishingly effective campaign mounted by the Left, which musters a firepower not even a PM can defeat.
Indeed, we are witnessing exactly the same phenomenon today, where an embattled Bliar is being driven from office by the combined efforts of the media, seeking revenge on him for Iraq.
As Goebbels taught, a large enough lie, told sufficiently often, usually wins the day. It is a lesson that has been thoughly digested by the British Left.
The sooner people wake up to the malign influence of the BBC in setting the mood music in the UK, the better.
And if they dont, then we are doomed to a succession of politicians chosen, in effect, by the Guardian-reading classes. The next of whom is likely to be the non-Conservative Conservative, Dave ‘call me madman’ Cameron.
The Tories need a communicator of the calibre of Blair to put forward the moral case for low government and low taxes.
You mean a low down, lying, sleazy scum bag.
I’ll take Thatcher and her “style of rhetoric” any day. On this she was truly in the Randian tradition of saying what she meant and meaning it.
GCooper is right about the media. It would be hard for any government to get across the case for smaller government when a government organ, in this case the BBC, is doing everything it can to bash that message.
Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit and I should have avoided it.
No I do not believe that the reason that the Conservatives are ahead in the polls is because of Mr Cameron and his comrades statist beliefs (or statist words, for those who argue that they have no beliefs).
It is the unpopularity of the government (and the Labour meltdown internally over quite some time) that have given the Conservative party its 8 point lead (although the polls are rather distorted in various ways).
Actually the 8 point (or whatever) lead is rather small against a government that has been in office for more than nine years and is in mid term.
This need not surprise us as even the B.B.C. “focus group” found Mr Cameron shifty and dishonest during the Conservative party leadership campaign (compared to Mr Davis), almost needless to say the B.B.C. did not exactly shout the results of its focus group.
B.B.C. support for the Cameron “project” is based upon the desire to the B.B.C. (and the rest of the establisment) for the Conservative party to present no threat to “liberal” establisment ideas.
Mr Cameron will not only not allow any Conservative party member who wishes to leave the E.U. to have high position within the party, he has determined that the Conservative party will take NO POWERS AT ALL back from the E.U.
In short their will be regulation without limit (as the E.U. can regulate, via the British Civil Service, in virtually all areas of life).
Even in education and health E.U. influence will be felt -with (for example) the basic values and principles of the E.U. taught in schools (this will not both the establishment as they have the same values and principles) and “rights” to health care will be used to demand government spending.
Although, of course, Mr Cameron and his comrades have already stated in their great “turning point” that government spending on the “public services” must be greatly increased.
Just as people are starting to doubt both the principle that compassion = more spending of other people’s money, and the principle that more government spending = better “public services”,
Of course many people (perhaps most) still support these principles – but they will not vote Conservative.
All Mr Cameron’s policy positions will do is to influence Conservative voters (such as myself) to stay at home. The “stop at home” party is already the biggest in Britian – a matter that the opinion polls do not tend to mention (the Conservatives “38%”, or whatever, of the vote – is of those people who say they will vote, which is only about half of the voteing age people anyway).
As for the idea that Mr Cameron and his comrades can “do whatever they like” once elected – in theory this is true, and in practice it is bullshit.
Even if one has made a major point of being free market before an election it is very hard indeed to be free market in office. If one has not made a point of being free market before an election the lack of a mandate will mean that it is not politically possible to either control government spending or roll back regulations in office.
Of course this assumes that Mr Cameron is interested in controlling government spending or in rolling back regulations (or preventing new ones) – WHICH HE IS NOT.
On the society point, Mr Cameron is quite correct in saying that society exists but is not the state.
Society is not an enity (not a “thing” as Mrs Thatcher pointed out) it can decide nothing (it has no reasoning mind) and can give noone anything (for it has nothing to give) – society is that web of civil interactions between human beings (not a being in its own right).
However, Mr Cameron wishes to subsidize organizations in civil society with taxpayers money. This is already done and converts these organizations from being part of civil society to being part of the state (something he either does not understand or does not care about).
As for Mr Cameron’s style:
I find the “Tony” Blair imitation irritating. And it is certainly carried to absurd lengths (for example Mr Blair choose X number of “pop” records and one serious work when he was invited on to the B.B.C. radio programme “Desert Island Disks” – so when Mr Cameron was invited on he also choose X number of pop records and one serious work).
Also, as Mr Blair has been unpopular for a long time, I find Mr Cameron choice to immitate him odd.
However, it is the policies of Mr Cameron that lead me to despise him – not his style (irritating though it is).
Paul Marks writes:
“B.B.C. support for the Cameron “project” is based upon the desire to the B.B.C. (and the rest of the establisment) for the Conservative party to present no threat to “liberal” establisment ideas”
I believe this analysis is exactly right. In so far as BBC types can stomach the idea of any sort of Conservative government, the only one they could tolerate would be run by second-raters like Cameron, Letwin et al .
Indeed, I would go further and suggest that Cameron and the resurgence of the wets is actually a liberal-left project. The blue rinses of the Tory party, despairing atfter years in the wildnerness, would probably have elected Saddam Hussein, had they believed he stood a chance of winning an election.
Not stupid, they correctly saw the straw in the wind and voted for Cameron, solely because they believed he stood a chance. And he had that chance simply because the liberal-left media weren’t going to hound him, as they had Howard and Duncan Smith.
Mr Marks is absolutely right about the lead the Tories have in the polls, too. At this stage, with a totally discredited government in office, it is a miserable advantage.
Like Paul Marks, I also wonder at the ‘son of Bliar’ act. Once the creepy little totalitarian is out of the way, anything resembling him is going to look very old hat. Moods can change fast in politics and Cameron might well find he is suddenly very unfashionable.
The tragdey of all this is that it reinforces the dictum ‘whoever you vote for, some bloody politician always wins’. I can think of not even one reason why I would vote for Cameron and his cabal. I know many others who feel the same way. Thus those who do not subscribe to the liberal-left consensus have been disenfranchised.
A pox on the lot of ’em!
What would be really amusing would be if, after all this stuff, Mr Cameron and his comrades lost the election anyway. After all, once the objective of turning the Conservative party into just another leftist party has been totally achieved (which with the passing of “Built to Last” it will be), why should the broadcasting media continue to support Mr Cameron?
No doubt he will still have the support of various writers on the Daily Telegraph who like his taste in pop music (I kid you not – one of the D.T.s political writers produced this as her chief proCameron argument the other day), but a handful of people who work for the D.T. is not going to win Mr Cameron the election.
On Guy’s point:
The idea that Mr Cameron, in office, would stop new regulations is (of course) absurd.
He would not even have the power to do so if he wanted to (which he does not) – as the regulations would be justified, by the Civil Servants concerned, as being in accord with various E.U. demands (and Mr Cameron will not take back any power from the E.U.).
Paul Marks writes: “No doubt he will still have the support of various writers on the Daily Telegraph who like his taste in pop music (I kid you not – one of the D.T.s political writers produced this as her chief proCameron argument the other day), but a handful of people who work for the D.T. is not going to win Mr Cameron the election.”
It’s a pretty good measure of how low the Telegraph has sunk, isn’t it?
And that, sadly, is all part of the process at work within the media, where the indoctrination in our universities and the obession with employing ‘yoof’ has homogenised it almost to a single, liberal-left voice.
What happens to those of us who refuse to subscribe to this, I’m not quite sure. Go and live in New Hampshire, perhaps?
The Daily Telegraph is split, there are still good people there (Frank Johnson, Simon Heffer and Janet Daley spring to mind) but there are also a lot of daft people.
For example, one person who writes for the Telegragh group (and is editor of the Spectator) thinks that the Conservative party of the 1990’s was “obessed with ideology” and prefers the more “pragmatic” Mr Cameron.
For those of us who remember the endless government spending and vast increase in E.U. regulation under John Major this picture of Conservative “extremism” is hard to accept.
I agree with G.Cooper that newspapers are influenced by the general (leftist controlled) “education system” and the climate of opinion.
For example, most people are taught (both at school and at college) that without government interventionism great numbers of people would live in terrible poverty (such things as friendly societies never get a mention) and that (for example) the great depression of the 1930’s was caused or deepened by there not being enough government spending.
Of course some journalists (such as Frank Johnson) know that this is all nonsense – but most young journalists just repeat what they were taught (ditto on the British Empire and all other matters).
Also there is a trend to just repeating press releases or the official spin (Christopher Booker is good at pointing out the failure of his fellow journalists to do even basic research into the facts of stories). This is as much lazyness (or obsession with getting the story written by the deadline for the next day’s edition) as it is leftist bias.
Remember New Hampshire is not immune – indeed only a few years ago a judge declared that the State must spend a lot more on education (thus ripping up the principle that government education finance in New Hampshire is to be determined by local government, not at the State level).
In 2004 Judd Greg lost the Governorship, and although the Repulbicans have a good candidate for this November (the election for Governor of New Hampshire being every two years – as it used to be in many States) they are unlikely to regain the office (thanks to the wild spending incompetant in the White House).
Even the Manchester Union Leader (the once great Conservative newspaper of New Hampshire) is not much compared to the days when its owner-editor was alive. On a small scale this is a reminder of the story of the Chicago Tribune – when Robert McCormack (spelling) was alive it was the greatest Conservative newspaper in the world, but it soon went into decline on his death.
However, I do prefer the United States. For example I can not help some warmth even for President Bush (in spite of his failure to control government spending at home, and his failure to catch O.B.L. and his deputy overseas, or to catch Omar – headman of the Taliban).
To hear a head of government make speeches full of support for traditional values and insitutions is just so unusual (for a British person to hear) that I tend to overlook policy failure.
President Bush clearly means everything he says about, God, family and nation.
Mr Blair might say similar things, but does not mean them – and Mr Cameron would not even say them.
Unfortunately Cameron believes that the public vote on policies and that the Conservatives lost the low-tax economy argument in the two elections we’ve lost after 1997.
Capitalism is the way to solve the world’s ills, but not by having capitalism here and then shipping the proceeds abroad — we have to have capitalism in India (rather than the socialism that appears to be growing there) and then there’s no need for so-called ‘aid’.
It was interesting on Radio 4’s Beyond Belief yesterday that all the commentators were in agreement — the solution to the Third World’s perpetual poverty is capitalism.
Let’s hope Cameron realises that that’s the solution to our nation’s problems too.
Of course most people did not believe that the Conservatives would cut taxes if they won the election – and they were most likely correct in this judgement about the Conservatives.
Most people do want lower taxes – but they do not trust the Conservatives to deliver lower taxes. And whilst dishonest people like David Cameron and Francis Maude (the Chairman of the Conservative Party) remain in place, this will not change.
I think the link I was after was here.
And yes I did identify the negation for what it was!