The ‘Conservative’ party in Britain continues to provide evidence for my theory that a vote for Dave Cameron is a vote for 99% continuity with the policies of New Labour. All they do is argue over which party is better at managing the introduction of new regulations and deciding which form confiscatory taxes should take. One party says “What about the environment?” and the other party replies “What about the poor?” Which party takes which position at any given time is an entirely cyclical rather than intellectual matter.
So if you like what Britain is today, why not stick with New Labour? But if you hate the extraordinary erosion of civil liberties, the arrogant yet ignorant statism, the pandering populism… why vote for a different party which is in overwhelming ideological agreement with New Labour and even apes them stylistically?
At least voting LibDem would be a vote for people who have some truly different policies regarding non-economic civil liberties… and a vote for the UKIP really is a vote for throwing a large spanner into the machinery of state (although I am not an uncritical fan of UKIP, they are the only party I would even consider voting for with any pleasure).
If the Tory party wins the next election, I think that is it for the UK for many years to come. If Dave Cameron gets into Downing Street that will have proven that the radical centre which constitutes ‘Blairism’, a populist authoritarianism which is starting to adopt totalitarian positions, is the only viable politics in Britain. That would validate Dave Cameron’s decision to jettison every last vestige of Thatcher’s pro-capitalist legacy and unless the Tory Party as it currently exist is destroyed by yet another election loss, we will see the move towards what might as well be a one party state become an entrenched reality.
Cameron delendus est.
Cameron’s first job is to get elected. He can say anything he likes to achieve this. When he gets power he can then do proper Tory things. He would hardly be the first politician to say one thing and then do another would he?
Pete, that is perhaps the most ‘faith based’ (to be polite) response I can imagine. Dave Cameron has consistently pushed Blairite policies and there is no basis whatsoever to assume that if he is elected with a mandate to implement Blairite policies, he will then go “ha ha fooled you” and pursue policies upon which he was not elected. Please show me where he has been laying the intellectual ground work for a roll back of the state as I must have been snoozing then.
I have yet to see evidence that Cameron gives a damn about ideas rather than just politics as an end in and of itself. He wants to be elected so that he can be in power, not because he has an agenda, but because being in power is how he makes a living. Are you seriously suggesting he is going to then take on the entire edifice of statist power in parliament and the civil service to shrink the state when all the evidence of his own words indicates the opposite?
Pete, I want to agree with you, I really do, but the boy is my local MP, and I just can’t convince myself he even wants the fight with the entrenched vested interests. If he is willing to accept the fight I’ll be delighted to be proved wrong, but then I have to believe he has the balls to actually win and that is even more of a challenge. Even Thatcher only halted the advance of the state, she didn’t really push it back, and the boy is no Thatcher.
Both Labour and “Conservative” parties now believe the answer to all life’s questions is ever more government. I am constrained until 2010, and then I’m out of this country.
He’s not saying an awful lot of things. Assuming he does do things he’s not said (which does seem reasonable) of all the things he’s not saying, why should it be your views that he’ll adopt and your preferred policies that he’ll follow?
After all, he’s not saying he’s going to adopt hardline Stalinist tactics, or that he’s going to bomb the US…
ID cards/identity databases are what will swing it for me. Unfortunately it’s too big a gamble to go vote Lib Dem (who are the only ones who would be certain to ‘do the right thing’ on this issue) and end up with the despicable swine in charge of government at the moment.
“All they do is argue over which party is better at managing the introduction of new regulations and deciding which form confiscatory taxes should take”.
That is exactly the way the Republican Party was from 1952 until Reagan took office.
Sadly I must agree with Perry de Havilland, the only Tories speaking my language are on the fringes of the party.
Dave is a PR man of the spivviest kind. Why on earth should we assume he has any sort of ethical or moral compass? He certainly doesn’t give me that impression.
Blair then Cameron. Proof if ever was needed to the old adage – History (Thatcherism) repeats itself – first as tragedy, then as farce.
Perry, I am currently reading ‘The Theory of Moral Sentiments’ and was thus able to recognise your Latin tag. Are you going to finish all further posts like the elder Cato?
I think the full monty of: “Ceterum censeo Cameron esse delendam” lends a less dogmatic tone. Sorry if the grammar needs some adjustment. I find it comforting and humbling that these issues have been wrestled with for at least 2,000 years.
David Roberts
Since David Cameron is male, the correct forms would be:
Cameron delendus est.
Ceterum censeo Cameron esse delendum.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_conjugation#The_gerundive and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_declension#Second_declension_.28o.29.
Excellent! It has been thirty years since I last picked up a latin school book so my gerunds are prone to butt heads with my declensions. Duly amended.
The Conservative Party should be about allowing individuals to create wealth by their own efforts without being stifled or penalised by the state.
Except, Dave has already got the missus, the kids, the Lexus and a rather nice pad in Notting Hill.
OK, nothing wrong with any of those. But he has no reason to restrict government in ways that makes those things stuff the likes of me can aspire to. He’s done well for himself and doesn’t seem to feel the need to change the status quo.
He is very different from earlier Tories (I’m particularly thinking of a certain grocer’s daughter here) who seemed to be of the opinion that they’d had a lot outta life and perhaps everyone else should have the same opportunities too.
Dave seems to feel part of an elite. He seems to be just like the Labour elite only wearing a different coloured rossette.
This is just a feeling (albeit one born out by hearing him gobshiteing on many topics).
And some people want to gerrymander an English Parliament to give this guy a permanent majority. Masochists presumably.
Tony Blair….populist authoritarian
Tony Blair == Juan Peron
Argentina after Peron?
Great Britain after Blair..???????
Right on Perry!
Good point. The LibDems are sound on CCTV/ID but horrendous on what you very correctly call economic civil liberties. They are also very bad on rights of free association/disassociation.
UKIP has my vote by a (nautical) mile.
Tony Blair == Juan Peron
Fair analogy, though it breaks down when you compare Cherie to Evita.
If the country is in a semi-perminant downward spiral someone has gotta turn things around and the current politicans are not gonna do it.
Why not start a new party with you as leader Perry?
Sure it would be difficult to make a break through but in this time of disastrous political leadership it must be the best time to offer something different.
Who else?
If you think the system can be reformed and saved, you don’t need a Samizdata Party (what a concept!), just vote UKIP. I can think of nothing more easy to do and yet more corrosive to the status quo.
If you do not think it can be reformed with things aligned as they are at the moment (which is my view), just wait for reality to catch up with politics just as it did for a while in 1979 when the economy actually started to collapse. 5 years? 10 years? Hard to predict.
My view is that next time this happens it will not be an economic collapse but rather a social collapse… when enough people live in fear of life and limb from chav thugs and muslim ‘activists’ and the middle class cannot be bought off any more and it finally dawns on them that the police and the CCTV cameras they paid for with their taxes were never there to protect them and certainly not their hard earned and much taxed and regulated property, it might be worthwhile playing the politics game once more as the rules will be quite, quite different.
Many years ago, I worked for a chum of mine when he was campaigning for election as a Tory Councillor in Wandsworth. A while earlier he was a liberal candidate in another borough of the Capital where the campaigners were scruffy, a shade silly, but at least human beings. The one thing I did note in Wandsworth, was the sheer slimy nature of many of the Tory boot boys that were his shock troops. I guess an idea free zone then was just normal, the sad thing is that they are reverting to type. The experience made me grateful to be a libertarian rather than a witless Tory, I never joined the party and never will. I presume Smith Square is largely an ideas free black hole. All things normal and AFU!
Perry, you give a very credible outline of a potential future, but I think we are in danger of a very long phase of “frog boiling” which might end up with people slipping into a coma, rolling over and floating belly up.
If a change occurs it will be very very nasty and probably undemocratic, as the longer we leave it, the more people feed off the State teat and soon it could be the majority (or appear to them to be). I have said this before, HGWells got it wrong – it is not an indolent, arty beautful Eloi being preyed upon by the cannibalistic ugly engineer Morlock, but an ugly bunch of feckless trolls preying upon the hard working.
UKIP needs to not sound retrograde because of the EU issue, which I think swamps their image. That, and the bilious colour scheme…
I liked the phrase that someone introduced about Blair: “Cheria Law”.
Do you really think that Tony Blair will be able to break his promise not to contest the next General Election as Labour’s leader / Prime Minister ?
Surely you should be discussing the relative chances, and vague individual policies, of David Cameron versus Gordon Brown ?
With all due repect to those of you who live abroad, or those of you planning to emigrate, your opinions and lack of votes, are not really relevant to those of us who are planning to stay here in the UK, to try to make a difference.
Since none of the political parties are worth voting for in their entirety, the only hope of getting rid of the increasingly evil Labour regime, without replacing it with a clone, lies with tactical voting in mariginal contsituencies against any sitting MPs, of whatever party who support , or who are not actively opposed to, whatever your least favourite policies are e.g. the National Identity register, the destruction of civil liberties, high taxes etc. etc.
That is a very succinct description of the problem and precisely why I say ‘Cameron delendus est’.
A vote for the Tory party as it is currently set up is a vote for political continuity just as surely as if you had voted for Labour, with the added highly toxic effect of creating a political monoculture that will lock in the most wicked of Blair’s policies for a very long time indeed.
I agree that Mr Cameron is a clone of Mr Blair – with Mr Cameron as Prime Minister (as with Mr Blair) there would be more taxation, more government spending and more regulations (most, but not all, justified by having to obey the E.U.) – and we would have endless bullshit every time Mr Cameron opened his mouth (just as we have with Mr Blair).
More importantly than my (or Perry’s) opinion of Mr Cameron – this is what David Cameron thinks about himself. His closest associates have been making this case (in private) since day one – they (and he) think it is a GOOD thing to be like Mr Blair.
Of course Mr Cameron is not interested in pro freedom ideas, and of course he is not laying the foundations for a mandate to advance freedom in office.
One does not need to convince the public on every specific policy – but one does need to convince them of the SORT of direction government should take (otherwise one has no mandate to perform well in office even if one wanted to – and, no, a party can not lay out a general line of statist policy in opposition and then roll back the state in office, the media would tear such a government apart).
The Conservatives did give a general impression of the sort of direction they wanted to take in the late 1970’s (when they DID argue for a smaller state – I still have some of the writings that were produced at that time) and this is exactly what Mr Cameron would tottally oppose doing now.
Not just because he thinks it would lose him votes – but because he does not BELIEVE in a smaller state.
He will not even pledge to take a single power back from the E.U. – not even fishing policy (that even Mr Howard promsed to do).
No limit on government spending, no limits on the power of the civil service (in the name of the E.U.) to impose regualtions – nothing.
I have just read the new version of “Built To Last” (the Conservative party’s “Aims and Values”) and it is as crap as the last version Mr Cameron produced.
Nothing on the above, and plenty of stuff about combating “social injustice”, “sharing the proceeds of growth” and “third world” aid instead.
I have voted against it.
But most Conservative party members are so cowardly (cowardly is the correct word) that they think NOT VOTING is the height of courage (voting against the will of the leadership is unthinkable).
If the absurd “Built to Last” was voted down Mr Cameron would have to rethink or go. But a low turn out will not achieve anything.
Therefore I will not paying my £15 this month (my membership is up at the end of the month).
After 27 years I will finally be out.
Perhaps I should have left when F.C.S. was abolished (as this showed that the Conservative party was not only not interested in pro freedom ideas, but would not even tolerate them – and the little shit who, as the “libertarian” Chairman of F.C.S. betrayed his own organization, is now a Conservative M.P.), perhaps I should have gone when the coup against Mrs Thatcher happened – but still now I am going.
As for who people should vote for:
Mr A. Clarke tried to set up a libertarian party – but there is no money for such things (and without a lot of money a political party will get nowhere).
The U.K.I.P. exists and I hope it becomes a more professional operation.
However “no” I do not think that Britain will lead the world in the direction of freedom. For all the mistakes made after 1979, things (such as the increase in government spending and taxation and the failure to reform the labour market in the first few years) that Mr Cameron’s associates do not even understand were mistakes, Britian did serve (in some ways) as a example to the world in the 1980’s – sadly I do not think this will happen again.
I think that Britain will only reform when and if reform is successfully undertaken in other Western nations (at least one).
Which, if any, Western nation will first roll back the state is a moot point.
If none does then, yes, the present civilization is doomed.
Perry if you wait until the country collapses like that the main parties may be nationalists as well as an Islamic party.. I wouldn’t have thought it be the best time to promote liberty, when people feel threatened they want more government help.
We need a better alternative before then.
Didn’t more people not vote at all in the last election than voted for the winner?
Is that not indication of a gap in the market?!
UKIP are nationalists. They also have the closest thing to a libertarian platform you are likely to find in the UK.
Which would be great as I can think of few things that would finally get people to see that the system itself is fucked.
I disagree. That is the current situation. However falling voter turn out just shows that millions do not think the state can offer meaningful solutions and that is not so much a market opening as an indication a long standing ‘business model’ is collapsing.
However things do need to get worse just as they had to get worse for what Thatcher did to be possible. Much of Thatcher’s legacy remains in that Blair did not try to establish the sort of nationalisation-and-mercantilism policies of the Wilson-Heath-Callaghan era (which is also why I find Paul Marks’ claims that our very civilisation is doomed rather unconvincing to say the least)… what needs to change this time is the infrastructure governing social vs state interaction (i.e. reversing the progressive destruction of emergent social mechanisms and their replacement with politically derived state imposed regulations). People need to realise that the state simply cannot be trusted to do 80%+ of what it does. That day will come.
Do not assume that the ‘gap’ is for a libertarian taking.
My guess is the “lumpen illitariat” will come out of the woodwork if they feel their cosy benefit gravy might dry up.
Interesting to see the ST has finally caught up with the story about the US Welfare reform (which I picked up from James Bartholomew’s excellent “Welfare State We Are In” blog).
We need such a reform, but right now people on welfare are in a cold bath in a freezing bathroom and the water is getting colder. They keep voting for more hot water instead of doing what is right – to stand up, vigourously dry off and get on with life.
You missed the “if” Perry.
If no country manages to role back the state (really the Welfare State) then……..
If any major Western nation manages to get out the other side from the Welfare State (i.e. manages to save itself) then other nations will (most likely) copy it.
Sadly there is, as yet, no evidence of any major Western nation rolling back what are, in the United States, called the “entitlement programs” – but that does not mean it will not be done somewhere.
Of course this leaves aside the credit bubble financial system – but that is, partly, a separate matter.
It is not a totally separate matter as the next great bust of the boom-bust cycle will be, most likely, what sets off the final crises of the Welfare State.
Then people will face a choice – between the collapse of the present civilization and its noncollapse.
But it is a choice – it is not a matter of inevitable doom.
So whats the solution Paul?
Who do we vote for to role back the state, there is no one.
I have voted UKIP before but have found them disappointing after they made progress in the EU elections.
If you insist on voting, a vote for the UKIP does more to register discontent with the status-quo than any other vote.
But just to reiterate the point of my article, a vote for the Tory party as it currently is just makes things worse and entrenches the problem.
Perry writes:
The trouble with that is you might get them elected (though probably only in small numbers). That’s fine if you want them elected, but not otherwise.
An alternative protest vote is to write: NON OF THESE (NOT) on the ballot paper.
Currently this will be recorded (and reported) as a spoilt paper. With some lobbying effort, it might be possible to get such “spoiling” recorded separately, or even a box to mark for NOT.
This would surely be better than the current policy of the active abstainers, who are not differentiated from those who could not be bothered to vote.
Best regards
Fine by me. I do not completely support the UKIP platform but they are vastly preferable to the alternatives.
Hi Perry, et al,
I have zero knowledge regarding the political landscape of UK, so obviously the best I can hope for in my comments is some form of beginner’s luck. I don’t have the slightest clue how parties in the UK are organized, so I’ll beg your patience in advance.
Just holding your nose and voting for a lesser eveil doesn’t seem to be optimistic enough. Perhaps the best route would be to rally the Samizdatas and quietly infect the UKIP, or other party, with a healthy dose of libertarianism. In a manner something like:
1. Get fellow travelers to volunteer, join, or work for the administrative body of the target party.
2. Design and implement an initiative to set up active University clubs in or senior citizen groups to membership drives. (Again, this may be one of those proscribed activates in the UK I don’t know about, but there may be some kind of opportunity nonetheless.)
3. After you’ve built up a reliable segment of the party’s new membership, push the Samiz into the leadership posts.
4. Hammer out a broad initiative to bring something like the US Bill of Rights to the UK legislature based upon securing the Individual’s liberty vis-a-vis the State.
I have to imagine many Righties & Lefties would be amenable to a set of privacy protections if they can be carefully constructed. It may have to be bold in some aspect, like de-criminalizing pot, but guarded enough to reinforce some parts of domestic policing, i.e. drawing and quartering of nascent Jihadis.
Anyway, just because we admire Austrian economists & philosophers doesn’t mean we have to be a bunch of depressives!