It is hardly a secret I really really do not like Dave Cameron, but I was surprised when a chum of mine called me up to say Cameron was calling for a smaller state. I found this hard to believe and soon found this article called Cameron: People must be nicer to each other.
The Conservative leader accused Labour of treating Britons like children, saying the Government’s knee-jerk reaction to any problem was to bring in laws which often discouraged people from taking responsibility. He argued that measures such as anti-social behaviour orders had been counter-productive because they allowed people to abdicate responsibility for their actions.
[…]
He called for a “revolution in responsibility”, saying that the next Conservative government was not going to treat its citizens like children, promising “to solve every problem, respond to every incident, accident or report with a new initiative, regulation or law”. He insisted that a framework of incentives would prove more effective than regulations and laws. Mr Cameron promised to strengthen the family with the reform of a tax system that he claimed penalised couples who stayed together.
The fact the regulatory state is incredibly corrosive to civil society (in every sense of the phrase) should be self-evident to anyone claiming to be a conservative, but as Dave Cameron is not a conservative, in spite of leading a party called the Conservatives, I would not automatically assume he actually believes that. So you would think I would be pleased to finally see him saying something along these lines. In truth I burst out laughing when I read that article, not because I do not agree but because I do not believe him.
He has previously spent so much time telling us he can be trusted not to ‘do a Thatcher’ and how he intends to regulate our lives just as much as Blair’s Labour party, only ‘better’, why should his sudden enthusiasm for less regulation be believable? Simply put, he is not actually promising any such thing, not really.
The default position of all politicians is to pass laws in order to be seen to ‘do something’ and there is not a chance in hell that Dave Cameron, who is really just a political hack who sees power as an end in and of itself, will seek to actually roll back the state in any meaningful way and thereby deprive himself of patronage and political tools.
So of course the mask quickly slips…
He said a Conservative government would grant councils greater control of spending, while people should be encouraged to become more involved in the ownership and operation of their schools, public spaces, and social and environmental services.
Ah, so actually he is all in favour of the state doing stuff, he just wants it to be the local state rather than the central state. Sorry Dave, the only way you will stop damaging civil society is not by allowing a town council to spend the damn money, it is by not allowing any part of the state to spend so much money. A hell of lot less. There is just as much stupidity, greed and obsession with state control in town halls as there is in Westminster.
There is just as much stupidity, greed and obsession with state control in town halls as there is in Westminster.
…and at least Westminster is further away.
Moving to a neighbouring town is easier than moving to a neighbouring country, generally speaking.
Is there any Libertarian movement towards actual political reform in the UK? This posting clearly states that it is the current system that is broken, but I don’t think I have read, on this site, anything about what you guys would change, within the UK, given that you had the power.
Perry,
It is hardly a secret I really really do not like Dave Cameron…
You start every post about the Tories with this line. It’s getting to be quite a catch-phrase.
I saw Dave interviewed on that Sunday Politics show and ashamed as I am to admit it I almost bought it. Then everything came flooding back… “Davecam”, his bike rides, the windmill, the 3.6L hybrid Lexus…
I think you’re wrong on something. I don’t think a Cameron government would even go through with handing greater responsibilities to local government. All the parties talk about “local accountability” but the dukes and earls at Westminster only mean that while the (robber) barons in town halls “do the right thing” and of course all are utterly in thrall to the King in Brussels. It’s just another Cameron lie.
Rob, if you had read and understood anything these guys had to say, you would know that they don’t want the ‘power’.
And they don’t want anybody else to have the ‘power’ either.
How anti-social is that?
Moving to a neighbouring town is easier than moving to a neighbouring country, generally speaking.
Yes, I agree. I was not referring to systemic issues, but tyrany by individuals.
Just to clarify, if you have clean local but corrupt central there is the possibility of living most of your life without meeting the corrupt and being interfered with. Even if a corrupt element in the central state wants you, they would first need to get past the clean police and magistrates. If the corrupt central persona wants to do planning, the local organisation, if clean, can do much to hamper it.
In the reverse case, if a local wants your ass and they control the police and magistrates you might well be either dealt with locally or stitched up like a kipper before you reach the main Courts.
I am still perplexed as to where this man actually stands as a Conservative. Does he truly believe that social pressure is sufficient to to curb the yob culture – a culture we should remember that has in no small part been encouraged and nurtured by the very same ‘dead tree’ and ‘yoof’ media that Cameron hopes will work to counter it? I’m afraid that I have to presume that anything issued from Cameron or CCHQ is just in itself a ‘vaporbite’ trendy knee-jerk reaction and not to be regarded as serious or earnest policy.
I think he’s trying to sound like a federalist. Sadly for him, federalism never really caught on in the UK. But yeah, I wouldn’t trust him any further than I could throw him…he’ kinda chunky after all.
Pietr, I think you will find that the dominant ideology of this blog is more minarchist than anarcho-capitalist: they are more about severely limiting government power than about eliminating it. They complain about Cameron and Blair – fine, so do I – but what would the Samizdata political dream team do instead, given the constraints of real world politics and law? I apologize if this is off topic, or if there is another blog I should be looking at for more hands on libertarian discussion.
I am not in the dream team, but, for the UK, I would:
1) Move(Link) to a Swiss Style Healthcare system (State regulated, privately run via competitive entities)
2) Implement a flat tax with fat personal allowances (£12k+)
3) Reform and apply life limits to welfare, including housing
4) Voucher or similar mechanism for education, removing schools from the sclerotic grip of LEAs.
5) Change from full EU membership to EFTA Membership
6) Re-engage with The Commonwealth.
I’d say there’s more. Certainly true for my local council anyway.
First I welcome Mr Cameron’s speech. It is good for someone to denounce the idea that government can solve every problem with a new regulation of yet more government spending (indeed such policies make things worse).
Also there is nothing wrong in saying that people should help each other – as long as that help is not compulsory (sorry Samual Pufendorf, but compulsory charity is not the virtue of charity at all).
On the question of whether I believe Mr Cameron:
I do not – to judge by his past words and deeds he is not the sort of person who would try and prevent the growth of government (whether from the E.U. or otherwise) if in office.
However, (as certain friends of mine remind me from time to time) I am supposed to believe that sinners can repent, that people who have done bad things can change. But I will wait for hard evidence (for example Mr Cameron publically calling for the cutting of a popular government scheme, or the repeal of a popular statute or other regulation), before I start to believe that he has had a change of heart.
On local government:
Private Eye (a British political humour magazine) used to have a section called “Rotten Boroughs” with a cartoon of two rats (dressed in ceremonial chains of office and so on) and stories of the latest council corruption.
However, from my own experience in local affairs (which goes back many years) I would say that the real problem is not corruption – but blind belief in imposing the latest fads and fashions (either trying to get local government to “make people’s lives better”, or simply changing things for the sake of changing them).
Thi attitude (for want of a better word) effects all political parties (and, sadly, what “independents” remain in local government are also dominated by it) and just brushes aside carefully prepared and presented empircial evidence and examination of this evidence (which would be, say, Guy Herbert’s way of trying to counter it) or reasoning from first principles (which is more my way).
I can not give specific defails at this time – as I am under the election ban (till May 3rd). But the examples are many and gross.
So the idea that “public services will be run better if they are run by local government” is not true. Nor is local government control in any way “ownership by the local people” (that is a collectivist fantasy).
The only good argument for local (as opposed to national) government is that enables people to “vote with their feet” – i.e. that individuals and business enterprises can move from areas of high local tax and regulations to areas with lower local tax and regulations (thus putting a downward pressure on the size of government).
However, this argument is undermined in Britain. And it is odd how long ago it started to be undermined.
As long ago as 1875 (under Disraeli) about 40 functions of local government were made compulsory (i.e. if the local people did not want them they still had to have them) – making a mockery of “local autonomy”. Some things were compulsory even before 1875 – such as police (made compulsory in 1856 if my memory does not play me false).
Also national government funding of local affairs started very early in Britain. At first it was tiny – such as the experimental grant to education in 1833 (which went directly to a few schools, rather than to local government – the Muncipal Corporation Act, that set up modern local government, not even being passed till 1835).
Various grants were made directly to local government, but one could still argue that local government and this grew over time.
In the 1920’s and 1930’s national government (under the influence of Neville Chamberlain) became a big player indeed in the financing of local government (and “he who pays the piper calls the tune”).
These days something like 80% of local government finance comes from national government, and the vast majority of local government spending is mandated by national government (via a complex web of regulations and grants).
Just how odd the system has become is shown by the various political parties (for example) all arguing over who should take the “credit” for X policy (a policy that people in the town detest) – thus showing that local politicians are no more “in touch” than national ones. And the policy not being a local government choice anyway (but being mandated by national government).
We live in a age of “Chief Executives” (since the “reforms” or Edward Heath and Peter Walker in the early 1970’s) rather than Town Clerks, an age where local councilors are controlled by local government officers (working under the direction of the national and E.U. administrative structures) rather than the other way round.
It is a time when local councillors (perhaps because of the influence of local government officers and national government, but perhaps just because of what Perry would call the “Metacontext” – the spirit of the age) follow fashions that were refuted decades ago (everything from “planning” to “cutting edge”, i.e. 1950’s and 1960’s, architecture).
Everyone (regardless of party) talks in a strage “management speak” (for example talking about “customers” rather than residents or people) and plans strange developments (again I wish I could give specific examples, but I can not for the next week or so, still they are clear enough if one reads the party manifesto documents – although I may be one of the few people in the country who does that).
Also there is the great weight of paperwork (very “Yes Minister” style) in which vast amounts of nonsense are dumped on councilors (it really did not use to be like this – and within living memory, i.e. before Heath and Walker). Although there were often terrible judgements before the age of paperwork (local government “housing policy” from World War II throught the 1960’s was demented – a good example is the work of John Major in Lambeth, he was at least as bad as any Labour party Housing Committee Chairman).
But at least local councilors had time to think in those days – so if they made bad judgements they were their own judgements.
These days local councillors are buried alive by paper, and all real judgements are made by the local “cabinets” (a tiny group of councilors dominated by the leader of the council – a structure set up by New Labour) and the rest of the councilors are really just there for show (like the bank bench members of the House of Commons).
Of course, as I have indicated above, the inner most truth is that the “cabinets” and the council leaders do not really make the basic judgements either – policy is really set by the administrative structure (local, national and E.U.).
Will Mr Cameron change all this? Well it would be nice to think so but………..
If anyone has the energy to read my long comment above, they may ask “why do councillors not denouce all this – surely there are some decent councillors”.
Well you see there is a administrative authority, set up by the present Labour government, called the “Local Government Standards Board of England and Wales” – and this organization takes a dim view of councillors attacking the power of the administrative structure (“bringing the council into disrepute”, a term that used to mean being corrupt, but can now mean just attacking the system – even attacking it for being corrupt) and for the “common law” doctrine of having a “predudicial interest” (there is no such common law doctrine in this sense – the Local Government Standards Board made it up, but the courts just tend to refer cases back to the Board) – having a “predudicial interest” does not mean having a financial interest (one always had to declare that), it may mean simply having a record of opposing a policy – organizing protests, writing articles (including internet articles) and so on.
If one is found to have such a negative interest (have a record of supporting a policy of the administrative structure is fine) one may not be allowed to vote (if there are votes), or even speak on the matter in a council chamber.
Chrisopher Booker is the only journalist I know who writes often on this topic (he has been writing about it for years in the “Sunday Telegraph”), but “political” people (including many people at the Sunday Telegraph itself) are, mostly, not interested, and the public (who get their news from television and radio) simply do not know.
There is supposed to be a new “code of conduct” comming into force. We will have to see how (if at all) this changed matters.
Paul Marks: fascinating stuff. I hope you write more on this after the ban. Presumably you are running in a local election of some sort?
Paul Marks,
Good article, I would not trust local government or the central one either, both are bad. I see you mention the regulatory body that stops councillors voting on things they are known to disagree with, I too read the Booker column. One thing that puzzles me is that with that happening, how can a local council set up a limited company wholly owned by the council, put all their vehicles in it, and then put all major works to that company, conflict of interest anyone! Perhaps after the elections you could comment further.
Paul Marks,
Good article, I would not trust local government or the central one either, both are bad. I see you mention the regulatory body that stops councillors voting on things they are known to disagree with, I too read the Booker column. One thing that puzzles me is that with that happening, how can a local council set up a limited company wholly owned by the council, put all their vehicles in it, and then put all major works to that company, conflict of interest anyone! Perhaps after the elections you could comment further.
Paul Marks,
Good article, I would not trust local government or the central one either, both are bad. I see you mention the regulatory body that stops councillors voting on things they are known to disagree with, I too read the Booker column. One thing that puzzles me is that with that happening, how can a local council set up a limited company wholly owned by the council, put all their vehicles in it, and then put all major works to that company, conflict of interest anyone! Perhaps after the elections you could comment further.
That reply showed that you are clearly a student of this site and have more idea of what they say than you originally let on.
I would say that Libertarians in Britain (but this site is not exclusively British) have an Alliance because they consider the formulation of hard policy prejudicial to their cause.
I would disagree.
The MSM love to report concretes, it is still something they are capable of doing, and would raise the Libertarian profile.
Look how quickly Respect came from nowhere to having an MP.
That reply showed that you are clearly a student of this site and have more idea of what they say than you originally let on.
I would say that Libertarians in Britain (but this site is not exclusively British) have an Alliance because they consider the formulation of hard policy prejudicial to their cause.
I would disagree.
The MSM love to report concretes, it is still something they are capable of doing, and would raise the Libertarian profile.
Look how quickly Respect came from nowhere to having an MP.
Pietr:
All of us here (including me) will give you hard policy suggestions all day long – it is just that only a tiny minority of people in Britain are interested in what we say.
As for the “Libertarian Alliance” – I go back with that a long way (although Brian M. and the late Dr Chris Tame go back a lot further than me – they were active back in the 1970’s, when I was a school boy who, absurdly, thought he was the only libertarian in the world). It was called an “Alliance” because it hoped that various groups t would cooperate via it (it was never intended to be a political party or anything like that).
That idea never really worked well. Although some antiSoviet organizations worked with the L.A. and the Federation of Conservative Students worked with the L.A. also (which is how I met Chris and Brian).
After the F.C.S. was destroyed (ironically it was the loyal Chairman of the Conservative party, Norman Tebbit, who ordered that – blissfully unaware that the very people who were feeding him disinformation about F.C.S. were using the destruction of F.C.S. as a “trial run” for their later destruction of Mrs Thatcher), a lot of things fell apart – and have never really got back together.
Local government – am I a candidate and stuff: Various people have asked this.
This weird story (and it is very weird indeed) is all under the ban.
I can say that a few weeks ago I got a big shock, but that is about it.
As for demented policies from political parties here – I do not have to attack them in internet comments. The crazy policies are all over the manifestos and leaflets of the various parties.
Even stories in the popular press (such as the attack on household waste collection moving from every week to every two weeks – “only good for rats” as the “Daily Mail” put it yesterday) do not have any impact on the political parties. They all fall over themselves claiming “credit” for the policies the residents of the towns and villages of this country detest.
Paul-we paranoids often like to hear things we knew already.
I met Chris and Brian briefly during my sojourn through the 80s.
I wasn’t finding myself; I was finding the world. It had apparently vanished without a trace, except relics like Beckton gasworks(bigger than the City!)
Anyway, thanks for that.
I now have to get Samizdata back onto my blogroll-I thought the dodgy download was a censorship too far, but apparently I’m not the only one getting a bug and posting twice.
I suggest that if Libertarians go for the jugular(the mainstream), they call the party anything except Libertarian.
Perhaps something vague and portentious like ‘Respect’, but even more confusing.
Then they would stand a chance of pulling their own strings without being seen to do so.
It would scare the crap out of the status quo, and they would dig their own holes asap.