Before all the waffle obscures matters it is worth remembering what the government headed by Mr Blair actually was – a continuation of the government headed by Mr Major.
The same policies, more government borrowing, especially in the latter years of the Blair government, more government spending on health, education and welfare (and undermining of the armed forces), more regulations, and more power handed over to the EU.
On Afghanistan and Iraq it is hard to see the government of Mr Major not supporting the Americans (especially in the post 9/11 climate) so no difference on this either.
It is true that there has been so ‘rebranding’, for example the New Labour people seem to have a hatred of any name for a government body that implies a connection with the Crown – and they like sinister names like ‘the Ministry of Justice’, but how important this will prove I do not know.
I suppose the only real difference might be Mr Brown’s ‘stealth taxes’ with lots of complex ways to increase taxes whilst hoping no one will notice. Such as the Robert Maxwell style raid on the pension funds – which (counting lost interest) has cost about one hundred billion Pounds since 1997 (not much if one says it quick). Of course this might lead to a discussion of all of Mr Brown’s Enron style PFIs and other complex schemes – but I find the subject too depressing.
Anyway there is nothing that Mr Blair’s choice for Chancellor has done that Mr Major and ‘Ken’ Clarke might not have done (even the pension fund raid was under consideration by these people – and I bet they would have sold most of the gold reserve for half what it was worth just as he did), remember the ERM exchange rate rigging?
It was supported by all parties (Labour, Liberal and Conservative) with Mrs Thatcher finding herself forced to go along (with hindsight Mrs T. should have resigned rather than go along with it – after all the swine turned on her soon anyway).
Mrs Thatcher was interesting. Mr Blair (like Mr Major) was just another statist politician.
New Labour people seem to have a hatred of any name for a government body that implies a connection with the Crown
That’s not necessarily a bad thing if the result is that the monarch becomes less associated in the public mind with sinister and oppressive government agencies.
This may become important should conflicts similar to certain ones of the 17th century ever happen again.
Good point, knirirr, there is something to be said for seeing The Crown as ‘apart’ from the wickedness of Government.
The down side of breaking the links with the Crown is that Civil Servants are led further on the path of serving “The Project” (i.e. the various P.C. values of the goverment and those connected to it) and further away from British history and tradition.
The “Economist” magazine (sorry “newspaper”) had a big article on Mr Blair today – but I did not get to read it.
I chanced to read a play review first – it was a play about Iraq. The Economist thought the play was a bit over the top, but basically a good account of a “shameful episode”.
The “shameful episode” was not the murder, mutilation and hanging on a bridge of American civilian contractors (or the killing of lots of other civilians in the town by terrorists) – but rather made up “atrocities” by American soldiers. Supposedly against civilians who, in reality, had been given months to leave the town before the U.S. military went in.
After reading this play review I was not of a mind to read anything else in the “Economist” – even though the copy was free (I would never pay for the thing).
That’s an interesting point about the civil service, Paul. What I wonder is which side the armed forces will fall on. One would expect them to plump for the crown, but I’m not 100% certain these days.
Normally I would be opposed to all types of monarchy since almost by definition monarchies are anathema to liberal freedom. But then again, British monarchs haven’t dictated government policy for quite some time. I don’t think anyone equates the Crown with brutal crackdowns on the populace or public beheadings as they mave have hundreds of years ago.
In fact, the modern western ideals of freedom were formed and propagated while under the “reign” of these figureheads. “The Crown” as a phrase and as an office of power, has become a symbol for everything that is associated with Britishness from fish ‘n chips to freedom. Not at all unlike the Statue of Liberty or the US flag for us Americans.
Labour’s reason for trying to get rid of loyalty to the Crown isn’t to further freedom, but to erase it’s memory from the populace.
Just like the Communists and Islamists who always attempt to erase memories of the times before they gained power, these bastards who hold the reign’s of power now are most surely attempting to do the same thing. Not for everyone’s well being as they may say, but to replace the old memories and traditions with their own.
Blair’s main legacy will be institutionalising the populist client state to an extent never before witnessed in this country.
I had really hoped to scoop the lot of you with my FT obtained several hours before they went on sale to the public, but unfortunately my night shift intervened, and I was too shagged to write anything by 530 am; at 730 am I had to do a full day shift, so here I am at 1330 with no article written and everybody already looking forward to Monday’s edition.
But I can say this: watch out for Brown.
He is trying to present himself as the real new Labour, the man who will deliver on the promises of 1997.
That might win him the next election through good-will alone.
It will be necessary to sit on him like a fat woman on a cream cake.
pietr is correct.
Mr Brown will present himself as a reformer of the Welfare State (whilst, at the same time, getting on better with traditional Labour party supporters).
In fact (as the Labour M.P. Frank Field has pointed out for years) Mr Brown is not in favour of real reform – he is in favour of spending more money, and messing about with reorganizations, “targets” and other such.
Contrary to some libertarians (whose despair at the failings of representative democracy make them look at any alterntive) I am certainly not a fan of all powerful monarchies.
However, the monarchy was a part (an element) or our mixed constitution. Once it threatened to become too powerful (I do not think that Edmund Burke was paranoid in mid to late 18th century – there was a real danger, not so much from George III as an individual as from the interests connected in to the executive), but its decline has also been a bad thing.
“Which way would the armed forces jump these days” – like the person who posed the question I am not sure.
I think the most important legacy of Blair is his assault on personal freedom and legal due process. I could forgive Cameron much if he would restore the balance between the state and the individual before the law and disentangle the state from people’s lives, speech and thoughts.
So Blair was a disappointment? And Brown is going to be a disappointment too. Major was a disappointment. Thatcher was also disappointing, in many regards. As have been the leaders of most Western democracies since the end of WWII.
The problem is not the individuals, who are simply fallible human beings like all the rest of us. The problem is the structure of modern western democracy. Not sustainable. Will not last. We are living inside a modern version of the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or maybe the USSR — a rotting structure that simply waits for the push from outside to make it collapse. If history tells us anything, it is — that outside push will come.
What would we like people in the future to know about the slow death of western liberal democracies? What lessons should they learn from our decline?
One legacy will be his acceleration of the destruction of the English Common Law. As the Libertarian Alliance author, Sean Gabb has argued, however, the process began long before Blair, arguably decades ago. However, Blair, despite being trained barrister and a product of a fine school (Fettes), and university (Oxford), has a contempt for English history and traditions that verges on the pathological.
The continuity with the John Major years is a good point to make.
Maggie was indeed an interesting politician. Her achievements were major (trade union reform, lower inflation, most of the privatisations, tax cuts, defeat of Argentina, etc). However, she was as cunning as less admirable politicians when necessary and had a share of failures. She was prepared to compromise where necessary: arguably she regrets the Single European Act and could and should have done more to roll back the state. Remember that the state took about 40% of GDP by the time she was ousted.
Arguably, Maggie could and should have done more to spell out the case for her brand of conservatism, although she was probably the last major Tory politician to believe that ideas matter and are worth fighting for. As for the current crop, the less said, the better.
Johnathan is correct about the Single European Act.
I remember opposing back in 1986 (yes I am that old), but Mrs T. was given very misleading advice (the lady was told that the agreement was about creating free trade in Europe – but to people who would interpret the treaty a “single market” was just an excuse for a endless tide of regulations).
On the size of government. Both the total size of government (counting state owned companies) and government spending alone (as percentage of the economy) also declinned – after the terrible increase of 1979-1982 (Chancellor Howe accepted every state pay deal that the Labour government had given way on and generally let government spending rip increasing overall taxation as welll – this, contrary to the media and academia, was one of the reasons the recession of 1979-1982 was so bad).
By the last years of Mrs T. government spending was smaller (as a percentage of G.D.P.) than it had been in 1979 (Mrs T. was the first Prime Minister for decades for which this was true).
Individuals do matter. Mrs Thatcher did mean to roll back the state (whatever Dr Gabb may claim) and faught against terrible odds (including endless backstabbing from “friends and allies”).
Mr Major and Mr Blair were not people who meant well – they were (and are) both statists.
Nor are they even good men in their personal dealings. And I do not just mean Mr Major making “back to basics” speeches whilst committing adultery.
I am certainly not a fan of all powerful monarchies
Well, nor am I, nor of monarchies in general.
However, a consititutional monarchy could well be a good wah to organise a state (if one must have one) and our own does not seem too bad. Not only are there the usual reasons of tradition, but the monarch is cheap and does not bother us with authoritarian laws.
Monarchy can indeed be fairly inexpensive knirirr
For example George III did not cost much (he lived in a small house and was frugal), but his son George IV was a bit wasteful (he and his builder John Nash left some nice things behind though).
Of course even George IV was a tiny percentage of total government spending (normally the Crown estates take in far more revenue for the government than the government spends on the Royals anyway).
Even the great court of Louis XVI (which was really the court of Louis XIV – Louis XVI being the prisoner of a structure of a system set up a century before he became King) only cost a small fraction of government spending in France (contrary to accounts of Necker).
As in England most government spending went on the military and on servicing the national debt (Necker wanted to down play such things – partly because powerful people in France had supported the intervention in support of the American war of independence, so they wanted French fiscal problems to be blamed on Royal luxury).
France under Louis XVI (as with Russia under Nickolas II) shows that a government where everything depends on a strong monarch can not work when the monarch is a weak man. The system worked for by various Kings and ministers of France and finally completed by Louis XIV, could not work with a man like Louis XIV “in charge”.
A constitutional monarchy (a real constitutional monarchy, as Britian used to be, not as it now where the monarch is just the star on top of the Christmas Tree) where the monarch is part of system of checks and balances, can get by if the monarch is weak – or even if the health of the monarch totally brakes down (as, for example, the health of George III did).
Not exactly. The system has an inbuilt flaw, in that a monarch cannot be replaced in the way an elected president can.
Like a dictator, a monarch is usually in office for life.
A weak or self-serving monarch like the present British Queen who acts merely as a rubber stamp to give faux legitimacy to the excesses of corrupt and venal politicians, is a menace to the nation.
Stuart, then you clearly do not understand the role of the monarchy. It is not ‘weak’ because it reign, not rules, and it therefore not political at all. The object is for the monarchy to act as an embodiment of the Nation, not the government. The fact it cannot be replaced is why it is not political. If we voted for the monarch, it would be political.
If we voted for the monarch, it wouldn’t be weak.
Major’s government – Mr Chancellor Clark – also began the spending splurge and stealth taxes, so I think Perry is wrong on differences.
The big differences have been in the Blair administration’s direct hostility to personal liberty (with the sole exception of a very narrow conception of gay rights) and its determined attempt to remake both the constitution and the language of politics to make opposition to The Project impossible. The latter still looks like having succeeded. Major’s administration had a lot of nasty statism about it, but we forget how much weaker the state was in those distant days, quantitatively as well as ideologically.
Sorry to both Perry and Paul for typing one when I meant the other.
pietr,
If we voted for a monarch then they wouldn’t be a monarch.
Paul,
I’d heard that 1/3 of the French Budget went on toms for Louis XIV(?). He required a different girl each night and they had to be a virgin. Apparently he had a massive state apparatus to scour France for the prettiest peasant girls, educate them and get them up to speed with ettiquette and stuff. He’s then pray with them for the sin they were about to commit, have his wicked way with them and then they’d be pensioned off so as to avoid scandal.
Now, if that’s not true I’ll be almost as upset as I was when I found out that the tale about the death of Catherine the Great wasn’t true.
Still, I’ve always got Edward II’s grisly end, the antics of Vlad Teppich and Elizabeth of Hungary and the amusing contraption that allowed Edward VII to have a shag despite his Prescottian belly to warm the cockles of my heart.
The royals of the past were far more entertaining than the anaemic lot we’ve got today. Best this lot seem to manage is a fantasy about being some double-barrelled minger’s tampon.
Where now the glory and the dream?
If we elected the monarch she wouldn’t be a monarch.
But do you see anyone being voted over the (ex) Queen for President?
I’d love it.
So would she.
Imagine; she would write her own speech-and the Blairheads would have to obey!
Guy – I thought I had made clear that Mr Major and “Ken” greatly increased government spending and would have done much the same thing on tax that Mr Brown did (for example I mentioned that they started the Pension Fund stuff).
However, I have learned by experience that there is a communication problem between us. This is not an attack on you – indeed it may be my poor command of language that is the problem.
An example of this was my leaving out the word “even” when I wrote that a constitutional monarchy can get by even if the monarch is weak.
Unlike Perry I am not fond of totally apolitical Kings and Queens. On certain political issues a monarch may have a vital role to play – this was part of the old idea of a mixed or balanced constitution. The King was unelected (and therefore not subject to the pursuit of popularity), but (unlike the Lords) not really part of the agricultural interest (inspite of some Kings, such as George III, being very interested in farming) and therefore could look beyond a sectional interest to the national interest (people who thing that Monarchs are just part of the “aristocratic class” know nothing about European history over the last thousand years, Kings and aristocrats have often got on very badly indeed, indeed most revolts against Kings have been organised by lords – the monarch and the artistocracy are very different things).
Even as late as 1846 one of the arguments made to Queen Victoria (in order to convice the Queen to go along with Peel against the Lords over the repeal of the Corn Laws) was that it was her duty to side with the national interest, not just the interests of a paticular group. I know it is claimed that a similar thing was done over the “People’s Budget” of 1909 but, in reality, even Lloyd-George did not think he was acting in the national interest (he was just hitting the Lords with higher taxes in order to provoke them into voting against the budget so that he could have a “People against the Peers” slogan for the 1910 elections – the government being very unpopular, losing byelection after byelection, till Lloyd-George thought up this stunt). If anything the situation was exactly the reverse of 1846 – then the Lords were trying to prevent a tax reduction on imported food in order to protect the agricultural interest, in 1909 the Lords opposed a tax increase directed against a particular section of the nation (in blatent violation of the basic principles of justice).
To return to more honourable men than Lloyd-George.
Burke and Rockingham (and so on) thought that George III (and the forces around him) were becomming too powerful – but they did not want to reduce the King to a bit of glitter with no power at all.
However I accept that a monarch is harder to get rid of than a President (under the American system).
Waiting four years for the next election is better than waiting for the king to die.
Of course both Kings and Presidents can be removed during their time in office – but only in very special circumstances.
Louis XIV.
If only this man had spent a third of his budget on women. Sadly he spent it on wars of conquest (lots of wars and very major and nasty wars at that – the idea that wars of the late 17th and early 18th century were gentlemanly does not stand up to close examination).
True he also some nice buildings put up (and yes he had an eye for the ladies – although their cost was a tiny fraction of the total budget), but he was terrible King – both for France and for Europe.
It would have been better if Louis XVIII (who also commanded in battle, inspite of his T.B., – but only when war was forced on him, not out of a lust for conquest) had not had a son.
Have a better idea? And not having women standing in fish ponds handing our scimitars. That’s already been done.
Actually, I’ve been following the story of Cornet Harry Wales with some interest. Are you guys ready for another Richard the Lion-Hearted?
Royalty is the circus.
The bread has also been doctored.
Of course I meant Louis XIII – why I typed Louis XVIII, I do not know.
Can’t see any Tory party (regardless of leadership) allowing a ban on fox hunting to pass into law.
Otherwise, Paul, your thesis is largely (and sadly) true.
‘New Labour’ – did you think they weren’t old socialists? Well, more laws, more State, more surveillance, more taxes, more bans should teach you.
Listen as politicians pledge themselves to a leader we never chose, to a ‘party’ with less than 200,000 members … oh, and us. They have talked to us on doorsteps, they say, and (surprise!) ‘we’ agree with them.
When a politician, a prime minister, says that he’s listened to the people, how shall we get him to prove it? Elections? Referenda? …would be nice.
Government from a Downing St. sofa at least has room for two or three if you’re cosy. If it becomes a chair, there’s only room for a puppet on the president’s knee.
The distance from the Crown increases the nearness to the presidency.