As AJP Taylor once wrote, “until August 1914 a sensible, law-abiding Englishman could pass through life and hardly notice the existence of the state beyond the post office and the policeman”.
That is emphatically not the case today. Having won the wars, the advocates of freedom comprehensively lost the peace. They lost to such a degree that those of us born and raised afterwards find it hard to comprehend the scale of the change.
It’s easiest to start with the size of the state. To be sure, socialism in Britain has receded from its high point. The nationalisation of coal, iron, steel, electricity, gas, roads, aviation, telecommunications, and railways has been mostly undone, although steel and rail are on the way back in.
But by comparison to our pre-war starting point, we live in a nearly unrecognisable country. In 1913, taxes and spending took up around 8 per cent of GDP. Today, they account for 35 per cent and 45 per cent respectively. To put it another way, almost half of all economic activity in Britain involves funds allocated at the behest of the government, and over half of British adults rely on the state for major parts of their income.
And if anything, this understates the degree of government control. Outcomes which are nominally left to the market are rigged by a state which sees prices as less as a way for markets to clear, and more as a tool for social engineering.
– Sam Ashworth-Hayes (£)
AJP Taylor was wrong – as the state had been expanding in Britain since at least the 1870s (even as a proportion of the economy).
The figures given for both 1913 and for now, look a bit on the low side (the state was bigger than that) – but the central point is valid, government spending has vastly increased.
So have regulations – which now control all aspects of life, including what we may say and write.
“Social Reform” was always going to lead to this – it is the nature of the “Social Justice” beast.
People who talk about us being a “free country” with basic “civil liberties” are liars – and things are going to get much worse.
An establishment educated (or indoctrinated) with the ideas of Thomas Hobbes, Sir William Blackstone (who claimed to believe in Natural Law – Natural Justice – but would let Parliament violate it to any extent it felt like doing), David Hume, Jeremy Bentham and-so-on (let alone that part of the establishment who follow various forms of Marxism – they are WORSE) do not believe in rights AGAINST the state – they do not believe that humans are even human beings, free will moral agents.
The establishment conception of what used to be called “the nature of man” (what they think humans are) is incompatible, totally incompatible, with a free society.
And the establishment most certainly includes the judges. One can no longer expect natural justice from the courts – any more than one can expect natural justice from the High Court of the Monarch in Parliament.
Although the state only started to grow, as a proportion of the economy, in the 1870s, the establishment were already riddled with “Social Reform” thinking – for example, both Tories such as Lord Stanley (later the Earl of Derby) who imposed a system of state education on Ireland and was so keen on other forms of statism that J.S. Mill declared that Stanley-Derby’s entire philosophy could be summed up in one word “Liberticide” AND the leading Whig Lord Russell.
Far from being a supporter of “laissez faire”, as the imbecile history books falsely claim, Lord Russell was a devoted state interventionist – from imposing a Poor Law system of taxation on Ireland in 1838 (the taxes went up massively in the late 1840s), to teacher training in England and Wales, to (of course) bank bailouts (must not let the Credit Bubble banks go bust – on dear me no) and everything else he could think of.
If I had to name a time when the establishment were not interested in pushing “Social Reform” (i.e. statism) I would have to go all the way back to the 1820s – some two centuries ago. In the 1820s there were Tories such as Lord Liverpool, “Prosperity” Robinson, and Canning (all good men) – and Whigs such as Henry Brougham (the great campaigner against Income Tax).
Yes – the economy was still growing faster than the state till the 1870s, so YES the state was still shrinking till the 1870s – but it was not because the establishment by then were any good, they were NOT. With a few exceptions such as Lord Palmerston.
For a typical member of the 19th century British establishment I present to you Sir Charles Trevelyan (another person the imbecile history books falsely claim believed in “laissez faire”).
A sneak at school, informing on the “moral conduct” of other boys. A failure in India (and greatly honoured for his failure – as his reports presented his failure as success), a disaster in Ireland, with around 1 in 4 of the population either dying or fleeing the country (again Sir Charles was greatly honoured for his failure in Ireland – as his reports presented failure as success), and founder of the British Civil Service.
The Civil Service embodies the two main characteristics of its founder Sir Charles Trevelyan – moral self righteousness – an utter conviction of its own moral probity and general wonderfulness (which it is always pointing out to everyone), and utter incompetence and uselessness – indeed to the point of doing terrible harm.
“But what of Gladstone?”
I think Gladstone is best summed up by his biographer and personal friend – John Morley.
John Morley held that Gladstone set himself a great task in government – the abolition of Income Tax, which had been reimposed in the 1840s by Sir Robert Peel – in order to allow Peel to reduce tariffs.
Gladstone rightly wished to get rid of Income Tax on both economic and Civil Liberties grounds – in this he was in agreement with such pro liberty thinkers as Henry Brougham and John Bright.
But, as John Morley sadly relates, by the end of Gladstone’s time in government not only was income tax NOT abolished – it had actually become “Progressive” (graduated – due to that disgusting excuse for a man Sir William “we are all socialists now” Harcourt).
Gladstone is indeed an heroic figure – both in domestic policy (his opposition to government spending and the Income Tax) and in foreign policy, he was one of the few statesman to see that the threat of Islam had NOT gone away – hence his position on the Ottoman Empire, and if he had been listened to the First World War (which broke out 16 years after his death) would not have been as bad as it was – as the Ottoman Empire would not have been in a position to ally with Germany. And his belief that the struggle could not even be in the main be military, but had to be also intellectual – with the intellectual refutation of Islam. But, in the end, as his friend and biographer John Morley de facto admits – it is heroic FAILURE.
A good man who set out to do great things (such as abolish Income Tax) almost achieved them – but, in the end, failed.
By the way – “Rates”, what Americans rightly call Property Taxes, are taxes, and “National Insurance” is also a tax.
This is why the state was a bit more than 8% of the economy in 1913.
Most of Scotland did not have Poor Law Rates till the Act of 1845 – and France did not have taxes for poor relief till the 20th century (and did not have a system of the state education till the late 19th century), but there we are.
In Switzerland the centralisers won the war of 1847 – and the various referendums in the decades after it.
In the German lands relatively high tax Prussia conquered relatively lower taxed lands – this was called “German Unification”.
In the Italian lands relatively high tax Piedmont conquered relatively lower taxed lands – this was called “Italian Unification”.
In 1870 relatively big government Prussia defeated relatively smaller government France – and Prussia became a lot bigger government after the war – with the “Social Reforms” of Bismarck (who like, the dreadful, Frederick the Great a century earlier – was greatly admired in Britain).
As Elrond puts it in “The Lord of the Rings” – for so many years we have “fought the long defeat”.
But we must not despair – for example Eastern Europe (including Russia) is a vastly less statist place than when I was born – there has been real progress.
And we can never tell when an interesting figure may appear – such as President Milei of Argentina, or King Louis X of France – who, in the Middle Ages, abolished slavery in France, abolished almost all serfdom (the history books would have you believe this happened in 1789 – it happened centuries before) granted charters of rights to towns and areas that lasted till 1789, and then died at the age of 26 – having only ruled for a couple of years.
On a further positive note.
The conservative candidate for President of Poland (an historian specializing in the study of totalitarianism) has won – so, hopefully, there will be real resistance to the International Community agenda of censorship and persecution.
Poland has not yet perished!
A point close to my heart is the control of overnight camping in national parks and other places. The state mindset being to bam and tax. All they know how to fo.
South Korea has fallen to China.
Not a surprise – he ex President tried to impose Martial Law to prevent this.
Geography means it was always going to be very hard to hold this area – it is just so economically dependent on China, and so infiltrated by Chinese the intelligence service.
For the record – the Democratic Party candidate denies he is a puppet of the People’s Republic of China and declares he is a good friend of Japan and the United States.