Samizdata

Being an ideologue of purity in the purist mould of teetotaller George Best, I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that the once politically invincible British Conservative Party is rapidly becoming untenable even to me, yes to me, a proud member of the intellectually lightweight jellyfish club. Witness this quote from today’s Daily Telegraph:

But there is also speculation that he [Oliver Letwin] will offer to spend more on health and education than Labour to rebut claims that the Tories will starve the public services of extra cash

Flubber.

We are being warned that there is an obesity ‘timebomb’ in Britain (which is to say, as in so many things, we are headed where the USA leads). The great and good of the medical establishment intone in sententious voices that “a far-reaching national strategy is needed” to deal with this.

So we can look forward to the state taking even further control of our very bodily functions, for our own good of course, no doubt starting with the children interned in state’s educational conscription centres. But then why the hell should we care about this whole problem? If obesity causes us to fall ill, we have the state’s National Health Service to look after us and pick up the tab! If being a porker makes us unhappy, we have the state’s social workers to tell us that there is nothing for us to worry about and in any case, how dare anyone utter ‘fatists’ slurs? Do these nasty doctors calling for “a far-reaching national strategy” not realise that by stigmatizing fat people, they are undoing the work of thousands of Guardian reading self-esteem councilors paid for out of tax money?

The solution to this statist regulatory tangle is to set one part of the social-welfare class again the other in a bitter begger-thy-neighbour “our victims have it worse than your victims” battle to the political death.

We could be on to a winner here… Let the welfare state eat itself.

I’m not fat! I’m a
horizontally challenged victim
of the capitalist system!

I have just been working my through a collection of essays by the noted British writer, Theodore Dalrymple, (that is not his real name, from what I can guess), who has spent much of his professional life dealing with muggers, burglars, murderers, drug addicts, the homeless, the variously abused, and other inhabitants of that twilight zone we might generalise as “the underclass”. It is a great book, full of harrowing detail, often illuminated by mordant wit and unintended humour.

Dalrymple could, I think, be fairly characterised as a social conservative. That a Britain full of grammar schools, nuclear families and draconian punishments for infractions of the law is his desired state of affairs cannot be in doubt. He subscribes to the view, unless I have misread him, that the social reforms of the 1960s, while perhaps containing some good elements, were taken as a whole a social catastrophe for the working class. But were they? Do we really want, for example, to a return to when homosexuality was a criminal offence? And has some of the loosening of old social taboos been quite the disaster he claims? I am not so sure.

Some of his targets – such as state welfare and education systems – deserve all the muck he heaps on them. But I have problems with the relentlessly gloomy tone of the publication, and this goes, I think, for a lot of commentary one gets to see from the conservative side of the cultural spectrum these days. Apart from the usual hints that we should go back to some sort of social order resembling the 1950s of myth and memory, there is very little in the way to any positive solutions to the ills on display.

What struck me about Dalrymple’s book is how different he is from our Victorian forbears. As well as setting out the problem, the generation that brought us the gospel of “self improvement” looked at the ugliness around them and said, more or less, that “it doesn’t have to be like this”. And they acted.

And it doesn’t have to be like this. We have seen, in New York for example, a dramatic fall in violent crime, due to a determined effort at proper policing.

And in that, I think, lies the point that the United States, unlike Britain, has not yet given up. If we are to deal with some of the issues Dalrymple mentions, it will not be enough merely to point out the ugliness around us from the elegant citadels of the Daily Telegraph’s editorial offices. We will need to sketch out how we get to a better place. For if we don’t, then Dalrymple will become nothing better than a very articulate bore.

You know, unlike my proprietor, I’m beginning to warm to Transylvania’s very own Michael Howard. But he just keeps failing to take his own thoughts to a natural logical conclusion.

After an ideologically mixed start, particularly with his comments about drugs, and support for his mini-me, David Blunkett, he’s still just coming out with platitudes, rather than policies, particularly with his speech yesterday entitled, The British Dream:

Too many are cheated of the decent education that is essential for people to make the best of their lives. Too many are cheated of the first class health care that they deserve. Why? Because we have a State that does too much, that interferes too much, that is too unaccountable.

No Michael, it doesn’t interfere too much. It just interferes. If more government can’t improve a situation, then surely less government is even better. And where does this logically end up? With no government at all. → Continue reading: The British dream