|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Shadow of an Illusion Crew
|
 Posted: Sat Sep 08, 2007 4:01 pm
 |
|
|
 |
Heterodyne Invictus_88 I've an instinctive contempt for a lot of Socialists. You're impressively balanced though, you have a sense of rationality about things. I'm not quite used to it. Bravo, though. I'm very pleased to see it. Why Socialism? Invictus_88 Two Socialists in our midst? Watch out, the dangerous reds are coming for you all. We'll re-nationalise your public service business models as you sleep... Maybe not... sweatdrop Why socialism indeed? Dammit, this could get complicated... First off, I'll separate New Labour from Socialism... (no shouts from the gallery that Blair's already done that, thanks ^^) There is a strong case to be made that Labour was never *Socialist* in the same way that European socialist movements were, and instead, was initially founded on the combined basis of Trade Unionism, and Christian humanitarianism around 1901, (1903?) if memory serves. To whatever extent Labour was socialist originally, the existence of socialism within the party was progressively altered in ways as to ameliorate its co-existance with the success and security of capitalism (i.e. becoming Parliamentary rather than Revolutionary in character, and aiming to mitigate the worst effects of capitalism rather than condemn it as innately unjust). Post Third Way, I feel Labour stands most for communitarianism and positive freedom (the more left-wing side of Liberalism which embraces an enabling state, rather than negative freedom, which grants the absolute liberty of the individual to the freedom within their means - that is, not a great deal if they live in the gutters of the social strata.) I'm afraid that I'm arguing in a way that's meandering around a bit, but the truth is, that I'm still forming where I am politically (and will continue to do so, I hope - too many people fail to be progressively critical about what they believe in) . I spent most of the Open Day at Trinity arguing with a Law Professor about the rightful extent of state intervention (turns out he's the College Dean... rolleyes I must have bee set to auto-dispute... ). My point is, from looking at Labour first, that I consider myself largely in line with the Labour political position when it comes to supporting a party. So, I am red, but it's the red of the rose, and not of a flag waving above a massed crowd of the working classes. (I still find it funny that the Tory torch was usurped by a scribble-tree. Admittedly though, the torch did resemble an ice-cream cone more with each passing year... mrgreen ) This, however, is not enough to call myself 'socialist'. Going back to the roots of the big three political ideologies, Liberalism, Conservatism, and Socialism, I feel the foundation of each is upon their conflicting judgements of human nature. This following bit is going to be simplistic, and controversial, I'm afraid - (informed by a course based on Andrew Heywood's 'Political Ideologies')
Human Nature?
Socialism - Essentially creative, sociable, co-operative, corrupted by difficult social circumstances.
Liberalism - Self-interested, enterprising, innately endowed with the right to freedom, society is comprised of atomistic individuals
Consevatism - on average, human nature is essentially weak, requiring the direction and security of authority and organically evolved tradition. Tradition represents the very best of human wisdom, tested by time.
Thatcherism - Neoliberal and neoconservative threads conflict, as neoliberalism encourages enterprise and personal responsibility, while neoconservatism demands authoritarian law and order policies to clamp down on human moral weakness. Or, is it that the two threads are complimentary? Could the harsh law and order measures be required to dampen the social unrest caused by the inequality generated by a wholesale neoliberal approval of rampant capitalism?
So, where do I stand? I cannot say that humanity is overwhelmingly innately co-operative. In fact, experience has directed me to the conclusion that some individuals are, or are very close to, being innately irrationally malevolant (consider the character type of Shakespeare's Iago). I place more of an emphasis on the plasticity of human nature, so my perspective is that humanity has the greatest potential to be co-operative, creative and socially orientated, but is innately self-interested. When it comes down to raw political philosophy, I'm probably a Liberal Socialist, or a Social Liberal. (Yellow + Red = Orange? ^^; ) I'm driven further towards the left, however, by the fact that I regard widespread, extensive state intervention in the form of public services, which would ideally match those provided by the private sector (within the bounds of reason...I can't see public money funding past life regression therapy on a broad basis anytime soon), as essential. When it comes to health, housing and education, redistribution of wealth through taxation is of utmost importance. Where I diverge from notions of Liberal positive freedom into the realm of Liberal Social Democracy, is that while amelioration of the harsh conditions some face is required, or necessary, in order to comply with the positive liberal view of freedom, I feel that some extent of egalitarianism through redistribution is desirable. There is, however, an emotional and irrational element to my leaning towards the left, and Socialism/Liberal Social Democracy/Whatever it is I believe in. *Takes the impartial blindfold of rationalism off. Puts the scales of balance down.* *Goes cross-eyed* sweatdrop Mr. Bono Vox My theory is that socialism is seen by the layman as a more 'caring' political philosophy. I agree. There's some visual stimulus in the typically considered 'warm, passionate' red against the more sober and heraldic Tory blue as well. There will always be the history of workers versus landowners, despite the working class as a conscious power having largely been dissolved by the decline of the labour market, and the rise of the vast lower middle class... The idea of 'socialism' which still retains a vague attatchment (in the mind of the country, at least) to the Labour party, continues to draw support from those on the poverty line, and I must say, that my family has a long history of being...financially challenged. Divorce, while sometimes rightfully inevitable, has a habit of stretching money to breaking point, and I remember a marked improvement in the standard of living my mum could maintain for my brother and I when Major went (I was about 8 ), and Labour economics and tax credits came in. They are quiet redistribution, and one of the last geniune elements of socialism in the Labour party. Also, my personal interests are wrapped up with the existence of a kind form of social mobility. As well as adoring education simply for the sake of it, it's been a pretty good ladder so far. ^_^ Not, of course, that the current system of helping those in a financial hole is particularly finely tuned. The flat ceiling of Working Families Tax Credit being what it is, there is little incentive for people to try and increase their income through promotion, as the outcome of working for 16 hours a week at a low-ish (about £7, say) wage and that of working for the same rate for a standard 30+ hour week leaves you with roughly the same monthly income. Enough of the specifics, however... there's always the possibility that the phylo-genetic memory in the Scottish bit of my blood is constantly yelling at me to move toward the left.... my great grandparents through my grandad's side were Communists. xd Mark Twain got the heart of the problem with Communism in saying that it falls down because people like to own stuff. cool I could talk about my distaste for the enshrinement of tradition, the reactionary side of High Toryism, how I believe that some extent Inheritance tax is necessary for social justice, and how I dispute that wealth generated will naturally 'trickle down', but I've probably typed the hind leg of all the donkeys in the northern hemisphere, and it's getting light outside. Also, I'm going away for a couple of nights, or maybe a bit longer, so I'll be without internet access for a while. (...I hope my virtual Teutonic village isn't a pile of smoking ruins when I get back. neutral I play Travian. ^^) I hope I've been vaguely coherent. ^^ Somehow I always end up writing an essay whenever Thatcher gets mentioned. So... dare I ask... Why Conservatism? mrgreen
So the discussion can be continued... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
|
|
|
|
Heterodyne Invictus_88 I've an instinctive contempt for a lot of Socialists. You're impressively balanced though, you have a sense of rationality about things. I'm not quite used to it. Bravo, though. I'm very pleased to see it. Why Socialism? Invictus_88 Two Socialists in our midst? Watch out, the dangerous reds are coming for you all. We'll re-nationalise your public service business models as you sleep... Maybe not... sweatdrop Why socialism indeed? Dammit, this could get complicated... First off, I'll separate New Labour from Socialism... (no shouts from the gallery that Blair's already done that, thanks ^^) There is a strong case to be made that Labour was never *Socialist* in the same way that European socialist movements were, and instead, was initially founded on the combined basis of Trade Unionism, and Christian humanitarianism around 1901, (1903?) if memory serves. To whatever extent Labour was socialist originally, the existence of socialism within the party was progressively altered in ways as to ameliorate its co-existance with the success and security of capitalism (i.e. becoming Parliamentary rather than Revolutionary in character, and aiming to mitigate the worst effects of capitalism rather than condemn it as innately unjust). Post Third Way, I feel Labour stands most for communitarianism and positive freedom (the more left-wing side of Liberalism which embraces an enabling state, rather than negative freedom, which grants the absolute liberty of the individual to the freedom within their means - that is, not a great deal if they live in the gutters of the social strata.)
Personally, I'd disagree there. There is a prevalent desire by New Labour supporters to see it as liberal - and with equal ages of consent and civil partnerships for gays (a good idea and well overdue), they can point to that. But on the civil liberties front, they have managed to make the Thatcher administration look like sandal-wearing muesli eating woolly liberals.
-The maximum length of time the police could hold you without charge under Maggie & co. was 7 days*. Now it's 28 days, with the Govt pushing the 90 day option again and again (and howling at the Opposition parties for being "soft" by opposing it)
-Banning demonstrations in Parliament Square.
-ID Register and Cards.
-ASBOs. Control Orders. Getting rid of double jeopardy.
With Blunkett, Clarke and Reid having held the chair at the Home Office (and appearing to see the Howard tenure there as being a bare minimum on the authoritarian side), I worry about all freedoms.
(* Excluding the counterproductive internment experiment in Northern Ireland - you'd think politicians would learn, wouldn't you?)
On the "positive" and "negative" freedoms you quote, I did misunderstand on first read through, but I take it that a negative freedom is essentially abandonment where intervention should be indicated (eg freedom to starve)?
In which case, I (and this, I stress is a purely personal viewpoint) do not see a negative freedom as freedom at all. For me, a true freedom to choose is the core of freedom. No rational human would choose freely to starve to death; thus that choice is not indicative of any freedom. This theme is the core to my belief in what makes a free market free - if choice is constrained or unavailable, it may well be a market, but it ain't free.
Heterodyne I'm afraid that I'm arguing in a way that's meandering around a bit,
Somewhat like me in most arguments, then smile
Heterodyne but the truth is, that I'm still forming where I am politically (and will continue to do so, I hope - too many people fail to be progressively critical about what they believe in) . I spent most of the Open Day at Trinity arguing with a Law Professor about the rightful extent of state intervention (turns out he's the College Dean... rolleyes I must have bee set to auto-dispute... ). My point is, from looking at Labour first, that I consider myself largely in line with the Labour political position when it comes to supporting a party. So, I am red, but it's the red of the rose, and not of a flag waving above a massed crowd of the working classes. (I still find it funny that the Tory torch was usurped by a scribble-tree. Admittedly though, the torch did resemble an ice-cream cone more with each passing year... mrgreen ) This, however, is not enough to call myself 'socialist'. Going back to the roots of the big three political ideologies, Liberalism, Conservatism, and Socialism, I feel the foundation of each is upon their conflicting judgements of human nature. This following bit is going to be simplistic, and controversial, I'm afraid - (informed by a course based on Andrew Heywood's 'Political Ideologies')
Human Nature?
Socialism - Essentially creative, sociable, co-operative, corrupted by difficult social circumstances.
Liberalism - Self-interested, enterprising, innately endowed with the right to freedom, society is comprised of atomistic individuals
Consevatism - on average, human nature is essentially weak, requiring the direction and security of authority and organically evolved tradition. Tradition represents the very best of human wisdom, tested by time.
An interesting approach (I haven't read any Heywood). My viewpoint is that all three ideologies are orthogonal - they measure values in different directions. None of them is directly opposed to any other.
Liberal (freedom axis). Opposite: Authoritarian.
Conservative (change axis). Opposite: Radical.
Socialist (economic axis). Opposite: Individualist/Free-market/Ultra-Capitalist
A Liberal is one who believes in everyones freedom of thought and deed, where that freedom does not conflict with anothers freedom ("Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose")
A Conservative (from Peel's original definition) is one who wishes to manage change carefully, building on what has gone before and being hesitant to jettison what works (for this, I find Joel Spolsky's discussion of the the urge towards radical change by software coders to be evocative of the hazards of the Radical approach.) Some such as Salisbury used it to justify reactionism ("it" being the Conservative dictum, not Spolsky's opinions on software coding smile )- such is not actual conservatism.
A Socialist is one who wishes property and the distribution of wealth to be subject to the State (ordinarily, but the definition can include the wider community).
It is therefore quite possible to be a Liberal Conservative (see Churchill). Or a Liberal Socialist (See Roy Jenkins). Or a Radical Socialist (See Attlee). Or a Radical Liberal (See some aspects of Thatcher - one thing she was not was "Conservative"). Or even a Liberal Socialist Conservative (See Macmillan).
It is worth noting at this point that your definitions are not in substantive conflict with mine above, which is encouraging for me (ie. that I haven't misunderstood major ideologies smile )
Heterodyne
Thatcherism - Neoliberal and neoconservative threads conflict, as neoliberalism encourages enterprise and personal responsibility, while neoconservatism demands authoritarian law and order policies to clamp down on human moral weakness. Or, is it that the two threads are complimentary? Could the harsh law and order measures be required to dampen the social unrest caused by the inequality generated by a wholesale neoliberal approval of rampant capitalism?
Ooh. Interesting.
I'd put myself on the neoliberal side of things - I dislike authoritarianism (interestingly for a serving military Officer smile )
Heterodyne So, where do I stand? I cannot say that humanity is overwhelmingly innately co-operative. In fact, experience has directed me to the conclusion that some individuals are, or are very close to, being innately irrationally malevolant (consider the character type of Shakespeare's Iago). I place more of an emphasis on the plasticity of human nature, so my perspective is that humanity has the greatest potential to be co-operative, creative and socially orientated, but is innately self-interested. When it comes down to raw political philosophy, I'm probably a Liberal Socialist, or a Social Liberal. (Yellow + Red = Orange? ^^; )
Which seems to march well with my perception of the ideologies above. As said, I consider myself Liberal Conservative, so we aren't fundamentally opposed. Which is nice smile
Heterodyne I'm driven further towards the left, however, by the fact that I regard widespread, extensive state intervention in the form of public services, which would ideally match those provided by the private sector (within the bounds of reason...I can't see public money funding past life regression therapy on a broad basis anytime soon), as essential.
Here we come to the crux of my issue with Socialism (or at least, Socialism as it has been practiced here in the past). I have absolutely no issue with the concept of public money being used for public services - such is essential for civilisation, in my opinion. My quibble is public control - or rather, political control (which has been used as a synonym for such). Politicians taking control of swathes of industry and services in the name of the people tends to result in poor decision making (swayed by political consideration by the politicians and maximizing ones own budget and power in the case of the appointed officials - see Public choice theory for details.. You also run into the problem of the 4 ways of spending money:
"1) You spend your own money on yourself. You look for quality and value.
2) You spend your own money on other people. You still look for value, but quality's not so important.
3) You spend other people's money on yourself. Quality - and don't worry about the cost.
4) You spend other people's money on other people. Any old thing will do - and who cares what it costs.
Unfortunately, most government spending falls into this last category. This is how the grateful citizens of the Soviet Union got Chernobyl."
Systems such as Sweden's school voucher system (publically funded/privately run) or France's healthcare system (a blend of public and private) which avoid the hazards of public choice theory while providing public funding are, to me, the type of services to which we should aspire.
Heterodyne When it comes to health, housing and education, redistribution of wealth through taxation is of utmost importance. Where I diverge from notions of Liberal positive freedom into the realm of Liberal Social Democracy, is that while amelioration of the harsh conditions some face is required, or necessary, in order to comply with the positive liberal view of freedom, I feel that some extent of egalitarianism through redistribution is desirable.
I think that this is where we diverge. For me, mitigation of conditions/provision of services and facilities through public sources is an absolute issue rather than a relative one. If a family has education facilities, healthcare, housing, food, communications, sanitation, power, entertainment, etc., it has them regardless of what another family has or has not. Everyone should have access to the basic necessities and requirements of modern human existence - which includes some provision for luxuries and non-necessities - and the opportunities to increase such provision for themselves, their families and their communities (in my opinion). That some families have more money than me does not make me poorer - I have exactly what I had before I learned of the existence of Robert Branson, for example; his wealth has not made me worse off.
Heterodyne There is, however, an emotional and irrational element to my leaning towards the left, and Socialism/Liberal Social Democracy/Whatever it is I believe in.
Of course. For all of us, there are irrational elements to out political leanings. Humans are not rational animals; we are rationalising animals. Some events and issues in our formative years, whether consciously remembered or not, will always tilt us away from pure logic and reason. Thank God. No-one could be more boring than a truly rational person, I'd aver.
Much of political perception has far less to do with reality and more to do with "received wisdom". For example: It is "well known" that the Tories slashed healthcare funding and it was always safe under Labour. Right?
But in only one year since the formation of the NHS has there been a cut in NHS funding in real terms: 1977. Under Callaghan's Labour government.
Under 18 years of Tory rule, in one year, the rise in NHS funding merely equalled inflation. This cost Health Secretary John Moore his chance at the top job - until this, he was seen as the golden boy and Maggie's successor. Afterwards, he was history - Maggie wouldn't forgive him for not helping the NHS, which she saw as her greatest Achilles heel.
In the other 17 years, the NHS budget always rose in real terms (ie, outpacing inflation). yet that perception I mentioned is well bedded in everywhere.
-shrug-
Heterodyne *Takes the impartial blindfold of rationalism off. Puts the scales of balance down.* *Goes cross-eyed* sweatdrop
Damn fine effort, at that.
-applauds-
Heterodyne Mr. Bono Vox My theory is that socialism is seen by the layman as a more 'caring' political philosophy. I agree. There's some visual stimulus in the typically considered 'warm, passionate' red against the more sober and heraldic Tory blue as well. There will always be the history of workers versus landowners, despite the working class as a conscious power having largely been dissolved by the decline of the labour market, and the rise of the vast lower middle class... The idea of 'socialism' which still retains a vague attatchment (in the mind of the country, at least) to the Labour party, continues to draw support from those on the poverty line, and I must say, that my family has a long history of being...financially challenged. Divorce, while sometimes rightfully inevitable, has a habit of stretching money to breaking point, and I remember a marked improvement in the standard of living my mum could maintain for my brother and I when Major went (I was about 8 ), and Labour economics and tax credits came in. They are quiet redistribution, and one of the last geniune elements of socialism in the Labour party. Also, my personal interests are wrapped up with the existence of a kind form of social mobility. As well as adoring education simply for the sake of it, it's been a pretty good ladder so far. ^_^
There's probably a lot in that which formed your leanings, I'd guess. For me, the Winter of Discontent was at a similar period in my life, and I retain strong memories of the nationalised industries and services - this doubtless helped to form my leanings.
Heterodyne Not, of course, that the current system of helping those in a financial hole is particularly finely tuned. The flat ceiling of Working Families Tax Credit being what it is, there is little incentive for people to try and increase their income through promotion, as the outcome of working for 16 hours a week at a low-ish (about £7, say) wage and that of working for the same rate for a standard 30+ hour week leaves you with roughly the same monthly income.
Indeed. The poverty trap is very real.
Why oh why couldn't your party have listened to Frank Field - the most impressive Labour MP I've ever encountered. He's definitely on the Socialist wing (He'll never defect to the Tories, which is a loss to my side), but he genuinely did his job when Blair brought him in to "think the unthinkable - I won't sack you for it" (Field did. Blair sacked him).
Heterodyne Enough of the specifics, however... there's always the possibility that the phylo-genetic memory in the Scottish bit of my blood is constantly yelling at me to move toward the left.... my great grandparents through my grandad's side were Communists. xd Mark Twain got the heart of the problem with Communism in saying that it falls down because people like to own stuff. cool
May well be - but for the sake of mischief, I'd point out that the great Adam Smith was Scottish ...
Heterodyne I could talk about my distaste for the enshrinement of tradition, the reactionary side of High Toryism, how I believe that some extent Inheritance tax is necessary for social justice, and how I dispute that wealth generated will naturally 'trickle down', but I've probably typed the hind leg of all the donkeys in the northern hemisphere, and it's getting light outside.
To which I'd say: "Please do!"
Despite being in the Blue camp, I dislike the reactionary impulse and I agree that tradition kept for its own sake with no concept of why it exists is pointless.
Heterodyne Also, I'm going away for a couple of nights, or maybe a bit longer, so I'll be without internet access for a while. (...I hope my virtual Teutonic village isn't a pile of smoking ruins when I get back. neutral I play Travian. ^^) I hope I've been vaguely coherent. ^^ Somehow I always end up writing an essay whenever Thatcher gets mentioned. So... dare I ask... Why Conservatism? mrgreen
I hope I've answered your last question in my interleaved comments and answers. smile
Shadow of an Illusion So the discussion can be continued...
Thanks, Shadow. |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 12, 2007 4:42 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Sep 13, 2007 3:51 am
|
|
|
|
Quote: Socialism - Essentially creative, sociable, co-operative, corrupted by difficult social circumstances. ... Conservatism - on average, human nature is essentially weak, requiring the direction and security of authority and organically evolved tradition.
I'm having a difficult time agreeing with this assessment, as it seems to fly in the face of everything I've experienced.
To my toryish eyes, it seems to me that it is socialism which assumes people are largely weak and incapable of helping themselves, and so require a monstrously huge government tasked with ensuring that they all have their needs met, from food to education, and supervision of diet and parenting. It also suggests that people are weak enough that the wealthy should be 'broken' in order to 'free the workers'. Crazy.
By contrast, conservatism seems to stress the freedom and power of the individual to cast their own dice and choose their fate. This drives the consistently small government inclinations of the party, and the mistrust of prolonged intervention by the state into the lives of the individual.
Consequently, I've never quite been able to shake off my impression of socialists as well meaning but misguided, with high ideals but not much clue of practical economics or human nature.
I'm glad of the chance to actually debate though. For too many years I simply dismissed socialism as rabble-rousing tripe served up to an idiot proletariat by a few power-grabbing beardy foreigners. Not, I see now, the healthiest attitude to hold. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 17, 2007 2:03 pm
|
|
|
|
Invictus,
For the Conservative definition that this Heywood chappy used, I think that he means that he believes that Conservatism includes the view that "the people need strong leadership, informed by tradition".
We're always going to have different definitions of political ideologies - if you ask ten people to define "Socialism", you'll get 10 different answers. The same with "Conservatism" and "Liberalism".
For Conservatism has undergone many changes over the generations; the first establishment by Peel in an explicit change from the Toryism of his predecessors, the democratic surge by Disraeli (of whom it is rumoured that he wished to enfranchise women, generations before Pankhurst and the suffragettes - he believed that women tended to be more Conservative than men (and polling evidence has borne out his hunch - the Tories would have won only two or three elections since WWII had men only had the vote)), the reactionary retreat by Salisbury and attempted retrenchment by Balfour, the Liberal paternalism by the Chamberlains and Baldwin, the post-war consensus of Churchill, Eden, MacMillan and Home, the attempted pre-Thatcherism of "Selsdon Man" in the Heath era, Thatcherism itself, the bland managerialism of Major and now the shift towards libertarianism and Direct Democracy (very much in the Disraeli tradition and that of the later Liberal Unionists).
-pant, pant-
-catches his breath-
Each of those eras was as much a facet of conservatism as was Thatcherism, but only Thatcherism seems to stick as a definition of Conservatism. And Thatcherism was far closer to Radical Liberalism (in the Joseph Chamberlain Liberal Unionist sense) than any other facet of Conservatism.
Similarly, there are many flavours of Socialism, not all of which are incompatible with many facets of Conservatism. To be honest, the biggest area of potential for conflict is between Socialism and Liberalism (as many (but not all) flavours of Socialism require substantial degrees of sacrifice of personal freedom for the benefit of the whole), but they are still by no means exclusive to each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Sep 18, 2007 8:12 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Sep 23, 2007 12:10 am
|
|
|
|
Many apologies for how long it took for me to make a decent reply...obviously when I said 'tomorrow', I meant 'in a week or so...'. sweatdrop
On the upside, I have a new sister, born this morning. She's rather lovely. Does a lot of staring. Only managed to throw up on me once so far.
*Opens Notepad for a decent text management environment*
And before I start, I must get this off my chest, so I don't cross the infrangible Julian's Law elsewhere...
THATCHER! MARGARET THATCHER!
*Ahem*
[Finrod] Heterodyne First off, I'll separate New Labour from Socialism... (no shouts from the gallery that Blair's already done that, thanks ^^) There is a strong case to be made that Labour was never *Socialist* in the same way that European socialist movements were, and instead, was initially founded on the combined basis of Trade Unionism, and Christian humanitarianism around 1901, (1903?) if memory serves. To whatever extent Labour was socialist originally, the existence of socialism within the party was progressively altered in ways as to ameliorate its co-existance with the success and security of capitalism (i.e. becoming Parliamentary rather than Revolutionary in character, and aiming to mitigate the worst effects of capitalism rather than condemn it as innately unjust). Post Third Way, I feel Labour stands most for communitarianism and positive freedom (the more left-wing side of Liberalism which embraces an enabling state, rather than negative freedom, which grants the absolute liberty of the individual to the freedom within their means - that is, not a great deal if they live in the gutters of the social strata.) Personally, I'd disagree there. There is a prevalent desire by New Labour supporters to see it as liberal - and with equal ages of consent and civil partnerships for gays (a good idea and well overdue), they can point to that. But on the civil liberties front, they have managed to make the Thatcher administration look like sandal-wearing muesli eating woolly liberals. -The maximum length of time the police could hold you without charge under Maggie & co. was 7 days*. Now it's 28 days, with the Govt pushing the 90 day option again and again (and howling at the Opposition parties for being "soft" by opposing it) -Banning demonstrations in Parliament Square. -ID Register and Cards. -ASBOs. Control Orders. Getting rid of double jeopardy. With Blunkett, Clarke and Reid having held the chair at the Home Office (and appearing to see the Howard tenure there as being a bare minimum on the authoritarian side), I worry about all freedoms. (* Excluding the counterproductive internment experiment in Northern Ireland - you'd think politicians would learn, wouldn't you?)
The program of constitutional reform, in terms of devolution and the (incomplete) modernisation of the House of Lords, which New Labour has persued, is very much a liberal area of policy too. In fact, it represents New labour at its most liberal, which is interesting in that constitutional reform affects the collective before the individual, while civil liberties affect the individual before, or at least as immediately as the collective, where New Labour is at its most authoritarian. I will never forgive the Blair government for their positively rabid attack on, and resultant savaging of, the civil liberties of the UK citizen. I think there's a fair consensus now that the whole of the political spectrum in the UK, if not in the world, has moved towards the right - where the authoritarian aspect of the 'right wing' is accentuated.
(Case for the world shift to the right: the downfall of communism as a credible ideology, the fall of the USSR and the Berlin Wall; the rise in living standards for the working classes and the subsequent loss of revolutionary zeal through the diminuation of suffering; the rise of the entrenched lower middle class, and with it an interest in property and a respect for 'the establishment'; the rise of global trade; the power of the decidedly generally right wing US...)
As for the overall identity of the New Labour project - it's often divided up into the rough internal areas of fiscal and economic policy, law and order, Constitutional reform, and European policy. As I mentioned above, concerning constitutional reform, New Labour can probably rightly describe itself as Liberal in one aspect, in that democratisation through devolution, reforming the House of Commons attendance hours, and separating out the historical overlap of powers with the judiciary as part of the legislature by implementing a future Supreme Court (regardless of the incompetence and fractured steps which have been taken in implementing said measures of constitutional reform... stare ). More closely legitimate forms of government can be linked directly to the Liberal ideals of accountability and the limitation of governmental power. Whether or not the reforms are driven by liberal ideals, rather than pragmatic vote-winning aims remains moot, however.
At any rate, it's clear that constitutional reform isn't the greatest signification of a party's overall stance. In terms of economic policy, and law and order, the general consensus is that the legacy of the New Right has been continued in a significant sense down both ideological threads of authoritarian Neoconservatism in terms of law and order, and Neoliberal, free-market based economics. While I completely agree that in a comparison of civil liberties under Thatcher as positively Respect Party compared to what is in force now, I would argue that some - not all - of that is the result of the post 9/11 age. I view the destruction of civil liberties as an extension of the authoritarian Neoconservative line on law and order. Blair always did seem to have a aptitude for implicitly patronising the people.
As for European Policy, with substaintial involvement in the EU from 1997 onwards, beginning with Maastricht Treaty, the opt-in to the Social Chapter, etc, it seems to hark back to the original pre-Thatcher, more paternalistic Conservative enthusiasm for Europe as an opportunity to create a powerful trading network. I was reading something on Ken Loach in New Statesman this morning, and he lambasts Labour as a party of business. I don't think it's possible for a mainstream party to -not- be a party of business anymore. As such, coupled with the world shift to the right, I think that it's fairly inevitable that the mainstream party of the 'center-left' are actually much further to the right than the government of the Thatcher era.
I appear to have shredded most of the Labour appeal to Liberalism. Hmm. The place where the personification of my faith in Labour lives, is in its social policy, which remains more or less communitarian in nature. (Wikipedia's not bad on communitarianism) It places the emphasis on the government enabling communities to help themselves, and is evident in the minimum wage, and the Sure Start scheme (although the effectiveness of the scheme is currently under question). In the rhetoric, the phrase 'hard-working families' frames Britain as a place populated by responsible individuals who are integrated into cohesive communities - emphasis is placed on the parent govenor, on the councillor, on the policeman. Recently, though with the Cameron-driven rebranding of the Conservatives, I've been pretty much unable to distinguish significantly between Labour and Conservative social policy:
The 'Built to Last' document from the Conservative Party website David Cameron put “a responsibility revolution” at the heart of the modern Conservative Party’s mission: ...A revolution in civic responsibility – giving our neighbourhoods and communities the power to shape their destinies, fight crime and improve the quality of life.
That's the language of Blair. I can practically hear him saying it. I can hear Brown saying all of it except the 'shape their destinies' phrase - not really his speech writers' style.
Oh darn it.
*Beats the Labour Party with a herring* WHY won't you be more decisively RED?!
And what happened to Michael Howard's putting 'clear blue water' between Labour and the Conservatives?
Oh yes. Just went into that.
Some of Brown's particular policies - the anti-poverty and anti child-poverty drive, his focus on affordable housing, that rather embarrasing state school Laura Spense not-getting-into-Oxford affair, capture a desire for a more enabling society in terms of social mobility. It's a pity that, as with the anti-poverty stance, they often end up neing acted upon ineffectually (i.e. the tax burden on the poorest in society actually increasing over the past few years, albeit slightly.)
[Finrod] On the "positive" and "negative" freedoms you quote, I did misunderstand on first read through, but I take it that a negative freedom is essentially abandonment where intervention should be indicated (eg freedom to starve)? In which case, I (and this, I stress is a purely personal viewpoint) do not see a negative freedom as freedom at all. For me, a true freedom to choose is the core of freedom. No rational human would choose freely to starve to death; thus that choice is not indicative of any freedom. This theme is the core to my belief in what makes a free market free - if choice is constrained or unavailable, it may well be a market, but it ain't free.
Sorry - I wasn't that clear about the negative/positive freedom divide. ninja It's an element of the development of liberalism that I like looking at, and the way I studied politics in the past two years was particularly historically driven. 'Negative' freedom was originally the only definition of 'freedom' in the development of liberalism in the nineteenth century - an individual is completely free to do those things that are within their means. This approach was married to the phase of popularity which Social Darwinism enjoyed in the Victorian era, when all types of 'Darwinism' had zealous, fashionable followers. The general approach of Social Darwinism (as is implied by the name... sweatdrop ) is that the tramp in the gutter belongs there and deserves to be there purely on the basis that he -is- there, unless he can conjure some way out. The process of social selection and competition creates a society in which the most worthy rise to the top. 'Liberty' within Classical Liberalism never possessed this conscious view of society as a competition, but 'freedom' was only the freedom to do the things which you, or your ancestors, had left you the material wealth for you to do.
The notion of 'Positive' freedom came as reform to political liberalism.
Wikipedia, lacking citations as usual... Positive liberty was first explicitly stated by Isaiah Berlin in 1958. It refers to the opportunity and ability to act to fulfill one's own potential, as opposed to negative liberty, which refers to freedom from restraint. [citation needed]For example, one may have the negative liberty of "freedom of the press," but if he does not own a printing press or printer, then he lacks the positive liberty to take advantage of his negative liberty. Or, one may have the negative liberty of "freedom of speech" but if he lacks vocal cords, then he lacks positive liberty. [citation needed]
Go Isiah Berlin. I think that ideas alluding to positive liberty can probably be read from Johh Stuart Mill as well. There -was- another pre C20th political philosopher focused on the effect of politics on society, who first began to develop the idea (stated inexplicitely, I guess...), but alas, I am without the book I know it's in. I'll find it soon. Hopefully I won't incur another bookquake, which saw me take 'The 20th Century Art Book' to the head, and 'How to Survive a Robot Uprising' to the foot.
So with the difference between the freedom to starve and the freedom to work laid out, the scale of the desirable extent of enabling state intervention comes into play.
Where do you draw the line for freedom of choice? I'm trying to wrap my brain around how qualitative differences between the freedom provided by a Conservative, as opposed to a Labour approach, or a social democratic, as opposed to a liberal conservative approach could be expressed. The freedom to live in a safe environment is clearly one of the most minimal freedoms to be guaranteed by modern standards, but the freedom to travel is one which is regarded as not entirely necessary, and therefore must be driven purely by your own means. The question of what the necessary entitlements of mankind are, is however, philosophical as well as practical, and directly related to the favourites of philosophers - 'What are the functions of humanity?' and eventually, 'What is good?'
Ahhhh. I'm starting to go off on a didactic.
I think I'll cut it there, and post the second half of my response separately - tomorrow, and I mean -actually- tomorrow this time. Typically the second half is the bit of your response which caused me most thought - particularly Public Choice theory, which I'm sadly ignorant concerning, along with everthing except the most basic ideas in economics. The orthogonal ideological approach, I think is far more suited to accurately and clearly mapping ideologies than the historically driven one I use, which sacrifices clarity for implicit temporal context.
I'll probably be horrified at the meandering, obscure prose I've been using, with the benefit of a day of reflection on this. I've been thinking as I type... *goes cross eyed again*
Part II tomorrow. mrgreen
And I might ask for a 50 word (give or take a few) definition of your take on Conservatism from you and Invictus?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Sep 24, 2007 1:41 pm
|
|
|
|
Heterodyne Many apologies for how long it took for me to make a decent reply...obviously when I said 'tomorrow', I meant 'in a week or so...'. sweatdrop On the upside, I have a new sister, born this morning. She's rather lovely. Does a lot of staring. Only managed to throw up on me once so far.
Congratulations (I said it at the focus group thingy, but still - good to get it into the post. Makes me look all caring and fluffy smile )
Heterodyne The program of constitutional reform, in terms of devolution and the (incomplete) modernisation of the House of Lords, which New Labour has persued, is very much a liberal area of policy too. In fact, it represents New labour at its most liberal, which is interesting in that constitutional reform affects the collective before the individual, while civil liberties affect the individual before, or at least as immediately as the collective, where New Labour is at its most authoritarian.
Their updating of the archaic Parliamentary procedures is definitely welcome. Their other constitutional reforms have been - how do I put it - taken out of the oven too soon by half.
The House of Lords, for example. Neither one thing nor the other. Populated by political appointees and a remnant of hereditary Peers. Get it elected, Labour, or leave it as it was - change for change's sake is just moving deckchairs about on the Titanic.
The Scottish Parliament - well, they didn't bother solving the West Lothian Question, they just hoped that people wouldn't ask it. Unfortunately, we've now got a scenario where students everywhere bar Scotland pay topup fees - because Scottish MSPs thought that it would be a bad idea for Scots in particular but Scottish MPs thought that it was a good idea for British sudents in general. Same with foundation hospitals (if Scottish MPs had not voted on either of those Bills, they would have failed - but they were overturned by the Scottish MSPs when it came to apply them to Scotland). A solution to this has to be found - at the moment, we have two classes of MPs: Those accountable to their constituents for all legislation passed and those who aren't because the Scottish Parliament will shield those constituents.
Heterodyne I will never forgive the Blair government for their positively rabid attack on, and resultant savaging of, the civil liberties of the UK citizen. I think there's a fair consensus now that the whole of the political spectrum in the UK, if not in the world, has moved towards the right - where the authoritarian aspect of the 'right wing' is accentuated. (Case for the world shift to the right: the downfall of communism as a credible ideology, the fall of the USSR and the Berlin Wall; the rise in living standards for the working classes and the subsequent loss of revolutionary zeal through the diminuation of suffering; the rise of the entrenched lower middle class, and with it an interest in property and a respect for 'the establishment'; the rise of global trade; the power of the decidedly generally right wing US...)
And GB seems to be carrying on where TB left off. His speech today could have come from the pen of the Daily Mail editorial team.
Heterodyne As for the overall identity of the New Labour project - it's often divided up into the rough internal areas of fiscal and economic policy, law and order, Constitutional reform, and European policy.
[snip constitutional bits]
Heterodyne At any rate, it's clear that constitutional reform isn't the greatest signification of a party's overall stance. In terms of economic policy, and law and order, the general consensus is that the legacy of the New Right has been continued in a significant sense down both ideological threads of authoritarian Neoconservatism in terms of law and order, and Neoliberal, free-market based economics. While I completely agree that in a comparison of civil liberties under Thatcher as positively Respect Party compared to what is in force now, I would argue that some - not all - of that is the result of the post 9/11 age. I view the destruction of civil liberties as an extension of the authoritarian Neoconservative line on law and order. Blair always did seem to have a aptitude for implicitly patronising the people.
As one who is on the neoliberal platform but throws stones at those on the neoconservative platform, I'm not too happy with the current Government, it must be said. At least they haven't screwed up the economy, but someone should have told John Reid: "1984" was supposed to be a warning. Not a checklist.
Heterodyne As for European Policy, with substaintial involvement in the EU from 1997 onwards, beginning with Maastricht Treaty, the opt-in to the Social Chapter, etc,
The Maastrich treaty was John Major, by the way (and caused him no end of problems)
Heterodyne it seems to hark back to the original pre-Thatcher, more paternalistic Conservative enthusiasm for Europe as an opportunity to create a powerful trading network. I was reading something on Ken Loach in New Statesman this morning, and he lambasts Labour as a party of business. I don't think it's possible for a mainstream party to -not- be a party of business anymore. As such, coupled with the world shift to the right, I think that it's fairly inevitable that the mainstream party of the 'center-left' are actually much further to the right than the government of the Thatcher era.
Ecopnomically, that's definitely so. On my orthogonal view, though, that's neither conservative-v-radical or liberal-v-authoritarian but purely on the socialist-v-capitalist/free-market/individual axis.
Heterodyne I appear to have shredded most of the Labour appeal to Liberalism. Hmm. The place where the personification of my faith in Labour lives, is in its social policy, which remains more or less communitarian in nature. (Wikipedia's not bad on communitarianism) It places the emphasis on the government enabling communities to help themselves, and is evident in the minimum wage, and the Sure Start scheme (although the effectiveness of the scheme is currently under question). In the rhetoric, the phrase 'hard-working families' frames Britain as a place populated by responsible individuals who are integrated into cohesive communities - emphasis is placed on the parent govenor, on the councillor, on the policeman. Recently, though with the Cameron-driven rebranding of the Conservatives, I've been pretty much unable to distinguish significantly between Labour and Conservative social policy: The 'Built to Last' document from the Conservative Party website David Cameron put “a responsibility revolution” at the heart of the modern Conservative Party’s mission: ...A revolution in civic responsibility – giving our neighbourhoods and communities the power to shape their destinies, fight crime and improve the quality of life. That's the language of Blair. I can practically hear him saying it. I can hear Brown saying all of it except the 'shape their destinies' phrase - not really his speech writers' style.
It may clarify things if I point out the not-really-secret but not-heavily-advertised agenda/thrust of the latest iteration of conservatism. It's called Direct Democracy.
It's a direct descendant/revival of Disraeli's stance - democracy to the people/One Nation strategy.
In essence, although Labour have "talked the talk" on devolving power to communities and trusting it to professionals, the walk that they've walked is in the opposite direction. The targets to hit and the direct accountability have all been centrally imposed. The idea is understandable - in order to get the response they want when they pull the levers of power, they've got to both know what the current state is out there and how to make people do what they find is necessary. Unfortunately, it's impossible (genuinely, not merely politically) to have targets and feedback that are simultaneously fine enough to be of use and coarse enough to be possible to set. As well as flexible enough to cope with reality and fixed enough to be settable in the first place.
So you get the administration tidal wave that has engulfed public services. When you set targets, people work to the target. If it is "people will not be on trolleys in hospitals for more than 4 hours at a time", they'll simply swap patients from trolleys to beds and back again every four hours - target met. If people aren't to be on a waiting list for more than 6 months, they'll add a few hoops to jump to in order to get to the waiting list - and find reasons to reset the waiting time (waiting list for initial consultation; waiting list for doctors consultation; waiting list for outpatient examination; waiting list for surgery. None over 6 months. )
For a view of modern policing under the target culture, have a look at David Copperfield's blog
The ideas behind Direct Democracy are to completely bin the target culture and use direct feedback from the service users at the scene. So moving towards Swedish-style independence for schools (parents get more of a say than politicians). Directly elected police chiefs. That kind of thing.
Heterodyne Oh darn it. *Beats the Labour Party with a herring* WHY won't you be more decisively RED?! And what happened to Michael Howard's putting 'clear blue water' between Labour and the Conservatives?
And Michael Howard's now after Brown for copyright theft...
Howard, before the 2005 election
"If you’re thinking what we’re thinking, it’s time for urgent action on the things that really matter:
- Reward for hardworking Britons;
- School discipline;
- Cleaner hospitals;
- More police; and
- Controlled immigration."
Compare with Brown's speech to the Labour conference (of course, with the "British jobs for British workers" line in Brown's speech, I think that Nick Griffin of the BNP should get some of the royalties ...
(In seriousness, I genuinely feel sorry for the left to see their party turn totally Daily Mail on them)
Heterodyne Some of Brown's particular policies - the anti-poverty and anti child-poverty drive, his focus on affordable housing, that rather embarrasing state school Laura Spense not-getting-into-Oxford affair, capture a desire for a more enabling society in terms of social mobility. It's a pity that, as with the anti-poverty stance, they often end up neing acted upon ineffectually (i.e. the tax burden on the poorest in society actually increasing over the past few years, albeit slightly.)
Sadly, most of these initiatives were just posturing ("signalling" in political terms)
When you consider that the greatest change in the income tax burden of the poor happened on Maggie's watch (in 1979, the richest 1% paid 11% of the income tax burden; in 1997 it was 20%. The richest 10% went from paying 35% to paying 50%. Those on average incomes and under went from paying 19% to paying 11%) , while under the frantically "signalling" Labour Party, the poor's tax burden has increased ...
(Didn't Laura Spense lose out to another state-school girl for that place anyway?)
And on "affordable housing" - well, looking at the teetering housing market, I'm convinced that Gordon is actually going to deliver this one. Quicker than anyone thought possible ...
Heterodyne And I might ask for a 50 word (give or take a few) definition of your take on Conservatism from you and Invictus?
Fifty words? Me?
You're having a laugh! rofl
Actually, I've pretty much prepared what I want to say on this, but I'm running out oif time tonight - I'll post it tomorrow (it's pretty much the historical evolution of the core concepts of Conservatism in Britain and what common threads underlie this evolution)
Seriously enjoying the debate, mind you. smile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Sep 26, 2007 2:41 pm
|
|
|
|
Right. 50 words on Conservatism.
The thing about defining Conservatism is that there is no defining political treatise. Liberalism has JS Mill's "On Liberty", which helps define Liberalism. Conservatism just evolved incrementally.
Which, come to think of it, is incredibly apt.
I'm going to have to go historical on the British evolution of Conservatism.
The most fundamental tenet of Conservatism is the one I mentioned on the orthogonal axes: evolutionary incremental change. It was born out of the fallout of the Great Reform Act of 1832, which marks the change towards democracy. Although it was only a very limited democracy, it was an irreversible step.
The Tories of the time had resisted it fiercely, but failed. In that failure, their Party was altered forever. Prior to the 1830's the Tory and Whig Parties evolved as "Country versus Court", or "Land versus Commerce". The Whig's were starting to evolve towards Liberalism under the influence of the Radicals, and the Tories were becoming the Party of sheer reactionism - refusal to countenance any change.
The problem with that, of course, was that as soon as any change succeeds your stance looks foolish. And if it turns out to be for the better, you are history (I'm reminded of the Robin Williams joke about Gaddafi: "This is a Line of Death! You cross it, you die!".
Steps back.
"Okay, this is a Line of Death. you cross this one, you die.
Steps back again.
"Okay, this one. This one. This one. Oh - you knock on my door, I not come out. Bah!")
So Peel found an alternate path, neither Radicalism or Reaction: Conservatism. Building on the best of the past and jettisoning the bad bits of the past - carefully to avoid throwing babies out as the bathwater flies away - to walk inexorably, step by step - towards evolutionary progress. This he set out in the Tamworth Manifesto (incidentally, the political scientist and Labour MP Tony Wright has stated that the core reason for the historically large success of the British Conservative Party was because, unlike many other Conservative factions around the world, they have hardly ever tried to roll back the clock, instead largely accepting the current situation of the time and moving with it)
The rest of Conservatism has accreted around that core, influenced by the direction taken by the Party leader over the generations.
Disraeli added the appeals to pragmatism (as opposed to ideology) and the "One Nation" aspect (for all rather than just the rich). The Liberals were aiming to increase the middle-class franchise, to their advantage. Disraeli leapfrogged them because he thought that the middle classes were exploiting the working classes and extended the franchise far further than the Liberals had pushed for. He also built the Primrose League and created the original Party machinery.
When Disraeli went, "Bobbety" Salisbury tried to turn the clock back and reverted to total Reactionism. His nephew and successor (which was the origin of the term "Bob's your uncle"), Balfour tried to continue, but as Peel had foreseen, Reactionism couldn't hold out forever (and drove away one promising young Tory MP, a chap called "Winston Churchill", who walked the floor to the Liberals in exasperation at the Balfour Conservative party) and despite a mass influx from Liberal Unionists defecting from the Liberal ranks, the now renamed Unionist party was annihilated in the 1906 Liberal Landslide.
Asquith, Lloyd-George and Churchill then used their mandate to spike the power of the Lords (quite correctly - as Balfour had shamelessly used the Tory majority in the Lords to try to continue to frustrate the Government).
The influx of Joe Chamberlain's Liberal Unionists brought another strand into the Conservative party to form part of the tenets of Conservatism : personal freedom from the State. This often appeared in conflict with the historic traditions that were supposed to be conserved, but only is so when the core tenet of Conservatism (incremental change) is forgotten.
Chamberlain's sons Austen and Neville both led the Tories at times.
The Depression and the rise of the Socialists (the latter driving Churchill back into the now changed and more liberal Conservative party) led to another mutation in the Conservative philosophy, one that came to fruit only after WWII and the external influence of Attlee's Socialist government : The Butskellite consensus. The socialist aspects tied into the One Nation aspects of Conservatism to form a "Benevolent Paternalism" (Which is outwardly quite nice, but rubs me up the wrong way. Too many shades of "We know what's good for you"). Still, the Churchill/Eden/Macmillan/Home 1950's-early 60's government abolished ID cards, broke the BBC's monopoly and abolished Retail Price Management (despite knowing that the latter would harm them in the unavoidably close 1964 election) which counts as a big tick towards personal freedoms.
So, the Conservative had now the following strands:
- Core: Incremental evolution
- One Nation democracy
- Pragmatism (ideology only counts until it collides with reality)
- Personal Freedom.
Overlain on this was the Benevolent Paternalism of the Butskellite One Nation tradition.
Unfortunately, as the sixties drew to a close, it was pretty much consensus that the UK was draining away economically. Most authorities spoke of Government now being only the process of managing the inexorable decline. The unions were powerful enough to scare even the Wilson Labour government (which quailed at imposing the "In Place of Strife" legislation), unemployment and inflation were perennial concerns, the industries were stagnating ...
Heath then tried to create a new tradition of Conservatism: dubbed "Selsdon Man" by his opponents. Taking on the unions, moving towards free-markets, lowering tax rates. Really, a kind of proto-Thatcherism. However, the pain involved drove him into a U-turn into the comfortable embrace of declining Butskellism. The unions smelt blood and took him on in an attempt to throw him out. Heath accepted the challenge and went to the country in an early election, demanding "Who Governs?".
Sadly for Heath, the answer was "Not you, mate!"
This experience molded Thatcher, who took the Selsdon Man aspect and extended it. Thatcherism transcended the normal definitions of Conservatism, because she could only be described as a Radical. She broke most of the tenets of Conservatism, reaching back towards the old Liberalism. Gladstone would not have been out of place in Thatcherism. Like chemotherapy, she was extraordinarily painful in places, but the patient was cured.
Personally, I believe that it could have been done less painfully - she made a number of missteps and inflicted what appeared to be unnecessary harm, but I recently read a textbook (on Chancellors, as it turned out) by a fairly left-leaning economist who stated that although he loathed Thatcher and could never have voted for her, her appearance of resolve and apparent heartlessness was crucial in breaking the downward spiral. The economic kick required a measure of expectations management. Under Heath, if it got too painful, you believed that he would relent and adjusted your behaviour and expectations (which were a core driver behind "stagflation". Under Maggie, you were certain that she'd hold the line.
Thatcherism, like any truly dynamic force (the only comparable example would be Lloyd-George) left a fairly shocked patient, and the Conservatives bear the brunt of it in two ways:
- The elements of the country which bore the most pain have a tendency to recoil from the Conservatives
- The Conservative Party is still a little shell-shocked at their roller-coaster ride of Radicalism and has to fight the adrenaline-type "Again, again!" reaction. Coupled with the "Okay it hurt but it worked!" element of those who tend to be adamant at applying a cure for one problem to any other ones that they see, without realising why it was necessary (Plus the radicalism of Thatcher could be fully reconciled with the Conservatives if they conserve the radicalism ... )
IDS tried to hark back to the Disraeli One Nation tradition but was lampooned and ignored, before being overthrown. Cameron has extended the Disraeli trend to highlight the "For poor and rich" and "Democracy" traditions, fused it with the Liberal Unionists freedom of the people, to create a genuinely new flavour of Conservatism, the one that I refer to as Direct Democracy.
So that's my view of Conservatism in 50 words. Note: You didn't specify that "50" had to be in base-10 ... smile
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Oct 06, 2007 6:03 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
![[Finrod]'s avatar](https://a1cdn.gaiaonline.com/dress-up/avatar/ava/23/0b/d32f5ec460b23_flip.png?t=1206406066_6.00_00)
