The Conservative Party’s Blairite Tendency
“The Conservative Party has to understand why it has lost three elections in a row and what Blair has achieved over the last eight years. We can’t turn the clock back to 1997 and pretend it has all been a bad dream.”
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is the Conservative Party’s biggest problem. When one of its leadership contenders believes that Blair has achieved things - positive things - over the last 8 years and that those years haven’t been a bad dream one can only wonder then how badly he actually wants to beat this man.
Let’s get one thing straight. All that stuff about the public not wanting to see politicians slagging each other off? Garbage. The public loves it. What the public recognise though - and they definitely don’t like it - is opportunistic name-calling that isn’t backed up by meaningful alternatives, sound policy and a compelling vision. Cameron cannot effectively lead the Conservative Party if he is in thrall to Tony Blair. If Blair has an 8 year record of achievement then what, exactly, does Mr Cameron want to change? You don’t want to mess with success so surely you’re left tinkering at the edges?
To wake the British people from their complacency - apathy, to be more accurate - the Party’s leader must attack government failure at all levels and make people aware of just how truly awful Labour is. The Conservative Party is not there to be a better version of Labour, it’s there to be a clean break from Labour.
No true patriot can look at what Blair has done to the country we love and then talk about what Blair has achieved. Blair’s achievements, if you want to call them that, amount to the ruination of a nation:
deplorable - and worsening - education standards diminishing economic efficiency a racially divided and alienated society endemic sexual disease industrial scale abortion ever-deepening welfare dependency chronic yobbish behaviour escalating alcohol-related crime widespread casual, drug use surrender to the unions over the public sector pensions crisis the steady flow of British sovereignty to an unelected and foreign parliament a business environment groaning under the weight of government taxes, regulation and social engineering legislation total ignorance of the pensions and health timebomb ticking beneath the feet of all our people the relegation of England to a third-rate region in the nation it founded
And so on and so forth.
New Labour’s record in the UK is an opposition’s dream. There is just so much wrong now - and much of it is directly attributable to Labour policy - that Conservative MPs should be able to wax eloquently for half an hour or so just listing it. To hear a Party leadership hopeful actually praising Blair for the lives he’s ruined and the society he’s degrading fills one with despair.
“There are some in the party who believe that the pendulum will swing back,” he says. “But the Conservative Party has no right to office. It exists because it has principles and ideas and policies that attract people.”
Ain’t that so, Mr Cameron. But these are conservative principles - not social democrat. And here, as a gentle reminder, are some of those principles:
British laws created by a British parliament only On the whole people run their lives better than governments. Governments only involve themselves in those areas that communities definitely can’t manage themselves the promotion of enterprise in business, society and family is achieved by government not interfering the tight control of our own borders and the restriction - or cessation - of immigration that does not directly serve the free-born Briton or the society s/he lives in a clear recognition of right and wrong behaviour with the former praised and the latter punished government is a servant which rules with our consent we only lock up people who have committed crimes government officials must identify themselves to us, not us to them family is crucial, its breakdown a national disaster our history is our birthright; it’s what binds us. We are not ashamed of ourselves. We are subjects of Her Majesty the Queen.
Cameron - and David Davis for that matter - need to quickly prove that they understand this. Davis, I think, does - but he needs now to work hard to demonstrate he does and translate his understanding into policy. Cameron I’ve doubted and it becomes clearer by the day that, unless he produces something dramatic, we are facing an imitation Blair.
And as we’ve all said before, why would the public vote for Labour-lite when they can have the Real Thing?
Well argued Gary - I agree.
Comment by David Vance — October 23, 2005 @ 10:40 pm
Conservative Values
Gary Monro posts an interesting list of what he believes “conservative values” consist of.
[…]
Trackback by Rearranging the deckchairs — October 23, 2005 @ 11:25 pm
No Gary, some of these are “conservative” values, not “Conservative” values.
The best of British laws need to be adopted beyond these shores, the best European decisions need to be accepted here. Nelson certainly understood this - hding behind the white cliffs doesn’t work.
No real Conservative would stop immigration and thus reduce the quality of the workforce and competitive practices.
The alarm bells ring when someone relates “family” and “government” in a democracy. The less they intefere with each other the better.
Governments of all hue have to lock people up for reasons short of principle and long on practical necessity. (But the basic principles you state are surely correct.)
The Royal family have no problem mixing around Europe, hence the Greeks and Germans in the family. Don’t use them as a Little Britain bulwark.
The first thing the Blair government did was make the Bank of England independent - probably the first truly Conservative measure the country had seen for a decade.
Comment by DE — October 24, 2005 @ 9:48 am
David Davis’ offer of a place for David Cameron in his cabinet was nasty - any temptation I had to vote for him has been reduced.
I agree that David Cameron’s rhetoric has so far been concillatory to the left (except on the EU where he is commendably strong for a party leader though I support full withdrawal), but I do not believe that this is all there is to him.
It seems so obvious that he should address those issues (specifically not interfering) but for some reason no-one since Thatcher has managed it…
Comment by Gavin Ayling — October 24, 2005 @ 11:29 am
DE,
You may need to help me understand the difference between ‘Conservative’ and ‘conservative’. Surely the ‘Conservative Party’ should hold a ‘conservative’ philosophy in the same way that a ‘Communist Party’ would be expected to hold a communist one?
I do not assume all EU laws are bad - they aren’t. I do assume though that if a nation aspires to democracy within its territory then its people must be the final arbiters of who the law-makers actually are. This isn’t the case in the UK and we find ourselves in a situation where EU law comes into conflict with British law it’s the EU law which takes precedent over the British law. This is, to my mind, self-evidently wrong. In our democracy if an EU law were disliked by 100% of the electorate we still couldn’t do a thing about it (unless our government chose to disobey the rules of the club they belong to - an unlikely occurence).
Those immigrants that meet the criteria I proposed would not be barred. But the idea that immigration is an unalloyed good is finally being disproved. Human habit and preference alone makes large-scale immigration a very bad idea. We can continue to fill specific job posts with skilled foreign labour - giving them full citizenships rights in the process - and allow family reunion and (limited) marriage with people from abroad.
This isn’t at all about hating the immigrant. But this country’s interests must come first and unless a person demonstrates that their arrival here brings material benefit to this nation their application should be regarded as being one of self-interest only and so be rejected.
Agreed - government has no place legislating on family life. Too much of family decision is based on opinion, family culture, personal history and so on. The government should stay out.
Gavin,
I’ve heard Cameron say he wants to ‘reduce’ the amount of law coming from the EU. That’s so weak that it makes me believe it was thrown in to pacify us Euro-realists whilst not upsetting the Euro-fanatics. Has he said something a little stronger than that lately?
Is should make for an interesting contest…
Comment by Gary Monro — October 24, 2005 @ 12:21 pm
Without dancing on the edge of semantic pins, “conservative” in terms of politics means keeping things as they are, not giving into new ideas. This isn’t specifically “Conservative” thinking which includes the economics of Adam Smith etc.
Your views on immigration are indeed conservative, which happens to be fairly “Conservative” too at the moment.
When the London bomber ran off to Italy, it was sensible agreements between countries that meant we got him back swiftly. I’d be rather pissed off if some Umbrian locals decided it was in the Italian interest to prevent him coming back. Similarly its probably not in our interest to admit about the dead parrot - but its still right. Rejecting Westland helicopters disadvantaged British industry - was Mrs Thatcher wrong to do this? No, its what the military wanted.
National interest isn’t always obvious, and may not coincide with local views.
Comment by DE — October 24, 2005 @ 3:48 pm
DE,
I think, actually, conservative doesn’t resist change but prefers it to be slow enough that it is change built into the fabric of what is already there - with enough time for the change to bed in before more changes occur. ‘Evolution, not revolution’, as the saying goes.
So my views on immigration probably are conservative - by my definition - because change will definitely occur but it will be gradual.
So, for example, had immigration happened at, say, a hundredth of the pace it actually did happen then England would definitely have changed but definitely not to this extent and, maybe, gradually enough for the newcomers to assimilate with the natives and so not go on to form sub communities which, in some cases, are not really a part of England at all.
As far as I understand your point about national interest I agree. But conservatism is marked by pragmatism. Remember: capitalism is NOT conservatism. A conservative’s acceptance - or appreciation, even - of capitalism is not because he regards capitalism (or, rather, the libertarian belief in absolute liberty) as a value in and of itself. A conservative believes people are best left to arrange much of their lives - and livlihoods - themselves and when they are left to do this then capitalism is what emerges. One does not exalt capitalism, one accepts that it occurs - and allows it to.
At times though capitalism does not work - the railways are a prominent example of this - and a consrvative such as I would seriously consider nationalising them.
What is your point about Italy and the terrorist? That we need an EU in order to create legal treaties with our friends and partners abroad? If so, I disagree. The UK can easily enter into mutually beneficial agreements on law enforcement - and other things - with any number of countries throughout the world without giving over its fiscal, monetary, legal and legislative powers to a foreign parliament.
This might not have been what you meant though…
Comment by Gary Monro — October 24, 2005 @ 4:17 pm
Yes, I can see that capitalism is not automatically equivalent to Conservatism from your response. The problem is that nationalisation is even less part of the Tory outlook. This is why its reasonable to let Cameron define which bits he needs to stretch for pragmatic reasons.
I know that the classic response to the EU is “lets have a large bunch of treaties where we need them - we don’t need integration”. Problem is that treaties end up being worthless if your neighbours become too different from yourself. Sometimes you need to integrate to promote security and prevent military competition. (See European history for the last 500 years..)
Comment by DE — October 24, 2005 @ 5:52 pm
We can continue to fill specific job posts with skilled foreign labour - giving them full citizenships rights in the process - and allow family reunion and (limited) marriage with people from abroad.
*Blink*.
You’re going to allow marriage now? Limited marriage?
Given your previous remarks on government not interfering in private lives, this is very wtf.
(I am sure that by some torturous logic this will somehow apply to Johnny Foreigner only but even that much is not clear!)
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 24, 2005 @ 8:46 pm
A conservative believes people are best left to arrange much of their lives - and livlihoods - themselves and when they are left to do this then capitalism is what emerges.
Shortly followed by government.
:-)
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 24, 2005 @ 8:49 pm
Frank,
What do you mean, ‘You’re going to allow marriage now?’ I’ve never had a problem with British people marrying foreigners.
By ‘limited’ I mean there could be a maximum number of marriage visas awarded each year and/or, following the Dutch rules enforce a minimum age for the two marriage partners.
There’s no tortuous logic to this. The government is macro-managing immigration, not micro-managing personal life.
Government isn’t the natural outcome of capitalism by any means. I’m guessing you already know this.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 24, 2005 @ 9:57 pm
Gary,
Actually the emphasis was on the ‘allow’. It read like there was a flipside where marriages with ‘foreigners’ would sometimes be prohibited or at least discouraged. Even as amended it still sounds a little on the Aryan end of the spectrum to me.
As for government being the natural outcome of capitalism, or free markets, I think it probably is. Left to their own devices people seem to wind up with laws and governments. It’s happened too many times independently to be coincidental, or so it seems to me.
(Not always democracies of course. But usually pretty big government, compared with any starting point you may choose, including complete anarchy.)
After all, once there was no government anywhere, and now it is almost everywhere. And as for this country, it too was left to its own devices, and look what happened.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 24, 2005 @ 10:35 pm
I’m sure Gary is simply saing that it is reasonable for government to attempt to control immigration - and as we can see, actually doing this fairly is very hard.
Comment by DE — October 25, 2005 @ 9:36 am
Good grief, all I can see here is reasoned debate and rigorous thought.
It’ll be stopped, you mark my words.
I sometimes agree with your opinions Gary, but they’re always worth reading. Keep it up fella.
(The move went well - now much happier to appear in Court, as soon as March 2006! for the prosecution)
C
Comment by driverchris — October 25, 2005 @ 10:06 am
Frank,
Not prohibition or even discouragement. I think that within a closed unit it is more desirable for minimal government. But when outside factors influence the unit then this must be managed - and this is one of the areas which government has a legitimate role.
While I completely reject the idea that immigration is completly good I would also reject the idea that it’s completely bad. Unmanaged, it will generally not help improve the general quality of life. I am hardly able to aspire towards Aryan purity when my Indian-born wife and I simply cannot produce the blue-eyed blondes necessary for such a project.
Fairness, DE, is relative. The fairness I prefer is fairness to you and I as Britons (which, I must admit, I’m assuming you are). Fairness for would-be immigrants is basically making the rules very clear to them and then us abiding by them. (We would expect the same in return, of course).
Chris,
As the Toffo advert used to say, Go get ‘em Floyd!
I’m waiting to hear from the local police regarding a bag-snatching incident (I’m a witness). They reckon the guilty party will actually plead guilty so court won’t be necessary. I hope they’re right…
Comment by Gary Monro — October 25, 2005 @ 10:54 am
Yes, Gary I am indeed a free-born Briton as you put it, and a POMO as Mr DeClerk defined it.
Rules tend to look good at the time they are set, but tend to reflect the times. Today we want Asian troublemakers out - decades ago we needed Asian immigrants in to run services. We were keen to grant passports to rich businessmen from Hong Kong and good athletes like Zola Budd from South Africa - sadly the businessmen went to Canada and Ms Budd did not go down well in the Olympics. Its hard to ever get it right - fairness gets taken over by events.
Comment by DE — October 25, 2005 @ 2:38 pm
POMO is post-modern, isn’t it? Or an Indian tribe in California?
Or something else?
Comment by Gary Monro — October 26, 2005 @ 9:45 am
…..Today we want Asian troublemakers out - decades ago we needed Asian immigrants in to run services…..
Part of the point, I think is that we, the citizen, never actually asked for immigration. Therefore, its a little disingenious to claim that first we wanted it and then we didn’t.
Comment by EU Serf — October 26, 2005 @ 10:41 am
Gary
Interesting post. Agree with most of it except immigration (we need immigration but more along the lines of an Australian points system).
Did you become a councillor?
Comment by pommygranate — October 26, 2005 @ 1:13 pm
Pommygranate,
Thanks.
I’m standing for election in May. I’ll answer your question then!
If you’re still interested in that - and blogging - feel free to drop me a line and I’ll tell you all I know (which will make for a fairly short email…)
gary -dot- monro -at- gmail -dot- com
Comment by Gary Monro — October 26, 2005 @ 1:45 pm
EU,
Well, we the citizens did not want immigration no - but we the citizens don’t drive commerce. Living in a capitalist democracy means accepting the role as workers under corporation rule.
This is no bad thing necessarily - but you can’t suddenly want “out”. If you don’t like immigration, too bad. I’m afraid you don’t have the power to stop it without addressing corporate interests. Its beyond a local issue.
What we strive for is control - thats quite different.
Comment by DE — October 26, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
DE,
Well, we the citizens did not want immigration no
Since citizens have been offered draconian policies against immigration for decades and routinely turned them down, that’s a bit of a stretch. It was a major issue in the last election, and those who could be arsed to vote said no thanks.
The reasonable conclusion is that the citizenry have the controls against immigration that they want - or at least can tolerate - give or take.
Where people do benefit from immigration control is when it reduces the number of immigrants with which they must compete for jobs. That’s why immigrants typically wind up filling crap jobs that insufficient local people want, or skilled jobs that insufficent local people can do.
Living in a capitalist democracy means accepting the role as workers under corporation rule.
Not in a regulated capitalist democracy it doesn’t.
If you don’t like immigration, too bad. I’m afraid you don’t have the power to stop it without addressing corporate interests. Its beyond a local issue.
Corporations don’t set immigration policy.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 26, 2005 @ 11:27 pm
Frank,
I was accepting EUs point that no political or social group specifically wanted immigration. I would imagine most people don’t hold any specific views at all about immigration.
Regulation doesn’t change the fact we are in a corporate economy. Rules and regulations are there to sustain us in it, not to change that.
I would say corporations prettty much do set immigration policy, partly via whitehall lobbying - but to all intents and purposes people move around to follow work, and thats natural.
Comment by DE — October 27, 2005 @ 10:17 am
Frank,
Since citizens have been offered draconian policies against immigration for decades and routinely turned them down, that’s a bit of a stretch. It was a major issue in the last election, and those who could be arsed to vote said no thanks.
If draconian refers to National Front or BNP policies then you’re making a wild assumption that that was all the electorate considers when deciding not to vote NF or BNP. First, many people don’t want ‘draconian’ immigration policy because, BNP-style, this includes (or included) forced repatriation. Most of us will not tolerate this.
Nor did the voters in May 2005 simply say ‘no thanks’ to the Conservatives’ immigration policy. With jobs, rising ‘wealth’ (tied into house prices of course) and a general contentment Labour scraped (based on actual numbers of votes) a victory against an opposition that was almost not there.
England bears the brunt of immigration. Of the six people who raised the need to manage immigration with me when I was canvassing for the recent election three were not white. One wasn’t even British. It’s an issue.
Where people do benefit from immigration control is when it reduces the number of immigrants with which they must compete for jobs.
People benefit from controlled immigration because uncontrolled immigration can - and does - change the character of what were once English villages or towns. It’s an aesthetic thing as much as anything else but also a pragmatic one. I think you’ll find large numbers of securely employed people of all colours who recognise that immigration provides limited (although very real) benefits and numerous - and equally real - problems.
DE,
I didn’t realise business lobbied the government in favour of immigration. I assume they ask for specific skill-sets?
Comment by Gary Monro — October 27, 2005 @ 10:51 am
Gary,
Of the six people who raised the need to manage immigration with me when I was canvassing for the recent election three were not white. One wasn’t even British. It’s an issue.
Which is why the conservatives achieved a landslide election victory in 2005 by making that very assumption, right?
Nor did the voters in May 2005 simply say ‘no thanks’ to the Conservatives’ immigration policy.
True, they said no thanks to your other policies also.
The answer to ‘are you thinking what we’re thinking’ was basically ‘Nope’. Coupled with a significant amount of apathy (which is more interesting to me - why do those people feel they can’t be represented?)
With jobs, rising ‘wealth’ (tied into house prices of course) and a general contentment Labour scraped (based on actual numbers of votes) a victory against an opposition that was almost not there.
Trying to interpret the results using a different set of rules than was operational is pointless and irrelevant. The system is not based on ‘actual numbers of votes’. Perhaps it ought to be, but people voted in the system as it is, not as it ought to be.
You might as well count only the votes cast in London or at lunchtime. It’s much like saying that Roger Federer ’scraped a victory’ at Wimbledon because Tim Henman had more supporters in the crowd and played more often at the net. That’s not the how the game works.
If you change the rules of the game, people will play the game differently in response. Had the voting system been different, the number of votes cast per party, and probably the turnout, would have been different also. This is because FPTP results in tactical voting, and also affects whether or not people feel there is any point in voting in the first place.
The fact is that the only place Labour ’scraped a victory’ is in a parallel universe. Under the system as it is, and as understood by those casting votes at the time, Labour won by a convincing margin.
Comment by Frank O\'Dwyer — October 27, 2005 @ 1:27 pm
The details of how lobbyists work is somewhat shady, but the usual route is via CBI. You can see the policies they lobby for on their homepage.
Most people were aware of the Eastern Europe immigrant mini surge we have had recently. I live in Ealing, which means Polish translations in many shop windows.
The public did not rise up and ask for the peoples of Estonia to enter the building trade. More likley, the Embassy pushes the word out to colleges in the area that work visas will be looked on “favourably” for certain skill sets.
The Irish are pretty well off these days, and simply are not going to do all our odd jobs for us. They were the previous generations immigrants. Immigration is the way to bridge skill shortages. So either more people become plumbers, we pay them premium rates or we import them. Or are you going to urge your kids to be plumbsers? I thought not.
Comment by DE — October 27, 2005 @ 3:54 pm
True, they said no thanks to your other policies also.
That’s not a clever observation Frank - that’s my point. The public didn’t reject Conservative immigation ideas as you suggested they did - they rejected the whole shooting match.
I’m not trying to interpret the results based on the voting system - and I accept the point you make about people’s liklihood to vote if the system had been some other. But let’s not pretend it is irrelevent that in England the Conservatives (extremely narrowly) beat Labour in the number of people who actually went out and voted.
We deserved our loss - however it’s measured. We accepted the base assumptions - that spending on public services was the key issue and that small, presentational flourishes in other areas - immigration, for example - could spell the difference between success and failure.
The election made the whole political class look stupid. As things currently stand, if David Cameron wins then, with his Blair-like vagueness, it won’t look any better anytime in the near future.
Comment by Gary Monro — October 27, 2005 @ 4:03 pm
DE,
I was accepting EUs point that no political or social group specifically wanted immigration. I would imagine most people don’t hold any specific views at all about immigration.
True enough. But it wasn’t always so. That it is so now is most likely because govt has already done a mostly satisfactory job of ensuring that most people don’t keep losing out to immigrants at interview.
Which may simply be yesterday’s problem, as globalisation and offshoring become the new immigration. After all, if you can’t move the people, you can always move the jobs.
Regulation doesn’t change the fact we are in a corporate economy. Rules and regulations are there to sustain us in it, not to change that.
The point is that corporations lobby for (and more often, against) the rules, they don’t set them. The big multinationals are the only ones that can really slap government around, although the reverse is also true.
Comment by Frank O'Dwyer — October 27, 2005 @ 4:52 pm
A minor aside to the Tory election. I had noted that smears about Cameron re. drugs were in all probability from the Davis camp.
According to Private Eye, the later smear on Fox’s alleged gayness was nothing to do with Davis. It was a Labour dossier passed to David Camerons gang.
Comment by DE — October 29, 2005 @ 4:47 pm