:: Conservative Revival ::

:: Friday, January 25, 2002 ::

But the Telegraph gets it wrong

Silly statement in the Telegraph's editorial on Letwin's piece.

"Marriage, after all, is only a contract invented to formalise the relationship between couples and the state."

Bollocks, if you'll pardon my French. Marriage has nothing to do with the state. It is a cultural contract between families, large social groups, that confirms alliances and makes provision for the upbringing of children and the inheritance of property. The state's only role is either to encourage it (for the benefits it brings) or to discourage it (in order to increase the power of the state over children and property). It's another thing that could do with privatization.
:: Swordsman 1/25/2002 01:53:00 PM [+] ::
...

Marrying Type

I was impressed by Oliver Letwin's defence of marriage in his Telegraph article, Marriage works, so what is the point of a pale imitation?

One of these days, I'll post my family policy thoughts. They're probably a bit more liberal than Letwin's ideas...
:: Swordsman 1/25/2002 01:41:00 PM [+] ::
...

Geordie national pride

Some interesting things in Roger Mortimore's new MORI poll digest commentary column. Look, for a start, at how important defence and foreign affairs are to the North East of England. No wonder the Tyneside regiments were used to cover the retreats of the BEF in both world wars.

The data also support the idea that London is a less patriotic place than the rest of the country, emphasising that we need different electoral strategies for each area.

Finally, the Britain/England question comes up again. We really need a coherent strategy for dealing with the Union issue and the position of England. Once again, I'd suggest a locally-based democracy with federal elements might be worth considering...
:: Swordsman 1/25/2002 09:06:00 AM [+] ::
...

The long and winding road

Interesting article on Spiked about the potential for tory revival ('Teflon Tony' and the Tories). There are some problems with it -- approval rating does not necessarily translate into electoral support, as Bill Clinton could tell you (and George Bush might in November). However, I think the overall tone -- that Tories need to make a case for change, rather than criticise managerial competence -- is an important one. Managerial incompetence may have brought down John Major, but it will probably be a galvanising ideology that will bring down Blair.

As for IDS, this is what they say:

"The best thing that anybody can say about Iain Duncan Smith is that he is not like Michael Foot, he's more like Neil Kinnock. In other words, the first Tory Party moderniser, not the last old-fashioned electoral disaster. Well, for the record Kinnock lost two elections as leader, one by a landslide. That's hardly a vote of confidence."

Harsh, but at the moment fair. I think IDS is a less polarising figure than Kinnock, but he has to combine the roles of both Kinnochio and Blair if he is ever to win. That's a tall order, but I still like the Atlee comparison mentioned in the archives somewhere.
:: Swordsman 1/25/2002 06:52:00 AM [+] ::
...

Liberal Revival?

Slightly disturning editorial in The Times. It appears that Kennedy may be willing to pull the Liberals back from the brink of a headlong charge to the Left of Labour. Pity. As I've argued before, this would be great for Conservatives. Nevertheless, there may be some good news. A genuinely liberal Liberal Party would threaten Labour in some areas where the Tories just aren't yet equipped to tread. It may also be that IDS's anti-lib unit is scoring some successes in painting the Lib Dims as Stalinists in disguise. This is one to keep a close eye on.
:: Swordsman 1/22/2002 08:16:00 AM [+] ::
...

Happy Martin Luther King Day

America has a sensible approach to its public holidays: it has them for named reasons -- to celebrate the life of a great man, of his causes, or of a natable event in the nation's history. The Federal nature of its government means that local holidays are celebrated to (Lee/Jackson Day was a holiday throughout the South until recently). Contrast that with our idiotic 'August Bank Holiday'.

Holidays should be important collective 'festivals' that help bind a nation together rather than an excuse for a day off. I'd therefore suggest that it would be a good Conservative policy to advocate the replacement of our Bank Holidays with real Holidays. Here are a few suggestions:

Commonwealth Day. To celebrate the ties that bind us with Antigua, Zimbabwe, Sri Lanka, Papua New Guinea and Hong Kong, to take a few examples. HMG could designate particular countries to be celebrated each year and the Commonwealth could devote some resources to helping the celebrations. Schools could focus on them in the weeks before Commonwealth Day. In other words, do what used to be done when Commonwealth Day was regarded as important. How could anyone complain about this?

Bill of Rights Day. To celebrate the genius of the British Constitution. It would involve children actually being taught about King-in-Parliament and the principles of the Bill of Rights. How could anyone complain about this?

Churchill Day. To celebrate the greatest leader of modern times and remind us of the fight against Nazi tyranny. How could anyone complain about this?

I'd also add the Queen's Official Birthday as a full Holiday, in order to foster respect for the Monarchy. If businessmen complain, as they are wont to do, it gives us an opportunity to say how we are the party of the working man, who needs a break, while NuLab is the party of the rich...

I think this would be a small vote-winner. It would also be a major offensive in the British culture wars.
:: Swordsman 1/21/2002 10:01:00 AM [+] ::
...

Local options

If I have one criticism of the new direction of IDS, Simon Jenkins has made it here. There is not enough deference paid to the idea of local democracy and local governance. As Jenkins says, if people are to be set free of central government they must have decent local institutions to allow themselves to decide how to use that freedom. Jenkins goes over-the-top in his personal criticism of IDS, but his philosophical point is one we must take on board.
:: Swordsman 1/18/2002 12:37:00 PM [+] ::
...

Decline... and Fall?

Janet Daley's excellent article, Contradictions at the heart of New Labour, just goes to show how the New Labour coalition is beginning to fall apart. It is time, I think, to accuse the Government of "populism" and "bandwagon-jumping" in respect of their railways "policy" as well as to imply that they're following in the Conservative wake when it comes to health policy. We need to continue prodding at Labour weaknesses rather than grandstanding about our own positions. As I've said here many times, the New Labour edifice is crumbling. We should help the process along.
:: Swordsman 1/16/2002 08:39:00 AM [+] ::
...

Lords Above

Excellent summary of the arguments over what to do with the House of Lords by Lord Rees-Mogg in The Times. The logic for an elected House is inescapable:

"The argument against the old House was that it was not democratic; that is the argument against the present House; it is also the argument against the Labour proposal. Once Blair had decided that the hereditary principle was too undemocratic to survive, it became obvious to any thinking person that the appointive principle was equally undemocratic. Indeed, the appointive principle is the greater threat to democracy.

"Hereditary peers owed their place in the House to the patronage of long past monarchs or Prime Ministers. I owe my own place to the patronage of Margaret Thatcher; 60 per cent of Labour peers owe their places to Tony Blair. The patronage of dead Prime Ministers cannot influence present conduct. No one nowadays takes Stanley Baldwin’s whip. Blair’s patronage is still a vital element in his management of power. An appointed House is a patronage House and the patron is still in office."

My problem with the Tory plan is that terms should last for "three Parliaments." I haven't read the proposals in detail, but unless there is some staggering this could be a staggeringly (hem) bad idea, merely meaning that the HoL reflects public opinion of up to 15 years ago and thereby increasingly seen as out-of-date and irrelevant. One-third of the new Senators should be elected for one term, and another third for two terms to begin with, so that in every General Election there is an election for at least 1/3rd of the Upper House.

I hate the name Senate, by the way...
:: Swordsman 1/14/2002 11:11:00 AM [+] ::
...

Wrong Way

I'm disappointed at Oliver Letwin (Tory split over defence of home). He says:

"One doesn't want to create a society in which people are liable to be mown down if they enter a property," he said.

Why ever not? I presume he means "illegally" here, as there is no evidence I know of that any society where self-defence is properly legal results in innocents being blown away routinely. So if we're talking about illegal entrants what's the problem with them knowing they take their life in their hands when they violate someone's safe area. There's a proven link between burglary and rape in the UK, Mr. Letwin. Discourage one and you discourage the other. Restore to people the right to feel safe in one's home and person! It's a simple matter.
:: Swordsman 1/07/2002 01:41:00 PM [+] ::
...

The People's Party?

Terence Kealey makes an interesting point in Two cultures today. He relates the success of the conservative policy of welfare reform in America, and its adoption by New Labour. It's a policy of a kind that needs to be wrested back and employed properly:

"Under Margaret Thatcher, the Tories embraced a market ideology to empower themselves against socialism. Yet, historically, the Tories were the party of the state, and they have long believed in harnessing its power to benefit - but not to shackle - ordinary people and the impulses of self-help and charity.

"Let the Tories now reclaim, not a soggy centre ground, but their own Third Way, by which government helps people improve their own health, education and welfare."

This is very, very important. Civitas, mentioned by Kealey, also publishes Helping the Poor which looks at the distinction in the Victorian era between "visiting charities" and "dole charities." Unfortunately, when the UK government usurped the role of charities, they took the dole charities as their model, with the consequent problem of welfare dependency. Adopting a visiting model would presumably mean not a return to the humiliations of means-testing (very contentious in the North-East), but a "customer-centred" model of individual attention, a la Giuliani's welfare centres in New York. There's a lot to learn from history and America here.
:: Swordsman 1/03/2002 01:05:00 PM [+] ::
...

Just privatise the damned thing!

Great Janet Daley column today, Fining the public is not the way to save the BBC.

She's quite right to draw attention to the idiocy behind putting the Beeb on the same regulatory footing as the independent companies when it has a completely different funding source. Part of the reason for poor project management in the nationalised industries was that the project managers knew that they were backed by the practically infinite resources of the public purse, and so had no incentive to save money. Similarly, the Beeb, as long as it gets its money from what is essentially a hypothecated poll tax, has no incentive to use its money wisely. Every year they ask Parliament (actually, HMG) for an increase in the licence fee. Often they get it. Why should this fail to be the case in the new environment? Now if there was a clause that the Licence Fee would be decreased after any fine, I can see there being a point, but it's still not as effective a solution as privatising the whole darn mess.
:: Swordsman 1/02/2002 07:45:00 AM [+] ::
...