[Tim]

Conservatism, it seems, has two strands, which i find are incompatible with each other. Especially in Britain.

We have the free-market and strong state Thatcherites and the inclusive, social-market paternalists.

How they can be united int he same cause or party seeing as they differ so much on issues like Europe, immigration, taxation and the eocnomy as a whole, is beyond me.

Plus, thatcherism is ideological, which i find is key to it. It's conviction and firm stance on issues don't let it give in to the 'ratchet effect' (by this i mean the ever leftward movement of the country's polity). The paternalists practically gave in to the social revolutionaries of the 60's and 70's.

ther paternalists, however, are tuned into pragmatism, and nobless oblige (noble obligations, i.e. a welfare state, progressive taxation etc.) they also favour the inclusive society and to some degree, political correctness.

So, which way is it to be, Rightward with the Thatcherites or leftward with the paternalists?

[Mark]

This seems to be One Nation versus Thatcherism.... or basically, centre vs centre right.


I'm more one-nation on the welfare question, but thatcherity on public services. Politically though, Labour are all over the centre position. So either we move Right or become pointless.

[Tim]

either we move Right or become pointless.

Exactly!!

but i fear the tories won't. I heard on skynews this morning that they want to change the name - so as to become more relevant (bangs head on desk)

suggestions leaked were:
Democrats
New Democrats
and....
Progress and Reform Conservatives!!!

and if that doesn't make you ill, ive also heard that the party may change its emblem to a butterfly!!!

we need another great party on the right, quickly!

[Mark]

I like the name "New Democrats". "Democrats" reminds me too much of the US party, and "Reform and Progress Conservatives" is too long and has conflicting ideas.



As for a butterfly logo -


The only way they can make it work is by actually changing its policies. We need to move back to where we were under IDS ideologically, but with a more democratic-based philosophy. Electoral reform, real devolution of powers, empowering local government, choice - these should be the tenets of new conservatism.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think the Tories could gain a lot of groundswell support by coming out against the recent Iraq War. Many conservatives were opposed to the war to begin with (such as the crowd over at The Spectator), and more and more are growing disenchanted. Additionally, you'd probably suck off quite a few Labour votes, as I suspect most Labour voters aren't really in favor of the Iraq war. Perhaps most importantly, the Tories need to stop waffling on the EU--all this talk of a "flexible Europe" is perceived by voters for exactly what it is--sham talk designed to dance around an uncomfortable issue. The Tories could coopt UKIPites and significantly distance itself from Labour by proposing the sort of agreement Norway and Switzerland have reached with Europe. It seems to me that most Britons are slightly Euroskeptical, given that the Euro continues to fail. Also, perhaps a novel suggestion, such as a FTA with the United States and Canada, would be a useful pole.

[Tim]

Indeed.

A Thatcherite-National party is exactly what britain needs.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Indeed.

A Thatcherite-National party is exactly what britain needs.

Many of Thatcher's social policies probably wouldn't fly well in today's Britain, though. I think the best way to promote "traditional" morality is by cutting the sinews which restrain society's most important bulwark against moral decline: the family. To do this, one needs to slay the central bank and kill the welfare state, two ideas which I think are inconceivable in Britain (well, killing the BoE might be doable with a very slick PR campaign). In any case, an action isn't virtuous unless it's voluntary.

Besides, some of us like the promiscuous new world...

[Tim]

The welfare state has done more to undermine the family than anything else.

But, i feel that strong families and social conservatism is better for a free market than a licentious one.

the paternalist trend at the moment is to go along with everything Blair does, for example giving underage mothers £5,000 perh child!!!
No word condemning the policy from any Tory front bencher!

The paternalists are too in touch with social liberalism to be a credit to the country. Remember Ted Heath gave into the miners!!! the paternalists in general, lack the conviction and the political muscle to be good for the country!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I think monetary inflation has done more to destroy the family than welfare, actually. What's worse is that few people realize its pernicious effects.

[Tim]

I tend to disagree, i think the government's attack on the family has been damaging.

Thatcher was an advocate for victorian values of laissez faire capitalism and social conservatism. The permissive legislation of the 60's was designed to break the consensus that was based around the family and traditional values.

Since then on in, the government got rid of the married couples allowance, family allowances - which were government incentives for the family (a spending commitment i do approve of) however, it shoudl nto be necessary if the government were to pursue a true agenda of family and country policies. The paternalists are too pragmatic to save the family unit, the thatcherites, however, steeped in ideology, can fight for it.

[Mark]

Dao....The Bank of England is independent from the government...

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Dao....The Bank of England is independent from the government...

But the government gave it its charter, and the Bank of England maintains a monopoly on note issue. All banks in Britain are fiefs of the Bank of England, and the Bank of England actively manages the economy. While it may not be part of the government proper, it maintains the right to initiate force, which makes it a de facto part of the government.

Tim, you cannot simultaneously advocate laissez-faire capitalism and government enforcement of traditional social values--they're inconsistent. Capitalism is a complete system, not merely a value-free economics which stresses private ownership of capital goods.

Consider reading this article, Tim (it's by a paleoconservative): http://mises.org/fullstory.aspx?control=1570

[Tim]

I'm not a consistent libertarian, so i advocate as much of the economy to be free as possible. But, i do like a small, but strong state, that advocates social conservatism etc.

The method here is that strong and stable families, social order etc. give a good base for the free market to operate - to the extent that the free market can. I would consider myself a Thatcherite Conservative instead of a Libertarian for those very reasons. I sympathise with the libertarians on economic issues, but not on social policy.

You'd find, however, that many British Thatcherites favour the free market and social conservatism. Overall the One Nation Conservatives are social liberals and economic lefties. The Thatcherites are social conservatives and free marketeers. Odd, but it is the best way to achieve social order, which is Conservatism advocates.

the free market creates responsibility and self reliance. Social conservatism creates strong law and order policies and a strong government. thus we get social order.

[Comrade Ogilvy]

Strong families and moral societies arise out of the actions of free, virtuous individuals, not of promotion, sanction, or coercion of the state.

[Tim]

yes, but that is where conservatives differ from libertarians. conservatives have a negative view of human nature. However, if the government hadnt thrown so much anti-family legislation at the people, and undermined the family - then it wouldn't have come to this. the family unit became the moral staple and the backbone of the nation through nature, so maybe they may. you make an interesting and noble point Daovonnaex.

however, the damage has been done by the leftist governments. So the state needs to correct it, i'm afraid. Then it can not interfere because the natural state of social conservatism has been restored to the public - necessitating no need for governemnt interference!

[Comrade Ogilvy]

I hold a negative view of human nature as well. I especially am fearful of what happens when you entrust humans with power, which is exactly why I reject statist solutions.

Problems that have been created by the state are not solved by the state. You then enter into a vicious cycle where each government action requires another government action to stamp out its unintended consequences. Since all government action has negative consequences, this creates the momentum necessary for limitless government. Proper conservatives fear and detest arbitrary authority, and they never accept statolotry.

Obviously, you cannot return to the "morality" which existed, say, prior to the First World War--that's simply gone. A powerful, long-lasting alliance of church and state may bring it back, but that would require decades, perhaps even centuries of trammeling liberties, freedom, and lives. I wouldn't find that traditional morality desirable in any fashion as it is, since it tends to suppress human nature, which leads more unstable humans to find an outlet in a sick netherworld of pederasty and serial killing.

What can be restored, however, is the family, and the local community. However, this can only be restored by the people themselves. People will naturally organize themselves into stable, supportive structures, given the absence of coercion. The very existence of the nuclear family, of marriage, and of extended networks of kinship is testament to this. No agent compelled people to form these groups which are the bedrock of civilization. Left to their own devices, these natural alliances will reemerge, and the dangerous evils of collectivism and statolotry will vanish.

[Attenuated Signal]

ive also heard that the party may change its emblem to a butterfly!!!

we need another great party on the right, quickly!

To make it worse I've heard it's going to be a rainbow butterfly shaking the hand of an interracial lesbian couple.

Seriously though I'd prefer it if the Tories would head further towards Thatcherite policies and leave the left to the left. The country will not be helped by having two parties both being centre right (yes, I don't believe Labour are really left wing anymore). A strong opposition is necessary for the functioning of democracy, Blairs second term has more than adequately shown what happens when a leader is allowed to exercise a presidental style unopposed.

[Tim]

ive also heard that the party may change its emblem to a butterfly!!!

we need another great party on the right, quickly!

To make it worse I've heard it's going to be a rainbow butterfly shaking the hand of an interracial lesbian couple.

Seriously though I'd prefer it if the Tories would head further towards Thatcherite policies and leave the left to the left. The country will not be helped by having two parties both being centre right (yes, I don't believe Labour are really left wing anymore). A strong opposition is necessary for the functioning of democracy, Blairs second term has more than adequately shown what happens when a leader is allowed to exercise a presidental style unopposed.

It wouldn't surprise me if some wacko in CCO decided the new emblem was going to be the butterfly, inter-racial lesbians and Romano Prodi cuddling!!

I think it was time Labour's grassroots took more action in taking the party leftward - then it would give more cause for th eTories to move rightward. In that respect, the Tories would get back in power (as we always do whan Labour move to the left )

[Seán Himmelb(L)au]

(by this i mean the ever leftward movement of the country's polity).

Doesn't this give you the idea that this is rightful natural progression, and maybe that that's what the people want?

*runs out of the Conservatism section before Edwina and Maggie see him*

[Attenuated Signal]

(by this i mean the ever leftward movement of the country's polity).

Doesn't this give you the idea that this is rightful natural progression, and maybe that that's what the people want?

*runs out of the Conservatism section before Edwina and Maggie see him*

Yeah, but we've had to put up with Labour ditching their old supporters and flying over to the right.