I have to admit I rarely read Janan Ganesh in the FT: if I wanted to read right wing nonsense in the morning I had, until the last couple of days, usually been offered plenty of it here. But he is interesting on Douglas Carswell's defection to UK for precisely that reason. As he says:
Mr Carswell's departure was both shocking and inevitable. He is one of life's believers, which marks him out in a party (and a country) that used to be defined by its pragmatism and wariness of ideology.
He then, rather neatly, describes the world of the libertarian ideologue:
[T]hey live in an intellectual ghetto, reading books that reinforce what they already believe, interpreting every real-world event as vindication of their non-falsifiable ideology.
It s also a world without compromises:
They will not appreciate the comparison but dealing with the right is like negotiating with the Soviets. Nothing is ever enough for them.
And as he concludes:
The Tories' worst split since the Victorian age could be in the works. This is what happens when a party that abhors ideology becomes soaked in it
Too true: the lid may not be containable for the Tories for a lot longer. Most of its activists are libertarian ideologues.
But let's not for a minute be complacent. These people aren't. They want it all, by denying it to everyone else. A split with UKIP may well hold them back for now, and it is true that the UK really does not like ideologues so they may be, temporarily at least , unelectable. But that means the pressure to create positive thinking on the policies that can be be offered that will really make life better for most people in this country is vital.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think there is some integrity about Carswell which is refreshing even though I have no truck with UKIP. At least he has put his concerns above his career. I have always wondered why people like Steve baker, Carswell and Goldsmith stay in the Tory Party -maybe because the can at least get their voices heard that way.
Carswell, I think, is on the Austrian side of the spectrum -which I’m personally not happy with but at least he is advocating money reform and contributing to the debate about it which is more than can be said about most MP’s who still haven’t cottoned on to bank money creation and the multiplier myth. (see: http://www.positivemoney.org/2014/08/7-10-mps-dont-know-creates-money-uk/)
I think this defection is a hopeful sign as I, personally, look forward to the break up of our now defunct main political parties and a move towards real democracy and real, informed choice.
Some here might recall my saying that the major parties would be divided. It begins 🙂 I’m surprised he didn’t go to the Greens though, given his enthusiasm for bank reform. Maybe he thinks, rightly, immigration is of greater voter concern.
Bill-I get the impression Carswell is a small state man -but on the 100% fractional reserve side of the argument, at least as far as I know. I once wrote to him and his parliamentary stationary bears a Union Jack, so the UKIP move is no surprise. I think he is a decent politician and probably shares some limited ground with the left on the banking reform front.
I would not give him an inch – even for banking reform
His move to UKIP will only mean that Labour get back into power, which is something you have always wanted. This wont change anything in the UK from how it was a few years ago. As we have seen this week in France. The left now supporting business in major way.
Nothing has changed, nothing will change.
I agree-without PR and a wider choice it’s neo-lib, neo-lib or perhaps neo-lib.
I’m not even sure that Labour can be called Tory-lite anymore.
i worry that the wheels are falling off for the right-wing at exactly the right time and that Labour will inherit a ticking time bomb… only this time they won’t have the tools to delay the inevitable.
Some here are being overly optimistic – with a ‘Right Wing’ Media including the Sun, Mail, Times, Telegraph etc., the little Englander ‘exit’ / leaving our 26 economic partners will move up ‘the agend’a and gain more prominence so the pressure will increase on Cam to move further Right.
Labour, the unions, and business have done little to present the jobs/economic/ social case for the EU as was realised last May when UKIP did well in the European elections. Some here probably think it will go away; it will not as it’s a populist theme. Even the BBC main news last night used the term ‘bad’ immigration figures as they gave wall to wall coverage to Farage et.al. Beware what you wish for.
I think Mr Ganesh may be right that if the Conservatives don’t win the next election the party will crack like the temple’s wall.
Richard says the party activists are mostly libertarian ideologues but libertarianism is not, actually, compatible at all with such traditional Tory concerns as being anti-immigration, anti-gay rights or anti-drugs. In fact it is philosophically absurd to suggest capital should be free, but not labour & almost equally absurd to argue that all should be free in financial matters but not in sexual or health matters.
The Republicans manage to keep this unseemly coalition together, roughly, through the influence of evangelical Christianity/Mormonism. There is no equivalent force in the UK.
I remember listening to the “high priest” of old-school conservatism, Peter Hitchens, on R4 & being struck how little he liked or would even tolerate the “free marketeers”.
Mrs Thatcher described herself as a “c19th Liberal” so how can her faction remain in apart with “c19th Tories”?
You are quite right
The description of the Parti Socialiste as ‘left’ is risible. In reality it was a couple of dissident, now ex-Ministers, against the neo-liberal and pro-Merkel consensus; this from a Party elected on a false ‘anti-Merkel’ prospectus, which is languishing in the opinion polls _precisely_ because they have lied to the French people.
I don’t care, obviously, if the Tories DO lose the next Election; I rather hope they do. If they lose by a landslide, it couldn’t happen to nicer people – they richly deserve to be annihilated. But would a Labour Government be any better? Not if they implement the policies that Eds Miliband and Balls have announced and the Labour National Policy Forum have approved, no. For there will be yet MORE cuts in public spending on social programmes, a cap on ‘welfare’, no increases to speak of in taxation (the 50p higher rate of income tax must be set against the proposed cut in VAT & abolition of the bedroom tax, welcome though they will be), and a refusal to cut spending on Trident and other ‘defence’ projects (such as massive aircraft carriers with no aircraft!).
Like the 1929-31 or 1976-79 Labour Governments, a Miliband Government, if elected, will simply end up destroying itself! Both of those Governments worshipped at the shrine of fiscal and monetary orthodoxy, and it didn’t do either of them a scrap of good. Eds Miliband and Balls have learned absolutely nothing from history, and they will pay a high price for their ignorance.
It is a theme I am addressing in The Joy of Tax
I am a full blooded socialist as the next man but I realise Labour cannot be re-elected on some re-jigged old left romanticism. ‘Post crisis’ the state has to reconfigure its spending in terms of more spending on the NHS, elderly and social care at the cost of say social transfers to the ‘Neets’ who need proper training or a far, far better vocational education than they currently get in FE.
Young or less skilled mums with toddlers unable to work need an infrastructure of revised ‘child care’ A re-look at ‘the welfare cap’ is popular especially where paid to long term jobless in areas with say manyjobs. Recall many in Labour have expressed doubts about how ‘tax credits’ were being given to the reasonably well paid until quite recently or people up to 60K were getting full child benefit; to say nothing of the state subsidising low wages. And yes we have to completely look at ‘the Tax Gap’, skewed income tax and maybe the massive state subsidy of ‘pension tax relief’ to the highest earners and yes start a property tax.
If we really want to help the ‘real victims’ including the long term disabled and chronically ill – some re-prioritisation and targeting would be needed. There’s a further point however where government spending by Labour would be more on capital spending, housing supply, technology development , high value research in uni’s like life sciences; spending has to be cost-effective and stimulate factors that will help the development of our economy as our export/productivity side looks problematic.
Refocussing is essential
But let’s be clear, our problem is at present that we under deploy the resources we have domestically
I’m sure it’ll be _far_ better than Alex Comfort’s book!
As someone mentioned above: “the BBC main news last night used the term ‘bad’ immigration figures”
One thing the next Labour government will have to do, and early on, is ensure better control of the neolib media. The BBC is the state broadcaster, and immigration is government policy. Therefore, immigration cannot by definition be “bad”.
The Rotherham situation is a danger to Labour. The reality is that the Labour council is guilty of not much more than being overly accepting of other cultures. The morals of the right should be on trial here. The gangs exploited the vulnerable. Right wing, and who created the underclass in the first place?
We don’t need “received pronunciation” anymore, but maybe we do need at least some “received opinions” established and protected by government.
Free speech is great up to a point. To take a local example!, great thinkers such as our host have to spend some time arguing with deniers such as Worst-of-All. This is a great waste of a limited resource.
So there we have it – Labour (and the Left Wing) turned a blind eye to over 1,400 children being raped and abused by a defined sector of the community. People who showed concern and asked agencies to intervene were routinely branded as “racist”.
Now when found out, we have the left wing rushing to blame anybody but the perpetrators and the left wing politicians who facilitated this criminal activity for their warped political ends.
I am sure the rape victims (and those that had their babies confiscated in a further effort at cover up) will sleep a lot more easily knowing that it was all the fault of right wing.
Heaven forbid the left ever get hold of the economy and in particular tax policy.
I find your comment deeply offensive for a number of reasons.
Most obviously, I am offended that like those you seek to criticise you make no attempt to blame those Pakistani men who appear to have been responsible for this crime but instead blame others. You are as culpable as those you seek to blame in this negligence.
Second, you ignore those like Ann Cryer who did speak up.
Third, you ignore that agencies commonly associated with all sides of the political spectrum failed here.
Fourth, you fail to note what the Observer has written today.
Fifth, at a personal I am deeply offended that you post this here as though I might approve of what happened. That’s because in the first instance the first ever significant political speech I made was criticising left wing libertarians at my university who wished to support the Pedophile Information Exchange – an act on their part that I found abhorrent in the 70s and still do now. I was willing to stand up and say so when I was 19. I have never changed my attitude since. Then there is the fact that you ignore I have argued for a Courageous State – which would never have been guilty of this. This is the cowardly state at work.
And I also think it profoundly perverted logic to in any way link left of centre tax policy with this failure. I am appalled that you might try to do so. The whole point of my concern is to provide the security to people so that they can flourish to the best of their ability. In Rotherham that failed completely and I condemn those who committed these crimes and those who failed to address them in equal part. They were wrong and deserve the consequences of failing. But to then say that the resources needed to protect the young and the vulnerable should be withdrawn as a result – as you would have it – is quite literally sickening logic for which I equally totally condemn you in equal part.
Yu will not comment here again.
Perhaps then you should take a closer look at the comments from your commentator Jack C, which through your silence I must assume you agree with:
“The reality is that the Labour council is guilty of not much more than being overly accepting of other cultures.”
Say no more!
“The morals of the right should be on trial here.”
Again an interesting view clearly intended to shift blame from the left to the right.
Of course Pakistani and other Asian men were responsible. I said as much. But that they were able to continue for so many years was facilitated by political correctness on the part of the left – as stated clearly by Dennis McShane and strong;y alluded to in the Jay report. Even Anne Cryer said she should have done more.
But, the issue here is whether Jack C is correct or not? You decide!
I agree I should have been more robust with Jack C.
He was wrong
But if you honestly think another’s errors exonerate your own you prove yet again how neatly you would have fitted into the culture of those who could turn a blind eye
Jack C
aren’t you clever! I assume you posted on here as a “dare” from your “mates” on the libertarian sites.
I don’t necessarily mind facetiousness. Auberon Waugh was good at it, You know, witty, self-effacing, amusing, intelligent. You aren’t. Go & crawl back up your own name.