Probably, just about, maybe. (Anthony Devlin/Getty Images)
For the Right, 2022 was a year to forget. In Canada, Australia and New Zealand, it is out of power. In the States, the Republicans hold just one element of national government, and only marginally; their main influence comes from a legacy grip on the Supreme Court. In Britain, the Tories are in office but look deflated, running down the clock until an election defeat. For conservatives on both sides of the Atlantic, then, there are just 12 months to put to bed any internal crises and find a convincing, popular platform before the major election campaigns of 2024 kick off.
Like the Tories, the GOP go into 2023 electorally bruised. Their embrace of populism has not proved popular enough to sustain victory, but instead left them sullied by association with men who largely co-opted them for vehicles of their own ambition. Neither party seems capable of sating their supporters’ desires on key issues, such as immigration, but have adopted rhetoric that scares off their more centrist supporters. Equally, they are finding their support in diminishing demographics — older, whiter, and less well-educated than the rest of the population.
Both parties also find themselves with an unclear message. Over the past decade, the Tories have struggled to find a defining narrative beyond wanting to win. They have tried austerity, Brexit, levelling up, tax cuts and austerity again, yet have still ended up with an economy devoid of growth and stagnating wages. They have waged a half-interested culture war but largely become socially progressive. Even on immigration, their professed conservatism has resolved into higher rates. They have chased focus groups and polls until they have come out of the rabbit hole believing in nothing.
The Republican Party has the same problem, but in an even more chaotic form. The neocon Christianity of the Bush years gave rise to the Tea Party which eventually spiralled into the Right-wing populism Trump harnessed. Now moving even more quickly, the American Right largely seems to be made up of an assortment of “own the libs at all costs” reactionaries. Still struggling to digest the impact of the TV-star president, ratings and attention are their driving force. There is little narrative to what they discuss, little thought — just knee-jerk responses to whatever the Democrats propose. Everything else seems more co-opted than born of conviction.
In 2023, the parties will have to find a way past this, a way to consolidate before the next electoral test. Instinctively, it feels it could be harder for the Tories. They are in government, dealing with the daily challenges that it throws up. With the economy in crisis, public services falling apart, and a war in Europe continuing, these will not be insignificant. After a dozen years in power, they are exhausted, emotionally, and intellectually, with many of their MPs already checked out. Those who remain are too focused on surviving to think of thriving. Party unity is shot, while internal bickering is rampant.
If the party is to succeed, perhaps even survive, beyond the next 18 months, the work has to begin now. The Conservatives need to find a compelling case for their own existence, beyond relying on the votes of older retirees. They need to find big answers to the practical issues the under-50s face, as well as a way to argue for conservative principles without sounding like an old man wailing at a cloud.
Join the discussion
Join like minded readers that support our journalism by becoming a paid subscriber
To join the discussion in the comments, become a paid subscriber.
Join like minded readers that support our journalism, read unlimited articles and enjoy other subscriber-only benefits.
SubscribeThere is a problem with your recommendations for the Tories – firstly, they have no conservative principles to argue for anymore. Secondly, knowing this, and remembering their utterly abysmal record when it comes to keeping electoral promise, nobody will believe them.
In twelve years they reneged on everything except the promise to hold the EU referendum, which they then spent years trying to wriggle out of, and they’ve enacted about two-thirds of Brexit. Every other promise was a deliberate lie.
Therefore, promises will not be enough – there must be action. They’ve got eighteen months. Better get on with it.
Fantastic summation.
I think at this stage though I don’t want them to ‘get on with’ anything. I want them as far away from the levers of power as possible – even if in the short term the alternative is worse.
Almost to a man or woman they are weak, stupid, cowardly imposters posing as Conservatives – as devoid of ideas as they are principles; the scale of their failures conspiring to leave huge swathes of the population utterly reliant on state support and the rest mostly convinced that anything with even a whiff of rightwing about it is bound to produce the same dismal outcomes.
Only total destruction of the party will suffice for a renewal. The only problem is that the death of ‘The Conservatives’ could – in the UK at least – very well mean the death of Conservatism itself.
When was the last time the Tories were actually conservative? I’d argue it pre dates Thatcher, seeing as she was a turbo charged economic liberal who didn’t conserve a single thing. Every leader since then has largely followed her lead, unfortunately for them that particular brand of neoliberal economics is now becoming increasingly unpopular amongst the electorate
Thatcher behaved like a junkie selling the furniture, and declared it a miracle.
A small state is a conservative trait, I give her credit for that.
A small state is fine – if it’s working. When it can’t function for functionaries, and can’t focus for focus groups, it’s not a ‘state’ but a rabble. As for its purpose? Beyond ‘winning the next election’, can anyone point to what that might be? Because running a country for the benefit of its citizens and denizens doesn’t seem to figure at all.
The Tory problem is the UK problem in miniature: we have been fooled into thinking we have no collective identity or interests, but exist in a mesh of intersecting and competing ‘communities’ based on ‘identities’ approved by academics and professional activists.
A small state is fine if it works. The reforms Thatcher however hollowed out the capacity of the state to get anything done, which led to basic functions having to be farmed out to private contractors for double the cost.
Much like Blair with his PPIs, it was simply a case of fiddling the books to appear to be saving money
Any economist will tell you that anything run by the state is more expensive than the private sector
Any economist will tell you that anything run by the state is more expensive than the private sector
..for sure! Having all national assets in the hands of foreigners is clearly a better option. Sell everything to the highest bidder; let them strip the assets and invest zero. Instead let them suck the utilities dry, pay huge dividends and make obscene profits. Yep, far better approach!
I suppose it’s a matter of conservatism often falling into wanting to revert to some better past time – socially mobile meritocracies do not evolve from a small state, and that was the promise / lie / contradiction of thatcherism. Renting ones country instead of owning it is not “small state”, it’s small brained. She sold it, blew the proceeds and now the British people are subject to rentseeking by big business for assets they previously collectively owned.
A small state is fine – if it’s working. When it can’t function for functionaries, and can’t focus for focus groups, it’s not a ‘state’ but a rabble. As for its purpose? Beyond ‘winning the next election’, can anyone point to what that might be? Because running a country for the benefit of its citizens and denizens doesn’t seem to figure at all.
The Tory problem is the UK problem in miniature: we have been fooled into thinking we have no collective identity or interests, but exist in a mesh of intersecting and competing ‘communities’ based on ‘identities’ approved by academics and professional activists.
A small state is fine if it works. The reforms Thatcher however hollowed out the capacity of the state to get anything done, which led to basic functions having to be farmed out to private contractors for double the cost.
Much like Blair with his PPIs, it was simply a case of fiddling the books to appear to be saving money
..for sure! Having all national assets in the hands of foreigners is clearly a better option. Sell everything to the highest bidder; let them strip the assets and invest zero. Instead let them suck the utilities dry, pay huge dividends and make obscene profits. Yep, far better approach!
I suppose it’s a matter of conservatism often falling into wanting to revert to some better past time – socially mobile meritocracies do not evolve from a small state, and that was the promise / lie / contradiction of thatcherism. Renting ones country instead of owning it is not “small state”, it’s small brained. She sold it, blew the proceeds and now the British people are subject to rentseeking by big business for assets they previously collectively owned.
Thatcher was not IMO a conservative – she was concerned with what ppl did in their bedrooms, their tastes in music or intoxicants. BAe and Marconi were DSS schemes for the middle classes. Like her hero Pinochet she was a corporatist, his precedents were Mussolini & Franco. She was, however, a good antidote to the greater evils of the Wilson/Scargill/Brezhnev axis and the “Frankfurt School”. Re next election i think Rishi should follow Ronald Reagans advice: “Don’t just do something, stand there”. Whilst we still have a free press and wide internet access Labour can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their systemic racism ©EHRC against Jews and white folk plus their insistence there are no women’s rights because, well , there are no women, will be enough if British common sense prevails.
I thought ‘wimmin’s rights’ was a bad thing- I find it hard to keep up these days.
But yes, Labour have absolutely declared that “there are no women”- that’s an undeniable, stone-cold fact.
You’re confusing conservatism and libertarianism
Your contribution came in two halves: the first made a good deal of sense. The second half was the greatest load of crap I’ve read in a long time! My favourite t**d in the mix is the bit about “free press”.. Ha ha ha…
Your comments about Thatcher’s beliefs and policies are certainly original – but absolutely potty for all that! Your grasp of basic economic policy is somewhat lacking.
All those military dictators wearing uniforms and occasionally sunglasses must be the same, right?! Spain under Franco tried autarchy for decades, which immiserated it even more than it had been following the Civil War, until he appointed a technocratic government in the 1960s which did finally spark very fast (though unbalanced) growth. Pinochet on the other hand immediately called in the free market ‘Chicago Boys’ whose policies were more akin to Thatcher’s, though more radical as of course all the country was not a democracy and opposition could be brutally suppressed.
I thought ‘wimmin’s rights’ was a bad thing- I find it hard to keep up these days.
But yes, Labour have absolutely declared that “there are no women”- that’s an undeniable, stone-cold fact.
You’re confusing conservatism and libertarianism
Your contribution came in two halves: the first made a good deal of sense. The second half was the greatest load of crap I’ve read in a long time! My favourite t**d in the mix is the bit about “free press”.. Ha ha ha…
Your comments about Thatcher’s beliefs and policies are certainly original – but absolutely potty for all that! Your grasp of basic economic policy is somewhat lacking.
All those military dictators wearing uniforms and occasionally sunglasses must be the same, right?! Spain under Franco tried autarchy for decades, which immiserated it even more than it had been following the Civil War, until he appointed a technocratic government in the 1960s which did finally spark very fast (though unbalanced) growth. Pinochet on the other hand immediately called in the free market ‘Chicago Boys’ whose policies were more akin to Thatcher’s, though more radical as of course all the country was not a democracy and opposition could be brutally suppressed.
She pawned her guitar and saxophone She’s pawning everything in your mother’s home
It was a miracle for the UK economy and it has all been wasted by pygmies in No.10 ever since
A small state is a conservative trait, I give her credit for that.
Thatcher was not IMO a conservative – she was concerned with what ppl did in their bedrooms, their tastes in music or intoxicants. BAe and Marconi were DSS schemes for the middle classes. Like her hero Pinochet she was a corporatist, his precedents were Mussolini & Franco. She was, however, a good antidote to the greater evils of the Wilson/Scargill/Brezhnev axis and the “Frankfurt School”. Re next election i think Rishi should follow Ronald Reagans advice: “Don’t just do something, stand there”. Whilst we still have a free press and wide internet access Labour can snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. Their systemic racism ©EHRC against Jews and white folk plus their insistence there are no women’s rights because, well , there are no women, will be enough if British common sense prevails.
She pawned her guitar and saxophone She’s pawning everything in your mother’s home
It was a miracle for the UK economy and it has all been wasted by pygmies in No.10 ever since
Oh, I don’t know, they’ve always preserved access to all the gravy trains to those who vote how they’re told to. They conserved beautifully the career progression path from fast-talking economic wide boy to biddable Minister to cover-up artist Cabinet Member to £1m+ a year salary with a billionaire’s front organisation, haven’t they??
I think you’d have to go back to Macmillan/Douglas-Hume, and only then because they didn’t attempt to do anything very much apart from “manage” the start of the withdrawal from the Empire. Heath wasn’t a conservative.
Thatcher behaved like a junkie selling the furniture, and declared it a miracle.
Oh, I don’t know, they’ve always preserved access to all the gravy trains to those who vote how they’re told to. They conserved beautifully the career progression path from fast-talking economic wide boy to biddable Minister to cover-up artist Cabinet Member to £1m+ a year salary with a billionaire’s front organisation, haven’t they??
I think you’d have to go back to Macmillan/Douglas-Hume, and only then because they didn’t attempt to do anything very much apart from “manage” the start of the withdrawal from the Empire. Heath wasn’t a conservative.
I don’t believe the Conssrvatives are weak, stupid or cowardly. They are simply no longer concerned with any semblance of duty to the nation or electorate. They have abandoned all relationship with the truth, and see no reason why anyone would think otherwise.
You may well be right! Their apparently stupidity may be a cunning plan to hide the truth (you outline).. Blackadder style??
But then again what has Labor offered or for that matter the Democrats in the USA – spend. spend, spend to buy votes. That’s eventually not going to work either…
You may well be right! Their apparently stupidity may be a cunning plan to hide the truth (you outline).. Blackadder style??
But then again what has Labor offered or for that matter the Democrats in the USA – spend. spend, spend to buy votes. That’s eventually not going to work either…
Conservatism (or traditionalism, for clarity) is still firmly rooted in the population. Don’t let the metropolitan Twitteristas fool you.
The electorate aren’t fooled. Nor are we represented.
It’s a goof thing for your ‘theory’ that “the electorate” are an amorphous blob who all think the same- coincidentally, exactly and only what you think.
Why not just be honest, and say ‘this is what I think”, and leave all the silly assumptions about what everybody else thinks?
It’s a goof thing for your ‘theory’ that “the electorate” are an amorphous blob who all think the same- coincidentally, exactly and only what you think.
Why not just be honest, and say ‘this is what I think”, and leave all the silly assumptions about what everybody else thinks?
If Conservatism is maintaining the status quo I’d day you couldn’t be more wrong! If it’s yearning for the “good ol’ days” thar exist in flawed memories then I’d say you’re spot on.
The electorate aren’t fooled. Nor are we represented.
If Conservatism is maintaining the status quo I’d day you couldn’t be more wrong! If it’s yearning for the “good ol’ days” thar exist in flawed memories then I’d say you’re spot on.
There is a clear need to redefine the term “Conservatism” not so much in dictionary terms but in terms of what those of a right tendency actually want, fully informed on what the consequences are. For example, if it’s rampant capitalism, the market rules, winner takes all and the devil takes the rest, fine; say so. Or perhaps it’s hard work and responsibility well rewarded and the work shy squeezed, fine; say so. But be clear.
Be clear in particular about the role of government in it’s obligation to redistribute the wealth which naturally makes its way to the obscenely rich OR whether scant social obligations are to be paid for by the poor or by magic money. Be clear too on whether the City’s laundering of criminally acquired assets is acceptable or even viable. If it is, fine; but say so and be clear on the likely outcomes and unintended consequences of all these policies. Building Conservatism on lies and deceit is not a runner. That at least, is now obvious, surely?
When was the last time the Tories were actually conservative? I’d argue it pre dates Thatcher, seeing as she was a turbo charged economic liberal who didn’t conserve a single thing. Every leader since then has largely followed her lead, unfortunately for them that particular brand of neoliberal economics is now becoming increasingly unpopular amongst the electorate
I don’t believe the Conssrvatives are weak, stupid or cowardly. They are simply no longer concerned with any semblance of duty to the nation or electorate. They have abandoned all relationship with the truth, and see no reason why anyone would think otherwise.
Conservatism (or traditionalism, for clarity) is still firmly rooted in the population. Don’t let the metropolitan Twitteristas fool you.
There is a clear need to redefine the term “Conservatism” not so much in dictionary terms but in terms of what those of a right tendency actually want, fully informed on what the consequences are. For example, if it’s rampant capitalism, the market rules, winner takes all and the devil takes the rest, fine; say so. Or perhaps it’s hard work and responsibility well rewarded and the work shy squeezed, fine; say so. But be clear.
Be clear in particular about the role of government in it’s obligation to redistribute the wealth which naturally makes its way to the obscenely rich OR whether scant social obligations are to be paid for by the poor or by magic money. Be clear too on whether the City’s laundering of criminally acquired assets is acceptable or even viable. If it is, fine; but say so and be clear on the likely outcomes and unintended consequences of all these policies. Building Conservatism on lies and deceit is not a runner. That at least, is now obvious, surely?
I genuinely struggle to think of anything conservative that the Conservatives have done since being elected back in 2010. If I’m generous, you could argue that they were being classically liberal but that’s about it.
Fantastic summation.
I think at this stage though I don’t want them to ‘get on with’ anything. I want them as far away from the levers of power as possible – even if in the short term the alternative is worse.
Almost to a man or woman they are weak, stupid, cowardly imposters posing as Conservatives – as devoid of ideas as they are principles; the scale of their failures conspiring to leave huge swathes of the population utterly reliant on state support and the rest mostly convinced that anything with even a whiff of rightwing about it is bound to produce the same dismal outcomes.
Only total destruction of the party will suffice for a renewal. The only problem is that the death of ‘The Conservatives’ could – in the UK at least – very well mean the death of Conservatism itself.
I genuinely struggle to think of anything conservative that the Conservatives have done since being elected back in 2010. If I’m generous, you could argue that they were being classically liberal but that’s about it.
There is a problem with your recommendations for the Tories – firstly, they have no conservative principles to argue for anymore. Secondly, knowing this, and remembering their utterly abysmal record when it comes to keeping electoral promise, nobody will believe them.
In twelve years they reneged on everything except the promise to hold the EU referendum, which they then spent years trying to wriggle out of, and they’ve enacted about two-thirds of Brexit. Every other promise was a deliberate lie.
Therefore, promises will not be enough – there must be action. They’ve got eighteen months. Better get on with it.
Not buying it. The Tories are losing people like me, who stayed with them in 1997, a period when not a few MPs on the payroll were outright corrupt, selling themselves to the highest bidder to promote causes in government circles as the party headed for a huge defeat. We could just about put up with that, but we cannot put up with the complete nullity they have become in a very short space of time. They were at the wheel when fate presented this country with the greatest challenge since WWII, and instead of rising to this challenge with independent thinking and gumption, they have been found wanting.
Spot on!
All of our so called Tory Governments since 1945 have supinely accepted and nurtured the Welfare State established by Attlee and Beveridge.
When one thinks of the charlatans involved, Eden, Macmillan, Heath Major & Co is it any wonder we are in the present predicament?
What happens when one allows the butler and footman to run the estate….
What happens when one allows the butler and footman to run the estate….
Spot on!
All of our so called Tory Governments since 1945 have supinely accepted and nurtured the Welfare State established by Attlee and Beveridge.
When one thinks of the charlatans involved, Eden, Macmillan, Heath Major & Co is it any wonder we are in the present predicament?
Not buying it. The Tories are losing people like me, who stayed with them in 1997, a period when not a few MPs on the payroll were outright corrupt, selling themselves to the highest bidder to promote causes in government circles as the party headed for a huge defeat. We could just about put up with that, but we cannot put up with the complete nullity they have become in a very short space of time. They were at the wheel when fate presented this country with the greatest challenge since WWII, and instead of rising to this challenge with independent thinking and gumption, they have been found wanting.
“They have chased focus groups and polls until they have come out of the rabbit hole believing in nothing.”
This is the core problem with the Conservative movement across the west. They don’t believe in anything. The GOP has won some battles by opposing hardcore wokeism, but Trump has hurt their brand.
The Tories in Britain and Canada are pathetic. You can’t distinguish between them and Liberals and Labour. Making a half-hearted, occasional attempt at outrage only makes them look weak.
At least the GOP has Desantis. He has shown that actions speak louder than words. He turned a purple state deep red by standing up for the working and middle class. Conservatives everywhere need to take note.
Sounds about right.. I especially loved Truss’s deeply felt outrage at the import of French cheese!
Sounds about right.. I especially loved Truss’s deeply felt outrage at the import of French cheese!
“They have chased focus groups and polls until they have come out of the rabbit hole believing in nothing.”
This is the core problem with the Conservative movement across the west. They don’t believe in anything. The GOP has won some battles by opposing hardcore wokeism, but Trump has hurt their brand.
The Tories in Britain and Canada are pathetic. You can’t distinguish between them and Liberals and Labour. Making a half-hearted, occasional attempt at outrage only makes them look weak.
At least the GOP has Desantis. He has shown that actions speak louder than words. He turned a purple state deep red by standing up for the working and middle class. Conservatives everywhere need to take note.
Interesting perspective but it lacks engagement with the crucial question of our time: do you believe in, and align with, the globalist, utopian narrative of “transformative” policies to “reimagine” society, economy, and politics for a “sustainable” and more “equitable” future in which man has become not only the master of the natural environment, but over his own psychology and genetically in-built tendency towards competition with others – and all of the creative and destructive forces that it unleashes?
None of that is conservative. It’s radically “progressive”, following a eugenicist line well-trodden by the Huxleys, HG Wells, Bernard Shaw and others. But nominal conservatives, in the UK and elsewhere, detached from both present-day reality and historical understanding, seem totally oblivious to this and so enthusiastically jump aboard.
Naturally, like all attempts to buck human nature and defy physical limits (twentieth century Europe offers some obvious examples), these plans won’t work and they will do more harm than good – the only question is when it will come to be commonly acknowledged that they are failing and harmful. Once that tipping point is reached all of these politicians and parties – right, left, or centre – associated will become throughly discredited and unelectable.
And what then? The scope for the most virulent authoritarian populism – of hard left or hard right varieties – that would deconstruct liberal democracy itself should be obvious. As should (and the two are not mutually exclusive) be the possibility of foreign occupation, perhaps militarily or more likely, today’s world, through the subtler means of information control.
Actual conservatives and actual progressives alike, if they have any integrity or honour or care about the country that they are going to bequeath their children, must now find the humility and courage to think again, stand up to be counted, and get off the globalist juggernaut that is accelerating off a cliff.
Fine words but absolute ballocks
Um, thanks, I guess. Care to expand?
Really? Which bits? And why?
Um, thanks, I guess. Care to expand?
Really? Which bits? And why?
Huxley?
Yes, Aldous Huxley and his brother, Julian who was amongst other things, the President of the British Eugenics society, the first Director of UNESCO, and a founder member of the WWF (the pandas not the fake wrestling).
I would recommend reading Aldous Huxley’s lecture entitled “The Population Explosion”, given at the University of Santa Barbara on 9 March 1959 (available in compilation with a number of other interesting lectures the series in “The Human Situation” published by Triad Granada in 1980). In it, Huxley makes clear his concern about the “awful probability that we are just going to go on having more and more illiterate adults than we hand before”, and that “in very many cases the effort to raise human quality is being thwarted by the mere increase of human quantity, that quality is very often incompatible with quantity”. Uneducated, malnourished masses living in ugly “gigantic cities” cannot, in his view, sustain a democratic system of government and he fears that within “a hundreds to two hundred years an immensely hypertrophied human species will have become a kind of cancer on this planet and will ruin the quasi-organism on which lives”. He advocates “international policy” to implement some “intelligent and humane method” to solve the over-population problem, which is a “profoundly religious problem, a problem of human destiny”.
In a later lecture in the series, “The World’s Future”, he lauds the “most elaborate and essentially optimistic evolutionary philosophy” of Herbert Spencer [the acclaimed, racist, founder of “social Darwinism”] and other ‘progressive’ thinkers interested in charting a better future for mankind. Huxley discusses Bertrand Russell’s “extremely realistic and sensible” conclusions that the only alternatives for the future are a catastrophic nuclear war or “the creation of a single world state … by force, as the result of one power being victorious in a nuclear war … or under the threat of force, under the fear of what might happen, and as a result of reason and considered enlightened self-interest and humane ideals”. He suggests that this might only come about when there is some external threat that forces people to unite: “Undoubtedly, the best thing for world government under law would be an invasion from Mars”, but perhaps humans can persuade ourselves that “we are our own Martians” to “unite against ourselves for our own higher interests” and solve problems including over-population.
It’s so important to understand that the root of this captivating, so-called ‘inclusive’, high tech progressivism advocated by groups such as the WEF, however well intended it or its proponents might ostensibly be, really is in thinking which is profoundly anti-human, anti-liberal, and contemptuous of the worth and value of human life.
(I posted most of this comment on Prof Alison Bashford’s October 2022 piece suggesting that the Huxley brothers would be glad to see today’s declining birth rates https://unherd.com/2022/10/overpopulation-isnt-a-threat/ but thought it worth repeating here.)
Very informative but I’m not sure of its relevance… unless you think the WEF is, or has already, taken over?
Very informative but I’m not sure of its relevance… unless you think the WEF is, or has already, taken over?
Yes, Aldous Huxley and his brother, Julian who was amongst other things, the President of the British Eugenics society, the first Director of UNESCO, and a founder member of the WWF (the pandas not the fake wrestling).
I would recommend reading Aldous Huxley’s lecture entitled “The Population Explosion”, given at the University of Santa Barbara on 9 March 1959 (available in compilation with a number of other interesting lectures the series in “The Human Situation” published by Triad Granada in 1980). In it, Huxley makes clear his concern about the “awful probability that we are just going to go on having more and more illiterate adults than we hand before”, and that “in very many cases the effort to raise human quality is being thwarted by the mere increase of human quantity, that quality is very often incompatible with quantity”. Uneducated, malnourished masses living in ugly “gigantic cities” cannot, in his view, sustain a democratic system of government and he fears that within “a hundreds to two hundred years an immensely hypertrophied human species will have become a kind of cancer on this planet and will ruin the quasi-organism on which lives”. He advocates “international policy” to implement some “intelligent and humane method” to solve the over-population problem, which is a “profoundly religious problem, a problem of human destiny”.
In a later lecture in the series, “The World’s Future”, he lauds the “most elaborate and essentially optimistic evolutionary philosophy” of Herbert Spencer [the acclaimed, racist, founder of “social Darwinism”] and other ‘progressive’ thinkers interested in charting a better future for mankind. Huxley discusses Bertrand Russell’s “extremely realistic and sensible” conclusions that the only alternatives for the future are a catastrophic nuclear war or “the creation of a single world state … by force, as the result of one power being victorious in a nuclear war … or under the threat of force, under the fear of what might happen, and as a result of reason and considered enlightened self-interest and humane ideals”. He suggests that this might only come about when there is some external threat that forces people to unite: “Undoubtedly, the best thing for world government under law would be an invasion from Mars”, but perhaps humans can persuade ourselves that “we are our own Martians” to “unite against ourselves for our own higher interests” and solve problems including over-population.
It’s so important to understand that the root of this captivating, so-called ‘inclusive’, high tech progressivism advocated by groups such as the WEF, however well intended it or its proponents might ostensibly be, really is in thinking which is profoundly anti-human, anti-liberal, and contemptuous of the worth and value of human life.
(I posted most of this comment on Prof Alison Bashford’s October 2022 piece suggesting that the Huxley brothers would be glad to see today’s declining birth rates https://unherd.com/2022/10/overpopulation-isnt-a-threat/ but thought it worth repeating here.)
What do you men when you say “defy physical limits”?
What particular physical limits are you talking about, as one might define the entire history of humanity as one long project of ‘defying physical limits’, for good or ill.
I had in mind things predicating an energy “strategy” on extracting raw materials eg lithium which would, at the scale necessary, cost more in energy to extract that the energy they would generate. Also the idea that medicinal science can radically increase average human life expectancy way beyond that achievable with healthy lifestyles and basic level sanitation and medical care. This is why the authoritarian “progressives” love digitisation and the (failing) “metaverse” so much – in that fantasy matrix there are no physical limits and one can be whatever one wants to be or, more accurately, what the creepy manipulators pulling the strings want one to be.
I would agree that there is a long history of defying physical limits through technological progress but what I think people find hard to accept is the law of diminishing technological returns kicking in – they extrapolate that the (eventual) great enhancement to mass human wellbeing brought about, in the West, by the industrialisation of the 19th century can and must be repeated in the 21st century. Conservatives, especially, should be deeply sceptical of such claims and progressives, especially, should have regard to the suffering (eg a short, miserable life of drudgery in a noisy, dirty, dangerous mill) that it caused for many at the time. Both seem to have very short memories.
I’m not sure that I’ve yet to come across anyone proposing an energy source that will “extract” more energy that it would generate. Why would someone actually propose that- could you supply some technical references?
You seem to be confusing, or at least conflating, two things; on the one hand, the ‘advance’ of human technology, which with AI is exponential, and on the other, the wisdom or otherwise of actually using these technologies- and the perhaps malign effects some might have on our lives.
Medical science, for example, has been changing and extending our lives for a couple of centuries- you seem to be suggesting that it’s suddenly now become an affront to the Natural Order, which is an abstract ideological claim, and rather arbitrary in regards to any specific scientific technology. Should I refuse a particular, novel treatment for my cancer, on the grounds that I should naturally die, and any new advances are somehow “Progressive authoritarianism”? Who decides which new cancer treatments are humane, and which are offensive to conservative principles?
Most people share at least some of your fears about a human technological future unconfined by any sense of ‘Natural’ limits (though by definition, technology cannot “defy physical limits”). But making technology and science a metaphor for ideology isn’t very useful as a way of engaging with the complexity of the situation. My personal desire not to die of cancer isn’t a submission to a vast global Progressive authoritarian conspiracy.
I’d strongly agree that your personal desire not to die of cancer is not a submission to any kind of conspiracy, though what I was describing is not a conspiracy. It’s – in my view – a blinkered, somewhat self-interested, and in any event highly egotistical belief in the power of modern technology to overcome all of humankind’s problems. Perhaps I am wrong but I just do not believe that medical science will be able to extend average human lifespans beyond the natural limit that a minority of people have been lucky (or not, depending on your perspective) to be able to achieve ie somewhere in the region of 90 to 100 years. To put it bluntly, if the tech saves you from dying of cancer at 85, then that’s great, but the chances are that heart failure or pneumonia’s probably going to get you by the time you’re 95. We are but incredibly complex candles in the wind (by the way, if you are suffering from cancer I wish you all the very best for a speedy recovery and long life to come).
I would also dispute the assertion that the “advance of technology is exponential” with AI. How so? The robots are not miracle workers, they are not gods; they are algorithms. They occupy space in a universe where immutable physical laws apply. Nothing will come of nothing.
On your first para – it’s possible that self-interested, politically-motivated, myopic, or mistaken people might propose a scheme that might work at a limited scale but which could not work at larger scale (unless the magic bots get busy really quickly!). How many businesses have succeeded at first, prompting them to become over-optimistic and to fail after attempting to expand too quickly?
You asked for a technical reference: as an example, according to leading experts in the field “to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and 12% of one year’s total annual production of mined copper.” https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html
To come back to the article, and my original comment: there is nothing conservative about putting all our money, faith, and hopes in unproven, utopian schemes that lack humility and which risk failing spectacularly and destroying hard-won public trust in both our political system and in the power of medical science to make incremental, positive progress.
A lot of your post comes down essentially to little more than ‘it won’t work if it won’t work’. Which is, of course, undeniable.
If medical science cannot extend our lives much beyond the present limits, then fine, it’s found the limit. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest this is the case, however. What worries me is not over-estimations of medical efficacy, but the gap between our medical ability to extend life, and our social ability to make these ever-extending and frail lives pleasurable or meaningful- that, to me, is our problem.
By the way, AI IS advancing currently at an exponential rate, in terms of the increase in computing power. That’s just a fact, though perhaps a frightening one. Nature is full of exponential rates of change, it’s a mathematical feature of the world. It’s never, however, sustainable for long. At some point, it will crash.
A lot of your post comes down essentially to little more than ‘it won’t work if it won’t work’. Which is, of course, undeniable.
If medical science cannot extend our lives much beyond the present limits, then fine, it’s found the limit. I’ve seen no evidence to suggest this is the case, however. What worries me is not over-estimations of medical efficacy, but the gap between our medical ability to extend life, and our social ability to make these ever-extending and frail lives pleasurable or meaningful- that, to me, is our problem.
By the way, AI IS advancing currently at an exponential rate, in terms of the increase in computing power. That’s just a fact, though perhaps a frightening one. Nature is full of exponential rates of change, it’s a mathematical feature of the world. It’s never, however, sustainable for long. At some point, it will crash.
I’d strongly agree that your personal desire not to die of cancer is not a submission to any kind of conspiracy, though what I was describing is not a conspiracy. It’s – in my view – a blinkered, somewhat self-interested, and in any event highly egotistical belief in the power of modern technology to overcome all of humankind’s problems. Perhaps I am wrong but I just do not believe that medical science will be able to extend average human lifespans beyond the natural limit that a minority of people have been lucky (or not, depending on your perspective) to be able to achieve ie somewhere in the region of 90 to 100 years. To put it bluntly, if the tech saves you from dying of cancer at 85, then that’s great, but the chances are that heart failure or pneumonia’s probably going to get you by the time you’re 95. We are but incredibly complex candles in the wind (by the way, if you are suffering from cancer I wish you all the very best for a speedy recovery and long life to come).
I would also dispute the assertion that the “advance of technology is exponential” with AI. How so? The robots are not miracle workers, they are not gods; they are algorithms. They occupy space in a universe where immutable physical laws apply. Nothing will come of nothing.
On your first para – it’s possible that self-interested, politically-motivated, myopic, or mistaken people might propose a scheme that might work at a limited scale but which could not work at larger scale (unless the magic bots get busy really quickly!). How many businesses have succeeded at first, prompting them to become over-optimistic and to fail after attempting to expand too quickly?
You asked for a technical reference: as an example, according to leading experts in the field “to meet UK electric car targets for 2050 we would need to produce just under two times the current total annual world cobalt production, nearly the entire world production of neodymium, three quarters the world’s lithium production and 12% of one year’s total annual production of mined copper.” https://www.nhm.ac.uk/press-office/press-releases/leading-scientists-set-out-resource-challenge-of-meeting-net-zer.html
To come back to the article, and my original comment: there is nothing conservative about putting all our money, faith, and hopes in unproven, utopian schemes that lack humility and which risk failing spectacularly and destroying hard-won public trust in both our political system and in the power of medical science to make incremental, positive progress.
I’m not sure that I’ve yet to come across anyone proposing an energy source that will “extract” more energy that it would generate. Why would someone actually propose that- could you supply some technical references?
You seem to be confusing, or at least conflating, two things; on the one hand, the ‘advance’ of human technology, which with AI is exponential, and on the other, the wisdom or otherwise of actually using these technologies- and the perhaps malign effects some might have on our lives.
Medical science, for example, has been changing and extending our lives for a couple of centuries- you seem to be suggesting that it’s suddenly now become an affront to the Natural Order, which is an abstract ideological claim, and rather arbitrary in regards to any specific scientific technology. Should I refuse a particular, novel treatment for my cancer, on the grounds that I should naturally die, and any new advances are somehow “Progressive authoritarianism”? Who decides which new cancer treatments are humane, and which are offensive to conservative principles?
Most people share at least some of your fears about a human technological future unconfined by any sense of ‘Natural’ limits (though by definition, technology cannot “defy physical limits”). But making technology and science a metaphor for ideology isn’t very useful as a way of engaging with the complexity of the situation. My personal desire not to die of cancer isn’t a submission to a vast global Progressive authoritarian conspiracy.
“Defying physical limts” is a contradiction surely: to defy them is to prove they are not limits is it not? Or do you refer to the unintended consequences of going beyond sustainable limits?
My point exactly. I think you need to ask the OP..
My point exactly. I think you need to ask the OP..
I had in mind things predicating an energy “strategy” on extracting raw materials eg lithium which would, at the scale necessary, cost more in energy to extract that the energy they would generate. Also the idea that medicinal science can radically increase average human life expectancy way beyond that achievable with healthy lifestyles and basic level sanitation and medical care. This is why the authoritarian “progressives” love digitisation and the (failing) “metaverse” so much – in that fantasy matrix there are no physical limits and one can be whatever one wants to be or, more accurately, what the creepy manipulators pulling the strings want one to be.
I would agree that there is a long history of defying physical limits through technological progress but what I think people find hard to accept is the law of diminishing technological returns kicking in – they extrapolate that the (eventual) great enhancement to mass human wellbeing brought about, in the West, by the industrialisation of the 19th century can and must be repeated in the 21st century. Conservatives, especially, should be deeply sceptical of such claims and progressives, especially, should have regard to the suffering (eg a short, miserable life of drudgery in a noisy, dirty, dangerous mill) that it caused for many at the time. Both seem to have very short memories.
“Defying physical limts” is a contradiction surely: to defy them is to prove they are not limits is it not? Or do you refer to the unintended consequences of going beyond sustainable limits?
Sounds right to me… sadly, the electorate have little time for humility and honesty in their politicians and prefer instead the Johnsons and Farages of this world. Maybe that’s Starmer’s strength, ie that he isn’t a narcissist? He strikes me as being as close to Conservatism as it’s possible to be, now at least.
Liam, if you believe Starmer not to be a narcissist and to be a Conservative, sadly I am afraid that you are very, very badly mistaken.
Liam, if you believe Starmer not to be a narcissist and to be a Conservative, sadly I am afraid that you are very, very badly mistaken.
Fine words but absolute ballocks
Huxley?
What do you men when you say “defy physical limits”?
What particular physical limits are you talking about, as one might define the entire history of humanity as one long project of ‘defying physical limits’, for good or ill.
Sounds right to me… sadly, the electorate have little time for humility and honesty in their politicians and prefer instead the Johnsons and Farages of this world. Maybe that’s Starmer’s strength, ie that he isn’t a narcissist? He strikes me as being as close to Conservatism as it’s possible to be, now at least.
Interesting perspective but it lacks engagement with the crucial question of our time: do you believe in, and align with, the globalist, utopian narrative of “transformative” policies to “reimagine” society, economy, and politics for a “sustainable” and more “equitable” future in which man has become not only the master of the natural environment, but over his own psychology and genetically in-built tendency towards competition with others – and all of the creative and destructive forces that it unleashes?
None of that is conservative. It’s radically “progressive”, following a eugenicist line well-trodden by the Huxleys, HG Wells, Bernard Shaw and others. But nominal conservatives, in the UK and elsewhere, detached from both present-day reality and historical understanding, seem totally oblivious to this and so enthusiastically jump aboard.
Naturally, like all attempts to buck human nature and defy physical limits (twentieth century Europe offers some obvious examples), these plans won’t work and they will do more harm than good – the only question is when it will come to be commonly acknowledged that they are failing and harmful. Once that tipping point is reached all of these politicians and parties – right, left, or centre – associated will become throughly discredited and unelectable.
And what then? The scope for the most virulent authoritarian populism – of hard left or hard right varieties – that would deconstruct liberal democracy itself should be obvious. As should (and the two are not mutually exclusive) be the possibility of foreign occupation, perhaps militarily or more likely, today’s world, through the subtler means of information control.
Actual conservatives and actual progressives alike, if they have any integrity or honour or care about the country that they are going to bequeath their children, must now find the humility and courage to think again, stand up to be counted, and get off the globalist juggernaut that is accelerating off a cliff.
“Will conservatism survive 2023” presupposes the Tories are conservative, which they clearly ain’t regardless of the party name. They are a Blue Blairite party competing with a Red Blairite party.
Closest thing to an actual conservative party in UK politics right now is Reform UK.
I’d add the Social Democrats who are undergoing a big resurgence.
Reform UK isn’t really very conservative
No. The clue is in the name.
No. The clue is in the name.
I’d add the Social Democrats who are undergoing a big resurgence.
Reform UK isn’t really very conservative
“Will conservatism survive 2023” presupposes the Tories are conservative, which they clearly ain’t regardless of the party name. They are a Blue Blairite party competing with a Red Blairite party.
Closest thing to an actual conservative party in UK politics right now is Reform UK.
“…and by shedding the chaos and dishonesty of some of its recent incarnations…”
I loved this summary, because it is so right. That is exactly what the Conservatives must do to succeed – but I believe they are quite incapable of doing it – which is why I want to see them lose big in 2024 and go out of business. We need the resulting vacuum for something better to fill.
As long as any dregs of the miserable Left/liberal/Metropolitan sneering class remain in the party, the Conservatives are doomed to remain forever “Starmer lite”, which is what they have become. Those Leftists need to have the honesty to find their place in politics instead of being a toxic cancer in the Conservative party. And they won’t do it – they don’t have the guts. So they need to be cleansed by the fire of destructive defeat.
I don’t know what will remain, but anything is better than two almost identical weak, dishonest, parties dancing on the head of a pin, chasing what liberal/metropolitan focus-groups tell them is their electorate.
They are wrong. The British people are better than this, and we deserve better than this.
I have huge sympathy for this view. A cancer has taken hold of the Tories, steering them into a nasty illberal woke rabble. Ironical given the rot set in with the wretched May & Cameron wanting to appear non-nasty. But I do not believe there will ever be any way back should a Labour Party take power. Our society is on the brink in so many areas. Brownism has screwed the labour market and tax policy with its deranged redistrubtion only equality mania. EU/Millibanism has driven the energy market to brink with Net Zero Pol Potism. Education has been taken back by the illberals and the housing market so deeply warped by both parties that devastating crashes and upheaval. Their beloved 1940s monolith NHS is post the Protect Us! Covid devouring both state cash and our Iives. Across the world – Scotland, Biden, Lula today – the so called Progressives have given up on wealth creation and enterprise. They are bent on Equality & Environment. With so many areas on the brink, I do not think the UK could survive 4 years of their social venom and pol potism. Kemi will look and sound great as leader of the Opposition. But the UK will have slipped back i to a Statism authoritarian Drayfordism. Rishi must see this danger. And react.
So good to see that you haven’t descended into a wild hyperbolic fantasia of mutually-conflicting horrors! And what a wonderfully creative and individual idea of the term ‘liberal’ you have.
Never mind, Walter, never mind. ‘It’ really is so awful, but luckily we are not long for this world, you and I.
Yes there will be away back when Starmer and co realise that the current welfare system,the ensuing lack of enterprise are bankrupting the country but cannot do anything to change due to partpolitical tribalism.Bring back Liz Truss !
So good to see that you haven’t descended into a wild hyperbolic fantasia of mutually-conflicting horrors! And what a wonderfully creative and individual idea of the term ‘liberal’ you have.
Never mind, Walter, never mind. ‘It’ really is so awful, but luckily we are not long for this world, you and I.
Yes there will be away back when Starmer and co realise that the current welfare system,the ensuing lack of enterprise are bankrupting the country but cannot do anything to change due to partpolitical tribalism.Bring back Liz Truss !
Agree. I want a crushing Tory defeat at the next GE, with Reform having cost them scores of seats, or even more, and with a very low turnout to deny Labour any claim to the mandate the number of their MPs might otherwise suggest.
I have huge sympathy for this view. A cancer has taken hold of the Tories, steering them into a nasty illberal woke rabble. Ironical given the rot set in with the wretched May & Cameron wanting to appear non-nasty. But I do not believe there will ever be any way back should a Labour Party take power. Our society is on the brink in so many areas. Brownism has screwed the labour market and tax policy with its deranged redistrubtion only equality mania. EU/Millibanism has driven the energy market to brink with Net Zero Pol Potism. Education has been taken back by the illberals and the housing market so deeply warped by both parties that devastating crashes and upheaval. Their beloved 1940s monolith NHS is post the Protect Us! Covid devouring both state cash and our Iives. Across the world – Scotland, Biden, Lula today – the so called Progressives have given up on wealth creation and enterprise. They are bent on Equality & Environment. With so many areas on the brink, I do not think the UK could survive 4 years of their social venom and pol potism. Kemi will look and sound great as leader of the Opposition. But the UK will have slipped back i to a Statism authoritarian Drayfordism. Rishi must see this danger. And react.
Agree. I want a crushing Tory defeat at the next GE, with Reform having cost them scores of seats, or even more, and with a very low turnout to deny Labour any claim to the mandate the number of their MPs might otherwise suggest.
“…and by shedding the chaos and dishonesty of some of its recent incarnations…”
I loved this summary, because it is so right. That is exactly what the Conservatives must do to succeed – but I believe they are quite incapable of doing it – which is why I want to see them lose big in 2024 and go out of business. We need the resulting vacuum for something better to fill.
As long as any dregs of the miserable Left/liberal/Metropolitan sneering class remain in the party, the Conservatives are doomed to remain forever “Starmer lite”, which is what they have become. Those Leftists need to have the honesty to find their place in politics instead of being a toxic cancer in the Conservative party. And they won’t do it – they don’t have the guts. So they need to be cleansed by the fire of destructive defeat.
I don’t know what will remain, but anything is better than two almost identical weak, dishonest, parties dancing on the head of a pin, chasing what liberal/metropolitan focus-groups tell them is their electorate.
They are wrong. The British people are better than this, and we deserve better than this.
Dear Mr Oxley,
Your idealism (which does you credit) fails to perceive the elephants in the room.
Our country now, like other western societies, is in a state of extreme spiritual decay.
This expresses itself politically as acute laziness and cowardice on the part of most members of the public, no less than in their MPs.
(Emotionally it is seen in the popularity of ‘partnerships’ rather than marriage.)
Most people are not willing to make any effort concerning their representation in Parliament; so they just keep seesawing away at choosing first one of the two main legacy parties, then the other, though it has very long been seen and known that both Labour and the Conservatives offer nothing of major import which the electorate actually wants.
The dreadful fruit of this inertia will probably continue till either there is a complete economic collapse (highly likely, soon) or the United Kingdom becomes first a Third World country (this is already well on the way) and then a failed state.
Offering advice to any of the parties currently in the House of Commons credits them with all sorts of qualities they do not possess: a tendency to do any real thinking, to care about principles and issues, courage and virtue.
Your last paragraph is apposite. I have written to my Tory MP, the last letter presenting a shortlist of his party’s most egregious failings and that, short of a totally inconceivable Damascene conversion, I whwwouldn’t be voting “Conservative” at the next GE. He has responded courteously enough by offering a discussion to address my concerns. My response, equally courteous, will be that it would be a poor use of our time as nothing will come of it. He is a mere backbencher, albeit ambitious, which is part of the problem when it comes to principles and courage.
Your last paragraph is apposite. I have written to my Tory MP, the last letter presenting a shortlist of his party’s most egregious failings and that, short of a totally inconceivable Damascene conversion, I whwwouldn’t be voting “Conservative” at the next GE. He has responded courteously enough by offering a discussion to address my concerns. My response, equally courteous, will be that it would be a poor use of our time as nothing will come of it. He is a mere backbencher, albeit ambitious, which is part of the problem when it comes to principles and courage.
Dear Mr Oxley,
Your idealism (which does you credit) fails to perceive the elephants in the room.
Our country now, like other western societies, is in a state of extreme spiritual decay.
This expresses itself politically as acute laziness and cowardice on the part of most members of the public, no less than in their MPs.
(Emotionally it is seen in the popularity of ‘partnerships’ rather than marriage.)
Most people are not willing to make any effort concerning their representation in Parliament; so they just keep seesawing away at choosing first one of the two main legacy parties, then the other, though it has very long been seen and known that both Labour and the Conservatives offer nothing of major import which the electorate actually wants.
The dreadful fruit of this inertia will probably continue till either there is a complete economic collapse (highly likely, soon) or the United Kingdom becomes first a Third World country (this is already well on the way) and then a failed state.
Offering advice to any of the parties currently in the House of Commons credits them with all sorts of qualities they do not possess: a tendency to do any real thinking, to care about principles and issues, courage and virtue.
Its simple. The Tories have utterly failed to deliver on almost everything. To win the next election they need to
-stop the dingies crossing the Channel, and immediately deport everyone that arrives like that, plus the 40,000 they have in hotels. If that means withdrawing fromt he ECHR and the UN Refugee Treaty, and abolishing the Supreme court, then so be it.
-stop messing about with Northern ireland. Tell the Eu what the deal is and if they disagree, walk away and ignore them,
-Hammer the energy companies with a punative windfall tax on all profits over and above 2019 levels.
-Face down the greedy unions and change the law so they cant use striking to try and bring down a government
-Cease all benefits to households with incomes of more than £75k . If yoyu cant live on £75k then you need Home economics lessons, not taxpayers money.
Unless some or all of these are seen to have occurred , the Tories are toast at the next election.
Its simple. The Tories have utterly failed to deliver on almost everything. To win the next election they need to
-stop the dingies crossing the Channel, and immediately deport everyone that arrives like that, plus the 40,000 they have in hotels. If that means withdrawing fromt he ECHR and the UN Refugee Treaty, and abolishing the Supreme court, then so be it.
-stop messing about with Northern ireland. Tell the Eu what the deal is and if they disagree, walk away and ignore them,
-Hammer the energy companies with a punative windfall tax on all profits over and above 2019 levels.
-Face down the greedy unions and change the law so they cant use striking to try and bring down a government
-Cease all benefits to households with incomes of more than £75k . If yoyu cant live on £75k then you need Home economics lessons, not taxpayers money.
Unless some or all of these are seen to have occurred , the Tories are toast at the next election.
The author’s diagnosis for fixing conservativism is for conservatives to be less conservatism, seemingly failing to notice that they have already tried this. Ceding ground on same sex marriage, immigration and other cultural issues should make obvious that this was a failure. By trying to please everyone the right pleased noone. Victims of its own folly in failing to stem the flow of university graduates and ethnic minorities, the right’s answer should be to fall victim to its own Vatican II? Madness. Conservatism, like wider liberalism, is a dying stagnant beast. Put it out of its misery and move on.
“By trying to please everyone the right pleased noone.”
I dunno, I think they managed to please the left. They pandered to the left on practically everything, to the point that it was hard at times to know who was actually in power!
“By trying to please everyone the right pleased noone.”
I dunno, I think they managed to please the left. They pandered to the left on practically everything, to the point that it was hard at times to know who was actually in power!
The author’s diagnosis for fixing conservativism is for conservatives to be less conservatism, seemingly failing to notice that they have already tried this. Ceding ground on same sex marriage, immigration and other cultural issues should make obvious that this was a failure. By trying to please everyone the right pleased noone. Victims of its own folly in failing to stem the flow of university graduates and ethnic minorities, the right’s answer should be to fall victim to its own Vatican II? Madness. Conservatism, like wider liberalism, is a dying stagnant beast. Put it out of its misery and move on.
Conservatism having something to do with representing the wishes of the people rather than representing oligopolistic corporations seems to be one of the big issues
Good point, the Tory party has long been an alliance of country land owners and city grandees which works well when their interests are aligned but falls apart when they don’t
We don’t really have any “country land owners” in that sense, at least not in political terms, but we do have two distinct factions in the British Right.
The corporatists are in the ascendant at the moment, while vast swathes of potential Tory voters are more aligned to the traditional values side, whatever that may be. (I’m not convinced they are all Liz Truss fanatics but the party members did not vote for Sunak)
As the article observes, the right needs a new message, a new mojo, a new way of approaching the running of our country. Unfortunately no solution is proposed.
I wish I had that solution, I’ll know it when I see it, but it’s not there as a complete vision in the Reform party or in Farage’s pronouncements, or the flaccid levelling up agenda… etc. Etc
In the USA, the Democrats and corporations are in cahoots today, calling the shots. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent on DEI and the instilling of woke culture into the corporate sphere; Hundreds of thousands of ‘woke diversity counselors’ have been hired as well . The media and academia, with few exceptions, have been shilling for the Democrats. Conservatives have been locked out entirely. Democrats are the corporations today and the corporations are woke and Democrat-guided.
Good point, the Tory party has long been an alliance of country land owners and city grandees which works well when their interests are aligned but falls apart when they don’t
We don’t really have any “country land owners” in that sense, at least not in political terms, but we do have two distinct factions in the British Right.
The corporatists are in the ascendant at the moment, while vast swathes of potential Tory voters are more aligned to the traditional values side, whatever that may be. (I’m not convinced they are all Liz Truss fanatics but the party members did not vote for Sunak)
As the article observes, the right needs a new message, a new mojo, a new way of approaching the running of our country. Unfortunately no solution is proposed.
I wish I had that solution, I’ll know it when I see it, but it’s not there as a complete vision in the Reform party or in Farage’s pronouncements, or the flaccid levelling up agenda… etc. Etc
In the USA, the Democrats and corporations are in cahoots today, calling the shots. Millions and millions of dollars have been spent on DEI and the instilling of woke culture into the corporate sphere; Hundreds of thousands of ‘woke diversity counselors’ have been hired as well . The media and academia, with few exceptions, have been shilling for the Democrats. Conservatives have been locked out entirely. Democrats are the corporations today and the corporations are woke and Democrat-guided.
Conservatism having something to do with representing the wishes of the people rather than representing oligopolistic corporations seems to be one of the big issues
Contrary to the author’s opening statement, 2022 was a year to remember for the Right in Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Denmark and it looks like 2023 will be a good year in NZ too.
Perhaps the difference between these countries and Britain is that they have right-wing parties that actually espouse right-wing policies.
Contrary to the author’s opening statement, 2022 was a year to remember for the Right in Italy, Sweden, Hungary, Denmark and it looks like 2023 will be a good year in NZ too.
Perhaps the difference between these countries and Britain is that they have right-wing parties that actually espouse right-wing policies.
Short answer, the Conservative party will not survive. However, most people in UK are conservative by nature, so conservatism will survive. The pity is that the People are not really represented in Parliament. The Party system is a big con trick. They represent the party elite, globalists and the establishment.
“Equally, they are finding their support in diminishing demographics — older, whiter, and less well-educated than the rest of the population.”
Actually, the older, whiter people are the most educated, by life and experience. Today’s generationn just think they know better, when in fact they know nothing due to having minds that exclude any thoughts different to their own.
Not really much of a rational argument that, though is it? ‘I’m one of “the People”, because I am right, whereas those who disagree with me are gullible morons, incapable of thinking properly. They, whatever their numbers, are NOT “the People”. All people of a certain age should be ignored as they are idiots, as they “exclude thoughts different from their own”. Unlike you.
You share this particular way of ‘thinking’ with the far left. Except for your claim that “whiter people” have more “life experience”- you might be on your own there.
Not really much of a rational argument that, though is it? ‘I’m one of “the People”, because I am right, whereas those who disagree with me are gullible morons, incapable of thinking properly. They, whatever their numbers, are NOT “the People”. All people of a certain age should be ignored as they are idiots, as they “exclude thoughts different from their own”. Unlike you.
You share this particular way of ‘thinking’ with the far left. Except for your claim that “whiter people” have more “life experience”- you might be on your own there.
Short answer, the Conservative party will not survive. However, most people in UK are conservative by nature, so conservatism will survive. The pity is that the People are not really represented in Parliament. The Party system is a big con trick. They represent the party elite, globalists and the establishment.
“Equally, they are finding their support in diminishing demographics — older, whiter, and less well-educated than the rest of the population.”
Actually, the older, whiter people are the most educated, by life and experience. Today’s generationn just think they know better, when in fact they know nothing due to having minds that exclude any thoughts different to their own.
Interesting article, although I think it missed one important aspect – perhaps the most important – that underpins conservative political power: culture. Socially conservative culture is at least informed by, if not led by religion. ‘Our’ religion is in steep decline. IMO this is the real reason for the mess the Conservatives are in: they are struggling for political principles because they (and we) no longer hold the unifying moral principles of their/our grandfathers, which were essentially from Christianity.
You’re welcome to argue that this is a good thing, but I’m not sure it’s useful to believe that and still think you’re a conservative. What exactly are you seeking to conserve, and why?
The author has written an accurate article, but he shows his blind spot in the above regard by suggesting that the new conservatism “… can bring with it an expansive view of the family, one that sees gay marriage as a win for tradition rather than a kick against it.”
Again, you’re more than welcome to hold this position, but it’s not conservative; it’s liberal and progressive. Social conservatives think the position is absurd. You might as well say that the new conservatism “should welcome Trans ideology as a win for traditional gender roles rather than a kick against them”.
Saying this sort of thing may or may not win across floating voters whose principles are essentially liberal or progressive (personally I doubt it – in the UK at least, such people increasingly and instinctively despise the Tories). But social conservatives will just laugh. (Privately, of course: it’s dangerous – if not practically illegal – to laugh at this stuff publicly).
The Tories’ natural base of social conservatives is shrunken and the Tories don’t want to represent them anyway. The culture wars have been broadly lost. The Tories know this and so have become progressives who only believe in banking: good riddance to them. The rest of us need to accept that the prevailing culture of individualism and competing interest groups, sans traditional moral principles, simply leads to a scrap for power. Personally I expect this will lead to increased levels of civil unrest/violence between groups, the only alternative to which will be some form of centralised tyranny.
(Symptomatic of the latter, the police in Britain recently arrested a woman on suspicion of silently praying, without any exterior sign, on a public street. Literally a Thought Crime. This ought to worry everyone).
The future? Violence or tyranny or both, folks. And probably poverty for most of us, either way.
Interesting article, although I think it missed one important aspect – perhaps the most important – that underpins conservative political power: culture. Socially conservative culture is at least informed by, if not led by religion. ‘Our’ religion is in steep decline. IMO this is the real reason for the mess the Conservatives are in: they are struggling for political principles because they (and we) no longer hold the unifying moral principles of their/our grandfathers, which were essentially from Christianity.
You’re welcome to argue that this is a good thing, but I’m not sure it’s useful to believe that and still think you’re a conservative. What exactly are you seeking to conserve, and why?
The author has written an accurate article, but he shows his blind spot in the above regard by suggesting that the new conservatism “… can bring with it an expansive view of the family, one that sees gay marriage as a win for tradition rather than a kick against it.”
Again, you’re more than welcome to hold this position, but it’s not conservative; it’s liberal and progressive. Social conservatives think the position is absurd. You might as well say that the new conservatism “should welcome Trans ideology as a win for traditional gender roles rather than a kick against them”.
Saying this sort of thing may or may not win across floating voters whose principles are essentially liberal or progressive (personally I doubt it – in the UK at least, such people increasingly and instinctively despise the Tories). But social conservatives will just laugh. (Privately, of course: it’s dangerous – if not practically illegal – to laugh at this stuff publicly).
The Tories’ natural base of social conservatives is shrunken and the Tories don’t want to represent them anyway. The culture wars have been broadly lost. The Tories know this and so have become progressives who only believe in banking: good riddance to them. The rest of us need to accept that the prevailing culture of individualism and competing interest groups, sans traditional moral principles, simply leads to a scrap for power. Personally I expect this will lead to increased levels of civil unrest/violence between groups, the only alternative to which will be some form of centralised tyranny.
(Symptomatic of the latter, the police in Britain recently arrested a woman on suspicion of silently praying, without any exterior sign, on a public street. Literally a Thought Crime. This ought to worry everyone).
The future? Violence or tyranny or both, folks. And probably poverty for most of us, either way.
There is no salvation in democracy.
I agree. Both parties are dinosaurs, they stand for nothing except playing a part in a dying system. The only reason Labour may win is because people are fed up with the Conservatives. Then they’ll swing back to the Conservatives because they’re fed up with Labour. This is going nowhere and draining the country of all potential.
Then a third party will emerge. Just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t.
There are so many third parties out there you’d think something would have happened by now. But yes, there’s nothing to stop a third party appearing. But if it’s just going to be the same old in a new dress then what’s the point.
The electoral system makes it incredibly hard for a third party to make any headway in the UK, unless they’re concentrated in a single area like the SNP. An example is the 2015 election where UKIP received over 12% of the vote but only won a single seat out of 650
You have to get over 25% as a national party to get remotely close to proper representation.
SDP/Liberals/Libdems fortunes the past 60 years prove that.
You have to get over 25% as a national party to get remotely close to proper representation.
SDP/Liberals/Libdems fortunes the past 60 years prove that.
The Irish Republic has been locked in a similar malaise for years.
Now however it looks as if Sinn Féin has a real chance.
Will there be an English/British equivalent?
I hope UK doesn’t get a party in govt that murders its opposition.
Rather like former terrorist groups in Israel/Palestine, I think they may have metamorphosed into something more reasonable. The are historical precedents for this unusual behaviour.
Well observed.. try to imagine a GB overrun by Nazis in 1940 and you had a terrorist (sorry freedom fighting) resistance trying to take back GB for the British.. a kind of Brexit by force (happily not required under EU).. Would you now call those freedom fighters murderers? .or do you think you’d have kept to the ‘Queensbury rules in your tactics despite Nazi methods? Okay not exactly a like for like but I hope you get the idea?
Well observed.. try to imagine a GB overrun by Nazis in 1940 and you had a terrorist (sorry freedom fighting) resistance trying to take back GB for the British.. a kind of Brexit by force (happily not required under EU).. Would you now call those freedom fighters murderers? .or do you think you’d have kept to the ‘Queensbury rules in your tactics despite Nazi methods? Okay not exactly a like for like but I hope you get the idea?
Can you differentiate between the Kray Bros, BNP, and UKIP? Good, that’s a start. Is it ok to trade with Germany now? Yes? Good.. you’re making progress..
Rather like former terrorist groups in Israel/Palestine, I think they may have metamorphosed into something more reasonable. The are historical precedents for this unusual behaviour.
Can you differentiate between the Kray Bros, BNP, and UKIP? Good, that’s a start. Is it ok to trade with Germany now? Yes? Good.. you’re making progress..
If there is, they will not get the same favourable media as Sinn Fein from the UK media. Nationalism is good, everywhere but GB&NI.
For once I think you might, just might be making some sense Charlie! A UK version of Sinn Féin (We Ourselves) might be just the ticket.. rediscover (or decide for the first time?) what it means to be British (or maybe just English); it might just repair the massive divide in England at the moment between Leavers v Remainers, Tories v Labour, North v South – some middle ground that truly reflects the modern English nation?
I hope UK doesn’t get a party in govt that murders its opposition.
If there is, they will not get the same favourable media as Sinn Fein from the UK media. Nationalism is good, everywhere but GB&NI.
For once I think you might, just might be making some sense Charlie! A UK version of Sinn Féin (We Ourselves) might be just the ticket.. rediscover (or decide for the first time?) what it means to be British (or maybe just English); it might just repair the massive divide in England at the moment between Leavers v Remainers, Tories v Labour, North v South – some middle ground that truly reflects the modern English nation?
Emerging is fine, they get put down if they show signs of challenging or, horror of horrors, cannibalising. The Establishment ensures that genuine populist movements are crushed at source, using whatever level of dirty tricks is necessary to brainwash the sheep against them.
Oh I so hope so.
There are so many third parties out there you’d think something would have happened by now. But yes, there’s nothing to stop a third party appearing. But if it’s just going to be the same old in a new dress then what’s the point.
The electoral system makes it incredibly hard for a third party to make any headway in the UK, unless they’re concentrated in a single area like the SNP. An example is the 2015 election where UKIP received over 12% of the vote but only won a single seat out of 650
The Irish Republic has been locked in a similar malaise for years.
Now however it looks as if Sinn Féin has a real chance.
Will there be an English/British equivalent?
Emerging is fine, they get put down if they show signs of challenging or, horror of horrors, cannibalising. The Establishment ensures that genuine populist movements are crushed at source, using whatever level of dirty tricks is necessary to brainwash the sheep against them.
Oh I so hope so.
We need some form of proportional representation. The two party system is throttling this country.
New Zealand has that. Unfortunately no change.
“New Zealand has that. Unfortunately, no change.”
Then perhaps that means that, contrary to the loud claims here that the nation is crying out for ‘real conservatism’, actually, out there in the real world, people aren’t quite as furious as you think.
“New Zealand has that. Unfortunately, no change.”
Then perhaps that means that, contrary to the various bellicose claims here that the nation is crying out for “real conservatism” (i.e., reversing everything that’s happened since 1922 at the very latest), actually, out there in the real world, people aren’t quite as furious as you think.
Some people are furious, including myself. Politicians would put their shoes on backwards if they felt there was an advantage in it, My default position these days is that nothing can come out of a system that has failed to deliver for a long time. What most people think is a mystery to me and election results leave me more confused.
Fair enough. I largely agree.
But I get confused by the line taken by many here that there’s a huge ‘silent majority’ of decent ‘folk’ who share the commenter’s furious opinions on everything, and yet if an election goes the ‘wrong’ way, the electorate are suddenly a bunch of mindless puppets. Both the Left and the Right indulge in this.
Fair enough. I largely agree.
But I get confused by the line taken by many here that there’s a huge ‘silent majority’ of decent ‘folk’ who share the commenter’s furious opinions on everything, and yet if an election goes the ‘wrong’ way, the electorate are suddenly a bunch of mindless puppets. Both the Left and the Right indulge in this.
Some people are furious, including myself. Politicians would put their shoes on backwards if they felt there was an advantage in it, My default position these days is that nothing can come out of a system that has failed to deliver for a long time. What most people think is a mystery to me and election results leave me more confused.
“New Zealand has that. Unfortunately, no change.”
Then perhaps that means that, contrary to the loud claims here that the nation is crying out for ‘real conservatism’, actually, out there in the real world, people aren’t quite as furious as you think.
“New Zealand has that. Unfortunately, no change.”
Then perhaps that means that, contrary to the various bellicose claims here that the nation is crying out for “real conservatism” (i.e., reversing everything that’s happened since 1922 at the very latest), actually, out there in the real world, people aren’t quite as furious as you think.
New Zealand has that. Unfortunately no change.
Then a third party will emerge. Just because it hasn’t happened yet, doesn’t mean it won’t.
We need some form of proportional representation. The two party system is throttling this country.
I agree. Both parties are dinosaurs, they stand for nothing except playing a part in a dying system. The only reason Labour may win is because people are fed up with the Conservatives. Then they’ll swing back to the Conservatives because they’re fed up with Labour. This is going nowhere and draining the country of all potential.
There is no salvation in democracy.
There is nothing about the “Conservative” Party in the UK which is conservative A mere handful of its MPs very occ .asionally make feeble noises; but nothing ever actually happens. Our main-party politicians really are all the same where it counts. Just look at the state of the country
There is nothing about the “Conservative” Party in the UK which is conservative A mere handful of its MPs very occ .asionally make feeble noises; but nothing ever actually happens. Our main-party politicians really are all the same where it counts. Just look at the state of the country
The last few years have proved beyond all doubt that the Conservative Party have become an organised crime syndicate; of course they don’t believe in anything. I also think that most of the authors’s ideas for their respawning could be adopted by a pragmatic Labour Party. The elephant in the room is PR, which will (or would) dislodge the tories permanently. FPTP and the Tory psyops division in the lowbrow media have bestowed a longevity they’ve come to take for granted. Till now.
A pragmatic Labour Party could indeed adopt a lot of these ideas. But they will not. In focusing on the self-destruction of the appalling pro State semi socialist Fake Tories, the media ignore the truth that – hidden under his cynical union flag waving – Starmer leads a far more dangerous immoderate party. Look at the whispered proposal of new race equality legislation by A Dodds last week. It will weaponise and toxify a multiculturalism which – no thanks to the State – the British people have made a success. But Labour’s ONLY ideological belief is divisive reverse racist CRE and identitarianism. Positive discrimination could see non whites given privileged first access to energy support, entry to the creaking NHS, jobs unis and more. No one is interrogating the few actual ideas Labour are playing with. They are still a near blank page. But their warped divisive race obsessions and undisguised hatred of wealth creation and class envy make them a far more poisonous dangerous entity than even the chaotic useless fake Tories.
All of what you say is true. Problem is, the People will continue to vote for them whether they are called tories, labour, libdems or whatever. The people need to wake up and realise they always get the same thing whatever the party name.
Agree. I thought the double Brexit voted – Referendum & election ,- expressed a genuine and brave protest against a failing indifferent elite by voters. But party politics and elections do not allow any such targeted demonstration of popular will. Tory voters voted for a government supposedly keen on business (wrong), sceptical of high tax Statism and mass migration (wrong), keen to enact Brexit freedoms (wrong), hostile to wokery and the equality mania (wrong), anti welfarism (wrong,) etc etc. Both political parties have lost their anchors in the lives of people. They are detached and trapped in an alt universe of social media bubble and fetid hot air.
I hate to muddy your wonderfully simplistic story, but last time I checked, “business” was pretty keen on “mass migration”.
And when you say “popular will” was behind the leave vote, you make it sound like the lumpen masses had spoken in one resounding voice, whereas in fact 52% ‘spoke’, now apparently down to about 46% in retrospect. What do we do about the 48- 54% who don’t fit your definition of “people’?
Of course business wants mass migration. The discussion is about Tory party beliefs. A fundamental one of which is supposed to be support for private enterprise, wealth creation and the encouragement of a low tax environment. Some policies do not align with global capitalist business interests and mass uncontrolled migration via free movement of people – which shatter nationsl labour market – was one such necessary clash. It is the Tories abandonment of so many other pro enterprise policies that shocks. What happens when one side loses both a referendum and a Brexit election? Look up a thing called losers consent and wait for the next one.
Well, in terms of the next election, it’s not looking too rosy for the Tories right now.
And as for ‘losers consent’ regarding Brexit, the winners seem to have been just as constantly furious since the vote as the putatively losing side.
Well, in terms of the next election, it’s not looking too rosy for the Tories right now.
And as for ‘losers consent’ regarding Brexit, the winners seem to have been just as constantly furious since the vote as the putatively losing side.
Of course business wants mass migration. The discussion is about Tory party beliefs. A fundamental one of which is supposed to be support for private enterprise, wealth creation and the encouragement of a low tax environment. Some policies do not align with global capitalist business interests and mass uncontrolled migration via free movement of people – which shatter nationsl labour market – was one such necessary clash. It is the Tories abandonment of so many other pro enterprise policies that shocks. What happens when one side loses both a referendum and a Brexit election? Look up a thing called losers consent and wait for the next one.
I hate to muddy your wonderfully simplistic story, but last time I checked, “business” was pretty keen on “mass migration”.
And when you say “popular will” was behind the leave vote, you make it sound like the lumpen masses had spoken in one resounding voice, whereas in fact 52% ‘spoke’, now apparently down to about 46% in retrospect. What do we do about the 48- 54% who don’t fit your definition of “people’?
Agree. I thought the double Brexit voted – Referendum & election ,- expressed a genuine and brave protest against a failing indifferent elite by voters. But party politics and elections do not allow any such targeted demonstration of popular will. Tory voters voted for a government supposedly keen on business (wrong), sceptical of high tax Statism and mass migration (wrong), keen to enact Brexit freedoms (wrong), hostile to wokery and the equality mania (wrong), anti welfarism (wrong,) etc etc. Both political parties have lost their anchors in the lives of people. They are detached and trapped in an alt universe of social media bubble and fetid hot air.
All of what you say is true. Problem is, the People will continue to vote for them whether they are called tories, labour, libdems or whatever. The people need to wake up and realise they always get the same thing whatever the party name.
A pragmatic Labour Party could indeed adopt a lot of these ideas. But they will not. In focusing on the self-destruction of the appalling pro State semi socialist Fake Tories, the media ignore the truth that – hidden under his cynical union flag waving – Starmer leads a far more dangerous immoderate party. Look at the whispered proposal of new race equality legislation by A Dodds last week. It will weaponise and toxify a multiculturalism which – no thanks to the State – the British people have made a success. But Labour’s ONLY ideological belief is divisive reverse racist CRE and identitarianism. Positive discrimination could see non whites given privileged first access to energy support, entry to the creaking NHS, jobs unis and more. No one is interrogating the few actual ideas Labour are playing with. They are still a near blank page. But their warped divisive race obsessions and undisguised hatred of wealth creation and class envy make them a far more poisonous dangerous entity than even the chaotic useless fake Tories.
The last few years have proved beyond all doubt that the Conservative Party have become an organised crime syndicate; of course they don’t believe in anything. I also think that most of the authors’s ideas for their respawning could be adopted by a pragmatic Labour Party. The elephant in the room is PR, which will (or would) dislodge the tories permanently. FPTP and the Tory psyops division in the lowbrow media have bestowed a longevity they’ve come to take for granted. Till now.
“Their embrace of populism has not proved popular enough to sustain victory.”
No, the official GOP just hasn’t actually embraced populism. They’ve mouthed the words but still kowtow to the ruling left/liberal cultural elite and treat actual populism (which now just means actual conservatism) like an intraparty insurgency.
Don’t know what you’re doing across the pond. It doesn’t appear that you have a conservative party at all.
“Their embrace of populism has not proved popular enough to sustain victory.”
No, the official GOP just hasn’t actually embraced populism. They’ve mouthed the words but still kowtow to the ruling left/liberal cultural elite and treat actual populism (which now just means actual conservatism) like an intraparty insurgency.
Don’t know what you’re doing across the pond. It doesn’t appear that you have a conservative party at all.
Conservatism is long dead. It lost its last chance when the later Thatcher era left it with the reputation of driving mass unemployment for policy reasons. It was completely destroyed at the polls in 1997 and Cameron reconstructed it as a Lib Dem party in all but name.
Conservatism is long dead. It lost its last chance when the later Thatcher era left it with the reputation of driving mass unemployment for policy reasons. It was completely destroyed at the polls in 1997 and Cameron reconstructed it as a Lib Dem party in all but name.
It’s the Tories’ turn to cop an electoral battering, but when Labour has had its turn, made a pig’s breakfast of government, electoral gravity is pulling them down, and they’ve upset enough people to flip the electoral cycle, the Tories will be back.
It’s not good enough to be less crappy than the alternative. It’s just not good enough.
Totally agree. Indeed, you may yet see the Tories campaigning on a slogan you’ve hinted at: “Ok, we’re crap. But the alternative is even worse.” A low turnout beckons.
Totally agree. Indeed, you may yet see the Tories campaigning on a slogan you’ve hinted at: “Ok, we’re crap. But the alternative is even worse.” A low turnout beckons.
“the Tories will be back.”
Not unless they stop behaving like Tories.
There problem is they are NOT behaving like Tories!
In fact we haven’t had a true Tory Government since the days of Baldwin and Chamberlain.
There is no future in any of these parties. There is no future in this sort of politics. The system looks sound when it chugs along under its own steam, but as soon as something goes wrong and some action is required on the part of any party then their ineptitude is revealed and then we have to deal with the consequences, which set us back and so we start again patching up the damage. The system that wrecked the country will not fix the country.
Yes the whole wretched system is frankly an anachronism, yet the ‘technology’ exists for something far, far better.
However, horrors of horrors, it would entail far greater democracy, almost ‘direct democracy’ in fact, something not seen the days of Ancient Athens.
That will never do, just think of the howls from Quislington at the very thought that those ‘brutes’ of the Red Wall, may actually have a real say in how the place is run!
For are they NOT racist bigots, irredeemable Brexitiers, lovers of blood sports, alcohol, and whoring, and misogynistic to a man? As George Orwell noted, if there is one think Quislingtonites hate more than anything else, it the English Working Class, and somethings never change.
ps. The Swiss system seems fairly equitable, and you do not hear them complaining too much.
Interesting Mr Stanhope, sounds a reasonable idea, what do you reckon then, put all policy to the public electronic vote? Give up on Westminster entirely or work that in? I’m woefully ignorant on the Swiss system I’m afraid. Just intrigued, maybe we do need something new.
The Swiss have a system of frequent referenda or referendums if you prefer, so they all feel involved.
Critics would say all they’ve done is invent the Cuckoo Clock and make decent chocolate, but it is a far happier place than here and with a strong patriotic base.They know WHO they are and are proud it.
In complete contrast with much of Britain sadly!
Too many vested interests here to bin Westminster and the HoL so we shall just struggle on into oblivion. We missed our chance in 1660 and will do so again.
Thank you, sounds fair enough I have only ever heard very good things about Switzerland from people that have visited, they do pretty well in general, mountains and scenery, good houses, don’t really have any trouble was my fuzzy perspective.
Well hopefully half the population still believes in Britain, I would also say to an extent Britain has had to constantly reinvent itself, through the industrial revolution and then through both world wars to rebuild. I mean no offence and correct me if I’m wrong but is Switzerland normally neutral? So they don’t end up embroiled in war politics, or blitzes, defence spending and intelligence which gives a different dimension to British politics sometimes would it be fair to say? They also are not quite so close to America…
Anyway, rambling. What if the parties if we can’t get rid of them, which I accept would be very difficult, get the membership to digital vote on the content of the manifesto. Put a good number of options up, they must all be different, from different people across their own party spectrum . Then we all get a say on the core manifesto from the start, and it goes to normal elections on the manifesto selected. The party wins because its actually got a manifesto it knows the people like and the people win because it gives us more options than just two more or less centrist standard Westminster options? Or something like that 🙂
Thank you, sounds fair enough I have only ever heard very good things about Switzerland from people that have visited, they do pretty well in general, mountains and scenery, good houses, don’t really have any trouble was my fuzzy perspective.
Well hopefully half the population still believes in Britain, I would also say to an extent Britain has had to constantly reinvent itself, through the industrial revolution and then through both world wars to rebuild. I mean no offence and correct me if I’m wrong but is Switzerland normally neutral? So they don’t end up embroiled in war politics, or blitzes, defence spending and intelligence which gives a different dimension to British politics sometimes would it be fair to say? They also are not quite so close to America…
Anyway, rambling. What if the parties if we can’t get rid of them, which I accept would be very difficult, get the membership to digital vote on the content of the manifesto. Put a good number of options up, they must all be different, from different people across their own party spectrum . Then we all get a say on the core manifesto from the start, and it goes to normal elections on the manifesto selected. The party wins because its actually got a manifesto it knows the people like and the people win because it gives us more options than just two more or less centrist standard Westminster options? Or something like that 🙂
The Swiss have a system of frequent referenda or referendums if you prefer, so they all feel involved.
Critics would say all they’ve done is invent the Cuckoo Clock and make decent chocolate, but it is a far happier place than here and with a strong patriotic base.They know WHO they are and are proud it.
In complete contrast with much of Britain sadly!
Too many vested interests here to bin Westminster and the HoL so we shall just struggle on into oblivion. We missed our chance in 1660 and will do so again.
Interesting Mr Stanhope, sounds a reasonable idea, what do you reckon then, put all policy to the public electronic vote? Give up on Westminster entirely or work that in? I’m woefully ignorant on the Swiss system I’m afraid. Just intrigued, maybe we do need something new.
Yes the whole wretched system is frankly an anachronism, yet the ‘technology’ exists for something far, far better.
However, horrors of horrors, it would entail far greater democracy, almost ‘direct democracy’ in fact, something not seen the days of Ancient Athens.
That will never do, just think of the howls from Quislington at the very thought that those ‘brutes’ of the Red Wall, may actually have a real say in how the place is run!
For are they NOT racist bigots, irredeemable Brexitiers, lovers of blood sports, alcohol, and whoring, and misogynistic to a man? As George Orwell noted, if there is one think Quislingtonites hate more than anything else, it the English Working Class, and somethings never change.
ps. The Swiss system seems fairly equitable, and you do not hear them complaining too much.
There is no future in any of these parties. There is no future in this sort of politics. The system looks sound when it chugs along under its own steam, but as soon as something goes wrong and some action is required on the part of any party then their ineptitude is revealed and then we have to deal with the consequences, which set us back and so we start again patching up the damage. The system that wrecked the country will not fix the country.
There problem is they are NOT behaving like Tories!
In fact we haven’t had a true Tory Government since the days of Baldwin and Chamberlain.
It’s not good enough to be less crappy than the alternative. It’s just not good enough.
“the Tories will be back.”
Not unless they stop behaving like Tories.
It’s the Tories’ turn to cop an electoral battering, but when Labour has had its turn, made a pig’s breakfast of government, electoral gravity is pulling them down, and they’ve upset enough people to flip the electoral cycle, the Tories will be back.
A bit Anglosphere centric, ignores victory for the right in Italy, Israel and Sweden last year
A bit Anglosphere centric, ignores victory for the right in Italy, Israel and Sweden last year
It may, or may not be difficult to define what the Conservative Party defines as “conservative values” but I doubt if the country as a whole shares their problems.
Conservatism is defined, in large part by what it is NOT. It is NOT mass immigration, self-abasement to Islam or pandering to the Chinese Communist Party. It is NOT asset-stripping of the nation, or force-feeding children Marxist ideology in schools.
It may, or may not be difficult to define what the Conservative Party defines as “conservative values” but I doubt if the country as a whole shares their problems.
Conservatism is defined, in large part by what it is NOT. It is NOT mass immigration, self-abasement to Islam or pandering to the Chinese Communist Party. It is NOT asset-stripping of the nation, or force-feeding children Marxist ideology in schools.
Agree that time of the essence, but otherwise not a very substantial or enlightening article. Too much Tory/Republican Bingo crammed into a few paragraphs for my delicate ears. Always a barrier to a convincing critique – sorry.
Tory brand has been successfully toxified in the South and London metropolis – they crave affection there but will never achieve it in this generation. Whereas Tories care little for the North & Midlands, despite a voting catchment that frequently shows willingness to return to their fold like a battered wife, for no other reason than their alternative partner is considerably worse.
And Brexit is just one big, unfinished mess. Another marriage analogy comes to mind. Divorced the wife but can’t move on with his own life because so many rivals/adversaries are staring at her longingly and it eats them up with regret.
So, interesting times because do-nothing is not an option as JO states. Issuing another manifesto that means everything to all men, with no intention to deliver it, surely will not work a second time.
And talking of manifestos, at some point Starmer is going to have to say what he DOES believe in, so the flak (might) at least start flying both ways. Could bring a few back in the fold I suppose. But I’d guess a significant number have already decided to abstain / or vote Reform. Tories actually need to DO something now.
But which road to oblivion do they choose? Turn to the North, as an unconvincing Farage tribute band and lose all influence in London/South-East? Where cabinet ministers and civil servants live, decisions are made, and media influence is at it’s strongest? Or dial up the Blue Labour even more and hope to recover ground where Liberals/Starmer are seen as more anti-Brexit with a better all round branding?
Right now I will abstain from voting completely and hope the numbers of absentee votes are sufficient that somebody might actually start to see the prize for a credible political alternative to Blair-ism, and challenge Starmer / Milliband in 2028.
I say this with apologies to my own and every family member who fought, died and suffered actual austerity so I could vote. Democracy for now may even be dead, they just haven’t bothered with an obituary. But I hope it’s just having a long sleep.
Anyway Happy New Year Everyone.
Democracy isn’t the end game. The end game is freedom from oppression and coercion. Democracy was a tool for achieving that. But it’s not working any longer. I guess everything has a lifespan. It’s probably worth remembering that it wasn’t Democracy your family members died for but freedom. That’s still the endgame, we just need new tools.
‘Freedom’ consists of both negative and positive elements: freedom FROM oppression and coercion, but also freedom TO be part of a functioning community, a healthy, dynamic and rich society, a world that enables us to be what we can be.
You are positing only half of the idea of freedom- the hyper-individualistic idea that everyone is an independent unit, something merely to be ‘left alone’. That’s not much of an an “endgame”.
‘Freedom’ consists of both negative and positive elements: freedom FROM oppression and coercion, but also freedom TO be part of a functioning community, a healthy, dynamic and rich society, a world that enables us to be what we can be.
You are positing only half of the idea of freedom- the hyper-individualistic idea that everyone is an independent unit, something merely to be ‘left alone’. That’s not much of an an “endgame”.
Democracy isn’t the end game. The end game is freedom from oppression and coercion. Democracy was a tool for achieving that. But it’s not working any longer. I guess everything has a lifespan. It’s probably worth remembering that it wasn’t Democracy your family members died for but freedom. That’s still the endgame, we just need new tools.
Agree that time of the essence, but otherwise not a very substantial or enlightening article. Too much Tory/Republican Bingo crammed into a few paragraphs for my delicate ears. Always a barrier to a convincing critique – sorry.
Tory brand has been successfully toxified in the South and London metropolis – they crave affection there but will never achieve it in this generation. Whereas Tories care little for the North & Midlands, despite a voting catchment that frequently shows willingness to return to their fold like a battered wife, for no other reason than their alternative partner is considerably worse.
And Brexit is just one big, unfinished mess. Another marriage analogy comes to mind. Divorced the wife but can’t move on with his own life because so many rivals/adversaries are staring at her longingly and it eats them up with regret.
So, interesting times because do-nothing is not an option as JO states. Issuing another manifesto that means everything to all men, with no intention to deliver it, surely will not work a second time.
And talking of manifestos, at some point Starmer is going to have to say what he DOES believe in, so the flak (might) at least start flying both ways. Could bring a few back in the fold I suppose. But I’d guess a significant number have already decided to abstain / or vote Reform. Tories actually need to DO something now.
But which road to oblivion do they choose? Turn to the North, as an unconvincing Farage tribute band and lose all influence in London/South-East? Where cabinet ministers and civil servants live, decisions are made, and media influence is at it’s strongest? Or dial up the Blue Labour even more and hope to recover ground where Liberals/Starmer are seen as more anti-Brexit with a better all round branding?
Right now I will abstain from voting completely and hope the numbers of absentee votes are sufficient that somebody might actually start to see the prize for a credible political alternative to Blair-ism, and challenge Starmer / Milliband in 2028.
I say this with apologies to my own and every family member who fought, died and suffered actual austerity so I could vote. Democracy for now may even be dead, they just haven’t bothered with an obituary. But I hope it’s just having a long sleep.
Anyway Happy New Year Everyone.
There are a lot of people saying that the Tories have abandoned conservatism. What they don’t explain is what they mean by conservatism in terms of actual policies. Would someone like to expound them. Most of their comments at the moment are equivalent to “The end if the world is at hand.”
Fascism Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and ‘wokeism’ are easy to define because they are ideologies: Conservatism is therefore a bit more tricky to define. My understanding is … take the few good pragmatic policies (if any) from each of the ideologies to govern with; learn, and be guided by the lessons of your cultural history.
I don’t think it’s that difficult if we see conservatism as building on what has come before us, for the benefit of the nation as a whole and its future good. It avoids pandering to any core group (whether trade unions, big business) and working for the common good. Competence and honesty wouldn’t go amiss.
Conservatism is based upon a deep knowledge and understanding of how the social and political values of our particular society have developed over time; a belief that the development is most likely to reflect the values, and attract the loyalty, of its individual members; and a willingness to make changes to the legal and political structures “top down” when, but only when, they are necessary and reflect a change in society’s values. I hope that helps.
Fascism Liberalism, Socialism, Communism and ‘wokeism’ are easy to define because they are ideologies: Conservatism is therefore a bit more tricky to define. My understanding is … take the few good pragmatic policies (if any) from each of the ideologies to govern with; learn, and be guided by the lessons of your cultural history.
I don’t think it’s that difficult if we see conservatism as building on what has come before us, for the benefit of the nation as a whole and its future good. It avoids pandering to any core group (whether trade unions, big business) and working for the common good. Competence and honesty wouldn’t go amiss.
Conservatism is based upon a deep knowledge and understanding of how the social and political values of our particular society have developed over time; a belief that the development is most likely to reflect the values, and attract the loyalty, of its individual members; and a willingness to make changes to the legal and political structures “top down” when, but only when, they are necessary and reflect a change in society’s values. I hope that helps.
There are a lot of people saying that the Tories have abandoned conservatism. What they don’t explain is what they mean by conservatism in terms of actual policies. Would someone like to expound them. Most of their comments at the moment are equivalent to “The end if the world is at hand.”
Excluding BREXIT, name one important conservative goal that has been achieved in the last 12 years? BREXIT is a mixed bag, it hasn’t delivered what was promised. Immigration, economic growth, access to housing (buying or renting a house I don’t mean warehousing the poor and the lazy), and defence of British culture and history, all have been catastrophic failures. It’s been pointed out by people far more eloquent than myself, but what is conservative about the present conservative party?
We cannot answer this question without looking at the deeper systemic political revolution enacted by Blair and Brown from 97. We can observe today what looks like Tories bizarrely adopting the ‘progressive’/socialist IDEAS of New Labour. But this metamorphosis has happened because Blair shifted actual power and law away from Parliament and party. He created our ruling Blob or Technocracy and instituted a second pillar of power in supreme human rights justice system which also sits ABOVE the Executive. The whole purpose of this EU-backed revolution (devolution/supreme court/BoE/NHS) was to dilute the power of national parliament (where political parties ideology matters) and to empower a non elected but leftist technocratic army to govern and regulate all aspects of the UK. This is why Conservatism has turned Red and socialist. The governing technocratic and legal Order are anti-Tory and skewed Left. So when Suella says – lets control our borders – nothing happens. When Boris says lets stop wokery – nothing happens. When Tories say – lets do Brexit nothing happens. When Liz says lets grow the economy – she is neutered pronto. It is not an accident. These meek Tories have been sat on and bullied by the ruling elephantine Blob and this is why conservatism has been extinguished in the political arena. Brexit was the last chance to reverse this anti democratic upheaval. But they have killed it. Labour are the party of the Blob. This is why their election would be a final catastrophe, not just for traditional conservatism but for the expression of democracy.
Well said Walter and it is just sad that there is no support here for what you have said.
I suspect you are right. My personal theory is that we, conservatives are lazy and unfocused. left-wingers are very committed and possess a religious fanatic drive and occupy all the seats of interstitial power. One fine example is the way we neglected culture and education. Regressive Leftism progressed like malignant cancer while we were asleep (apparently making money working in the real economy because we are no-nonsense guys!). It happens everywhere, in my country, Portugal where the goal of most “right-wing “politicians is to be loved by the left and all over the west where the centre-right betrayed the people. I suspect you are 100% right.
Well said Walter and it is just sad that there is no support here for what you have said.
I suspect you are right. My personal theory is that we, conservatives are lazy and unfocused. left-wingers are very committed and possess a religious fanatic drive and occupy all the seats of interstitial power. One fine example is the way we neglected culture and education. Regressive Leftism progressed like malignant cancer while we were asleep (apparently making money working in the real economy because we are no-nonsense guys!). It happens everywhere, in my country, Portugal where the goal of most “right-wing “politicians is to be loved by the left and all over the west where the centre-right betrayed the people. I suspect you are 100% right.
We cannot answer this question without looking at the deeper systemic political revolution enacted by Blair and Brown from 97. We can observe today what looks like Tories bizarrely adopting the ‘progressive’/socialist IDEAS of New Labour. But this metamorphosis has happened because Blair shifted actual power and law away from Parliament and party. He created our ruling Blob or Technocracy and instituted a second pillar of power in supreme human rights justice system which also sits ABOVE the Executive. The whole purpose of this EU-backed revolution (devolution/supreme court/BoE/NHS) was to dilute the power of national parliament (where political parties ideology matters) and to empower a non elected but leftist technocratic army to govern and regulate all aspects of the UK. This is why Conservatism has turned Red and socialist. The governing technocratic and legal Order are anti-Tory and skewed Left. So when Suella says – lets control our borders – nothing happens. When Boris says lets stop wokery – nothing happens. When Tories say – lets do Brexit nothing happens. When Liz says lets grow the economy – she is neutered pronto. It is not an accident. These meek Tories have been sat on and bullied by the ruling elephantine Blob and this is why conservatism has been extinguished in the political arena. Brexit was the last chance to reverse this anti democratic upheaval. But they have killed it. Labour are the party of the Blob. This is why their election would be a final catastrophe, not just for traditional conservatism but for the expression of democracy.
Excluding BREXIT, name one important conservative goal that has been achieved in the last 12 years? BREXIT is a mixed bag, it hasn’t delivered what was promised. Immigration, economic growth, access to housing (buying or renting a house I don’t mean warehousing the poor and the lazy), and defence of British culture and history, all have been catastrophic failures. It’s been pointed out by people far more eloquent than myself, but what is conservative about the present conservative party?
The application of the word ‘conservative’ to the Tories and the GOP undermines credibility. These are progressive parties who simply implement the progressive agenda *a little more slowly* than their opponents.
The application of the word ‘conservative’ to the Tories and the GOP undermines credibility. These are progressive parties who simply implement the progressive agenda *a little more slowly* than their opponents.
Watch the rise of Ron DeSantis. He is Trump without the incontinent hissy-fits and Twitter jags He is solid, sober and shares the values that put Trump in office. The left-wing media complex and deep state/Big Tech combine want to see Trump safely off before they turn the hate machine full on DeSantis, who doesn’t have the elephant train of baggage that Trump must pull.
Watch the rise of Ron DeSantis. He is Trump without the incontinent hissy-fits and Twitter jags He is solid, sober and shares the values that put Trump in office. The left-wing media complex and deep state/Big Tech combine want to see Trump safely off before they turn the hate machine full on DeSantis, who doesn’t have the elephant train of baggage that Trump must pull.
Conservatism is not dependent on the Conservative and Unionist Party for its survival, it is that latter vehicle, not the philosophy itself, which is under existential threat.
Real Republicanism is as strong as ever in grassroots USA, it’s just the elected machine of grift, corruption and criminality that might not survive close examination.
Not that the Democratic Party is currently distinguishable from an organised crime syndicate having to shed senior figures due to public scandal.Any more than the Labour Party in the UK is now anything more than a pressure group for wimmin, gays, Muslims, immigrants and public sector tootsies. It gave up on the proud, hard-working male working class vote twenty five years ago.
The people have realised that it’s all a stitch up on both sides of the pound and their ire, their wrath and the consequences they are going to mete out will cause veritable tsunamis in hearts and minds, even if the criminally fraudulent election rigging stateside will undoubtedly continue and could quite possibly be exported to the reservation in the NE Atlantic.
My mother was a woman- sorry, ‘wimmon’. There’s a shocking number of them about, once you start looking.
My mother was a woman- sorry, ‘wimmon’. There’s a shocking number of them about, once you start looking.
Conservatism is not dependent on the Conservative and Unionist Party for its survival, it is that latter vehicle, not the philosophy itself, which is under existential threat.
Real Republicanism is as strong as ever in grassroots USA, it’s just the elected machine of grift, corruption and criminality that might not survive close examination.
Not that the Democratic Party is currently distinguishable from an organised crime syndicate having to shed senior figures due to public scandal.Any more than the Labour Party in the UK is now anything more than a pressure group for wimmin, gays, Muslims, immigrants and public sector tootsies. It gave up on the proud, hard-working male working class vote twenty five years ago.
The people have realised that it’s all a stitch up on both sides of the pound and their ire, their wrath and the consequences they are going to mete out will cause veritable tsunamis in hearts and minds, even if the criminally fraudulent election rigging stateside will undoubtedly continue and could quite possibly be exported to the reservation in the NE Atlantic.
I am a 25 year old individual from a BAME background who recently converted from Labour to Tories. My suggestion would be to focus on creating a positive brand image and PR, by showing support to those whom we support, e.g. – Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson and President Trump. The radical left hates these amazing icons.
I can assure you, this will be HIGHLY effective.
I am assuming this is a parody.
Nope, all truth.
As the article states “The Right has sustained itself on “whatever gets us elected”. I think this will work for the younger gen.
Careful – annoying the radical left does not legitmize the loony right.
You mean Andrew Tate the ranting misogynist internet troll and now sex trafficker? Is that now representative of ‘conservative’ ideals, in your considered opinion?
Maybe your “branding” strategy needs fewer “amazing icons” and more intelligent, decent conservative human beings.
Just a thought.
Careful – annoying the radical left does not legitmize the loony right.
You mean Andrew Tate the ranting misogynist internet troll and now sex trafficker? Is that now representative of ‘conservative’ ideals, in your considered opinion?
Maybe your “branding” strategy needs fewer “amazing icons” and more intelligent, decent conservative human beings.
Just a thought.
Nope, all truth.
As the article states “The Right has sustained itself on “whatever gets us elected”. I think this will work for the younger gen.
There’s a lot of truth in that. I remember seeing Theresa May being interviewed one day, and the conversation turned to the topic of Donald Trump.
The derisive smirk that suddenly appeared on her face was telling, especially because the question, as I recall, was about a pefectly sensible statement he had made, rather than one of his admittedly sometimes wilder erratic outbursts.
I am assuming this is a parody.
There’s a lot of truth in that. I remember seeing Theresa May being interviewed one day, and the conversation turned to the topic of Donald Trump.
The derisive smirk that suddenly appeared on her face was telling, especially because the question, as I recall, was about a pefectly sensible statement he had made, rather than one of his admittedly sometimes wilder erratic outbursts.
I am a 25 year old individual from a BAME background who recently converted from Labour to Tories. My suggestion would be to focus on creating a positive brand image and PR, by showing support to those whom we support, e.g. – Elon Musk, Andrew Tate, Jordan Peterson and President Trump. The radical left hates these amazing icons.
I can assure you, this will be HIGHLY effective.
This Oxley pen-name is getting Mr Mandelson a lot of column inches at Unherd (the independent-thinker’s rival to the Critic, Monocle, Speccie et al) lately.
Representative democracy, with its parties, rentagobs and clerisy, is a genteel charade, like feng shui on a cancer ward.
This Oxley pen-name is getting Mr Mandelson a lot of column inches at Unherd (the independent-thinker’s rival to the Critic, Monocle, Speccie et al) lately.
Representative democracy, with its parties, rentagobs and clerisy, is a genteel charade, like feng shui on a cancer ward.
“Whatever gets us elected.” began with Blair. ‘Cameron/Osborn’ merely aped the grand master. The problem with chasing everyone else’s coattails is politics quickly loses touch with the issues of the times.
What England desperately needs is an honest conversation about health. Preventive Health, Aged Care, and End of Life needs. The answers to all these questions lie in rediscovering the notion of personal responsibility which for me is at the root of conservatism.
Deep down everyone knows that the best way to help individuals be their best is self-reliance, to go for it. You see it in Vietnam in the migrant populations that leave their families to create more opportunities for their children. It is no coincidence that personal responsibility as a notion becomes eroded when the government knows best.
That is the conversation here in New Zealand for next year. Personal Responsibility versus the culture of grievances and excuses where you do not look at the results and make people accountable you focus endlessly on the reasons why and over many generations and as always those deserving of this “consideration” are numerically nothing compared to the majority who simply want. Good Education, Healthcare, Decent Accommodation, and functioning Infrastructure for their tax dollars.
The conservatives need to lose badly, look at the current challenges and find solutions that are steeped in the notion of personal responsibility and apply swift and timely management.
If when Sars broke into the community Boris Johnson remembered that conservatism stood for personal responsibility, and looked for a swift high-level funneling (management of the situation) of healthcare and hospice needs he would still be prime minister.
Why is Ukraine against the odds succeeding? Autonomy for battlefield commanders and a sense of ownership. By contrast lock, everyone up and you make them helpless and reliant and when they come back out into the sunlight all you have done is increased victimhood.
We can be compassionate and caring, leave that with us. You just need to allow us to be responsible and oddly we will spend a lot less of everyone else’s money which solves another problem. And those who self-harm they can pay for it.
“Whatever gets us elected.” began with Blair. ‘Cameron/Osborn’ merely aped the grand master. The problem with chasing everyone else’s coattails is politics quickly loses touch with the issues of the times.
What England desperately needs is an honest conversation about health. Preventive Health, Aged Care, and End of Life needs. The answers to all these questions lie in rediscovering the notion of personal responsibility which for me is at the root of conservatism.
Deep down everyone knows that the best way to help individuals be their best is self-reliance, to go for it. You see it in Vietnam in the migrant populations that leave their families to create more opportunities for their children. It is no coincidence that personal responsibility as a notion becomes eroded when the government knows best.
That is the conversation here in New Zealand for next year. Personal Responsibility versus the culture of grievances and excuses where you do not look at the results and make people accountable you focus endlessly on the reasons why and over many generations and as always those deserving of this “consideration” are numerically nothing compared to the majority who simply want. Good Education, Healthcare, Decent Accommodation, and functioning Infrastructure for their tax dollars.
The conservatives need to lose badly, look at the current challenges and find solutions that are steeped in the notion of personal responsibility and apply swift and timely management.
If when Sars broke into the community Boris Johnson remembered that conservatism stood for personal responsibility, and looked for a swift high-level funneling (management of the situation) of healthcare and hospice needs he would still be prime minister.
Why is Ukraine against the odds succeeding? Autonomy for battlefield commanders and a sense of ownership. By contrast lock, everyone up and you make them helpless and reliant and when they come back out into the sunlight all you have done is increased victimhood.
We can be compassionate and caring, leave that with us. You just need to allow us to be responsible and oddly we will spend a lot less of everyone else’s money which solves another problem. And those who self-harm they can pay for it.
Conservatism is alive and well in both the UK and US. It is the political representatives of conservatism that are dead. I have no faith in either political party to represent conservative principles. Painful though it may be we have reached the point of “We should let them all burn”. From the ashes we might have some chance to grow a representative conservative movement.
Unfortunately, it isn’t just in the UK and US. The rise of the populist right is a symptom of the betrayal perpetrated against the people by the center-right parties in western Europe.
Unfortunately, it isn’t just in the UK and US. The rise of the populist right is a symptom of the betrayal perpetrated against the people by the center-right parties in western Europe.
Conservatism is alive and well in both the UK and US. It is the political representatives of conservatism that are dead. I have no faith in either political party to represent conservative principles. Painful though it may be we have reached the point of “We should let them all burn”. From the ashes we might have some chance to grow a representative conservative movement.
The problem remains, in Britain at least, that Conservatives are not conservatives. They are social liberals and more concerned with free markets, or less so free markets, but with financial markets. They cannot reinvent themselves as they do not have the belief, language or intellect to offer anything different.
Reading the comments here and elsewhere there is a growing cohort of ‘small c’ conservatives who have faithfully backed the Conservatives election after election. They have gone and are staying away. We may as well get it over with, let the social progressive party do its worst rather than the party that does the same, if just a bit more slowly and with a fake label. At some point, something better will emerge out of the ashes with some backbone, vision and integrity.
The problem remains, in Britain at least, that Conservatives are not conservatives. They are social liberals and more concerned with free markets, or less so free markets, but with financial markets. They cannot reinvent themselves as they do not have the belief, language or intellect to offer anything different.
Reading the comments here and elsewhere there is a growing cohort of ‘small c’ conservatives who have faithfully backed the Conservatives election after election. They have gone and are staying away. We may as well get it over with, let the social progressive party do its worst rather than the party that does the same, if just a bit more slowly and with a fake label. At some point, something better will emerge out of the ashes with some backbone, vision and integrity.
A lizard shedding its skin has bodily integrity beneath. The only way the “conservative” movement (which seems to have completely forgotten any historical meaning of the term – duty, service, community? Laughable) can “shed the shouty charlatans and hollow men” is to go into a chrysalis and emerge completely transformed. The GOP is nothing but a combination of grifters (dedicated only to their own prosperity), cowards, and an angry mindless mob to which they pander and systematically fleece. Good luck. Real conservatives with integrity await this miracle transformation of the professional parties.
A lizard shedding its skin has bodily integrity beneath. The only way the “conservative” movement (which seems to have completely forgotten any historical meaning of the term – duty, service, community? Laughable) can “shed the shouty charlatans and hollow men” is to go into a chrysalis and emerge completely transformed. The GOP is nothing but a combination of grifters (dedicated only to their own prosperity), cowards, and an angry mindless mob to which they pander and systematically fleece. Good luck. Real conservatives with integrity await this miracle transformation of the professional parties.
The question is partly out-of-date.
In Britain, conservatism didn’t even survive 2016.
The UK conservative party is many things (e.g., a radical English nationalist party), but the descriptors “conservative’ or “unionist” no longer sensibly can be applied to the Tories in 2023.
The question is partly out-of-date.
In Britain, conservatism didn’t even survive 2016.
The UK conservative party is many things (e.g., a radical English nationalist party), but the descriptors “conservative’ or “unionist” no longer sensibly can be applied to the Tories in 2023.
It was the GOP’s leadership’s position not to have an actual platform. They also underestimated the effect of abortion being on the ballot. Do not forget Lindsey Graham proposed a national abortion ban. Considering not many GOP voters were even asking for that and Graham has never held a single principle in his life, that is rather suspicious. Rick Scott opened his mouth about wanted to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Finally, the Democrats engaged in primary manipulation against the Republicans. Oxley, I will respect your position on British politics since I do not know much about it. Unfortunately, I would ask that you stay out of American politics since you do not know much about it.
Methinks you’re watching too much CNN.
Lindsey Graham introduced a bill to ban abortions after 15 weeks. This isn’t a ban on abortions. In most countries, abortions are banned anywhere from 16-24 weeks. He’s basically arguing for the same law that exists in every other democratic country. More than 70% of Americans agree there should be some time limit on abortions.
And Scott doesn’t want to destroy Social Security or Medicare. He wants a sunset clause that forces Congress to renew the program every five years. You can disagree with his proposal, but he’s not suggesting it be abolished. By the way, Social Security has a massive funding issue and won’t be able to pay full benefits by possibly 2030. The issue needs to be resolved.
Having said that, the GOP is a joke. We all know what they oppose. But do they even have a platform?
You can try to deflect and explain it away all you want, but that is not the message that came across to most voters. First, the GOP has been actively hostile to Medicare and Social Security for years now and their plans usually involve reducing funding and benefits. They call this “entitlement reform”. Whether or not you think this is a good idea is irrelevant. It is unpopular among most Republican voters and is capable of motivating Democrat and Independent turnout. Second, the GOP promised everyone that if Roe was overturned, it would be left to the states. They would not propose any national abortion law. Whether you like it or found it reasonable, Graham’s proposal betrayed this promise. Looks like leaving it up to the states was just an empty slogan. Abortion was by far the biggest punch against the “Red Wave”, but the GOP leadership is transparently pretending this is not the case. Add to this sunset clauses that would ban abortion in many states once Roe was overturned, and you have a recipe for a massive voter push. You can try to make excuses for these decisions, but the fact of the matter is they damaged the Republican party much more this Midterm season than anything to do with the “Orange Man”.
I’m not trying to deflect anything. The GOP is a joke. But your assertions about Graham and Scott were incorrect and I pointed that out. Graham doesn’t want to ban abortions and Scott doesn’t want to abolish Social Security. That’s all I said. And I’m Canadian by the way.
Here’s the problem with the GOP. They don’t stand up for anything. They are full fury all the time and don’t offer any kind of alternative.
They got owned on the abortion issue because they utterly suck at campaigning and policy development. If they stood up for Graham and actually promoted a national policy that supported abortions up until 15 weeks – something the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with – they would have forced the Dems to either agree with them or advocate for a more radical policy that would alienate most voters.
Instead they chose to sit back and do nothing and say nothing. I suppose they did this for fear of alienating their ultra conservative religious base. But by saying nothing, and ignoring Graham’s proposal, they gave the Dems a free pass on the issue. Maybe the GOP does want to ban all abortions, but that’s not what Graham was advocating. Until the GOP actually develops an abortion platform they can be accused of anything.
That is the problem with the GOP on multiple, multiple issues.
For decades the GOP has had their eye on taking a serious axe to Social Security and Medicare and they were never exactly quiet about it. See decades of National Review articles if you are interested. Scott can frame it however he wants. It does not mean the public believes him. As for Graham and the ban, it does not matter that it is reasonable and after fifteen weeks, the party promised over and over that they would do no such thing if Roe was overturned (kind of like the Democrats promising over and over that this time they will codify Roe, pinky promise). When you lie like that, of course your opponents get to have a field day. Finally, these were the only two proposed items on the party’s agenda. There was nothing about how they were going to deal with things like illegal immigration, inflation, falling wages, healthcare, tackling the administrative state or anything else. Mitch McConnell thought it was a brilliant plan to have no platform and just go all in on how their opponent sucked. Turns out they forgot they had to offer an alternative.
I don’t disagree with any of this. The GOP doesn’t have a policy platform on anything, abortion and social security included. They stand for nothing. They’re cowards. They’re so afraid of alienating the far right fringe of the party they don’t even bother with policy.
This is flat out wrong. The populist movement in the party is the part who wants the GOP to have real policy positions on things like immigration, antitrust, and healthcare. Hell, even abortion is not as big of deal to the Republican voting base as it was in past decades. With affordable and reliable birth control reducing the need for abortions and bigger problems such as the disturbing stuff being taught to elementary school kids, they have bigger concerns right now. Plus most Republican voters realize it is a losing issue at the moment. GOP leadership is still worshiping at the cult of Regan. They have no desire to do anything but trot out the same old playbook and failed neoconservative “polices” that have massively increased corporate monopolies, lead to foreign policy quagmires, shipped jobs overseas, and betray their voters every time they get power. This “far right fringe” you speak of would not even exist if they were willing to confront their failures over the past thirty years and the party leadership cares much more about destroying it than fighting the other party.
This is flat out wrong. The populist movement in the party is the part who wants the GOP to have real policy positions on things like immigration, antitrust, and healthcare. Hell, even abortion is not as big of deal to the Republican voting base as it was in past decades. With affordable and reliable birth control reducing the need for abortions and bigger problems such as the disturbing stuff being taught to elementary school kids, they have bigger concerns right now. Plus most Republican voters realize it is a losing issue at the moment. GOP leadership is still worshiping at the cult of Regan. They have no desire to do anything but trot out the same old playbook and failed neoconservative “polices” that have massively increased corporate monopolies, lead to foreign policy quagmires, shipped jobs overseas, and betray their voters every time they get power. This “far right fringe” you speak of would not even exist if they were willing to confront their failures over the past thirty years and the party leadership cares much more about destroying it than fighting the other party.
I don’t disagree with any of this. The GOP doesn’t have a policy platform on anything, abortion and social security included. They stand for nothing. They’re cowards. They’re so afraid of alienating the far right fringe of the party they don’t even bother with policy.
For decades the GOP has had their eye on taking a serious axe to Social Security and Medicare and they were never exactly quiet about it. See decades of National Review articles if you are interested. Scott can frame it however he wants. It does not mean the public believes him. As for Graham and the ban, it does not matter that it is reasonable and after fifteen weeks, the party promised over and over that they would do no such thing if Roe was overturned (kind of like the Democrats promising over and over that this time they will codify Roe, pinky promise). When you lie like that, of course your opponents get to have a field day. Finally, these were the only two proposed items on the party’s agenda. There was nothing about how they were going to deal with things like illegal immigration, inflation, falling wages, healthcare, tackling the administrative state or anything else. Mitch McConnell thought it was a brilliant plan to have no platform and just go all in on how their opponent sucked. Turns out they forgot they had to offer an alternative.
I’m not trying to deflect anything. The GOP is a joke. But your assertions about Graham and Scott were incorrect and I pointed that out. Graham doesn’t want to ban abortions and Scott doesn’t want to abolish Social Security. That’s all I said. And I’m Canadian by the way.
Here’s the problem with the GOP. They don’t stand up for anything. They are full fury all the time and don’t offer any kind of alternative.
They got owned on the abortion issue because they utterly suck at campaigning and policy development. If they stood up for Graham and actually promoted a national policy that supported abortions up until 15 weeks – something the overwhelming majority of Americans agree with – they would have forced the Dems to either agree with them or advocate for a more radical policy that would alienate most voters.
Instead they chose to sit back and do nothing and say nothing. I suppose they did this for fear of alienating their ultra conservative religious base. But by saying nothing, and ignoring Graham’s proposal, they gave the Dems a free pass on the issue. Maybe the GOP does want to ban all abortions, but that’s not what Graham was advocating. Until the GOP actually develops an abortion platform they can be accused of anything.
That is the problem with the GOP on multiple, multiple issues.
You can try to deflect and explain it away all you want, but that is not the message that came across to most voters. First, the GOP has been actively hostile to Medicare and Social Security for years now and their plans usually involve reducing funding and benefits. They call this “entitlement reform”. Whether or not you think this is a good idea is irrelevant. It is unpopular among most Republican voters and is capable of motivating Democrat and Independent turnout. Second, the GOP promised everyone that if Roe was overturned, it would be left to the states. They would not propose any national abortion law. Whether you like it or found it reasonable, Graham’s proposal betrayed this promise. Looks like leaving it up to the states was just an empty slogan. Abortion was by far the biggest punch against the “Red Wave”, but the GOP leadership is transparently pretending this is not the case. Add to this sunset clauses that would ban abortion in many states once Roe was overturned, and you have a recipe for a massive voter push. You can try to make excuses for these decisions, but the fact of the matter is they damaged the Republican party much more this Midterm season than anything to do with the “Orange Man”.
Methinks you’re watching too much CNN.
Lindsey Graham introduced a bill to ban abortions after 15 weeks. This isn’t a ban on abortions. In most countries, abortions are banned anywhere from 16-24 weeks. He’s basically arguing for the same law that exists in every other democratic country. More than 70% of Americans agree there should be some time limit on abortions.
And Scott doesn’t want to destroy Social Security or Medicare. He wants a sunset clause that forces Congress to renew the program every five years. You can disagree with his proposal, but he’s not suggesting it be abolished. By the way, Social Security has a massive funding issue and won’t be able to pay full benefits by possibly 2030. The issue needs to be resolved.
Having said that, the GOP is a joke. We all know what they oppose. But do they even have a platform?
It was the GOP’s leadership’s position not to have an actual platform. They also underestimated the effect of abortion being on the ballot. Do not forget Lindsey Graham proposed a national abortion ban. Considering not many GOP voters were even asking for that and Graham has never held a single principle in his life, that is rather suspicious. Rick Scott opened his mouth about wanted to destroy Social Security and Medicare. Finally, the Democrats engaged in primary manipulation against the Republicans. Oxley, I will respect your position on British politics since I do not know much about it. Unfortunately, I would ask that you stay out of American politics since you do not know much about it.
This article is urging the Conservative Party to reoccupy ideological ground it has already ceded to Kier Starmers Labour Party
This article is urging the Conservative Party to reoccupy ideological ground it has already ceded to Kier Starmers Labour Party
Terminology is very important, especially in the era of political correctness. Manipulations with terminology make any discussion pointless.
I’m afraid the root of the problem is the misuse of the word “conservatism”
It seems to me that what those present want is called “common sense”
“Common sense” does not deny changes at all, but it does not deny the values previously accumulated by society. This is neither conservatism nor progressivism. It is the art of balance and compromise.
Don’t fall for the tricks of the leftists, please.
Terminology is very important, especially in the era of political correctness. Manipulations with terminology make any discussion pointless.
I’m afraid the root of the problem is the misuse of the word “conservatism”
It seems to me that what those present want is called “common sense”
“Common sense” does not deny changes at all, but it does not deny the values previously accumulated by society. This is neither conservatism nor progressivism. It is the art of balance and compromise.
Don’t fall for the tricks of the leftists, please.
Don’t think the problems of England are yours alone. They might have a slight cultural tone but they are the same all across the world. That suggests it’s more than your own politicians, though it also suggests that the nature of politicians is the same the world over. But if that’s the case then it seems to me it’s the system itself. It produces nothing of benefit, and chaos when governments are forced to act. We can tinker about the edges but nothing will come of it. As I’ve said before, to survive countries must reinvent themselves. A scary proposition but it’s going to get scary anyway.
Don’t think the problems of England are yours alone. They might have a slight cultural tone but they are the same all across the world. That suggests it’s more than your own politicians, though it also suggests that the nature of politicians is the same the world over. But if that’s the case then it seems to me it’s the system itself. It produces nothing of benefit, and chaos when governments are forced to act. We can tinker about the edges but nothing will come of it. As I’ve said before, to survive countries must reinvent themselves. A scary proposition but it’s going to get scary anyway.
The Conservative party are not remotely conservative.
They cannot be revived.
The Conservative party are not remotely conservative.
They cannot be revived.
If the current opposition in the UK succeed in electoral reform – ie PR – then the Conservative Party will be out of power for good.
The labour Party will not agree to PR etc because they know that they too will destroyed.
Depends how well Labour do. If they win with a good majority they will forget PR very quickly.
Not necessarily, RefUK would win seats with PR and Labour would not win a majority either
Labour currently have no interest in PR whatsoever.
Conservatism didn’t even make it to the end of 2022
“The only reason (The Tory Party) should fall into decline is a lack of ardour and applied thinking.” – is that all it will take? Really? And here’s me thinking grand scale miracles are required. One miracle that would work is a tax of wealth: call it a solidarity tax. A 2% tax of the UK’s wealth of £183 trn will bring in £3,660bn that might do it! Okay, cap it so homeowners living in houses valued under £300,000 are exempt.. it’ll still bring in a £trn or so.
“After all, young people should be more economically Right-wing than ever. Far more want a slice of prosperity than to tear it down. They bridle at stagnant wages and rising prices, but have embraced “side hustles”, investing and entrepreneurialism” – a small minority I would have thought, and more in desperation than in any commitment to (sick) capitalism!
The Trump circus obscured the fact in 2016 he ran as a Republican anti-Reagan, and the rank and file ate it up. While the gaggle of other GOP candidates for the party’s nomination were droning on about cutting taxes and slashing regulations and keeping the markets free, Trump was promising voters that he would use the power of government to actively make their lives better on trade and jobs. He even went after corporate tax rates.
There is a new consensus building in the think tanks where conservative policies are made, which recognizes that the effects of laissez faire which American conservatives (European “liberals”) believe so strongly in must be tempered with some kind of collective insurance and community investment and care to preserve things like community, families and individual freedoms. Some balance.
Thinkers like Sohrab Ahmari, Patrick Deneen, Adrian Vermeule and others are leading the way, and influencing politicians like Marco Rubio.
Freaks like Boebert, Greene and Gaetz in the new Republican House will paralyze Congress for the next two years with absurd antics as they play to a conservative audience they don’t know they’ve already lost. Nationally, they will be in the wilderness for the next 10 years as they deserve to be.
How about “conserving” family, tradition, neighborhoods, communities, national identity, and recognize that unfettered markets can be the enemy of those good things?
For far too long conservatism has tried to lead by fear. When the opposite political party or ideology is demonized day in and day out, it is not surprising that what is created in the electorate is a constant sense of dread as some catastrophe is always fastly approaching. In that mindset, it is not surprising that the public is also in a constant state of readiness to accept any solution, anyone that seems to have any solution that might work. Uncontrolled immigration, the death of the family, … At some point people need to understand that we are not all going to die tomorrow unless a drastic solution is offered and delivered ASAP. The problem of illegal immigration is very complex and neither party has a magic answer. The perception that the survival of the institution of “the family” is at risk doesn’t give people the clear mind to try to understand the changes that societies are going through right now, we cannot demonize something out of existence, specially human beings that are feeling differently about their sexuality than what has been the norm until now. The solution to problems is never going to be to become more entrenched in your ideology as things get harder, rather quite the opposite, become more willing to listen and try understand those with opposite views. And that goes for individuals of all political persuasions, of course, not just conservatives.
Good bit of balance. I think as society becomes more fluid, more technological, atomized, we also need to find meaning in our work, in our environment, in our communities. You’d hope conservatives and progressives on the left would find some common ground here? Maybe if they put aside the labels for a start?
«human beings that are feeling differently about their sexuality than what has been the norm until now» –
In a more or less normal society, people of this kind always cause a feeling of rejection. This feeling arises on an instinctive level.
This should be accepted, and not to arrange pride parades that cause hostility among the public. Pride in one’s deviations, as well as perverted pride in one’s “tragic” problems, is hardly capable of arousing sympathy. The average layman replies, and quite rightly, that he has a little more trouble than, for example, Prince Harry and his crazy wife
My Mother had a b***h dog that was ‘gay’, to use the grotesque modern terminology. It would repeatedly impose itself on any other b***h it met in the most base and unnatural manner.
My Father shot it. It was the kind thing to do. And yet we are told, by the Woke tyranny to condemn this solution- where did we go wrong?
My Mother had a b***h dog that was ‘gay’, to use the grotesque modern terminology. It would repeatedly impose itself on any other b***h it met in the most base and unnatural manner.
My Father shot it. It was the kind thing to do. And yet we are told, by the Woke tyranny to condemn this solution- where did we go wrong?
Good Lord, a voice of calm sanity!
This, unfortunately, is the internet, where ‘listening’ is deeply, indeed furiously, frowned upon.
Good bit of balance. I think as society becomes more fluid, more technological, atomized, we also need to find meaning in our work, in our environment, in our communities. You’d hope conservatives and progressives on the left would find some common ground here? Maybe if they put aside the labels for a start?
«human beings that are feeling differently about their sexuality than what has been the norm until now» –
In a more or less normal society, people of this kind always cause a feeling of rejection. This feeling arises on an instinctive level.
This should be accepted, and not to arrange pride parades that cause hostility among the public. Pride in one’s deviations, as well as perverted pride in one’s “tragic” problems, is hardly capable of arousing sympathy. The average layman replies, and quite rightly, that he has a little more trouble than, for example, Prince Harry and his crazy wife
Good Lord, a voice of calm sanity!
This, unfortunately, is the internet, where ‘listening’ is deeply, indeed furiously, frowned upon.
For far too long conservatism has tried to lead by fear. When the opposite political party or ideology is demonized day in and day out, it is not surprising that what is created in the electorate is a constant sense of dread as some catastrophe is always fastly approaching. In that mindset, it is not surprising that the public is also in a constant state of readiness to accept any solution, anyone that seems to have any solution that might work. Uncontrolled immigration, the death of the family, … At some point people need to understand that we are not all going to die tomorrow unless a drastic solution is offered and delivered ASAP. The problem of illegal immigration is very complex and neither party has a magic answer. The perception that the survival of the institution of “the family” is at risk doesn’t give people the clear mind to try to understand the changes that societies are going through right now, we cannot demonize something out of existence, specially human beings that are feeling differently about their sexuality than what has been the norm until now. The solution to problems is never going to be to become more entrenched in your ideology as things get harder, rather quite the opposite, become more willing to listen and try understand those with opposite views. And that goes for individuals of all political persuasions, of course, not just conservatives.
Nonsense. The fight over the speakership in the House is the first time in a long time that anyone in this country has tried to hold a member of the political class like Kevin McCarthy accountable. Everyone should be behind these Republican holdouts.
Nonsense. The fight over the speakership in the House is the first time in a long time that anyone in this country has tried to hold a member of the political class like Kevin McCarthy accountable. Everyone should be behind these Republican holdouts.
Blah Blah Bah, check this out, oil is not fossil fuel, nor is it a resource with limited, fixed supply. https://tccsa.tc/adventure/renewable_oil.pdf (this is not the only source saying this). https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/ <–this is another jewel.
A scientist speaks…..
A scientist speaks…..
Blah Blah Bah, check this out, oil is not fossil fuel, nor is it a resource with limited, fixed supply. https://tccsa.tc/adventure/renewable_oil.pdf (this is not the only source saying this). https://www.newscientist.com/article/2133963-theres-as-much-water-in-earths-mantle-as-in-all-the-oceans/ <–this is another jewel.
Having lived in the UK, NZ, Australia, Canada and, of course, the US as an American, I’ve witnessed the decline of whatever you want to call “conservatism” for some time now. Having said that, what the UK and US call “conservatism” is nothing of the sort.
I’m not one for hard and fast definitions, but I can’t find a definition of conservatism anywhere that posits an ideology which contains an unspoken, yet implicit provision to take humanity back a hundred or more years, when raw, racist tropes were commonplace and where whiteness reigns supreme, and that being anything other than a rich white male offers little more than basic sustenance.
Yet, here we are. You can ascribe the U.S. Republicans and the UK Tories “conservative,” but you need far more cosmetics than just lipstick to put on those pigs.
Having lived in the UK, NZ, Australia, Canada and, of course, the US as an American, I’ve witnessed the decline of whatever you want to call “conservatism” for some time now. Having said that, what the UK and US call “conservatism” is nothing of the sort.
I’m not one for hard and fast definitions, but I can’t find a definition of conservatism anywhere that posits an ideology which contains an unspoken, yet implicit provision to take humanity back a hundred or more years, when raw, racist tropes were commonplace and where whiteness reigns supreme, and that being anything other than a rich white male offers little more than basic sustenance.
Yet, here we are. You can ascribe the U.S. Republicans and the UK Tories “conservative,” but you need far more cosmetics than just lipstick to put on those pigs.