Permalink Submitted by JG on Mon, 02/07/2007 - 13:14
As you have said before, the political spectrum and definitions of left and right are often sources for debate. However, I would put the libertarians, in this case, to the right - simply because Cameron's charge to the centre ground is by no means a move to libertarian politics.
The trouble is, to a classical liberal, the "hang 'em, flog 'em, lock up the gays" attitude of what most people mean by the "traditional right" of the Tory party is deeply antithetical to their beliefs. And it is this part of the party that makes the Conservatives unelectable. No libertarian in his right mind would want to take them with him. I would argue that, on a political spectrum, the libertarians are to the right, and the social-democrats and conservatives are in the centre. The latter both believe in a fair amount of government, they just differ on the issues to which that government should be applied (and, of course, the compromise they usually reach is to apply it to the issues that both want). I'd like to see the libertarians break off and found a party that is explicitly socially and economically liberal (in the classical sense, not the Fabian sense of the LibDems and Labour). Leave the Conservatives to go back to their little-Englander, One-Nation habit and gradually fade away. Or let them split into three and then see what alliances can be formed once the level of support for each philosophy has been established. I believe a political philosophy that espoused minimal interference in people's lives, whether at home or at work, and limited the role of government to the protection of nation, person, property and competition, would have great appeal to the urban and young sections of society to which the Conservatives struggle to appeal, whilst remaining acceptable to the parts of the country in which the Conservatives remain strong. But it is necessary, for that appeal to be credible, for its proponents to visibly separate themselves from the more reactionary parts of the Conservative party that remain many people's image of it. Hence, even though the result might be electorally difficult in the short-term, the need for the libertarians to strike out on their own. Whether the conservatives and social-democrats should stay together is a rather less important issue for me. But I strongly dislike the lumping of libertarians and conservatives together as the "traditional right", on a mistaken notion of the political spectrum. Your options in the poll give someone like me nowhere to go, which is ironic, assuming this was partly inspired by my recent post on this triangular tension. Which I guess proves the point - the libertarians don't belong with this crowd, because the rest of that crowd don't even understand what they stand for. I suppose I'll have to plump for "There is no saving them" on that basis.
Permalink Submitted by JG on Mon, 02/07/2007 - 13:38
There are rumours that parts of the party have had enough of Cameron and he maybe the victim of a coup. OK - not the most reliable source nor pro-Tory paper, but the rumblings from the right aren't going to go away and the longer the Tories trail in the polls, the more ammunition the right will have. The return of Hague, anyone?
Hague standing for what? If this is just another personnel change, it will simply be rearranging the deckchairs again. Remember, Hague started off trying to position himself in the centre and then moved to what some people call the right (actually, a strong focus on Europe, which I don't think is the same thing), because he couldn't satisfy enough of his party with his starting position. And now they want him back without knowing what his solution is that will bring the party together?
They should work first on setting out a coherent philosophy, then derive policies from that. The only attempt so far to describe their underlying philosophy was Oliver Letwin's "sociocentric, not econocentric paradigm", which is hogwash.
It would be stupid if true, but the source being the Mirror, I don't believe it. I think the Tories will simply carry on floundering, whether with Cameron or anyone else as leader. The best thing that people like David Davis, Liam Fox, John Redwood, Alan Duncan, and probably several other leading lights, could do would not be to lumber themselves once again with leadership of an unleadable party, but would be to liberate themselves to promote a philosophy they can really sell. I think they'd take half the party (the half worth having) with them.
Comments
Which are the libertarians,
Which are the libertarians, centre or traditional right?
As you have said before, the
As you have said before, the political spectrum and definitions of left and right are often sources for debate. However, I would put the libertarians, in this case, to the right - simply because Cameron's charge to the centre ground is by no means a move to libertarian politics.
The trouble is, to a
The trouble is, to a classical liberal, the "hang 'em, flog 'em, lock up the gays" attitude of what most people mean by the "traditional right" of the Tory party is deeply antithetical to their beliefs. And it is this part of the party that makes the Conservatives unelectable. No libertarian in his right mind would want to take them with him. I would argue that, on a political spectrum, the libertarians are to the right, and the social-democrats and conservatives are in the centre. The latter both believe in a fair amount of government, they just differ on the issues to which that government should be applied (and, of course, the compromise they usually reach is to apply it to the issues that both want). I'd like to see the libertarians break off and found a party that is explicitly socially and economically liberal (in the classical sense, not the Fabian sense of the LibDems and Labour). Leave the Conservatives to go back to their little-Englander, One-Nation habit and gradually fade away. Or let them split into three and then see what alliances can be formed once the level of support for each philosophy has been established. I believe a political philosophy that espoused minimal interference in people's lives, whether at home or at work, and limited the role of government to the protection of nation, person, property and competition, would have great appeal to the urban and young sections of society to which the Conservatives struggle to appeal, whilst remaining acceptable to the parts of the country in which the Conservatives remain strong. But it is necessary, for that appeal to be credible, for its proponents to visibly separate themselves from the more reactionary parts of the Conservative party that remain many people's image of it. Hence, even though the result might be electorally difficult in the short-term, the need for the libertarians to strike out on their own. Whether the conservatives and social-democrats should stay together is a rather less important issue for me. But I strongly dislike the lumping of libertarians and conservatives together as the "traditional right", on a mistaken notion of the political spectrum. Your options in the poll give someone like me nowhere to go, which is ironic, assuming this was partly inspired by my recent post on this triangular tension. Which I guess proves the point - the libertarians don't belong with this crowd, because the rest of that crowd don't even understand what they stand for. I suppose I'll have to plump for "There is no saving them" on that basis.
There are rumours that parts
There are rumours that parts of the party have had enough of Cameron and he maybe the victim of a coup. OK - not the most reliable source nor pro-Tory paper, but the rumblings from the right aren't going to go away and the longer the Tories trail in the polls, the more ammunition the right will have. The return of Hague, anyone?
Fools, if true
Hague standing for what? If this is just another personnel change, it will simply be rearranging the deckchairs again. Remember, Hague started off trying to position himself in the centre and then moved to what some people call the right (actually, a strong focus on Europe, which I don't think is the same thing), because he couldn't satisfy enough of his party with his starting position. And now they want him back without knowing what his solution is that will bring the party together?
They should work first on setting out a coherent philosophy, then derive policies from that. The only attempt so far to describe their underlying philosophy was Oliver Letwin's "sociocentric, not econocentric paradigm", which is hogwash.
It would be stupid if true, but the source being the Mirror, I don't believe it. I think the Tories will simply carry on floundering, whether with Cameron or anyone else as leader. The best thing that people like David Davis, Liam Fox, John Redwood, Alan Duncan, and probably several other leading lights, could do would not be to lumber themselves once again with leadership of an unleadable party, but would be to liberate themselves to promote a philosophy they can really sell. I think they'd take half the party (the half worth having) with them.