Creek. No paddle.

We are not legal experts, but we believe that, more than anything else since June 2016, it is the Supreme Court case against Boris Johnson that will be remembered in the future.

When Parliament gains more powers, history notices. The Magna Carta, the English Civil War, the Great Reform Act in 1832; all led to huge changes in the way this island is governed. The Supreme Court unanimously declared that the Prime Minister has overreached his power, which limits what future Prime Ministers can or cannot do. This implicitly gives Parliament more power, and sets a precedent that the Supreme Court can overrule the Prime Minister's actions.

This is because we have no codified constitution. In most countries, the constitution is the political rulebook, dictating what politicians are able to do, what powers the various branches of government have and where their limits are. In the UK, the rulebook doesn't exist.

Or, rather, it does, but across a sprawling mass of documents, and mostly in the minds of the rule-keepers (the Speaker and their Deputies) and players (MPs and the PM) instead of in one central place. This means the rules are often fluid, changeable, or can even be ignored. Unlike in the US, the Prime Minister could become a dictator if they get enough votes (and if the Queen obliges - but that's a whole other issue).

So Boris Johnson, in trying to limit Parliament's power by shutting up shop for five weeks, has only achieved a muscular extension of Parliamentary sovereignty at his own expense. Aside from the rather satisfying end result this is, future Prime Ministers will curse him for how much harder their jobs have been made. Running the country is an intensely stressful occupation, never mind having to deal with one of the most active parliaments in the world. And now said parliament has suddenly been endowed with new possibilities and freedoms to act against the PM.

He is in trouble. This is not a magistrates court dealing in petty theft. The most intelligent and experienced justices in the country have declared him a criminal - a man who has broken the law. In moral terms, that is a deeply alarming judgement of a figure in No.10. In political terms, that means Johnson is likely to lose support from moderate Conservative MPs and much of the more liberal party membership, plus a swathe of the middle-class at an election. Resignation calls are coming from every quarter; remainers are-invigorated, leavers are demoralised; this is a man in trouble.

Don't write him off yet. Laura Kuenssberg earlier suggested that we must not 'underestimate how aggressive Number 10 might be willing to be in response'. In New York for the United Nations Assembly, Johnson could well fly straight home to start an immediate counter-campaign. He still has options. He still has power.

Yet this is a man who has lost all six of his first Commons votes, broken the law and misled the monarch. His Premiership has not been a success story.

And don't you think he looks tired?


Theo

What’s a Tory, Balamory?

We often don’t understand what conservatism is. What we should understand is that it isn't pure evil.

Ahead of our episode with Sir John Redwood being released, I thought it would be worth revisiting what 'conservatism' is as an idea, and trying to give it a fair say in an increasingly uncompromising world.

Where does the idea come from; what does it actually believe in; and is it really important?

[Just to clarify: there is conservatism with a small ‘c’, which means the idea/ideology and Conservative with a big ‘C’, which means to belong to the political party. They are slightly different, so don't get confused!]

There are two types of people...

No, seriously. When modern political thought emerged out of the late 1700s, it basically worked out that there are two naturally opposing political groups. A yin and yang, if you will.

Firstly, there are those that want more change in society. They are ‘liberal’, or ‘progressive’, and are dissatisfied with the status quo, seeing it as allowing abuses of power. They feel the government should be the agent of change, and that individuals can benefit from government support. Business is to be regulated, and taxes higher. Labour, the Democrats (USA), the SDP (Germany) are all examples. 

To this, naturally, there must an opposite. Cue 'conservatism'. Conservatives prefers cautious, natural change over time, driven by local communities and institutions, generally feeling there is value in tradition and history. 

Slightly outdated graphic, but it roughly shows positions

They would see government-led change as dangerous, and allowing government excess, so these people prefer a smaller government and trust businesses more. They are the Conservatives (or 'Tories'), the Republicans (USA) and the CDU (Germany).

Naturally, these beliefs all range along a spectrum, with most somewhere in the middle, but if you were to divide society into two political groups, you’d find that it would broadly coalesce along these lines. There are always those who want change, and those who are cautious of it. Simple as that.

Vive la sitting-at-home!

British perception of the French chaos

Conservatism with a small ‘c’ emerged during the French Revolution, when the violent, painful destruction of the French elite (and the resultant wars) shocked much of the middle and upper class in Britain. 

In response they reestablished their commitment to trusting facts, pragmatism and the community in their politics. The flag-waving, 'egalitare'-proclaiming, abstract-thinking Revolutionaries were too distant from their own experiences. They preferred the hard truth to grand plans. 

The philosopher Michael Oakeshott put it like this: ‘To be conservative...is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, near to distant’.

It is not that conservatives hate change, but more that they trust what they can see and hear over lofty principles that mean well, but often fail. Conservatives rely on local communities to keep in check the government and the excesses of the individual. Liberals believe that government is always good, and that people are generally well-meaning. Conservatives are less naive.

The Party of Government

If you follow British or American politics, you will likely have an unfavourable view of the right-wing, having seen the behavior of President Trump, or the Conservative Party around Brexit. Yet, this is a chaotic anomaly for a group that in history has been the stewards of responsible economic management and reliability.

For instance, it was the Conservative Party that pulled Britain’s economy out of a post-World War Two slump, after the Labour Party struggled; 

it was Conservative Prime Minister Harold Macmillan in the 1960s who pioneered the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, accelerated decolonisation, and oversaw Britain's permanent transition into a modern economy by liberalising business;

thirty years later, John Major strengthened the European Union, began the Northern Ireland peace process and halved unemployment;

the Coalition austerity plans skillfully reduced a damaging budget deficit, while reducing the tax the poorest had to pay and making British universities world-class again.

Forty-four of the seventy-four years since 1945 have seen a Conservative PM. Time and time again they have been reelected. Surely, with the public so often backing them there must be merit in the Conservative belief of reliable, non-experimental politics?

Of course, we must except the present state of conservatism. It has failed to respond responsibly to nationalist populism and so has been corrupted by xenophobia and racism. Their policies are being pulled out of responsible thinking and into the realms of unicorn-land that more often belongs to the left-wing.

The sharp Republican turn to the right in the USA
has caused political deadlock

But conservatives have done a lot of good. By making progress steady, rather than excessive, and stabilising the United Kingdom when it needed it most, they have fully contributed to the effective running of this country. 

More worryingly is what fills the gap if the conservative parties crumble and forget their beliefs. Progressive parties are not perfect; something will emerge to oppose them, but it looks like 'something' will be very far right.


Conservatism isn't all bad, so it would be a shame if it screwed us over now.


Theo