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Slightly outdated graphic, but it roughly shows positions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

Boris Johnson - The Greatest Juggling Act in the World

Our new Prime Minister will inherit the most embattled Government in British history.

Boris Johnson has won the Conservative leadership election. His prize is a government that has endured more defeats in the Commons under Theresa May than all governments since Callaghan put together.

And this only gets worse. His majority of 3 will probably be reduced to 1 at the upcoming Brecon and Radnorshire by-election, where the Lib Dems are favourites (remember a loss for the government is a gain for the Opposition so they actually lose two votes).

So, 1 MP out of 320 is likely all that is required to bring down Boris Johnson. He needs to keep them all on side. 

Yet the competing opinions held by those MPs are below:

"We should seek an extension past the 31st of October"

"We must leave on the 31st of October"

"No deal is required"

"No deal must be avoided at all costs"

"A second referendum is required"

"A second referendum is a subversion of democracy"

"Re-negotiate a new deal with the EU"

"The only deal we have is Theresa May's deal"

"We should seek to remain within the ETA"

"Remaining in the ETA is not Brexit"

"We should follow Norway's model"

"WTO option would be economic suicide"

"There can be no border in Ireland"

For most MPs these are uncompromising beliefs which cannot be avoided. But the majority of 1 means Prime Minister Johnson must keep all these MPs loyal and content.

And so his juggling act begins.

It's hard to promise an exit by the 31st of October yet keep pro-extension MPs happy. It's even harder to sell remainers a no-deal exit, or hard-line brexiteers on a second referendum. Hardest of all is the last statement: "There can be no border in Ireland". A no-deal would indeed introduce a border, and so would many of the other shades of Brexit. This would be unacceptable to the DUP, who would abandon Boris and give him a minority of -19.

If Boris Johnson can successfully balance these opposing groups, he will become one of this country's most talented statesmen - ever. But if just one MP dislikes him or his Brexit policies, they could abandon him and back a no-confidence vote, bringing his government crashing down. An early general election would be called.

Boris Johnson is trying to walk a tightrope over a shark infested lake, and, knowing him, his response will be completely unexpected. Why not hop across?

Salvation may come from a place least expected. The only non-Conservatives who don't want a general election are the pro-remain Independent Group for Change (formally Change UK (formally The Independent Group)). An election is likely to lose them all their seats, so they will block any no-confidence vote not related to no-deal, giving him the lifeline needed to somehow deliver Brexit.

This is somewhat conjecture; Conservative MPs may disagree with Johnson's approach but many fear Corbyn as PM enough to keep them loyal; some Labour MPs may put their personal beliefs in Brexit above the party and vote for confidence in the Conservatives.

I doubt Boris Johnson's Government will fall to a vote of no confidence. He will survive just long enough to call a General Election, which he would probably lose and no longer have deal with the political poison of Brexit.

And he won't care, he would have achieved his goal. "Prime Minister Boris Johnson" will forever be in the history books.

- Peter

(If you, like I are confused by Brexit I would recommend listening to Theo Does Brexit and Theo Updates Brexit which can be found here and here)

David Cameron: Clumsy Etonian or Modern Leader?

When we think about politics now, we think of Corbyn, Brexit, and Trump. 

David Cameron announces his resignation
(June 24th 2016)

We have little time to judge the UK’s 75th Prime Minister. He served for one and a fifth terms, and has been associated with huge change in healthcare, education, and welfare. 
Yet he resigned abruptly in 2016, attacked from all sides after defeat in the EU referendum vote. 

He split opinion decisively, and I believe his strengths (passion, morality, leadership) were too easily dismissed. However, he certainly rushed into things, and could seem out of touch at times.

So what were his main achievements; what were his big failures, and how do they add up?*

Achievements:

1) NCS

His flagship 'Big Society (1)' idea is the 'National Citizens Service', a youth scheme for 15-17 year olds, funded by the government and cheap to join. He wanted young people of all backgrounds to integrate, exploring different opinions and cultures, taking that experience into adulthood. 

As a recipient of the program, my experience did live up to that ideal, and certainly challenged the way I live and behave. With a financial overhaul, it could become a world leader of its kind. A big success for Cameron.

2) Aid budget

While suffering a lot of calls to stop doing so, Cameron continued sending 0.7% of our budget to developing/fragile nations - honouring commitments made by many major economies in recent years (while being the only one to keep that promise - we give more than the USA proportionally). 

The funds go to countries struggling with natural disasters or civil war, and reflect the British tradition for generosity and charity during crises like the spread of Ebola and famine in Africa.

3) The Scottish Referendum

His success in securing a ‘No’ vote over Scotland leaving the UK in 2014 has put the divisive issue to rest for a while. After concerns over a possible ‘Yes’ vote, he made a late emotional, and possibly vital, push for Scotland to stay. He made no attempt to disguise his patriotism in the campaign, and was visibly relived when it ended successfully. His passion for the country was evident and powerful.

Failures:

1) EU Referendum

His career breaker: the decision to leave the European Union. He confidently expected an easy, sensible campaign resulting in a 'Remain’ vote. What happened was a messy; controversial; tough four months, resulting in a slim, but disastrous, loss. 

He struggled to co-ordinate potential allies (Jeremy Corbyn dragged his feet throughout, and the Lib Dems had no strategy), and misread the mood of the people. The only part that he executed well was his resignation.

2) UKIP

His party never had any idea how to combat the anti-EU, anti-immigration party, preferring to ignore it until it was too late. Even though Farage struggled in the 2015 election, his mere existence kept the Conservatives talking about the EU so much that  Cameron decided to launch a referendum. UKIP also attracted many Tory voters and two of its MPs, causing damage to Cameron's reputation.

3) Education

Michael Gove - a close friend of Cameron's

His second education secretary, Michael Gove, led a huge reform of the education curriculum, emphasising exams and grades over individual-based learning. 

The result? A great increase in the burden and mental pressures on both students and teachers. No teaching body has thought well of the changes. 

Cameron certainly encouraged this, and gave Gove too free a reign in this area, so I partially attribute this failure to Cameron.

Summary:

He certainly can't deserve all the flak directed at him: he was undeniably compassionate and kind as a person, and took Britain in a much more progressive direction. Yet he was also misguided in his grasp of what the people thought, and struggled when events were moving at speed (see Libya). The choice is yours - what do you think? 

(Comment your opinion below.)

*Obviously, this is all my opinion and are the things I feel the keenest about; there are other big topics (e.g. gay marriage, Chinese relations, austerity, Libya) which all could be on here, but would make it too long. I'm also not going to refer to any scandals or tabloid stories - just policies.