Is Britain a right-wing country?

In this morning's Independent Steve Richards notes that some Cabinet ministers think Britain is essentially a right-wing country whilst some Conservative MPs - defeated three times in a row - believe that Britain leans left.  A YouGov opinion poll does place the British people - very narrowly on the right.  Left-of-centre parties - the Liberal Democrats and Labour - have nonetheless won well over 50% of the vote for the last two decades and more.  Although that same YouGov opinion poll suggests that many people who have voted for Tony Blair probably see him on the right of the political spectrum.

When it comes to crime, immigration and Euroscepticism the British people increasingly share the views of the conservative press although being sceptical about Europe isn't necessarily a right-wing view.  But right-and-left may not mean so much anymore.  ConservativeHome's dictionary notes that the real divides are increasingly between localists and centralists... security hawks and civil libertarians... social permissives and moral conservatives... multilateralists and active interventionists...

Related link: Morning in America, Mourning in Britain

Comments

[Umbrella Man]

I do not know the answer to this question but my fear is that Bliar has made Britain a pacifist nation by fighting a necessary war in the most incompetent of ways.

[Og]

England is majority right-wing, but a big number of that majority are working class non-voters, who hold politicians in contempt for their bien pensant Westminster Village attitudes to everything. Occasionally, they will warm to a Margaret Thatcher and vote in their droves, but just as swiftly abstain when a weed like John Major replaces her.

This is the great failure of courage on Cameron and Maude's part - they won't do the no-nonsense stuff to re-connect with the abstainer, for fear of the press they would get from those beastly journalists, and the opprobrium from their left-leaning friends. Instead, they try to jam themselves into the same telephone box as Nu Labour and LibDem and look for soft votes from disaffected Blair supporters.

Result? A disenfranchised electorate given a narrow choice of ideas, who become less and less inclined to vote.

Honest polling of the man in the street will tell you every time that we are, on balance, pro-hanging, anti-EU, anti-mass immigration, pro-choice in services, and over-taxed. That's the "selfish and bad" aspects of right-wingery, as the BBC will tell you. But the English are also overwhelmingly pro-family, pro-fair play, pro-heritage, and myriad "good" right-wing aspects.

Despite Brown's best intentions, only in Scotland (NOT a right-wing country) has he made the state the direct or indirect employer of over half the working population. Elsewhere, the individual still outnumbers the state. And that's where the Right will always reside, in greater numbers than the left.

[malcolm]

I guess that depends on how you define 'right-wing'.Whilst I agree with some of Ogs' assertions above I still believe that the vast majority of Britons still believe in the cradle to the grave role of the welfare state and in 'big' government. Whether they are right to do so is another matter.So in that sense I would say that no Britain is not a right wing country.

[Umbrella Man]

It is certainly not a conservative country.

The average Briton's conspicuous consumption and indebtedness has made the country very materialistic: valuing goods over family and faith.

[ToMTom]

Umbrella Man has stated the same message twice and I disagree. I find it remarkable how conservative most people are when you speak with them one-on-one. They want leadership by example and rarely see it so they simply turn away in disgust and amuse themselves.

As a Pakistanit worker at tesco put it to me - in this country all people do is work - watch TV- shop on credit card and nothing else. They have no real enjoyment in life.

People in this country are extremely unhappy, personally unhappy, and depressed about the state of their locality and their country and beset by a feeling of powerlessness which causes anxiety and anger.

They feel abused and cheated by a self-serving elite in politics and media and finance and business.

[Simon Coote]

Og's analysis is spot on! But i disagree with Malcolm who views 'cradle to grave welfare state' as 'left wing'. It's not left wing to believe in essential free healthcare funded by taxation; it's not left wing to believe in providing a 'safety net' to those not in work. Tom Tom's point about the 'atmosphere' in this country is spot on too. I'm crossing my fingers in the hope that the next conservative manifesto is a serious attempt at going toward fixing the damage done to this country by misguided incompetent Labour rule. But experience tells me it will probably be a 'softly softly' document; and once in power Cameron will fall into the trap of doing things ( unpopular) not presented in the manifesto, therefore pi**ing off MP's , party members, and then the public.

[Ted]

sorry Umbrella Man but I disagree

Britain is to a large extent a small c conservative country which is not the same as a free market liberal one. Small c conservatism is about keeping what you are comfortable with so a fear of radical solutions to the NHS, to education, to less job security and state provision of pensions. Small c conservatives aren't keen on the EU, because it 'interfers', fear immigration because it changes the cultural landscape, don't like rumbuctious youth because they are noisy & scary.

Equally they are fair so dislike the BNP and other racially based ot militantly religious organisations. Militant socialists, animal liberationists and others are pushed to the edges.

They still prefer the thought of British Rail, of Water & Electricity Boards - Scots are very small c because they fear any change to their demi-socialist 1950's economy.

The strength of this conservatism is that Britain hasn't gone through the revolutions and upsets that many of her neighbours have and it was those very same small c traits that kept the county working through World War 2. Iit is sad that the vigour of the 19th Century was lost to the safety blanket comfort society of the late 20th/early 21st.

[Tam Large]

Good analysis. But under both umbrellas, the public & politicians are in different camps.

The public (the man on the street, not islington-media-folk) are right-wing; the politicians of all 3 big parties are now left wing.

The public are localist and want less state control; the politicians of the big 3 are cenralist and are pressing for more state control and laws.

Just like it is on the continent. Harmonisation indeed!

[Valedictoryan]

" People in this country are extremely unhappy, personally unhappy, and depressed "

Says who?

" The public are localist and want less state control; the politicians of the big 3 are cenralist and are pressing for more state control and laws. "

Spot on. Parish councils should be the most powerful, not the least.

[Chris Williams]

The British people despise Political Correctness, never wanted to get rid of hanging, have always wanted in back and still do, don't want to scrap the pound, and increasingly want to get out of Europe altogether. I don't see a left-wing country there.

The real proof is that the Labour Party can only make itself electable by ditching just about everything it was set up to do, and by Tony Blair moving substantially to the right. Mrs Thatcher's reforms to democratise the trade unions have been left untouched. Higher rate tax at 40% has remained unchanged since the Lawson budget of 1988, albeit triggered at a lower earnings level to catch more people.

Socialism has been effectively destroyed as a political force in Britian. From dominating British politics for 35 years, it is now the preserve of cranks like Arthur Scargill, Tommy Sheridan, and the Islington NUT.

Core conservative values such as a small state and low taxation are British mainstream values. It is just a pity that the Conservative Party articulates them so badly, if at all.

[Michael McGowan]

Ted, I agree with you apart from the last bit. The uncharitable description of British small c conservatism is matter-of-fact unimaginativeness ......which means that Britain still clings atavistically to the crumbling structures of the collectivist past such as the NHS. It also means that while the British may appeat to be good at dealing with emergencies, they are rather less good at taking the steps which might have prevented the emergency in the first place. All three major political parties buy into this passive complacent psyche: viz Cameron - I like this country as it is.

The paradox is that by appearing to "win" the Second World War, albeit at enormous cost in blood, treasure and prestige, the British were never forced to look at themselves properly in the mirror.

[Og]

Certainly parish councils should have power. We have much to learn from the French in this regard.

Executive power held locally by visible local worthies encourages practical problem-solving and accountability. We are crying out for the police to be put into such a structure as well.

Trust the locals to do right by their communities - and if they balls it up, vote them out.

[Richard Woolley]

Terms such a 'left wing' and 'right wing' are totally meaningless. People can have a variety of views which can be labelled both 'left' and 'right'. There is more to political debate than that. Of course there are still some narrow-minded political journalists such as Polly Toynbee and Simon Heffer who perpetutuate the myth of the left-right political divide simply because their intelligence is so limited that they can't see beyond it.
For example, is someone who is in favour of lower taxes and wants to keep more of their hard-earned money necessarily 'right-wing'? Of course not. They are just sensible. Is someone who opposes nuclear power, nuclear weapons or opposed the war in Iraq necessarily left-wing? Of course not. We need to move beyond 'left' and 'right', they both represent rigid, dogmatic, outdated ideologies but that does mean we should embrace a dull pragmatism; just a new, holistic way of looking at things.

[Tapestry]

I have no idea what right and left means nowadays. Those work for the state are presumably in favour of higher tax and spending, and more centralised power. Those in the private sector should in theory prefer to see business free and able to grow, and more local accountability.

Are there any nationalisers left, and people who want the Unions to bring the economy to its knees?

[Jack Stone]

Personally I think some people hold right-wing views on somethings and left-wing views on others but I think that overall as we can see by the opinion polls this country is essentially Liberal Conservative.

[Esbonio]

I think this is a good thread as it throws light not only on the wider left right divide but also the ideological divisions amongst conservative voters themselves. Yes Maggie destroyed what was rapidly becoming a socialist anarchist nightmare. However whilst her reforms have underpinned the economic growth of the last 15 years (and thus point to a more right of centre consensus than before) the continued Marxist/Gramscian/politically correct undermining of our nation state leads me to conclude that we are far less "conservative" as a nation than before and accordingly less right wing.

[Richard]

"It's not left wing to believe in essential free healthcare funded by taxation; it's not left wing to believe in providing a 'safety net' to those not in work."

It was several decades ago. The political centre has shifted to the Left.

"Personally I think some people hold right-wing views on somethings and left-wing views on others but I think that overall as we can see by the opinion polls this country is essentially Liberal Conservative."

Well, they're not liberal when it comes to immigration and capital punishment. But then your statement wasn't supposed to be serious was it?

[Cranmer]

Cranmer recalls a most interesting discussion on this very topic…

Is Osama bin Laden left-wing or right-wing? Or Robert Mugabe? The Pope vehemently opposes homosexuality, yet defends the poor. Is he left or right? Fidel Castro persecutes homosexuals, crushes trade unions, forbids democratic elections, executes opponents and criminals, is a billionaire in a country of very poor people and has decreed that a member of his family shall succeed him in power. Is Castro left-wing or right-wing? Is rule by a privileged elite right-wing? If so, communism, which always results in rule by a tiny governing group that has exclusive power and privilege quite unknown to the rulers in capitalist countries, must be very right-wing. Was Attila right-wing because he was violent and cruel? Lenin was more violent and cruel. Is Lenin ‘to the right of Attila the Hun’?

How about attitudes towards the weak and the strong? Does the left or the right protect the strong but not the weak? Take the extreme examples of each — an unborn baby and an adult murderer. Is it very right-wing to allow the killing of the innocent baby but not the killing of the guilty adult?

What about the free market and state control? Are regimes left-wing or right-wing when the economy is heavily controlled by the state, such as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, Castro’s Cuba and apartheid South Africa? Is it left-wing or right-wing to believe in free trade, like Adam Smith and Karl Marx? When the movement of citizens within a country is controlled by internal passports, such as in the Soviet Union and apartheid South Africa, is this a measure of the left or the right? Is it left-wing or right-wing to hate capitalism, like Hitler, Lenin and the fathers of apartheid?

Would you classify as left or right the Englishman in the last century who urged a massive increase in public spending and made the most radical proposal for a national health scheme that Britain had ever seen? Such was the belief of the fascist Oswald Mosley.

Is racism left-wing or right-wing? Pol Pot established an extreme version of communism in Cambodia and proceeded to slaughter the minority races, including the Vietnamese. His genocide was proportionally on a par with Hitler’s. Was he an extreme left-winger? Was Hitler too? Is it left-wing or right-wing to legislate to reduce the representation of a minority race in the professions, as was done by Hitler in Germany against the Jews and by the ANC in South Africa against the whites? The 1922 slogan of the Communist party in South Africa was ‘Workers of the World Unite, and Fight for a White South Africa!’ Was this a left-wing slogan?

When the forces of radical change meet the forces of ancient privilege, which side is left and which side is right? The most revolutionary British prime minister of the 20th century was Margaret Thatcher, who brought sweeping changes and confronted forces of tradition, the trade unions, that had privileges going back to the Middle Ages. Who was left-wing — Margaret Thatcher or the unions?

Nobody has ever been able to define the beliefs of ‘left’ and ‘right’ or the differences between them. It is puerile political philosophy, and can have no place in rational politics.

[Jon Gale]

The public are both: they want low taxes/less red tape AND strong public services/big state to solve all problems.

When taxes get too high they vote Right, when services get too underfunded they vote Left.

They hate immigrants but dont want to be unfair, rude or nasty.

They think they should care about the environment, but dont actually want to pay more for petrol.

No one wants "choice" they just want their local hospital/school to be top quality, (and a local post office AND cheap stamps AND two deliveries a day).

They also want strong, plain-speaking leaders that take no notice of opinion polls and do what they think is right - as long as they also nice, listen to the people and never do anything unpopular and are not dictatorial.

[Serf]

Nobody has ever been able to define the beliefs of ‘left’ and ‘right’ or the differences between them. It is puerile political philosophy, and can have no place in rational politics.

Cranmer, despite your excellent contribution, you miss the point that it is precisely to avoid rational politics, that labeling is usually used.

[Peter]

I think on the economic side of the debate as nearly everyone is supporting supply side economics(except for Respect, Socialist Labour etc) knowadays quiet clearly we are a right wing country. As for the political side of things their is know a straight battle between people like myself on the libertarian side of things and so called hawks who want to tell you what you should do from the moment you are born to the moment you die.
With the above it know does mean that it is know hard to place people on the spectrum just by party support alone.
I would say this, Jack the word Liberal in this debate has no meaning anymore please you shown quiet clearly on this website that you not a Conservative, why do you carry on the pretence.

[malcolm]

I think Jon Gale you have summed it up perfectly!

[Peter]

Well hopefully after the death of the President we will be seeing soon democracy coming to Turkmanistan and hopefully someone who isn't in the pocket of Putin.

[anon]

Peter decided that if he couldn't beat them, he'd join them.

[TomTom]

The paradox is that by appearing to "win" the Second World War, albeit at enormous cost in blood, treasure and prestige, the British were never forced to look at themselves properly in the mirror.

I think the problem is that so many of the alternatives look so much worse than the present that defiance seems the least worst option.

There is a dramatic fear of what new terrors politicians will unleash, disown, and leave the populace to flounder in. We had Local Govt reorganisation in 1972 which brought total chaos and explosion of costs, and the start of the power-centralisation craze.

It is rather like having the Lord of the Manor ride through with his retainers to pillage whatever the serfs have managed to accumulate. The political system has been a miserable failure

[Duncan]

Why do people reckon the Scots are so obviously more left-wing than the English? Nature or nurture?

[Andy Stidwill]

Let's face the truth: England is a right wing country, Scotland and Wales are both left wing countries.

The YouGov poll said Britain is narrowly left-wing. If you take Scotland and Wales out of the figures, it would probably show England to be narrowly right-wing.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Jack Stone has certainly sharpened up his act, I can only see two minor grammatical mistakes in his post @ 11.29. There should be a comma after "personally" and a space between "some" and "things". Any more for any more?

[RodS]

Og is bang on in that Left & Right are now meaningless concepts. The real division is between Localists and Centralists.

This leads on to the issue of honesty and trust in politics.

How can anyone get elected to huge , socially and ethnically diverse constituencies AND still tell the truth. You cannot represent all of the people all of the time.

We need power at the smallest geographical unit level( the Parish Council Point) and a parliament where all the competing interests can fight it out on a daily basis.

[James]

I think the best distinction to draw is between statists and libertarians. Its perfectly possible to have right wing statists (Franco anyone?) but for reasons of ideology, I'd say a lefty libertarian was all but a contradiction in terms. Those on the left still see government - be it in Westminster, devolved Scottish and Welsh parliaments, or myriad country councils - as the font of progress, morality and the rest of it. None of you need the poli-sci lecture I'm sure, but socialism is at root an interventionist creed. Scrap this meddling tendency, and all your left with is whisky without the alcohol.

Is Britain statist or libertarian? I'm not completely sure, but I'd tend towards the former rather than the latter. We're institutionally conservative in that once we've set up or joined organisations such as the NHS, EU, NATO, the Monarchy, etc, we tend to favour - albeit by sometimes narrow majorities - sticking them out. We're socialistically statist because of some of the aforementioned institutions - NHS - and because some basic tenants of socialist thinking - that government exists to alleviate relative poverty for example - form an accepted part of all major party platforms.

Do the majority of Britain's know that they have a right to arms under the old-skool English Bill of Rights? Do majorities of the British public stridently oppose ID cards? Or the relentless, multiplicity of ways taxes have been rising in the last decade? On this last point there may be grounds for hope; but this is very much the exception to the (usually statist) rule.

[TomTom]

They say The French wear their hearts on the Left and their wallets on the Right...............but the Scots

Well they advocate unlimited public spending and the English agree to pay

The Welsh say what's good for the Scots is good for wales and the English agree to pay

The English say they have no money to pay for anything the English want

[George Hinton]

This sort of headline is subjective and very unhelpful.
Better to say that that the people of this country are proud of their heritage and are not likely to give it away cheaply. Also that the issues that attract support and interest to our nation are unique because of our history and background.
Spraying comments re left or right plays into the hands of extremists on one side and the sanctimonious screechers on the other.

[Tam Large]

Well done Cranmer - you are spot on in your analysis of the simplistic approach of "left" and "right" labels.

[Shaun Bennett]

I have always believed Britain to be a right wing country overall. However, if we take a regional breakdown, Scotland is extremely left wing, Wales tends to left of centre and England is heavily right wing. That is why the Conservatives are the natural party of England, can aspire to win a large minority of support in Wales and have almost no support in Scotland.

[alex]

Britain is a country of the centre-right. That is where elections are won from. Tony Blair's greatest trick has been to present himself to many voters as the articulate voice of the modern centre-right. Look at the famous Economist front page that said "Vote Conservative" and had a picture of Blair with Margaret Thatcher's hair superimposed.

In actual fact the government has ratcheted politics to the left and steadily built a "client class" dependent on welfare benefits of one type or another. But I don't think they've changed the fundamental centre-right character of the voter.

This is reflected in a natural caution towards new ideas, such as a radical change to healthcare provision or the education structure, that often frustrates those on the market-driven libertarian right.

The message to them is that you can reform things - as Thatcher did through privatisation of the utilities or cuts in personal taxes - but it has to be done gradually and in a way that takes people with you...

[Dave Bartlett]

@Andy Stidwell

"The YouGov poll said Britain is narrowly left-wing. If you take Scotland and Wales out of the figures, it would probably show England to be narrowly right-wing."

The YouGov poll said Britain is narrowly RIGHT-wing, not left. So if you only look at England then it is probably comfortably right of centre, which would certainly mirror the Tory MP spread.

[Account Deleted]

Perhaps the most useful thing is to realise that politics is about the structure of government and for what ends government should work.

Libertarians believe government should be about promoting the maximum freedom from interference. All else is secondary.

Communists/socialists believe government should be about promoting the maximum level of material equality. All else is secondary.

Conservatives believe government should be about maximising individual freedom whilst preserving and supporting the organic ties between individuals, (though the two often can conflict). All else is secondary.

Fascists believe believe government should be about promoting a particular collective and its pre-existing values, (e.g. a nation/race/religion). All else is secondary.

I think you could fit most political debates into these four areas.

[Account Deleted]

Maybe I only think that because I dislike libertarians and socialists equally... and view them as equally opposed to conservative thought.

[Valedictoryan]

1AM, I'm not clear on the meaning of "organic ties" that you use to make Conservatives distinct from Libertarians.

By your definitions I would consider myself a libertarian, but "maximum freedom" is a very vague definition because it doesn't identify the caveats. For example, only totalitarian libertarians would consider that they have freedom to harm others. Once you've agreed that you shouldn't harm others, you then have to decide what constitutes harm (on a spectrum goes from hurting feelings to causing death, and includes harming the environment that others live in, harming another's opportunities, etc).

In fact, now I think about it, your definitions are so simplistic that I'm not sure it can apply at all!

[Account Deleted]

You are right that they are very simplistic. Probably too much so, but I was trying to come up with an alternative to the 'left-right' dichotomy.

By maximum freedom I should qualify by stating it would be 'negative freedom', i.e. freedom from other people directly intervening and stopping you doing what you want to do in your life.

The government can intervene to stop other people from hurting you/preventing you living your life, because you have the right to live your life as you please (except you can't hurt others/stop them doing as they please). They can't intervene to make a 'better' society in any way. The best society is the one which is arrived at if all individuals are left free to choose what they wish to do. Robert Nozick wrote the brillant (but in IMHO) wrong 'Anarchy, State and Utopia' on the subject of what a libertarian state would be.

A government can intervene to stop people throwing rocks at a gay pride parade. It can't intervene to stop people choosing not to hire gay people. It is up to them who to hire, but they can't stop a gay pride parade by violence.

Essentially, libertarians believe, that the state should consist of internal and external defence for its citizens. No more or no less. Power is only justified if it is exercised along these lines.

On the organic ties, conservatives believe in the family, nation, and community, because these are enduring groups which people identify with. They think these groups are worth protecting. They also believe we have a limited duty to help others within such groupings, so can support some kind of subsidised healthcare for the very poor within the UK etc. True libertarians can't.

[steve]

The key issue in this YouGov poll is that the electorate voted for New Labour on the misapprehension that they were just right of centre, they came to this view because a supine media described the main players in terms that previously were only reserved for conservative politicians. How many times have you heard Brown described as an economic wizard as if he had believed in free market economics for all of his life, when in fact he once edited the Red Papers on Scotland (look them up on wikipedia). Blair also postures as a tough no nonsense militarist who is at present favourable to Trident, when in fact he was a member of CND for years.
The way to retrieve the votes of those who have been misled and get them supporting the real conservative politicians in this country is to ruthlessly expose the true colours of the Labour party and not to try to emulate them. The British people see all around them the terrible state of their country, they know all this has happened during New Labour's reign. Those same people are crying out for a real alternative so now is the time to give it to them, not to serve up more of the same.

[Oliver McCarthy]

Poor Cranmer! So much confusion! So much pain!

Deep breath!

Osama Bin Laden is a rightwing lunatic, whose politics ultimately come from the fascist Muslim Brotherhood. Robert Mugabe is an unreconstructed leftwing Marxist. The Pope is a leftwing German Social Democrat. (His immediate predecessor was a rightwing Polish nationalist.) The last time anyone looked, Fidel Castro was still a bitter old leftwing Communist. To my knowledge, Attila the Hun was fairly centrist, as was Oswald Mosley (or rather, he was all over the shop, but he was an odd bloke, so there we go). Racism is rightwing. Obviously Pol Pot wasn't a racist, though he was a genocidal maniac: and Hitler may not have been as genocidal as Pol, but he was a (pseudo-)rightwing racist. The ANC is leftwing. Obviously the 1920s South African Communists were rightwing on some issues (such as wanting a white South Africa) and leftwing on others (such as wanting the workers of the world to unite). Triangulation, anyone? And obviously Mrs T stood for privilege, whereas the Unions stood for their workers. Trying to recast the Lady's greatest success in leftwing terms is just plain silly.

The real problem for the Tories at the moment is that there is very little joined-up thinking about the three pillars of Leftism: hatred of inherited privilege, hatred of religion and morality, and hatred of one's country and race. What unites the Left is a desire to overthrow authority and "liberate" the People. Historically all leftwing ideologies have their ultimate roots in anarchism.

The Localist-Centralist dichotomy is totally meaningless and made-up. Power in this country (and worldwide) is being centralised more and more all the time and has been since at least 1688. There is absolutely no detectable desire anywhere to reverse this process.

And of course most of the British peope are fundamentially leftwing. They want to be able to do whatever they like, whenever they like, to/with whomsoever they like (or don't), and they will carry on voting for the party that promises to carry on paying for them to do so (i.e. the Labour Party) for as long as they can be bothered to remember.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Erm, all very interesting, but shouldn't political parties look at "what works" as the only test. "What works" is usually the free-market, low-cost small-state approach, with some reasonable concessions to social cohesion.

Obviously some things like abortion raise "moral" issues, but abortion certainly "works" in terms of what it is intended to achieve, as well as cutting the number of children in single-parent families with all the huge social costs that that entails (see Freakonomics).

[SimonNewman]

Of course it depends on how you define left & right - Britain is to the right of France, to the left of America. England is to the right of Wales & Scotland, with Northern Ireland divided between left-wing nationalists & right-wing unionists.

I think a more important point though is that the British people as a whole are far to the right of the political & media class; people typically vote for politicians with views far to the left of what those voters profess to believe. Partly this is media influence - most people are eg pro capital punishment and anti EU, but they also believe these views are 'not nice' and may well vote against politicians professing these views, who the media characterise as 'cranks', 'extremists' etc.

It may be though that the rising influence of the blogosphere may reduce mass-media control of the electorate's perceptions, ultimately leading to a greater convergence between population and electorate. Conversely, cultural Marxist control of the education system as well as the media indoctrinates the young in left-wing views; to the extent that they retain these views into later life the electorate as a whole will continue to move leftwards.

[SimonNewman]

Mark Wadsworth:
"abortion certainly "works" in terms of what it is intended to achieve, as well as cutting the number of children in single-parent families with all the huge social costs that that entails (see Freakonomics)"

Mark, I've never disagreed with you before, but Freakanomics' claim is highly specious; legal abortion in the USA barely altered the number of children born into single-parent families, and contra Levitt, the generation born immediately after Roe vs Wade was the most crime-prone in American history.

See eg:
http://amconmag.com/2005_05_09/feature.html

Personally I'm in favour of abortion being 'safe, legal & rare', but there's no significant evidence of social benefits.

[Oliver McCarthy]

Yes, abortion doesn't work at all. It simply removes productive units from the economy for no reason other than the selfish whims of sexually immoral mothers.

[David Belchamber]

I agree with all the people who are fed up with the "right-wing"/"left-wing" tags. They are so simplistic as to be meaningless and so, too, in my view are the "Eurosceptic"/"Europhile" tags.
These are no longer back or white issues, if they ever were. On the other hand "Centralists" v "localists" and the like do create a more meaningful context within which to work and I wish that DC and his team would do even more to clarify the context of the larger issues, so the electorate can begin to distinguish real differences between DC and Blair.
I suspect that the most important thing when the conservatives do get back into government will come down simply to whether they are more competent at managing things than Nulab or not.

[Andy Stidwill]

There was definitely a similar poll in either the Times or Guardian a couple of years ago, which showed the Britain was narrowly a left-wing country.

It's very significant that that seems to have changed now.

[steve]

"Abortion certainly works".
But if you are paid more in Tax Credits by Gordon Brown for every child you produce, why on earth would you want an abortion. This is the message that the Conservative Party should be pushing, telling taxpayers that in fact Brown is operating a second CSA which holds all hard working people liable for the child production of a feckless group in society who have no intention of supporting themselves.

[SimonNewman]

FWIW, for my PhD thesis regarding political philosophy I used a diamond matrix instead of the left-right linear model; with the axes being Romantic vs Pragmatic, and Individualist vs Communitarian.

Romantic

Individualist Communitarian

Pragmatic

Modern communitarian-Romantic philosophies mostly trace from Rousseau and his 'General Will', and include communism and nazism, but Al Qaeda's Islamism raguably fits there too; also cultural Marxism although that's also based on romantic-individualist concepts taken from Nietszche. Locke is the paradagmatic example of pragmatic-individualism, Whiggism and Thatcherite conservatism fits in there, while traditionalist conservatism is pragmatic-communalist, along with most traditionalist religious philosophies like mainstream Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodox Christianity.

[TomTom]

If I didn't think you were being satirical I would find your post offensive Steve - in fact it is really distasteful and you do no favours to the Conservative Party with such a mindless comment

[TomTom]

Obviously some things like abortion raise "moral" issues, but abortion certainly "works" in terms of what it is intended to achieve,

Yes the British abort 500 a day and import about the same number from Pakistan each day............

It is positively Darwinian how the native population self-regulates its existence to make room for more fecund races

[SimonNewman]

TomTom:
"If I didn't think you were being satirical I would find your post offensive Steve"

Hmm, that was my reaction to Oliver McCarthy's post, but not Steve's! Steve seems to be pointing out that our welfare state incentivises unskilled non-working single mothers to have as many children as possible, since the economic benefits are so great. I thought that was generally accepted these days.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Sorry to have raised hackles there, but reactions like Oliver's are only to be expected.

The free-market approach is of course to stop subsidising single mothers (as Steve points out) and to protect interests of indigenous population by making benefits conditional on (say) ten years legal residence (which I think covers TomTom's point).

Simon, it may be that Freakonomics called this one completely wrong, in which case, apologies. I can't re-double-check everything!

[steve]

Thank you Simon Newman, that is exactly what I meant.

[Opinicus]

I have long had a private theory that the split in politics is fundamentally our oldest - Cavaliers vs Roundheads. That is people who enjoy a laugh but also a social structure vs new men who want to stop people doing things in the name of order or progress. In the 17th century, it was about religion but actually I feel it is about fundamental personality types and the religious or political context is entirely secondary.

In general, right wingers are cavaliers - certainly all old Tories are. Most left wingers are roundheads - "more methodist than Marxist"

I believe it is possible to divide most political positions into cavalier (pro fun) or roundhead (stopping fun). As politics moves into an economic consensus I think this context for debate will re-emerge.

In this regard England is a fundamentally cavalier country but the celts are roundhead
The government, the current Conservative leadership and the LibDems are exclusively roundhead

[steve]

Jonathan, I think Gordon Brown's demeanor fits your theory perfectly.

[Mark Wadsworth]

Jonathan, surely every school kid who does the English Civil War makes up his mind whether he is a cavalier or a roundhead? The fact that Cromwell got kicked out again fairly sharpish was proof enough to me that his approach doesn't work (although the hairstyles had something to do with it as well).

[Esbonio]

Simom Newman at 18.43

I really enjoy your posts and agree with you on quite a lot; but were satirising yourself (I think not) or others with your post.

[Jake]

Well put Steve - but it aint anywhere near as simple as that . I have always regarded myself as a Conservative and identify with your description of the Cavaliers but would have sided with the Roundheads in the Civil War . My sentiments are more those of the Putney Debates - the precursor of a modern country way back in 1647 proposed by the parliamentary army ie
- one person one vote
- biennial parliaments
- equal sized constituencies
- authority of th house of commons to be
supreme - not king or lords
- freedom of conscience
- freedom from impressment
- equality before the law

all part of the scenery now but at the time it was important that the country ie England was rescued from the Divine Right nonsense of the alien Stuart monarchy . Nearly all the English who fought for the king were fighting out of loyalty to the concept of the ancient English monarchy and not for Divine Right which they tended not to agree with .

What has really confused the issue is this moronic obsession with describing everyone as either left or right wing - we are still in the post communist phase of political debate - this categorisation will fade with time .

By the way Britain , ie the state of Great Britain , is just that - a state which became a country for many - it contains several old countries within it . It is typical of the Independent - one of the British newspapers - we in England do not have a national newspaper(s) as they do in Scotland ( The Scotsman eg ) to try and sublimate the use of the word country with Britain .

[Dr Simon Newman]

esbonio:
"Simom Newman at 18.43

I really enjoy your posts and agree with you on quite a lot; but were satirising yourself (I think not) or others with your post."

My diamond matrix post? :) Well it was just a small part of my PhD, and I submitted it over 6 years ago...

[Andy Stidwill]

In order to become Prime Minister, you have to come across to people as being both a cavalier and a roundhead at the same time.

That is why Thatcher and Blair have both won 3 elections in a row. At times they seem like cavaliers, but when circumstances dictate they metamorphosise into roundheads, such as Blair just after 9/11.

Her majesty the Queen also falls into this dual category, so to speak.

[Dr Simon Newman]

I've commented previously on the relevance of the cavalier-roundhead division. I have to say I'm clearly a Roundhead, unsurprisingly for an Ulsterman. I have no desire to ban Christmas, though...

I think Thatcher is clearly a Roundhead, Blair's inclinations are very much Cavalier, but Brown and most of Labour are Roundhead so he has to tack to that. Cameron too is a Cavalier type.

[TomTom]

The fact that Cromwell got kicked out again fairly sharpish was proof enough to me that his approach doesn't work

He died in 1660............after running things for 12 years.

[matt wright]

Actually this is a complex issue but in simple terms I think the UK is slightly right of centre politically. This is what Blair realised and why he shifted the perception of his party. Incidentally we were perceived until recently as far to the right of most of those voters. I think we are absolutley spot-on in shifting ourselves back to the centre right mainstream,

Matt

[matt wright]

Just read Jon Gale at 11.48. Jon you hit the nail on the head and if anything this situation has got worse.

[Andy Stidwill]

I remember reading an article somewhere that said Hull was the most Roundhead town in England.

[PJBuffham]

"He (Cromwell) died in 1660..." Not correct.

Oliver Cromwell died in September 1658 and was his son, Richard, succeeded him as Lord Protector until the monarchy was restored in 1660

[Mark Wadsworth]

PJBuffham, thanks! I suppose this set an unfortunate precedent for hereditary dictatorships ... Assad sr and jr, Kim Il-Song and Kim Jong-il and so on...

[TomTom]

PJBuffham, thanks!

You are correct..........pity Richard turned out so badly. Do you know that Cromwell's was Churchill's favourite Englishman too.

We have so few MPs today who could do what the Member for Huntingdon achieved

[Graeme Archer]

Matthew Parris wrote an interesting article in the Christmas Spectator where he makes the point that most of us are a mixture of Roundhead and Cavalier. It's true, no? Even the proud Ulsterman Dr Newman above who loves his Roundhead heritage was able to enjoy the celebration of Christmas. I have the Scottish roundhead thing too, some sort of deep and reflex disapproval of gambling, for example, or drinking in public, yet the Cavalier in me usually wins out (not that I do either of these activities I hasten to add, I just don't go stomping up and down the Hackney Road with a banner bemoaning the huge number of betting shops, strip joints and men wandering between the two clutching cans of lager. Maybe I should).

Think this is one component of why Scotland is "leftwing" to answer the question. The other is that we treat the Scots as infants ... infantilisation by state fiat is what we call "left wing" isn't it. No disrespect to my Scottish confreres but there is a huge and near tangible difference in the spirit of "can do" which inhabits the average town in Essex, say, like Harlow where I used to live, and Ardrossan in Ayrshire, say, where I grew up. Both are dormitory towns between 20-30 miles from large cities. Harlow is lively and fun. Ardrossan, well, erm, anyway. Essex is indefatigably Cavalier isn't it? Probably why I love it.

Very little is either/or. The trick for a Tory is to be sufficiently respective of the organic culture without descending into proto-Roundhead gloom (we're all DOOMED! Repent!). I think David Cameron has got this about right. EG he's clear and unambiguous in favour of traditional marriage, but can see that you can extend the concept to include others without destroying the institution. Disraeli said something quite profound about this but of course I can't remember the quote. Hang on ...

[Graeme Archer]

Of course I can't find it, but it's when he was going on about In a progressive country change is constant; ...change... is inevitable. ... but there's more, about the Tory's correct and incorrect responses to the change.

[Tory Loyalist]

Simon Newman's analysis is the most interesting contribution on this thread.

Put simply, however, the public of all creeds and colours are "right wing" in a welfarist sense. Most favour a traditional approach to punishment, morality and patriotism, allied with cradle to grave protection from the state.

If it weren't for the 1933-45 experience a majority would probably be looking to a Mussolini-type figure to deliver.

We need to remember that most people are extremely irrational and unreliable. That is why I previously described myself as a reluctant democrat and personally I find it difficult to see how anyone worthy of the title "Conservative" would scorn that description.

[Simon Newman]

Graeme Archer:
"Essex is indefatigably Cavalier isn't it?"

!!! Certainly not - Essex is almost as Roundhead as Cambridgeshire! I think your characterisation of roundheads as inherently lacking in can-do spirit is extremely wide of the mark - Margaret Thatcher, Norman Tebbit? Cromwell?!

[Bill O' Connor]

Aren't these comments a bit too sweeping and general? We seem to range from Lenin to Gramsci to South Africa in the 20s. Time perhaps to go back to our Marx and Aadam Smith and maybe even Hegel to get a sense of what is right-wing, what's left-wing, what's capitalism and what's socialism maybe?

[kenneth]

no only england is right way scotland is not at all indpendence for a scotland that represents scotlands political views

[Simon Newman]

Bill:
"Time perhaps to go back to our Marx and Aadam Smith and maybe even Hegel..."

That's great for economic policy, by which metric modern Britain is overall clearly a right-wing country by 20th century standards. But Gramscian cultural Marxism separated culture from economics, and cultural Marxism now dominates the cultural life of Britain and other western societies via 'Political Correctness', so in cultural terms we're arguably left-wing.

[TomTom]

Time perhaps to go back to our Marx and Aadam Smith

both believers in the Labour Theory of Value which was the source of error

[Andy Stidwill]

Thanks to this thread, I've just realised who the genuine modern Roundheads are: Islamic fundamentalists, of course.

[Ted]

Andy - agreed: years ago I read a book which included the Governor of Jersey's (I think) experiences in the Civil War - I was struck then by how close to the Iranian Revolution regimen the English Commonwealth was.

[Tory Loyalist]

I was struck then by how close to the Iranian Revolution regimen the English Commonwealth was.
__________________________________________________________________

In some ways, although you could say the same about other manifestations of Christian fundamentalism including Savonarola's "Bonfire of the Vanities", the Anabaptist revolts etc.

One fact easily forgotten is that the leading politically-active Puritans in England were actully members of the same C of E as Charles I and Laud, although of course their visions for the Church were a million miles apart.

Politically the Roundheads can trace a line of descent through the Whigs and c19 Liberals and I suppose even Thatcherites.

There is very little "ideological" connection between even right-wing Tories today and their c18 counterparts, let alone the Cavaliers.

Pseudo-ideologies such as the copycat pragmatism of Cameron is strictly of its time, although the element of opportunism is timeless.

[TomTom]

I was struck then by how close to the Iranian Revolution regimen the English Commonwealth was.

Why does that surprise ? In fact every revolution has the same search for "purity" whether the French Revolution 140 years after the English one; or the Russian one just 128 years after the French. In all three cases a regicide took place.

If you want to look at the politics of The Commonwealth you must look to Scotland, to John Knox and the Covenanters and to Geneva to the Geneva Bible which was essentially republican and recall that the King James Bible was only 30 years old when Civil War broke out - the KJV being King James' means of trying to maintain the episcopalianism of the Catholic Church and royal power as Presbyterians tried to destroy the bishops.

All revolutions look similar

[Tory Loyalist]

I hold no brief for Cromwell and the Regicides, but I think the Civil War and the Commonwealth can be seen as yet another revolt in a tradition of English revolts in a sense that 1789 was not, for example, simply a continuation of earlier upheavals such as the Fronde.

But as you say, it is important to look to Scotland for a key to the politics of the time. There, Puritanism had long been integral to the status quo, so it was Montrose (originally a Covenanter let it not be forgotten) who was the rebel and was thus condemned to a traitor's death.

The destruction of the Scots Army and the vanquishing of the Presbyterians after these radicals made common cause with the Stuarts can, I suppose, be compared with the fate of the Girondins.

So, in effect we see an early example of the principle that every revolution devours its own children.

[Jake]

Do not attempt to allow the Scots to hijack the credit for the English Revolution . They were merely an excrescence of the English rovolution - they never made much difference . The war was fought essentially in England by the English - against a Scottish monarchical fool .

" I hold no brief for Cromwell and the Regicides, but I think the Civil War and the Commonwealth can be seen as yet another revolt in a tradition of English revolts in a sense that 1789 was not, for example, simply a continuation of earlier upheavals such as the Fronde. "

Correct . The English civil war was another episode in the endless English attempt to throw off Norman monarchy and occupation . There have been numerous revolts over the centuries . There will be more .

The passage of time makes things vague and confusing . The immediate reasons for any of the revolts eg Mile End 1381 , Pilgrimage of Grace , Ket Rebellion , Monmouth Rebellion 1685 ( curiously enough ) , 1832 Reform act riots and many others always seemed dominant at the time but in fact they are all the same - a deep desire to hurl away the occupation of England by an alien power which has consistently perverted English society and feelings for almost 1000 years .

In each case , the central authority reacted viciously once it was strong enough to do so usually against rebels who were just too decent to make a thorough job of finishing off the Norman state . In the case of the English civil war the Norman state met its match and the result was different .

[TomTom]

Correct . The English civil war was another episode in the endless English attempt to throw off Norman monarchy and occupation .

Perhaps you can explain this curious reading of history, since you have removed the facts to form your thesis.

John Knox and the Covenanters were more interested in God than in Kings and the English Civil War had more to do with God and the Reformation than anything to do with Norman invaders

[John Irvine]

"a deep desire to hurl away the occupation of England by an alien power which has consistently perverted English society and feelings for almost 1000 years"

Sounds like we need a new revolution against the tyranny of the EUSSR.

[ToMTom]

England by an alien power which has consistently perverted English society and feelings for almost 1000 years .

by which you mean the Bishops of The Church in England and The House of Lords.............yes Cromwell did abolish both and with The Restoration both were restored.

I suppose you see the Hampton Court Conference 1604 as the basis of the Separatists who left for The Netherlands and then Plymouth, MA to settle in New England as The Pilgrim Fathers ?

The issue was surely the Power of the State to dictate how men worshipped God and the way in which the Establishment imperilled individual Salvation by its dictates. Something that both The Church of England and the Established Order should consider as they pervert everything in the name of Political Correctness

[Tory Loyalist]

The romantic idea of ongoing Norman-Saxon "ideological" conflict is a pure myth, fostered by Scott (Ivanhoe) and many others.

Jean Anouilh's play Becket, for example, turns on a similar misinterpretation of history.

Saxon life was not some kind of völkisch paradise. It was in its own way as structured as Norman feudalism, with the added unappealing detail of full-blown slavery at the bottom end of the social scale.

As the Saxon aristocracy was absorbed by the invaders, other internal and exteral conflicts rapidly came to the fore and dominated English life.

I use the term "völkisch" advisedly, because no less a figure than Houston Stewart Chamberlain characterised the liberal rulers of England as "Normans" in opposition to "Saxon" subjects in whom he considered Germanic racial pride to be more finely developed.

If Chamberlain considered the Whiggish British establishment to be "Norman" in character, that would seem to run directly counter to the theories of Jake, who apparently sees Roundheads/Whigs as "Saxons" pitted against "Norman" Cavaliers/Toties.

Either way, it's nonsense.

[Simon Newman]

Tory Loyalist - it is a bit silly, but I'll bite.

I'd say both Saxons and Celts were largely 'ius sanguinis' - law of blood & personal relationship - societies, whereas the Normans brought a feudal version of the Roman concept of 'ius solis' - law of soil - back to the British isles, having adopted it from the Franks. Saxons and Celts were both slaveholders, whereas the Normans replaced slavery with feudalism. But the Normans conquered the Saxons in alliance with the Bretons, and this has coloured subsequent history.

Rebels in English history have (re)asserted the 'native rights of Englishmen' as against a hierarchical ethos of God-given or similarly legitimised authority.

"I use the term "völkisch" advisedly, because no less a figure than Houston Stewart Chamberlain characterised the liberal rulers of England as "Normans" in opposition to "Saxon" subjects in whom he considered Germanic racial pride to be more finely developed.

If Chamberlain considered the Whiggish British establishment to be "Norman" in character..."

I think Chamberlain is right that the Saxons were more racially homogenous, but that doesn't mean the Normans were liberal, or that the Whigs were Normans! I'd say the Whig ethos was more overtly Saxon than that of the Tories, but it really wasn't a Saxon vs Norman conflict, it was a conflict between different theories of the source of power. And the modern Tories are closer to the Whigs in many respects.

[Eric Uyttebroek]

England is an overwhelming rightwing country !!! Because most English people belong too the middle class and have an average income. One day the Tories will get back this country as the natural party of power. Only because Labour has driven too the middle they rule the country. And England deserves better than the Labour gov.