The Sunday newspapers offer thoughts on the changed Tory tactics of the last fortnight. For Andrew Rawnsley in The Observer the principal change has been a change of language:
"A year ago, in the speech which became caricatured as Hug a Hoodie, [Cameron] argued for a sophisticated approach which would concentrate as much on the causes of crime as on its effects. He invited his audience to empathise with why young people became troubled. In a arresting phrase, designed to get the headlines that it did, he said: 'We have to show a lot more love.'... His language this summer has been very different. These have been speeches that Michael Howard could well have delivered. Mr Cameron declared: 'Common sense suggests that with young people you need to hit them where it hurts.' From Hug a Hoodie to Hit a Hoodie."
But Mr Rawnsley also believes that the Cameron message is in danger of becoming muddled. He says that Mr Cameron may not be lurching to the right but he is lurching "all over the place". He points to the division between the Redwood and Gummer policy groups on airport expansions as an example of incoherence.
Another commentator from the traditional left - John Rentoul in The Independent on Sunday - writes that there is a battle between Steve Hilton and Andy Coulson regarding the party's direction. Steve Hilton, Rentoul writes, wanted to carry on with the NHS and environment messages. Andy Coulson wanted to outreach to the traditional right-of-centre newspapers with 'core vote' messages. Mr Coulson prevailed, it is suggested, after Hilton's Rwanda trip "made Cameron look out of touch".
It is perfectly possible that there have been arguments between Hilton and Coulson but my hunch is that John Rentoul is exaggerating them. Steve Hilton has always planned that crime and family would be two of the party's four key themes at the next General Election. They would, he hoped, assure traditional supporters that the Cameron-led party was still very much a Conservative project. There would, at the same time, be no retreat from Steve Hilton's other major planned themes: the environment and the NHS.
My understanding is that the leader's team are very united on three of Hilton's four themes: crime, the family and the NHS. Crime and the NHS are likely to be the two flagship campaign themes should there be an autumn election with action to support the family wrapped into the crime theme as a way of countering social breakdown. The tension centres on the environment. David Cameron has moved quickly to distance himself from Gummer-Goldsmith's opposition to airport expansion but some Tory advisers are very worried that the leadership's embrace of green taxation will be very unpopular. There is also some worry that the issue of the environment reinforces Cameron's negatives. Research seen by the party suggests that voters do not think that David Cameron is genuine about green issues.
I do not see any fundamental problem with Tory tactics. A government cannot just focus on a few issues and neither can a serious political party. It would be ridiculous if the Conservative Party under David Cameron didn't talk about immigration and tax - just as it was ridiculous that Michael Howard and William Hague talked too little about the NHS and education in their election campaigns. A political party has to highlight certain themes but it needs to have addressed all big issues. What we probably need is a serious speech or (ideally) a series of briefings of journalists that explain that the Conservative Party is now following the 'And theory of Conservatism'. I would nominate Michael Gove for that task.
I think talking about immigration turns people off and the party needs to win new supporters. The party can do this by talking about schools, hospitals, break-down society and the environment.
Posted by: Cleo | September 02, 2007 at 09:48
To win the next election David Cameron will have to enlist the support of disgruntled Labour and Liberal voters. He will need a mandate that reflects the broad concerns of the whole country. Such a srategy requires a balanced set of policies. In spite of Blair's attempt to be all thing to all men, Labour are still locked into the ideological block thinking of the 20th century. David Cameron quite correctly realises that the modern voter is eclectic rather than ideologically driven.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 09:57
Confused maybe, but not in the way you imagine....then again it is hard to imagine the Conservatives making a case as clear as this article in the Indie
Taxes
Meanwhile, stamp duty on small share trades, taxation on pension funds and a flat rate of inheritance tax penalise the little guy. The mega-wealthy take advantage of tax loopholes, such as the one governing non-domiciled residents, and pay even less tax than they should on paper. But that does not stop ministers coming up with tired old clichés about how the rich should not be resented for being successful. Well if the masses got the favourable tax treatment enjoyed by billionaires, then maybe they would stop complaining.
Posted by: TOmTom | September 02, 2007 at 10:08
Cleo @ 09.48:
"I think talking about immigration turns people off and the party needs to win new supporters".
I do agree with you that we must talk more about schools and the NHS in particular but a government has to deal with every aspect of our society and immigration, like taxes and the EU, is something the tories now have talk about, if an election is approaching.
In my view the important thing is to get the language right: I have several times posted that the word "immigration" is a bomb that has to be defused before the debate starts and I advise tories, when attacked on immigration, to say: "Which category are you talking about? Asylum seekers, economic migrants or illegals?"
How can even Nulab defend illegal immigrants, how can the tories attack asylum seekers? That leaves the real debate on economic migrants.
Posted by: David Belchamber | September 02, 2007 at 10:24
Which part of the country do you live Cleo ?
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 10:30
I think it really is incredibly simple. It's just about balance. We talked too much about immigration at the last election. We have talked too little about harder issues like crime in the last eighteen months.
Posted by: Editor | September 02, 2007 at 10:30
In London and in a highly marginal constituency so my vote is the kind of vote the party should be looking to obtain.
Posted by: Cleo | September 02, 2007 at 10:33
In London and in a highly marginal constituency .
London is such a ghettoised city - I just wondered if you were in Brixton or Peckham
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 10:38
"I think talking about immigration turns people off and the party needs to win new supporters."
Which is why they should be talking about it in terms of population sustainability and incorporate it into the green agenda.
Posted by: Iain | September 02, 2007 at 10:43
And, Iain, into the public services agenda - as DC did on Newsnight.
Posted by: Editor | September 02, 2007 at 10:44
Immigration has been good for London and contributes to the fact that it is such a vibrant place. As I said the issues facing London are schools, hospitals, crime, the environment and I would also add transport. And no I don't live in Brixton or Peckham.
Posted by: Cleo | September 02, 2007 at 10:45
Absolutely Iain. There are simply too many people concentrated into too confined areas of Britain.
Posted by: malcolm | September 02, 2007 at 10:47
As regards the 'leftwing' commentators I wonder how seriously we should take their comments.Rentoul in particular has a reputation simply for being a mouthpiece for Blairism and is unlikely either to have high level contacts within the Conservative party or be able to write objectively about Conservative party politics.
Posted by: malcolm | September 02, 2007 at 10:52
'Left wing commentators are confused by the conservatives' more balanced message'. Eh? I think EVERYBODY is confused by the Party's message at the moment- including some MP's. What is balance? Define a balanced message/campaign. What we need are poulist key issues and pardon the phrase- keep banging on about them. We are comparing ourselves too much with Labour in opposition during 92-97. Labour are NOT in our position in government- they are not wholly despised -as we were- during the Major debacle. The fact of the matter is all 3 of the main parties are in a hell of a mess. Intellectually, financially, and i would argue morally. Crime and ASB is getting worse, immigration is uncontrollable ( or is NOT being controlled), the tax system is a mess, pensions- a disaster, foreign policy bankrupt, internal democracy ( ie) the devolutional settlement regarding England) a sham, and i'm sure fellow readers can add their own ideas. What people ( i want) are SOLUTIONS to all the above problems- not wind and half-hearted waffle that solves nothing.
Posted by: simon | September 02, 2007 at 10:53
And no I don't live in Brixton or Peckham.
but I think you should Cleo...my relatives did....I think you would prefer it to wherever you live now.
Then again I think you might find plaes like Oldham, Rochdale, Bury, Blackburn, Bradford, Keighley just as "vibrant" and i think you would be wise to sample them all and be imbued with the full joy of being a minority.
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 10:53
Simon, 'balance' is having a programme to govern for the country as a whole rather than just for the Conservative policy. A package of initiatives that are Conservative in origin but broad in their appeal.
I certainly agree with you that all the parties need to improve their intellectual standards. Of course the big wheels of the respective parties have intellectual credentials but one only has to see the performance of most back benchers to realise that the standard of the average MP has declined considerably over the last few years. I'd like to see a better quality of MP emerging in the future. The key of course is selection.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 11:12
A successful government will govern always in the best interests of the electorate. That does not mean passing thousands of laws to implement unpopular policies. It does mean taking a pragmatic view of all problems, trying to understand the questions they set and trying to find answers to those questions.
It also means not only to attempt to guide society in a particular direction but also listening to what society needs.
That may all sound very trite until it is compared with the 10 years of Blair.
It is not possible to talk about a sustainable environment, or transport, or schools without having some clear idea of how many people our islands can support and what infrastructure is necessary to accommodate them all. That is why it is necessary to get a grip on immigration - of all kinds. To wish to do so has no racial connotations but shows simple commonsense.
London may be a "vibrant" society Cleo. I am a Londoner and probably much older than you. It was always a vibrant society, quite independent of postwar immigration. What it is now is overcrowded, undersupplied with affordable transport, too expensive to live in and underpoliced. Its resources are not only finite but dwindling as various NHS facilities and ambulance services close and fire departments are starved for cash.
Posted by: Victor, NW Kent | September 02, 2007 at 11:13
I'm surprised that anyone isn't confused by David Cameron's message, Tony Blair wrongfooted John Major, but David Cameron seems to be wrongfooting himself.
The policy agenda is vague and confused - even where there aren't spending implications of a particular decision then usually it seems to be a "could be" or maybe. And there are suggestions of a decision one way at one point and another at another point - whatever line the Conservative Party takes in the run up to the General Election it is going to suffer from the apparent contradictions and indecisiveness there has been, he can't just suddenly appeal to one group or another and expect to get their enthusiastic support, from people from a variety of mindsets there is going to be suspicion of what he intends to do and what he stands for.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 11:31
Victor, yes, immigration is certainly an issue. The last decade under Labour has seen two and a half million immigrants entering Britain. To put that in perspective that is equal to half the population of Scotland. At a time when there are 5.4 million jobless in our country and serious housing crisis, we need to be putting quotas on the number of immigrants entering Britain and repatriating those who shouldn't be here in the first place.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 11:37
To put that in perspective that is equal to half the population of Scotland
It is more than the population of West Yorkshire or even of North + South Yorkshire combined requiring 783 square miles of space ie. and area > Greater London.
So if we keep expanding at this rate we either urbanise all the fields or seize Northern France for living space
Posted by: ToMTom | September 02, 2007 at 11:48
I can't see any real benefit for Londoners from current levels of immigration, Cleo. All that it means is pressure on public services, soaring house prices, and, in the case of people who come here from failed states, a crime problem. Plainly *some* immigration is going to be beneficial. It doesn't follow that unlimited immigration is going to be beneficial.
You're also quite wrong in thinking that it's not an issue that concerns Londoners. It doesn't concern you, but that's a different matter.
Posted by: Sean Fear | September 02, 2007 at 11:59
I am not against controlled immigration I just think the party is in danger of making the same mistake as it did 2005. It was not a successful rallying cry then and I don't see it being particularly successful next time. Have a policy yes but I think it is a mistake to major on it and it paints a picture that when Cameron is down in the opinion polls he does what Hague and Howard did- return to a core-vote strategy.
Posted by: Cleo | September 02, 2007 at 12:12
Hit a Hoodie sums up the Tories' completely predictable lurch to the right which has already flopped as opinion polls reveal.
"Nasty Party" indeed. Unelectable also,
Posted by: Alistair | September 02, 2007 at 12:17
Indeed Sean. Uncontrolled immigration may benefit employers, whether they are the middle classes looking for a cheap nanny or businesses which enjoy the competition for jobs which keeps wages down.
The gains are not so obvious for those on middling or low incomes when public services are overstretched and the housing ladder is a distant dream.
And before any self-hating white liberal starts squealing, this is a view I have heard again and again from second and third-generation BME immigrants.
Posted by: Paul Oakley | September 02, 2007 at 12:20
Of course we have to take account of what really lies behind the mask of "immigration concern"
Step back a few years to when the FCS --then the future and now the present of the Tory Party -- were advocating Hang Nelson Mandela and other repugnant racist policies.
I was there and remember them. They were too extreme even for Norman Tebbit.
Now they are running the Tory party. It's a terrifying prospect,
Posted by: Alistair | September 02, 2007 at 12:27
What - Like John Bercow Alistair? LOL. There aren't any FCS hacks in the upper echelons as I can see.
Posted by: Paul Oakley | September 02, 2007 at 12:30
Now they are running the Tory party. It's a terrifying prospect,
Posted by: Alistair | September 02, 2007 at 12:27
Are they ? Do name them.......
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 12:39
Are you really ignorant about the work of the notorious Douglas Smith behind the scenes.
David Davis was also a leader of FCS. There are others too numerous to mention. MacGregor is on the scene too.
Perhaps someone would like to remind us all exactly what Hoile is doing these days.
Is this collective amnesia?
Posted by: Alistair | September 02, 2007 at 12:45
At a time when there are 5.4 million jobless in our country and serious housing crisis
The people who are unemployed are unemployed either because they aren't prepared to do work that needs to be done, or no one wants employ them whether they can or can't work; immigrants are doing many jobs that otherwise wouldn't get done and in many cases they are doing them far more efficently and at a lower cost than the indigenous population.
It's a win win situation because in many cases they are sending money home to their families and friends, so it works out quite well in International Development terms too.
As for housing, there is far too little utilisation of existing space - something such as a tax based on 2D land area in metres squared that property takes up could both replace Council Tax and encourage people to maximise returns from their land by building up and/or down. Greater population density also means greater economies of scale for mass transit systems, it makes building up infrastructure easier.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 13:06
Oh really are going to have to do a better better than that . To link the modern day Conservative party with a few notorious people within the FCS during the 1980's (not referring to DD here) is entirely ludicrous. You support a party whose last leader advocated unilateral nuclear disarmament at the height of the cold war whose justice minister was a communist and whose mayor of London was sympathetic to the murder of his fellow Britons by the IRA. Every party has its mavericks but few utter nutters like Blair, Straw and Livingstone become so senior.
Posted by: malcolm | September 02, 2007 at 13:06
I notice you don'r comment on David Hoile Malcolm.
I wonder why that is?
Posted by: Alistair | September 02, 2007 at 13:08
Greater population density also means greater economies of scale for mass transit systems
It has certainly worked wonders in Bangladesh.....
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 13:09
"people who are unemployed are unemployed either because they aren't prepared to do work that needs to be done"
Yet another anon, this is a ridiculous statement! 5.4 million are freeloaders? Come on be serious. We have mass unemployment because our manufacturing industry has been decimated and our economy favours imports meaning that we don't even produce to serve our home market. We have become a service-sector economy dependent on foreign countries for our goods. Thats why we have 5.4 million people without work and mass immigration only intensifies to the problem.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 13:28
With regard to freeing up the labour market to a great extent immigration is doing this, employers have a greater range of options with regard to employing people in the UK while keeping labour costs down - it weakens the power of Trade Union Barons, the Conservative Party is against the closed shop and Unions being able to hold employers to ransom and immigration restricts their scope to do this, besides which a lot of transferable that immigrants are doing would go on anyway but in other countries otherwise and the money earned from it would be spent in those other countries rather than in this country. We are living in a global economy with global communications, protectionism will fail now far more spectacularily than it did in the past.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 13:31
this is a ridiculous statement! 5.4 million are freeloaders? Come on be serious. We have mass unemployment because our manufacturing industry has been decimated and our economy favours imports meaning that we don't even produce to serve our home market.
Manufacturing industry failed because it was uncompetitive, bureaucratic & dominated by the Trade Unions who ran it into the ground. People in this society have been conditioned by a century of welfarism into expecting to be looked after every step of the way and be given an easy life and it has infected most of society, in addition work is becoming increasingly based on high technology and communication and people who are bad at either will tend to suffer, this is inevitable - some of the 5.4 million of course are physically unable to work, many others do not match the structure of work that employers desire. Employment is about matching people to jobs not jobs to people, the jobs that there should be are those that need doing not those that employ the most people. The function of the workplace is to expand the economy and keep the system working not guarantee jobs to anybody.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 13:40
Yet another anon, protectionism still exists today, its just that countries like China cook their economy to promote export and control imports. As for the trades unions, its fair to say they are dying if not dead. 2,125 strikes in 1979 and 158 strikes in 2006. Actually I'm not anti-union if the union exists purely to respresent workers rights. Sadly though the unions were Hijacked by the Red Robbo's and Mick McGaughy's in the 1970s. I feel that the Conservative government mistakingly turned a blind eye to the decline of manufacturing in the 1980s/90s as it meant the death of union power. However that was a mistake. The decline of manufacturing has now saddled us with unmanageable unemployment. This unemployment has massive social effects including the creation of impoverished sub-cultures with an anti social mind-set.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 13:46
Well that is another dose of prejudices masquerading as rational thought. It is flawed in its premise and proceeds from there....but in essence it is Pseudo-Marxism with its commodification postulate and the withering away of the nation-state under global Capitalism.
I'll bet you had to raid your handouts for such a crude exposition. It is obviously trite and in the case of Marx was postulated before Universal Suffrage.
One of the giveaways is the Inevitability Syndrome - it cannot be otherwise because it is ordained to be this way which is the hallmark of the irrational pretending to be rational as they recite the mantra.
We are not a global economy. we have simply opened our markets to imported manufactures without tariffs - something which has never before happened in the history of the industrialised world.
When Lancashire was producing cotton it survived behind the tariff protection of The Calico Act which allowed Lancashire to compete with India, the low-cost producer. It permitted Lancashire to innovate and mechanise and run large spinning and weaving operations to becoe the centre of an imperial trade.
The USA survived behind the McKinley Tariff 1890 which allowed its nascent industries to grow to global scale; Germany, France all brought in tarrifs in the 1880-1900 period to build up their manufacturing base - ONLY Britain continued without protection leaving its industrial base at the mercy of cheap copies from "Made in Germany" - a term of insult for shoddy copies of "Made in England".....and as Germany moved up the value chain "Made in Germany" became a quality symbol - just as with "Made in Japan" - and "Made in Korea" and so on.
The disdain of the British Establishment for Trade had led them to sacrifice the industrial base with threadbare justifications and hackneyed excuses - they prefer the class-based professions and City money-making of the gentrified classes to the "where there's muck there's brass" philosophy of the manufacturer.
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 13:47
Employment is about matching people to jobs not jobs to people, the jobs that there should be are those that need doing not those that employ the most people. The function of the workplace is to expand the economy and keep the system working not guarantee jobs to anybody.
Civil Servant talk.
The reason to run a business is PROFIT. Before you get to profit you have to pay your workforce and the levies the Government imposes when you employ them.
If you face those costs and face competition in the marketplace against producers not burdened with these costs you have less opportunity to make PROFIT.
If the cheap producer overseas is driving up the cost of raw materials you are squeezed at both ends and cannot get enough Value-Added to make the game pay.
So in the end everyone ends up working for The State either directly, or indirectly as a contractor in a service business. What is lost is the export business to pay for the imports.....and that will be the leitmotif of the coming 20 years....how Britain will compete to pay for oil and gas imports, milk imports, grain imports, consumer goods imports.
The real question is why anyone should want to set up any kind of international business here at all....it has absolutely ZERO advantage
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 13:53
A privately owned British manufacturing industry could corner and dominate global export markets. Much of what China and India produces is of inferior quality as the Americans have found out all too recently. We could produce quality goods at competitive prices if we had a government in place that would support a co-ordinated export strategy. The current Labour government with its love of a strong overvalued sterling, is diametrically opposed to manufacturing and export. Their macroeconomic policies are national suicide.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 13:56
TomTom - UK manufacturing was an export led industry and so required open overseas markets to support it. Empire preference provided this market for a time, supplemented by British investment in South America, by the forced opening of China to UK goods.
Lancashire cotton survived in large part because Britain destroyed competitive cotton industries in Egypt and India when they controlled those economies; the fall of Empire freed them to compete. The sad tale of post war British manufacturing is one of failed opportunities but tariff barriers would not have helped.
Posted by: Ted | September 02, 2007 at 14:04
Ted, I agree with much of what you say The Commonwealth was very much a set-up trading block where we were very much the big fish in the tank. It is no coincidence that mass unemployment developed significantly after 1973. The end of Bretton Woods was a factor too in my opinion. I agree with you that opportunities have been missed and if we did rebuild manufacturing we would be starting from behind scratch, but it is something we have to do. The size of our population warrants a large manufacturing base. The Conservative party must do more to promote manufacturing.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 14:13
I believe we lost the past three elections for a combination of reasons: narrowness of policy (crime, tax, Europe grr, crime, tax, Europe, grr); the whiplash of the Nineties problems (sleaze and division); our image as the nasty party; the fact that Labour were on a high.
Those things are connected (we were perceived as nasty because we only talked about crime, tax, Europe (grr)). We're ten yaers on, and there's no reason why Labour should have a lead. There's so much we should be holding them to account for - Iraq, pensions, referendum - that we should do.
Any party running for office has got to have policies for every aspect of government. It's just plain irresponsible to write a manifesto that consists only of crime, tax, Europe (grr) when we're going to have to run the NHS, schools and the environment.
The 'and theory' is just plain common sense. The left will do all they can to paint it as a 'lurch to the right', but it's not, and we know it's not. All it is is traditional conservative positions plus new conservative attitudes to other problems. We should stick to our guns, speak with some passion, roll out some more policy teasers and get on with it. The public will agree with what we say, and reward us.
Posted by: The Culture Warrior | September 02, 2007 at 14:15
Ted Am puzzled by your remark that when we ran Egypt we destroyed the cotton industry - we ran much of it successfully for 100 years and what we didn't run directly, we created the conditions for others to run profitably.
Posted by: Lindsay Jenkins | September 02, 2007 at 14:31
It is obviously trite and in the case of Marx was postulated before Universal Suffrage.
Karl Marx is now only of historical interest, his assumptions have been clearly been debunked.
Although there are elements of protection, the fact is that a multinational choosing to setup a call centre or a manufacturing plant will consider availability of people with the appropriate skills and also tax regimes, regulatory burden and what people are prepared to accept in terms of working conditions and renumeration and they can locate their operations wherever is most convenient for them with regard to these things.
Who cares what Karl Marx would have thought about that!
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 14:33
Yet Another Anon "With regard to freeing up the labour market to a great extent immigration is doing this, employers have a greater range of options with regard to employing people in the UK while keeping labour costs down.
This is one of the main factors behind "breakdown Britain" what you are actually saying is I would rather let you people rot and get in cheap foreign Labour because it helps my profitability, I couldn't care less about the social effects of my decision.
Now I completely understand this argument from a business perspective but from society's perspective it is a poor deal. Irwin Steltzer is not a man I agree with often, but a couple of weeks ago he wrote an article that effectively said ok, you can have free labour movement but if you choose migrant labour then that business needs to pick up the costs in terms of schooling, housing etc.
His article is here http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/08/15/do1501.xml
I think we should consider it.
Posted by: voreas06 | September 02, 2007 at 14:36
Actually Ted you are mistaken. There was a tariff system in place under IMF Rules which was not used properly. Countries in persistent surplus (Japan, Germany) were supposed to revalue their currencies or face punitive tariffs from persistent deficit countries (UK, USA).
The persistent surplus countries as with China today deliberately kept their currency undervalued...the D-Mark first became convertible in 1957 when it was 8 years old...it was undervalued and continued to be so until 1971.
Countries like Germany and Japan pursued a mercantilist policy rather similar to that pursued by Taiwan, Korea, China....countries like Britain operated a deregulated credit environment to feed consumerism.
The first time British interest rates hit double digits was under a Conservative Government - that of Edward Heath following Competition & Credit Control 1971. His deegulation of credit led to a huge trade gap, inflation and a speculative boom and bust. Interestingly - houses prices started to move off the steady-state path of 3-6% appreciation after 1971 and house-price inflation became built into the system as credit expansion continued.
Base Rates are always higher under Conservative Governments and have been since they lifted them from 3% after 1951
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 14:39
Civil Servant talk.
The reason to run a business is PROFIT. Before you get to profit you have to pay your workforce and the levies the Government imposes when you employ them.
I didn't mean the state, I mean't whoever was the employer - they choose a particular person presumably because they think they can do the job to their satisfaction.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 14:41
Now I completely understand this argument from a business perspective but from society's perspective it is a poor deal.
It isn't just a matter of business perspective, someone looking to get in someone to do their garden, someone going to a restaurant, someone needing a plumber - without migrant workers there would be shortages of people to do these jobs or people who aren't particularily good at these jobs will be employed to do them. Migrant workers help to hold down wage demands and so hold down inflation maintaining a greater degree of economic stability, and indeed so does unemployment and low levels of assistance benefits.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 14:46
Lindsay Jenkins
We turned an Egyptian Cotton manufacturing industry into an Egyptian cotton growing industry transferring most of the value add to Lancashire. Did much the same in India.
Posted by: Ted | September 02, 2007 at 14:49
"Karl Marx is now only of historical interest, his assumptions have been clearly been debunked."
Very true, but as anyone who has studied Sociology will know Messrs Marx, Engels, Gramsci and Mead are very much alive and still enjoying celebrity status in lecture rooms across Britain.
Marxism is a true pseudo-science, its core ideas of dialectical and historical materialism being corruptions of previous philosphical conjecture. Why the Marxist perspective still is held in such high regard by academica I will never understand.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 14:50
Migrant workers help to hold down wage demands and so hold down inflation maintaining a greater degree of economic stability
but only in Service Sector jobs since direct labour costs in manufacturing are a small proportion of the costs...it is the indirect allocations that make labour expensive rather than wages. Manufacturing is highly automated but such plants require scale output and in Britain it has traditionally been cheaper to use overtime labour rather than invest in capital-deepening or capital-widening - this is why productivity is low.
British Productivity has taken a nosedive as service sector jobs have increased and low wages are a reflection of low productivity. All Brown is doing by importing cheap labour is presaging an explosion in Working Famiies Tax Credit which encourages the low paid to be child-rich at the expense of the middle-class who have high investment costs in their children by paying for education they are taxed to pay for.
The whole strategy is as the Independent article stated - a concerted campaign against the middle class - whereby they are taxed to support an underclass woth wage subsidy and child subsidy at the expense of their own family size
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 15:21
"What we probably need is a serious speech or (ideally) a series of briefings of journalists that explain that the Conservative Party is now following the 'And theory of Conservatism'. I would nominate Michael Gove for that task."
definetely!
Posted by: spagbob | September 02, 2007 at 15:30
I second Michael Gove for the task!
It shouldn't be a speech but sustained behind-the-scenes briefing.
We've done too much explaining our strategy in public already.
Posted by: Umbrella man | September 02, 2007 at 15:33
Tomtom, interesting points you raise. On the question of Labour's tax benefits regime I think their agenda from the start has been to create a half work/half benefit culture with low paid workers becoming financially dependent on the state. Labour hope that these dependent workers won't bite the hand that feeds them at election time.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 15:46
but only in Service Sector jobs since direct labour costs in manufacturing are a small proportion of the costs...it is the indirect allocations that make labour expensive rather than wages.
Wages still add to the total, the indigenous population mostly have higher expectations in terms of pay and conditions, it isn't just a matter of what they are entitled to, many incoming workers may well be unaware of their rights or willing to accept terms technically breaching their rights. This does all help build up the case against much of the rights culture, if success is achieved by ignoring many rights then surely this increases the justification for abolishing them.
Working Famiies Tax Credit
You mean Working Tax Credit, WFTC having been superseded in 2002. This is an issue of benefit rules, with a national biometric ID database and with welfare restricted to resident naturalised on indigenous citizens only with economic migrants remaining ineligible except for contributory benefits then this would not be a problem, immigrants would then be denied benefits available to the indigenous population although if their partners or children were resident citizens then they could be eligible for such payments.
If economic migrants are unable to support themselves then they should be deported.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 16:08
"If economic migrants are unable to support themselves then they should be deported."
Good point, I lived in Denmark during the 1980s and after the first three months stay in the country I had to prove to the Danish police that I was working and supporting myself, and paying tax (which was 51% at the time!), after doing this through letters from my employer, landlord and bank I was granted a five year residency permit. Since that time Denmark has become less stringent over entry requirements and guess what? They now have a big problem with immigration!
Posted by: Tony | September 02, 2007 at 16:26
Editor says, “Crime and the NHS are likely to be the two flagship campaign themes should there be an autumn election with action to support the family wrapped into the crime theme as a way of countering social breakdown.” Sounds excellent balance to me (particularly if “support for the family” means supporting marriage, as being brought up by married mum and dad generally gives children the best chance, as IDS says)
As for the environment, are voters really more concerned about the holiday abroad being more expensive than they are about breakdown in society, family breakdown, crime, the NHS… if so, it could reduce confidence in democracy. To make a suggestion, if a tax on holiday flights really would be a loser in target seats, why not tax only some domestic flights and flights to Paris and Brussels i.e. to destinations easily reached by train. This would avoid taxing flights that are used mainly for family holidays, such as those to the Med etc. This would still demonstrate at least some environmental credibility, while not impacting most family holiday flights.
I don’t see why it is necessary for DC to distance himself from opposition to airport expansion, as (as far as I understood) expansion would not be needed if flights to destinations easily reached by rail were reduced, even if some of the vacated slots could be taken by more essential long-haul flights. Also I doubt if airport expansion has much support from potential Conservative voters near the airports that might be expanded!
Anyhow, back to my original point, I would have thought having NHS and crime etc as flagship campaign themes would be a winner as Labour are vulnerable on both (and actually oppose support for marriage).
Posted by: Philip | September 02, 2007 at 16:31
I know exactly when the General Election will be called...........
and it's not going to be October
Posted by: Allan Cuthbertson | September 02, 2007 at 17:16
Philip@16:31 - why should the State be involved at all in making value-judgements about the purpose/validity of the travel-purposes of individuals? Surely such micro-management smacks of an earlier bureaupathic era - the time of Selective Employment Tax, Resale Price Maintenance and limits on the amount of money you could take out of the country with you when you went on holiday. If anything, Conservatism should be about individual freedom, not micromanagement.
As to airport expansion, personally, I'd *love* there to be a full-service international airport within an hour's drive of me!
Posted by: Tanuki | September 02, 2007 at 17:49
"Step back a few years to when the FCS --then the future and now the present of the Tory Party -- were advocating Hang Nelson Mandela and other repugnant racist policies."
I remember the "Hang Nelson Mandela" posters, but that wasn't because he was black, that was because he was left wing. (You will be aware of course that the South Africa he's since helped create clearly couldn't care less about the Mugabe regime's crimes against humanity.) I don't remember any racist policies at all. Care to give an example?
Oh and incidentally, nor do I remember any left-wing student organisations protesting about the lethal tendencies of the Soviet bloc. Sauce for the goose, mate.
Posted by: Alex Swanson | September 02, 2007 at 17:53
"Karl Marx is now only of historical interest, his assumptions have been clearly been debunked."
Big chunks of the Labour party have either not heard or do not agree.
Posted by: The Huntsman | September 02, 2007 at 17:53
I still think an 11 June 2009 General Election with the Local Elections moved to be on the same day, David Cameron and Menzies Campbell would probably prefer them to be separate because Labour voters have less of a tendency to turn up to vote on days where there isn't a General Election, but even with increased use of postal voting most people prefer votes to be grouped together rather on separate days.
I would think that the likelihood is that a dissolution will be announced after the 2009 Budget.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 18:00
The Labour Party is one thing The Huntsman, but I fear that all political parties and media elites are infected with Crude Marxism in the way they think - they call it pragmatism" but in essence it is a belief in economics as the basis of all human interaction and money as the sole motivator - rather Pavlovian.
Yet it is inherent in the approach to political debate - Yet Another Anon has encapsulated it perfectly. The family is an economic unit, man exists simply to produce highest surplus at lowest cost...makes you wonder just who really is the battery hen ?
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 18:04
Tanuki:
As to airport expansion, personally, I'd *love* there to be a full-service international airport within an hour's drive of me!
I do not mean to sound antagonistic about this comment but can I suggest you move to somewhere like Hounslow and then you would be well within an hour's drive. Well some of the time anyway as the traffic congestion in the area is quite considerable.
Having lived for a number of years in Hounslow I know that there is no better justification for 'nimbyism' than an Airport Expansion. I have great sympathy for those trying to halt the plans to extend Heathrow. Seriously, the noise, pollution and congestion caused can be quite dreadful. I would not wish an international airport on any community.
I have no agenda on this and have yet to make up my mind whether these proposals make sense. However, something does need to be done to change our attitude to transport and the way transport services are provided.
Posted by: John Leonard | September 02, 2007 at 18:09
TomTom, I believe in 'pragmatism' but I am certainly no Marxist. In fact over the years I've taken a lot of stick for defending Augusto Pinochet's decision to restore order after the Marxists were on the verge of destroting Chile.
When Pinochet was arrested during his visit here I thought it was an absolute disgrace and I felt ashamed that our country, which Pinochet regarded asa great friend was treating him like a common criminal. People forgot that only one world leader offered to help us during the Falklands war and that was Augusto Pinochet.
I'm just thankful that Pinochet wasa damn good actor and tricked the Labour government.
I certainly agree with you that Social Democracy has its roots in the Marxist creed. The academic world iscertainly full of red professors.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 18:17
they call it pragmatism" but in essence it is a belief in economics as the basis of all human interaction and money as the sole motivator - rather Pavlovian
In terms of running the country, the economy and it's long term prospects have to take priority over other things, in just the same way as family finances are important and businesses have to at least cover their costs - otherwise they fail.
Less economic growth means less money for infrastructural improvement and for adequately defending the country - there is an inter-relation between these things.
Most Marxist countries in their attempts to narrow income equality merely impoverished their whole countries so except for party bigwigs who were able to escape this, the rest were all equally destitute.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 18:25
they call it pragmatism" but in essence it is a belief in economics as the basis of all human interaction and money as the sole motivator - rather Pavlovian
In terms of running the country, the economy and it's long term prospects have to take priority over other things, in just the same way as family finances are important and businesses have to at least cover their costs - otherwise they fail.
Less economic growth means less money for infrastructural improvement and for adequately defending the country - there is an inter-relation between these things.
Most Marxist countries in their attempts to narrow income equality merely impoverished their whole countries so except for party bigwigs who were able to escape this, the rest were all equally destitute.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 18:27
Yet another anon, at times it is necessary to cap growth and prevent the economy from overheating and giving way to the cancer of all currencies, inflation. I think its deceptive for politicians to promise the public continual growth. Such a theory works on paper but alas not in practice. I could draw up several different economic models that look flawless and would seem to promise endless growth but such theories fail to factor in one thing, people, their motives and their unpredictability. That is where Marxism falls down, the Marxists always failed to factor in human behaviour.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 18:45
There you are ! Case Proven !
No such thing as the Nation, no such thing as Nature, nothing but MONEY..that is the culture ....everything is about the prsuit of money to see who can buy the biggest headstone.
The only point in men going to war 68 years ago tomorrow was Money - the need to stop Germany being the biggest economy.
J A Hobhouse (1902) Imperialism inspired Lenin's oeuvre Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism (1916)
To quote Lenin: - “Great Britain,” says Schulze-Gaevernitz, “is gradually becoming transformed from an industrial into a creditor state. Notwithstanding the absolute increase in industrial output and the export of manufactured goods, there is an increase in the relative importance of income from interest and dividends, issues of securities, commissions and speculation in the whole of the national economy. In my opinion it is precisely this that forms the economic basis of imperialist ascendancy. The creditor is more firmly attached to the debtor than the seller is to the buyer [Chapter 8]
and
Hobson gives the following economic appraisal of the prospect of the partitioning of China: “The greater part of Western Europe might then assume the appearance and character already exhibited by tracts of country in the South of England, in the Riviera and in the tourist-ridden or residential parts of Italy and Switzerland, little clusters of wealthy aristocrats drawing dividends and pensions from the Far East, with a somewhat larger group of professional retainers and tradesmen and a larger body of personal servants and workers in the transport trade and in the final stages of production of the more perishable goods; all the main arterial industries would have disappeared, the staple foods and manufactures flowing in as tribute from Asia and Africa. . . . We have foreshadowed the possibility of even a larger alliance of Western states, a European federation of great powers which, so far from forwarding the cause of world civilisation, might introduce the gigantic peril of a Western parasitism, a group of advanced industrial nations, whose upper classes drew vast tribute from Asia and Africa, with which they supported great tame masses of retainers, no longer engaged in the staple industries of agriculture and manufacture, but kept in the performance of personal or minor industrial services under the control of a new financial aristocracy. Let those who would scout such a theory (it would be better to say: prospect) as undeserving of consideration examine the economic and social condition of districts in Southern England today which are already reduced to this condition, and reflect upon the vast extension of such a system which might be rendered feasible by the subjection of China to the economic control of similar groups of financiers, investors, and political and business officials, draining the greatest potential reservoir of profit the world has ever known, in order to consume it in Europe. The situation is far too complex, the play of world forces far too incalculable, to render this or any other single interpretation of the future very probable; but the influences which govern the imperialism of Western Europe today are moving in this direction, and, unless counteracted or diverted, make towards some such consummation.”
The author is quite right: if the forces of imperialism had not been counteracted they would have led precisely to what he has described. The significance of a “United States of Europe” in the present imperialist situation is correctly appraised. He should have added, however, that, also within the working-class movement, the opportunists, who are for the moment victorious in most countries, are “working” systematically and undeviatingly in this very direction. Imperialism, which means the partitioning of the world, and the exploitation of other countries besides China, which means high monopoly profits for a handful of very rich countries, makes it economically possible to bribe the upper strata of the proletariat, and thereby fosters, gives shape to, and strengthens opportunism. We must not, however, lose sight of the forces which counteract imperialism in general, and opportunism in particular, and which, naturally, the social-liberal Hobson is unable to perceive.
So you see the notions espoused in your piece above come straight from Hobhouse and Lenin and are so mainstream from the Left that it is faintly amusing to see you advance it so readily 90 years later
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 18:50
Yet another anon, at times it is necessary to cap growth and prevent the economy from overheating and giving way to the cancer of all currencies, inflation.
India and China have been getting both, India's inflation is not much different from that of the UK's at the moment and it has fallen whereas growth has actually accelerated.
If profitability is good and wages are restrained and public spending is held down then there are good prospects for longer term economic growth.
I don't think anyone on this thread has said that continuous growth ad infinitum is possible, one way is to use budget surpluses to repay National Debt and so improve the national finances at the same time - I am strong opposed to the state borrowing money unfortunately most governments in the 20th and so far 21st century have financed increases in public spending through borrowing.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 18:56
John Leonard@18:09 - "Having lived for a number of years in Hounslow I know that there is no better justification for 'nimbyism' than an Airport Expansion."
I've spent the fat end of 20 years living under military-airbase runways. The nightly flight of a batch of C130s on their way out to Bosnia going over was just part of life.
As I said, I'd really love somewhere like Lyneham to be redeveloped as a full-service international airport!
Posted by: Tanuki | September 02, 2007 at 19:15
Tanuki:
Fair enough - it's your choice. As you will gather it would not be mine.
Posted by: John Leonard | September 02, 2007 at 19:18
No such thing as the Nation, no such thing as Nature, nothing but MONEY..that is the culture ....everything is about the prsuit of money to see who can buy the biggest headstone.
You keep reading into other people's posts things they haven't even posted, it is about what sort of nations there - equally a nation that opposed the existence of money could be opposed to the notion of money, indeed many Anarchists are opposed to such notions as money or property (or at least claim to be); there are still decisions over what should be criminal offences, who is considered to be a terrorist, what drugs are legal or illegal, ages of consent - a whole variety of things, all of these involve use of resources in deciding their allocation, money is a mechanism for distributing wealth and providing relative valuations on different activities and products. The value very much depends on the priority of different people and so is cultural in nature to a great extent.
The state is not responsible for everything anyone inside it does, only God could have that sort of responsibility, the state is responsible for setting a framework for people inside it to operate in and within that framework they have responsibility for their own lives, so the state has to focus on what it can do best to improve things and leave everything else to others - what they then do is up to them, and methods of doing things then evolve within that framework to more closely fit the lives of millions\billions of people that would be far too complex for any group of people to satisfactorily plan.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 19:23
China are already worried that they are growing too fast, so its going to be interesting to watch how events unfold. Of course the Chinese can always clamp down with a prices and incomes policy if things get too rough. The new five-year plan is being debated at the moment so let's see what course the Chinese map out.
I certainly agree with you that the wanton way governments borrow money is a problem. The more governments borrow the more they have to waste, like the 3.4 billion thrown away on the New Deal. When we consider that around 6 billion has been spent on something as huge as the war in Iraq, it is quite astonishing that the Labour government has spent more than half as much on the New Deal.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 19:25
Tony Makara - I certainly agree with you that Social Democracy has its roots in the Marxist creed.
The problem is Tony, and I say this to you as one of the more reasonable and indeed Conservative Cameron supporters, that the 'equality agenda' that has been pushed within the Tory Party over the past few years also has its roots in the Marxist creed.
These people will of course say that they are in favour of 'equality of opportunity' rather than 'equality of outcome' but we all know that there is no equality of opportunity in nature.
These are Marxian weasel-words concealing yet more interference with the liberty of the individual and I am thoroughly ashamed that some so-called conservatives have applauded it.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 02, 2007 at 19:25
Yet again Cleo you seem to be saying, I've got a vote to be won if.... and IF you are nice enough to me I MIGHT just vote Conservative. Who you vote for is YOUR prerogative, but you might as well get used to the fact that nobody is going to BUY your vote!
Alistair @ 12.17 - Hoodie wouldy ..... just go back to LaLa land sorry LabLab land!
Posted by: Patsy Sergeant | September 02, 2007 at 19:26
The state is not responsible for everything anyone inside it does,
"The State" is a Continental European concept from Hohenzollern Prussia or Revolutionary France......this country used to be a "Realm"
The concept of "State" is Obrigskeitsdenken that somehow the Individual is a Supplicant or in the words of Hegel - "The Individual is transient. the State is permanent."
The mindset used to be alien to Britons who lived in a Realm albeit as subjects but had duties to and from The Crown - The Queen's Bench in legal terms is merely those judges who stand in for The Monarch in judging their Subjects disputes.
The artificial creation of "The State" as a man-made construct is alien to the English notion of organic development preferred by traditional Conservatives who noted that heritage and culture were often good guides to conduct rather than simply man-made rationalist constructs.
The ease with which Conservatives have adapted the language of Socialism is evidenced by terms such as "The State" in place of traditional concepts of "The Crown" and "The Realm"......it is as if Hayek had not warned them enough as they embrace the language of Socialism
Posted by: TomTom | September 02, 2007 at 19:35
Interesting points, Tom Tom, although I would disagree with some of the details.
The 'state' has been gathering power for decades so perhaps we should call it what it is. How long ago did Lord Hewart write 'The New Despotism'? 1929 I think.
I'm not sure that 'realm' is a peculiarly English concept. 'Reich', after all, can be translated as 'realm' as well as 'empire' and in that sense would be appropriate, surely, to the 1871 or 1919 German Reichs, although not, of course, to the Holy Roman Empire.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 02, 2007 at 19:50
Traditional Tory, I certainly understand what you mean. Of course equality only exists as a concept. If people were equal a tramp or common criminal would be on a par with a captain of industry or a great parliamentarian. The reality is that people are not equal, simply because we all have varied abilities and different temperaments. Attempts by the stage to try to aggregate people are doomed to faliure. I'm certainly not ashamed to say that I believe in elitism where elitism is warranted. In my opinion we can't drag people up, we can only drag people down.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 19:55
Agreed, Tony, so why has the Conservtive Party - at any rate up to last week - been claiming to sympathise with egalitarianism, Political Correctness and so forth?
Every advancement of the left's equality agenda over the past thirty or forty years has marked an erosion in individual liberty.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 02, 2007 at 19:59
Traditional Tory, I'm not against the concept of opportunity provided it is backed up by ability. No government can put ability where ability doesn't exist. I want to see people progress purely on performance. The Alice-in-wonderland ethic of 'All must have prizes' is farcical.
I'm very concerned that we are seeing a levelling out in everyhing from education to parliament itself. I can't be the only one who has noticed that the modern breed of MP is a poor intellectual relation to his/her counterpart of several years ago. Political parties should select candidates for their intellectual ability and not because they are a celebrity or fit a prescribed criteria.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 20:10
I can't be the only one who has noticed that the modern breed of MP is a poor intellectual relation to his/her counterpart of several years ago.
Yes, there is nobody to match the prowell of Macleod, Powell, Joseph or indeed Biffen. They were all men of principle too.
The other great loss is the old 'Knight of the Shire' type. No intellectual perhaps, but a man with his feet firmly planted in the soil and traditions of his native land.
Now we have failed PR men, bonkbuster novelists and soap stars.
That sad fact called to mind Burke's strictures on the 'sophisters, economists, and calculators' of his own time but I am afraid the objects of Burke's scorn were head and shoulders above the 'A List' dross of today.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 02, 2007 at 20:31
prowell = prowess !!!
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 02, 2007 at 20:31
Traditional Tory, Yes, Joseph in particular was underrated, a great economic thinker, and a man Mrs Thatcher had great faith in. As for Powell, his intellectual pedigree was absolute. I remember seeing him once on a programme about Shakespeare and his knowlege was vast and intimidating. A real giant.
The modern MP is a pityful shadow of the parliamentarian of yesteryear. Take for example a ridiculous character like Blunkett, could he have ever been elected in anything other than a very safe seat? The man is a complete fool as his behaviour demonstrated. Yet for some reason the media love him.
Posted by: Tony Makara | September 02, 2007 at 20:54
"The State" is a Continental European concept from Hohenzollern Prussia or Revolutionary France......this country used to be a "Realm"
Head of State, Nation State, City State - it's usage long predates the French Revolution. It's the authority over a particular geographical area. The term Real specifies that it is a monarchy that is being talked about and mostly economic arguments in the abstract do not involve the method of selecting the authorities as countries with different economic systems could have the same method of choosing the Head of State and ministers so it isn't relevant to the discussion.
The artificial creation of "The State" as a man-made construct is alien to the English notion of organic development preferred by traditional Conservatives who noted that heritage and culture were often good guides to conduct rather than simply man-made rationalist constructs.
The internet was in origin an artifical creation, so were the Post Office, Bank of England, National Physical Laboratory, Atomic Bomb - the world is and for thousand of years has been filled with artificial creations. The ideas behind them mostly are based on things that have evolved over time and been passed on and refined.
The model of the state goes back before Plato and his concept of the Philosopher King who would rule wisely over a state, there have been various adaptions of Assyria, Chinese Dynasties, Egyptian Dynasties, the Greek States, Rome, Edward I, Machievelli, Calvin, Knox, Voltaire, George Washington, Marx, Mussolini, Hitler, Stalin, Franco, General Pinochet. Before there was the State the general world order was to divide into tribes with no borders.
Posted by: Yet Another Anon | September 02, 2007 at 20:56
so were the Post Office,
Actually The Post Office is merely a Mid-Victorian institution to give public access to The Royal Mail. Wasn't it Charles II who permitted others to use his royal mail delivery service where the recipient paid. Rowland Hill introduced prepayment through stamps to make post offices economically viable.
The atomic bomb was not an institution and it was developed in the USA by predominantly non-British scientists.
The fact remains that Reich is not a fixed term like Realm. German is vague in concepts like Reich and since Germany itself had very ill-defined borders until 1990 it was its very contingent nature as a nation-state that made it so obsessional about racial purity of the Teutons.
The oldest nation states in Europe are France and England, Scotland, Wales and Poland, Sweden, Denmark - all monarchies...with all law and concepts of law derived from the monarch. Indeed all land rights in England were bestowed by The Crown to whom all land belonged until notions of freehold became defined in 1925.
Realm perfectly describes why the Defence of the Realm Act was passed and not State Powers Act. The State is Hegelian and it is used n crude Marxist terminology as with the Baader-Meinhof to set all agents of The State as legitimate targets of oppositionists.
The problem now is that all politics is defined as Pro-State or Anti-State and if you do not accept what The State does you must by definition be an Enemy of The State. The power of The State is unaffected by elections which is why you either accept The State or seek to destroy it.
The State cannot be contained by political parties any more than councillors can control metropolitan authorities or ministers can control The EU Commission. The Apparat is all-powerful and can obstruct any chance it does not co-opt.
That is why IT project such as the National Children Database are going live - The State wills it - and noone can prevent their child being added to the database with secret reports so they can grow up as fully-tagged adults with a full database behind their ID cards
Posted by: TomTom | September 03, 2007 at 07:11
The oldest nation states in Europe are France and England, Scotland, Wales and Poland, Sweden, Denmark - all monarchies.
Wales was never 'a monarchy', not even in the time of Llywelyn the Great. Poland was a pretty strange sort of monarchy and has not been a monarchy at all since the abdication of Poniatowski in 1795.
Sweden and Denmark remained absolute monarchies until the 19th century. I don't see many parallels with the development of the British monarchical system, which in any case has as many flaws as it has virtues.
Indeed all land rights in England were bestowed by The Crown to whom all land belonged until notions of freehold became defined in 1925.
As I understand the matter, all freehold land in England and Wales is still ultimately held by the Crown (aka 'The State'). The 1925 Acts made many significant changes to property ownership, of course, including the conversion of Copyholds to Freeholds, but I don't think it altered the relationship between Freeholds and the Crown.
In Norway, land is held absolutely by the equivalent of the freeholder without any feudal claim by the State. Possibly this may be the case in some other countries. I am sure it is not the case in England where, precisely because constitutional monarchy came so early, more 'absolutist' structures remained entrenched.
Some of those features - eg controversial use of the Royal Prerogative by Prime Ministers - dog us right down to the present.
Posted by: Traditional Tory | September 03, 2007 at 07:51