Free people
Mat has got an absolutely superb article on the new political stomping ground of the political parties in post-1997 Britain. Read Mat’s post here.
I’ve covered the political compass previously on this blog so I won’t go into it in too much detail here. But it did trigger the following thoughts that I’ll share with you:
The Libdems are left and libertarian and the Tories are right and increasingly libertarian, as you said. However the Lib Dems have a nasty tendency of trying to be all things to all people.
In the country they’re free-market liberals who’ll protect the countryside. In the cities, they’re intellectuals (with beards) who believe in freedom of everyone including votes for paedophiles.
As you say, the Tories and the LibDems haven’t really moved, while Blair’s regime has taken the authoritarian route. This, it seems to me, is an acceptance by the left in Labour that Socialism does not work. Yes, there has to be some state interference, but not much.
The Tories and Labour are consistent in this:
- The Tories believe in free markets and free people.
- Labour believes in regulated markets and regulated people.
- LibDems believe in regulated markets but free people…
Of course, if I accepted Mat’s arguments about what the Lib Dems stood for, I would be a Liberal Democrat but their feelings on the free market, punishment of crimes, the EU and their political inconsistency (as if that’s not enough) are what make me a proud free-market, libertarian Conservative.
December 16th, 2005 at 5:06 pm
Hah! I was replying to you while you typed this. Thanks for the link, etc, there’s a response post planned soon as well, I’m really glad I got past the writers block on that article, what was supposed to be a brief dig at Boris turned into a pretty good statement of principles. I think a theoretical follow up may be a good plan.
I like your political compass article as well. Can you be a bit specific on the crime/punishment problem you have with them?
December 16th, 2005 at 5:33 pm
It may just be me, but this seems soft:
But maybe I’ve been swallowing the media’s summaries, because this seems sensible:
But reading their manifesto gives a sanitised view: They believe in giving murderers and 16 year olds the vote. I don’t know a single 16 year-old who knows the slightest thing about politics and even fewer (Ed. Than none, what are you talking about Gav?) who have well-thought out opinions on serious matters. Maybe younger people are more likely to vote LibDem?
On other policy issues which I missed, they do not support swingeing tax cuts (even though everyone accepts that there’s plenty wasted at the moment) and they treat the environment much as Labour do (as a tax-raising tool) rather than pragmatically.
But the biggest problem is the EU. The EU is not democratic in any modern sense of the word and its policies on extradition and international policing should sit at odds with LibDem thinking…
December 17th, 2005 at 5:49 am
British Politics: The Future
My post yesterday described the ideas of broad church politics … What it didn’t do is really explain why these coalitions form, nor analyse the electoral advantage that such alliances can create … To defeat Labour, in those seats where Labour is …
December 17th, 2005 at 11:32 pm
Lib Dems are far more likely to pick up 16 year old voters than other parties, I think - they certainly get a very large part of the student vote as is (especially because of Iraq). I know some of them have perfectly well-thought out reasons for allowing votes at 16, but as a party I think their policy may well be formed by getting a bit of an electoral boost (as for votes for prisoners, that’s a hair-brained idea).
The strongest argument in favour of votes at 16 is that you can earn a living and thus pay taxes at that age. But really, anyone who comes across money can buy things, and is thus subject to the sales tax of VAT. Does that mean any person, however young, who has committed a transaction in the electoral period should be allowed to vote? I don’t think so, really…
December 17th, 2005 at 11:58 pm
Tax without representation (the old US independence argument)?
Well, as you rightly say, that questions the validity of VAT but, more importantly, it questions the lack of an English Parliament.
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:06 am
[…] As I said previously the excellent Mat GB of Great Britain, not little England has highlighted the change already. The Tories are realigning themselves as the party of the liberal economics (as it was already) and liberal social policy (which is a major and welcome change). Pragmatic Conservatives are more and more understanding that the “Back to Basics” policy of Major and the unenlightened social policies of Thatcher were off the mark. […]
January 3rd, 2006 at 3:16 am
[…] As I said previously the excellent Mat GB of Great Britain, not little England has highlighted the change already. The Tories are realigning themselves as the party of the liberal economics (as it was already) and liberal social policy (which is a major and welcome change). Pragmatic Conservatives are more and more understanding that the “Back to Basics” policy of Major and the unenlightened social policies of Thatcher were off the mark. […]
January 8th, 2006 at 3:50 am
[…] As I said previously the excellent Mat GB of Great Britain, not little England has highlighted the change already. The Tories are realigning themselves as the party of the liberal economics (as it was already) and liberal social policy (which is a major and welcome change). Pragmatic Conservatives are more and more understanding that the “Back to Basics” policy of Major and the unenlightened social policies of Thatcher were off the mark. […]
September 20th, 2006 at 11:41 pm
[…] My post yesterday described the ideas of broad church politics, and pressed the point that each of the three main parties are electoral coalitions designed to maximise the vote share of those with broadly similar ideas. It seems to have gone down rather well in diverse quarters. What it didn’t do is really explain why these coalitions form, nor analyse the electoral advantage that such alliances can create. […]