Good Night and Good Luck

[caddyman]

I am confused; with the resignation of David Davis on his self-proclaimed point of principle (and to be clear, I have no reason to believe that it is not a point of principle) over the potential erosion of civil liberties encapsulated in the successful third reading of the Counter Terrorism Bill, there seems to be an assumption, which I have noted before, that it is remarkable for a right-of-centre politician to worry about civil liberties. The assumption seems to be a slightly odd reaction that suggests all Tories are authoritarian, whilst the left are somehow libertarian.

Admittedly in the New Labour era, boundaries have somewhat blurred as Blairism made Labour electable largely by cherry-picking the more centre right policies of the mid to late 90s Tory Party and garnishing them with a rosy range of moderate, happy clappy centre left policies from the Lib Dems and even a couple of their own. Historically, though, Labour have been the party of state control, of nationalisation. They are the party who traditionally have tried to move responsibility from the individual to the nanny state.

Don’t get me wrong, I like the politics of the centre; I’m not a fan of the extremes in either direction. I don’t like New Labour because they are essentially dishonest. I disagreed with much of the traditional Labour Party’s agenda, but that was a disagreement based upon conflicting views. My distaste for the modern Labour Party is based upon the way it has abandoned the essential honesty of its core beliefs.

I digress: the essential point that baffles me reading friends’ views is that they seem to assume that support for the left, the traditional home of monolithic statism, is support for civil liberties and yet they keep picking up quotes from Tories that warn against the erosion of freedom and bandying them around in shock. This against a background of repeated and sustained attempts to squash our freedoms by the very people they cheerily assume to support liberty.

I’m not sure where, if anywhere, I am going with this, so I shall end with a couple of quotes from two heavy weight historical left wingers:

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is
the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves"
-- Pitt the Younger (Nov. 18, 1783)

"There are more instances of the abridgment of freedoms of the people
by gradual and silent encroachment of those in power than by violent
and sudden usurpations."
-- James Madison (June 6, 1788)

Inserted to be just a little more recent: "When all the objectives of government include the achievement of equality - other than equality before the law - that government poses a threat to liberty." -- Margaret Thatcher

Good night and good luck.

Comments

[jfs.livejournal.com]

In the recent past (by which I mean the last 30 years or so) the Tories have emphatically _not_ been the party of civil liberties though.

There is nothing which says that inherantly a right wing view makes one anti-civil liberties and that is why I have been careful not to say that.

There is a lot of evidence that being a member of the modern Tory party makes one anti-civil liberties, however, hence the shock.

I find it amusing that my point is made by your final quotations; prior to David Davis and John Major (see pauln's LJ) you feel it necessary to go back 230 years or so to quote a libertarian view.

Edit to add: And I feel that there is no implication that a formerly left leaning party should be the one concerned about civil liberties; they should however be the party concerned with the rights of the masses; something which again the Tory and Labour parties are turning on its head.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

There is nothing which says that inherantly a right wing view makes one anti-civil liberties and that is why I have been careful not to say that.

True, but in the context of the body of your entry, it is rather implicit from the first sentence that you regard it as a show stopper that a right winger would worry about civil liberties.

Added: It is only here that you have qualified the position by suggesting that it is recent Toryism of the last 30 years that is anything but pro-civil liberties. I find that harder to argue against, though they did shy away from doing pretty much anything that Labour have done since 2001, including ban the right to protest!

[jfs.livejournal.com]

*shrug*

The inference you're looking at is the phrase "(and therefore potentially the most right-wing man in the world" I'm guessing.

If you read that in context of both "Tory" and "Home Secretary" - the substantive phrases which immediately preceed the parenthetical comment, I believe my meaning is clear, and not the point which you are making.

It's an AND, not an OR.

And to your addendum; I'm really not sure I see your point. I'm discussing contemporary politics. The Tories may once have been the party of small-government libertarianism - so what? The Labour party were once socialist.

Neither of those positions is true today.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Oh, and quoting Margaret Thatcher as a supporter of civil liberties?

Really?

Margaret "Stop elected MPs from speaking on television because of the party they belong to" Thatcher?

Margaret "stripping suspects of the right to silence in their trials" Thatcher?

Margaret "Section 28" Thatcher?

I think you need a better posterchild for your Tory Civil Liberties stance.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

Appreciate the irony.

And also the irony of quoting Ed Morrow at the end, the journo who took on US Senator Joe McCarthy, arguably the biggest 'democratic' threat to anyone's civil liberties in the western world since WW2 in his day.

Good night and good luck.

[jfs.livejournal.com]

Sorry - have re-thought on the journey home, and see your point. I'll add something to my post to clarify.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

*round of applause* High time someone pointed out the difference.

Personally I think it's a sad indictment of just how far the current government have gone when a prominent member of a party that has in recent years sold itself on taking a hard line on law and order (not necessarily one in breach of civil liberties) makes such a public statement that he considers that the current government have gone too far. I think it's proof of the extremism of the current government more than proof of any liberalism on the part of Mr Davies or the Conservative Party as a whole.

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

Although I should add that one of my first thoughts on reading the quotations at the end of your post was "James Mason wasn't alive in 1788"!!!!

[november-girl.livejournal.com]

I'd also point to The Times, which has long been considered to be a Tory rag (and I think still is)and has been making a LOT of libertarian noises in recent times, including a prominent article or four promoting the legalisation of cannabis.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I wasn't actually looking for a flaming session (I don't think we got that far, though it may have escalated). I was genuinely baffled by what looked to me like an assumption by both Paul and yourself that to be Tory was to be authoritarian, when traditionally the opposite has been true.

As I noted above, however, if we are looking at the last thirty years - particularly the fifteen from 1980-1995, it's a harder argument to sustain on my part.

[caddyman.livejournal.com]

I'll have a read of the blackcrayon pages later and give them some thought.

Pitt the Younger was a Tory and Madison was a Democratic Republican (!) - both were on the right of politics in their day. It was me being impish...

[mr-h-r-hughes.livejournal.com]

That is interesting, I'd like to read more of that : )

[pauln.livejournal.com]

I think your last is the point for me. Bear in mind that I'm a Grimond/Steele style Liberal, so the Statist Left is equally anathema to me.

Historically, I agree the Tories were the party of the small state and individual liberties. I'd suggest:

1. That those liberties were largely those exercised by the ruling classes rather than the ruled. Pitt didn't live up later to the fine words you quote from his early days in office. He was the Prime Minister who enacted some of the most repressive legislation this country has seen during the Napoleonic period (notably against the proto-unions). It was the Tories who opposed constitutional reforms throughout the 19th century. They were against the Reform Acts, against the Repeal of the Corn Laws and against the widening of the franchise (to Catholics, to the less well-off and to women). Liberty yes, but all too often without the JS Mill qualifier that one person's liberty stops where it infringes another's.

2. That this "libertarian" ethos changed considerably under Thatcher's leadership, which is what largely defines the political background of our generation. John's already cited section 28 and the absurdity of denying free speech to elected (Sinn Fein) MPs. I'd add the centralisation of power (which I fully agree has been continued in England by New Labour). The most notable example of that being the abolition of the GLC because it stood up to central government. Whatever your views of Ken (mine being "odious little oik"), it's wrong to abolish someone you disagree with. You take them on at the ballot box and seek to defeat them.

3. That the other main political influence on our generation, as a consequence of our parents', is the experience of right-wing dictatorship in Europe in the 20s/30s (and in some cases through to the 70s).

[jfs.livejournal.com]

No flames intended, but I'm pretty much entirely with Paul here - my direct and oft repeated experience is that Tory does mean authoritarian both historically and more recently.

I will happily accept that the same is not the case with 'right wing'.

Perhaps just as the socialists bemoan their betrayal by the Labour party, the libertarians should be saying the same about the Tories.

[pauln.livejournal.com]

"The major problem — one of the major problems, for there are several — one of the many major problems with governing people is that of whom you get to do it; or rather of who manages to get people to let them do it to them.

To summarize: it is a well-known fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

[pauln.livejournal.com]

To add further: in double-checking some of my information for my earlier response I came back across the Political Compass site that several of us had a play with as a meme a while ago.

As a reminder it plots political views on a two dimensional grid, rather than the traditional linear Left/Right. The dimensions are Economic ("left" loony communistic to "right" rabid capitalistic) and Social (authoritarian to libertarian).

They've since plotted various national/international pictures, using published policy. I find it very interesting that the one for the UK places Conservative and New Labour within a whisker of each other on the authoritarian right, while the LibDems are slightly more centrist economically (though still to the right) and are (just) over the boundary into libertarian.

[agentinfinity.livejournal.com]

I recently revisited Stuart Hall's stuff on Thatcherism and Gramsci for an essay I was writing. I can recommend it as an interesting insight into how Thatcherites constructed a political position out of a variety of conflicting and contradictory views. I think it is especially clever how they managed to make global free markets and nationalism sit next to each other.

I found an extract through google scholar by searching either Stuart Hall + Gramsci or Stuart Hall and Hegemony.