The death of liberal Conservatism (c.2006-2011)?
They say that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I think it was around 2006 that David Cameron first referred to himself as a ’liberal Conservative’. Three years later, he penned an article highlighting the commonality of purpose between Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives, especially on civil liberties. And he’s repeated the ‘liberal Conservative’ line ever since.
For many the term was always an oxymoron but the English riots (Alex Salmond’s smugness was right in this instance) must go some way to mark the death of liberal Conservatism. Cameron appears to have reverted to type with his list of authoritarian populist measures to appease the wrath of the general public. It was my understanding that the coalition government were meant to undo the damage caused by our predecessors – with efforts such as The Protection of Freedom Bill – rather than seeking new ways to undermine them.
Liberal Democrats should be standing up for civil liberties not so much to differentiate ourselves from the Conservatives for the sake of differentiating but because we believe it is the right thing to do. So far the majority of discontent I’ve heard from Liberal Democrats relates to the withdrawal of benefits for looters. Why is there no similar energy exerted on civil liberties? By all means stand firm with our Conservative colleagues in condemning the violence, rejecting sociological bunkum that excuses those responsible and call for robust action against the wrongdoers. But if ever there was a need for Lib Dems to push for a coalition U-turn, this is the moment.
We need Liberal Democrats arguing vigorously for the retention and protection of civil liberties precisely because it cannot be left to the Conservatives; the only aspect of ‘liberal Conservatism’ David Cameron truly believes in is the latter.
Indeed, what kind of liberal, or “instinctive libertarian” to use the PM’s own words, would seek to introduce Mubarak-style interventions in social networks (surely an impossibility without infringing the rights of others to use such mediums)? What kind of liberal would seek to review powers of curfew which could inhibit the freedom of movement of law abiding citizens? And what kind of liberal would seek to grant the police power to use water cannons whose use in Stuttgart led to the horrific blinding of a 66 year old man protesting against – shock horror – a railway development?
The Prime Minister’s measures are as illiberal as they are ineffective and unnecessary – for instance, the police already have the power to remove facemasks and such like.
So, Mr Cameron: please refrain from a legislative flurry as the laws we have are just fine. Your only task must be to ensure that the police don’t just stand and observe criminality as was the case during the riots but actually enforce the law. You know, simple things like preventing ruffians nicking stuff.
It’s clear that some of the policy prescriptions offered by Cameron are evocative of the draconian gimmickry of the last Labour government. And with that the Prime Minister seems to have traded in his liberal Conservative credentials for the return of the title ‘Heir to Blair’.
August 16th, 2011 at 4:28 pm
Unfortunately for us all, Clegg seems to be more interested in saying what he thinks the tabloids want him to say.
Liberals should be trying to analyse the causes of the riots, why people looted (and not with the Tory/Labour analysis of them being feral/poor stupid people).
They should be making a stand for commensurate punishment, not the over the top sentences being metered out with great glee.
They should be opposing the collective punishment of families for the sins of one member and the inequality under the law which is becoming more and more plain to see.
Liberals should be resisting the efforts to bring in even more violent policing methods and questioning the widespread deployment of stop and search as an intimidation tactic in poor areas.
Sadly I’ve seen little hint of this. Probably out of fear of being branded ‘weak’ and being marginalised or attacked by a media which is leading the calls for retribution.
We live in dangerous times. Clegg and co have an opportunity to lessen the slide into an ever more authoritarian state, instead they’re at best standing by, at worst complicit.
August 16th, 2011 at 5:46 pm
Broadly agree with this.
I have posted a similar argument myself at more or less the time.
There is something interesting in David cameron and there is something we, as Liberals, can do business with in ther Big Society.
However, a knee jerk back to the right core response to the recent unrest is not good – the PM could do better!
For the record my post:
http://ghmltn.blogspot.com/2011/08/david-camerons-not-had-good-week.html
August 16th, 2011 at 6:39 pm
#Gavin
Thanks for the comment and link.
There is nothing inimical between liberalism and the Big Society, IMHO.
Although I disagree with the knee jerk measures relating to social networks, curfews and use of water cannons et al., I think the ‘community payback’ proposals announced by Clegg today are appropriate as those responsible for the riots will be responsible for cleaning up the mess they caused.
Whilst they don’t seem to be able to take responsibility for the damage they caused – and others are making absurd moral equivalences with the actions of bankers, MPs, casino-style capitalism etc – bringing them face-to-face with their victims might help them understand the human consequences of their actions.
That’s certainly a lot better than the over the top custodial sentences to which Tristan described (however, I believe the more serious offences regarding arson and assault should result in a prison sentence).
#Tristan
“Liberals should be trying to analyse the causes of the riots, why people looted (and not with the Tory/Labour analysis of them being feral/poor stupid people).”
Clegg confirmed plans for an independent review into this very matter though I don’t know if that would satisfy you entirely.
I’m also uneasy about the collective punishments to which you speak as they could be counterproductive in the sense of leading people to commit more crime.
August 16th, 2011 at 9:12 pm
Where’s that Tory geezer who resigned his seat to fight for civil liberties? He’s a bit quiet?
August 17th, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Yep, so are other civil libertarian minded Tories.
August 18th, 2011 at 4:08 pm
“Mr Cameron: please refrain from a legislative flurry as the laws we have are just fine. Your only task must be to ensure that the police don’t just stand and observe criminality as was the case during the riots but actually enforce the law.”
Very much agreed, thank you.
August 23rd, 2011 at 6:07 pm
Let’s be clear about a couple of things, in politics once you are elected you are a representative first and an activist second. And while you are ensconced in office you are a politician first and last.
So what Cameron or any other politician says about their beliefs is neither here nor there and must be viewed purely with the context of the audience they are talking to.
A politician should be judged solely on their actions and their ability to influence situations, not simply on what they say or what anyone believes they heard.
Just consider a selection of desert island discs as an example – a good politician expresses a particular choice for a particular purpose, any personal preference is subordinated to this end and overlaps between the two are a happy coincidence proving the success of their enterprise.
Cameron likes ‘Eton Rifles’ by The Jam. Discuss.