There was a time, a few centuries ago when a Tory was for God, King and Country. Today the Conservative Party is usually called the Tory Party on the grounds that Tory is the Irish word for thief. That would be all that you need to know about them if they were not the second largest party in England and might get into power again. People will vote for them on the grounds that the Labour Party is seriously awful and that the Tories cannot be any worse. They will then find that they are wrong again. My loathing of them came from the heart but it was not well reasoned. Sean Gabb, England's leading libertarian gives reason for disgust.
Sometimes he thinks the leaders might be
getting better but when he refers to them as the
he is spot on. They will pretend to care about conservative causes but never do
anything for them once in power.
PS Now, at the Conservative Party Conference 2015 Theresa May made her bid for power, to become England's next prime minister. She took a position on Third World aliens that will not please Marxists or Zionist crazies. She might mean it. She might do something about them. One hopes - again.
Jews Destroying Tory Party
The party has two chairmen: Lord Feldman and Grant Shapps, Jews both. Neither are Tories. Both are politicians who stand against the average Conservative voter. When ordinary Tories opposed gay marriage and membership of the European Union, Lord Feldman was widely reported to have called them “swivel-eyed loons.” His work in the party seems to involve funding its elite, not safeguarding its traditions. Antonio Gramsci, the leading communist said infiltrate from the top down. They are two of The Enemy Within doing it.
Margaret Thatcher Was Very Bad for England Says Sean Gabb
Authoritarian? Yes. Spendthrift? She didn't get a grip of government waste. Let the Hard Left into government? Yes. Good for the working man? No.
Time to Stop Being Beastly to the Tories? [ Hint: NO! ]
Last month, just before Christmas, I had a drink with the director of a moderately important policy institute. After a few comments about the dreadfulness of Tony Blair and his government, we fell to discussing the Conservative Party. We were both impressed with Iain Duncan Smith's performance as Leader, and felt cautiously optimistic about the coming year. The Conservatives, we agreed, were not yet back in town, but they were fast approaching the suburbs.
It is possible today, I think, to be less cautiously optimistic. The Conservative Party does seem to be back. It is defending traditional liberties like trial by jury against Labour attacks. It is abandoning its old obsession with what are falsely called "family values". It has proposed a workable replacement for the shadowy, discredited remnant that Labour has made of the House of Lords. It is making a radical critique of Labour's handling of health and transport; and in taking up the case of Rose Addis, it has found a way of simultaneously attacking almost every Labour vice - its incompetence, its arrogance, its dishonesty, its bullying, its siding with public sector workers against those who have to use their services, its general lack of human decency. The opinion polls are still showing the usual Labour lead, but I do not think they will do so for much longer.
Of course, this is how Conservative oppositions generally behave. They listen to the people, take up and champion their concerns, and sound refreshingly normal. Then they win an election and straightaway forget everything they claim to have learnt in opposition. I have written at some length elsewhere about the Quisling Right—those people who look and sound like conservatives, but who make sure never to threaten the anti-conservative forces that actually run the country—and will not repeat myself here. [ See Free Life Commentary , issue 50 ] But it may be that the only real difference between the Hague and Duncan Smith leaderships is the fluency and coordination of the lies.
All being said, there may be room for hope. Very likely, the Conservatives are back to their old game of implying more than they promise and of promising more than they intend to deliver. The brave talk now of civil liberties will not be remembered when they are back in office, and carrying forward the abolitions of due process began when they were last in office and continued under Labour. The talk of reducing the financial power of the State will also mean little once they have the means of trying to do it: any tax cuts they make will be balanced by increases elsewhere—so that, however more convenient they make it, the tax burden will be simply rearranged. As for Multiculturalism and Political Correctness, there is not even a promise here. But this does not necessarily make the Conservatives a hopeless cause. Every so often in the past century, the Conservative Party has found itself with a core agenda—a list of things that must be done if conservative politics and even the Conservative Party are to remain possible in this country. The agenda may not have been chosen by the Conservative Party: more often than not, it has been imposed by external pressures. But, once adopted, it defines and justifies the Conservative claim to be in power. This gives both advantages and disadvantages. On the one hand, it silences the Quisling Right in all matters touching on the core agenda. It supplies a purpose and commitment that will let a government walk through crises that would uppo otherwise destabilise it. On the other hand, any essential compromise will almost guarantee collapse.
We can see this with the Conservatives between about 1975 and 1990. In opposition, they set up a cry about "elective dictatorship" and the growth of a socialist bureaucracy. In government, the put the Common Law though a legislative shredding machine and funded the rise of political correctness. They also variously lied and sleepwalked themselves three quarters into a European superstate. But these broken promises—or "aspirations"—were not part of their core agenda. That was about reforming economic management. They committed themselves to stopping the rise of taxes and spending of the past twenty years, to ending inflation, to forcing market discipline on the state sector, to curbing the power of the trade unions, to providing a climate in which private enterprise could begin to flourish again. And that is what they delivered without much compromise. Indeed, for all their dithering and betrayal in other areas, they faced their two greatest trials of nerve within the core agenda without flinching.
In 1981, the country was at the bottom of its deepest recession in fifty years. It seemed for the dissidents in the Thatcher Cabinet plain common sense to relax monetary policy. However, the medium term financial strategy came before apparent convenience. In the budget of that year, the Government cut borrowing and raised taxes. To do anything else would have stripped it of the intellectual legitimacy that, while intangible, was essential to its survival in office. Again, in 1984, there was almost certainly a compromise possible with the striking coal miners. But the new union laws had to be made to work—and made to work they were, regardless of social cost.
Whether or not they want it, the Conservatives now have another core agenda. This is getting the country out of the European Union. If the next Conservative Government delivers on this, it can count on a critical mass of solid and even impassioned support. If it fails to deliver, it will find that there are perhaps two dozen Conservative Members of Parliament and thousands of activists who define themselves as Eurosceptics first and as Conservatives a poor second. These will unhesitatingly split the Party and destroy the Government. And there are several million Conservative voters who will do nothing spectacular—until the next big day when their support is needed, and they sit out the day at home.
An intelligent Conservative leadership must be aware of this fact. What made the Conservatives under William Hague so worthless for Eurosceptics was that he did not seem to be aware of it. There is every chance that, had he won the 2001 election, he would have run off to Brussels and come back with a surrender on all essential matters—and then looked on astonished as his Government fell apart within weeks. I may be wrong, but I feel that Mr Duncan Smith does know his core agenda.
And there are many reasons to suppose that withdrawal would be very easy to sell to the electorate. Many pessimists refer to the 1975 referendum, when a two thirds majority for leaving was quickly turned into a two thirds majority for staying in. But circumstances are now greatly altered. British membership in the 1970s rested on four solid foundations. First, the Establishment was broadly in favour of membership. Second, it did seem there would be advantages from membership. Germany was still the "economic miracle" of Europe; France had recovered from its near-collapse of the 1950s; and even Italy was growing strongly. At the same time, the British economy was at best stagnant. It was easy to argue that joining would force reforms that could not otherwise be carried through. Third, the loss of sovereignty from signing the Treaty of Rome was more theoretical than actual. Whatever the words said on paper, they gave the central institutions in Brussels no practical control. Indeed, in the early 1980s, Britain and France followed exactly opposite economic policies without interference from the European Commission. Edward Heath may have signed a whole book of blank cheques in 1972, but very few of them were cashed in the next fifteen years, and never for amounts that most people thought much about. Fourth, and following form the above, public opinion was never more than languidly hostile to membership. A few lies and promises were enough to turn it round for the referendum.
Today, all four of these supports has given or is giving way. The Establishment is divided over continued membership. Second, there are no economic benefits. Whatever complaints a libertarian can make, the British economy has, by European standards, performed impressively well for many years. The main Euroland economies show every chance of settling into permafrost recession. So far as the economics are concerned, we are chained to a corpse dripping with germs that might easily infect us. As for the loss of sovereignty, we are no longer talking about giving up Commonwealth preference or banning prawn cocktail crisps, but about the Euro, Europol, the Corpus Juris, the Rapid Reaction Force, and the seizure of our private pension funds to save the Italian and German welfare states from bankruptcy. For these reasons—and because of an autonomous process of thought—public opinion is already half prepared to support withdrawal. An intelligent Conservative Prime Minister would have far less opposition to this than Margaret Thatcher had to the Medium Term Financial Strategy.
Just imagine. Mr Duncan Smith sets out for Brussels. He really want this country to stay in Europe, he might say reassuringly at his preparatory news conference. All we want of Europe, he adds, is acceptance that we shall never join the Euro, control over British agricultural policy, and the right to ignore all European Union laws and regulations that have not been fully debated and approved by our own democratically elected House of Commons. I can think of no convincing reply to something so eminently reasonable. Of course, the other European heads of government would think of none either. They belong to Establishments that have faced no serious opposition to their European policy, and which never have understood, nor will understand, the nature and depth of British hostility to being in a United States of Europe. Mr Duncan Smith could come home with a long, sad face, and ee could be out within six months of his taking office.
Some of my friends insist that Mr Duncan Smith is neither bright nor charming—and therefore never likely to win an election or doing anything worthwhile if he does win. These qualities may justly describe him, but they do not necessarily condemn. It takes no great intellectual skills to know what needs to be done about Europe, or how to do it. As for charm, William Hague had plenty of that, and look where it got him. It may be that Mr Duncan Smith's lack of superficial grace is at the moment a virtue. By not trying to compete on the Prime Minister's own ground, he is providing a clear and refreshing alternative.
Look at Mr Blair. He is not, I think, a very bad man. On a scale of evil that includes monsters like Stalin, Hitler and Pol Pot, he does not even register. But he craves adulation and has not the strength of character needed to do without it when the public interest requires. For nearly the past five years, he has sprayed us and the world with a continual stream of childish and often contradictory platitudes. Because he is weak, he is dishonest. Because he is dishonest, his actions have too often produced consequences the opposite of what he may genuinely have desired. These consequences have ranged from bringing the country into ridicule and disrepute, to damaging the Constitution, to risking the lives of our servicemen in pointless and therefore immoral wars, and frequently to the massacre of foreign civilians. Give me the choice between a block of wood and someone whose behaviour and even looks remind me of a faded matinee idol, and I know which I would have.
I say again, I may be wrong. Perhaps the new Conservative leadership is just waiting to turn as rotten as the last, and that to support it is the same waste of time and effort. Certainly, those of us who are running our own campaigns on the European issue should not give them up or put ourselves under Conservative direction. But, looking at the past few weeks of opposition, I do suspect the time may have come to stop being beastly to the Tories.
UNQUOTE from Time to Stop Being Beastly to the Tories? by Sean Gabb 28th January 2002
Tory Rich List
Being rich and a Tory beats being poor.
Black Thief Kicked Out Of Legal Profession [ 20 June 2012 ]
The former Tory politician was last May jailed for 12 months after cheating the public purse out of £11,277 with bogus claims for travel costs. He now has no income and has been struggling to find work after ‘losing his good name’, the Bar Standards Board heard. The 59-year-old had retained his status as a barrister despite not having practiced since he became a member of the House of Lords. Disbarring him for ‘conduct discreditable to a barrister’, Judge Nicholas Riddell said the regulator ‘requires complete honesty and the greatest integrity as regards all members of the bar.’......
Taylor was convicted of six counts of false accounting following a trial at Southwark Crown Court last May.
The Tories ran him for Parliament to make it look as though they like blacks but the good people of Cheltenham decided they could get along without him. That is why the Tories made him a Lord. NB that Tory is the Irish word for thief.
The monkey ancestry shows through.
Osborne Bribing 27 Million Voters [ 10 March 2015 ]
GEORGE OSBORNE will use his budget to offer an income tax giveaway for 27m voters and a “Google tax” crackdown against multinationals that avoid tax in Britain.
The Tories and Liberal Democrats are finalising a deal that would raise the level at which people start paying income tax “towards £11,000” a year from April, in a bid to win over workers on modest incomes.
The move, a centrepiece of the budget on March 18, is designed to put between £160 and £200 in voters’ pockets ahead of the general election, boosting the chances of both coalition parties as the formal campaign kicks off.
27 million votes translate into a useful majority. Of course not many people will be fool enough to be bought by that sort of money. It is another case of rob Peter to pay Paul. Labour bribes are much better; council houses, dole, free medicine et cetera but they are only for Third World aliens. Their Vote Rigging makes them much more effective.
Cameron's Candidate Is A Pakistani Racist Inciting Crime To Win Votes [ 22 March 2015 ]
A key Tory Election candidate was suspended last night after plotting with far-Right extremists to stir up racial hatred in a cynical bid to win votes. Afzal Amin hatched a scheme to persuade the English Defence League to announce an inflammatory march against a new £18million ‘mega-mosque’. But – as he revealed in secretly filmed footage obtained by The Mail on Sunday – the plan was that the demonstration would never actually go ahead.
And when the phoney [ sic ] rally was called off, the fiercely ambitious Amin, a Muslim, intended to take credit for defusing the situation – winning over voters, and police, in the marginal seat of Dudley North.
Amin has a decent background, a captain in the British Army, Afghanistan, Iraq etc. but he reverted to type. Recall that Cameron wants England Run By A Pakistani also that Cameron Alleges He Is Not An Enemy Of England. Believe him if you want.
PS You might feel inclined to ask Captain Amin what the score is by emailing firstname.lastname@example.org.
PPS He was part of Muslim Success On Show At Harrow Mosque with others who haven't been caught yet.
PPPS Yahoo News has more and better details.
Is making her bid to become England's next prime minister. She could be a good one. The Telegraph aka The QUislinggraph has been abusing her, a point in her favour.
Boris Johnson Says London Would Fall Like Sparta Without Immigration [ 29 October 2015 ]
Boris Johnson is a liar, fool or ignoramus. Given that he went to Eton and Balliol where he read Classics I am settling for the idea that he is a rogue with an agenda, one who has forgotten most of what he ever knew about Greece.
PS This article was in The Quislinggraph aka The Telegraph but disappeared after someone pointed out in detail that A Monkey In Silk Is A Monkey No Less.
Tories Want Immigration [ 2 December 2015 ]
It is seems that they allege that it is good for the economy. They want cheap nannies, cheap butlers, cheap chauffeurs, cheap everything while honest Working Men are paid a pittance on the dole to do nothing. Even the economic perspective is beyond stupidity. The Tories are bringing Ethnic Fouling To England while Angela Merkel, Hollande, Obama et al do it to the rest of Western Civilization. It is Genocide; it is Treason.
Tories Block Election Fraud Investigation [ 29 May 2016 ]
Business as usual. Corruption as usual albeit a twelvemonth should be enough to sort out election expense fraud.
PS There are 29 Expense Investigations Going On
Vote Labour - After What The Tories Did To Us? [ 19 July 2016 ]
Perhaps not. Hasn't Labour betrayed us even more?
Illegal Immigration? Labour loves it.
European Union? Heath, a Marxist Paedophile got us in by Treason At Maastricht. Labour tried to keep us there.
Tories Inflicting 20 Thousand More Third World Chancers From Syria On Us [ 22 July 2016 ]
Why are Syrians refugees? One reason is Cameron attacked Syria, allegedly protecting nice Arabs from the naughty ones. He caused the problem. Having the Russians attacking their naughty ones doesn't help. Their naughties are Cameron's nice ones and vice versa. Can he tell the difference? Does he care? No. He is a tool being used by the Puppet Masters to bully Arabs generally but we get saddled with Cameron's victims. He does care not but he pretends that importing them is an act of virtue.
Can this possibly be true? The Main Stream Media have said nothing. Go to Syrian Vulnerable Person Resettlement Programme or Third Country Resettlement ex Wiki to know we are being betrayed again.
Margaret Thatcher Was Very Bad for England Says Sean Gabb [ 2 September 2016 ]
When she died in April 2013, the mainstream assumption was that Margaret Thatcher had been something like the kind of person Donald Trump is hoped to be. She had humbled the left. She had brought about fundamental reforms in economic policy. She had made her country strong again and respected in the outer world. This being the assumption, conservatives went into ostentatious mourning, and the leftists rejoiced.
I am aware that one of her personal friends is in this room, and I will say now, for the avoidance of the slightest doubt, that I will speak no ill of her personal character, which appears to have been singularly plain and honest for a British politician. I do not, even so, share the assumption that was general at the time of her death. I will, in the time allowed me, give my settled opinion, which is that, in no sense, was Margaret Thatcher a conservative – let alone a libertarian – hero. Rather, she was, in every sense, the midwife of the leftist police state that is modern Britain.
I begin with her economic policies. When she came to power in 1979, the British Government was running a large budget deficit. This debt was routinely monetised, and the country had known double digit inflation for much of the previous decade. The trade union movement was very strong. It used its strength to demand regular cost of living wage increases for its members, regardless of local circumstances. It also resisted structural changes in manufacturing industry without which wage increases in real terms could not be sustained. Mrs Thatcher’s solution to these problems was disastrous.
You end that kind of inflation by cutting government spending. You shut down a few ministries, and apply real cuts to the salaries of the state employees who remain. She did neither of these things. Instead, she allowed and encouraged the Chancellor of the Exchequer to raise interest rates to the point where much manufacturing industry found it impossible to borrow. A further effect was a rise in sterling on the foreign exchanges that made our exports uncompetitive. Between 1980 and 1983, about a quarter of British industry disappeared. Unemployment rose past three million, and, bearing in mind all the statistical tricks to hide the true rise, may have gone far beyond that. This unemployment did not come substantially down until the middle of the 1990s, and that fall was largely because many of the long-term unemployed were ageing, and could be moved from unemployment benefit onto their old age pensions.
The effect was to destroy the industrial working class as it had emerged in the nineteenth century. I will try not to romanticise these people. They elected and gave firm support to trade union leaders who resisted all attempts at modernisation, and who were often sympathetic to, or even in the pay of, a hostile foreign power. At the same time, the working classes were our people, and virtually the whole cost of ending the inflation was put on them. The old system of skilled and semi-skilled industrial labour had given dignity to millions of working class people, and both the financial security and general autonomy that allowed them full exercise of the freedoms associated with liberal democracy. At a stroke, they were reduced to the clients of a mean and capricious welfare system, or pushed into menial jobs without security. There was a corresponding rise in divorce, illegitimacy, various kinds of substance abuse, and in political apathy, and in superstition, and in a tendency to witch-hunting hysteria against whoever was described in the media as the monster of the day. This should not have been surprising. It is what always happens when people find that the bottom has dropped out of their world – especially when they know that the authorities have, more or less deliberately, knocked the bottom out of their world.
I appreciate that, in our movement, talk of economic equality is not popular. But, given that we are where we are, and that most actually existing élites owe their positions to less than natural merit, there is a case for avoiding policies that throw large masses of our people into pauperism. Certainly, I spent the first decades of my life in a country where inequality was diminishing, and have spent the rest in a country where it has grown increasingly obvious and accepted. I, for one, know which I preferred.
Who were the beneficiaries of these policies? Not, I tell you, the traditional entrepreneurial class. If the headline rates of income tax were cut – the standard rate from 35% to 25%, the top rates from 98% and 83% to 40% – the overall burden of tax as a percentage of gross domestic product was about the same when Margaret Thatcher left office in November 1990 as when she came in. Hardly anyone had paid the old top rates. A mix of inflation and slower rising thresholds brought many more into the new top rate. If the more obvious regulations were abolished – price controls, for example, and exchange controls – there was a steady growth of other regulations. Tax collection became increasingly rapacious and impenetrable. Health and safety laws became a serious check on business, without making people noticeably more safe or healthy at work. There was an unchecked growth of money laundering laws and, toward the end of the 1980s, of environmental protection laws.
The beneficiaries were workers of all kinds in the state sector, and workers in the service sector – above all those who worked in the City of London after the financial institutions had been transformed into globalised casinos. The problem with the service sector is that, generally speaking, it gives secure and well-paid employment to small minorities at the top. Everyone else is decidedly menial and insecure. I touch again on my point about the undesirability of economic inequality.
But I turn to the state sector. At any time, it would have been unjust to spare this from the costs of ending an evil mostly thrown up by its own growth. But the 1980s were not any time. Mrs Thatcher was always keen on identifying enemies and marking them for destruction. There is a case for this in principle. Her problem was that she consistently identified the wrong enemies. Near the top of her demonology was a group of men who had known the unemployment of the 1930s, and perhaps fought on the Communist side in the Spanish Civil War, and who thought it would be a fine thing if the supermarkets could be nationalised. These were a nuisance, especially when they also happened to be trade union leaders. But, if a nuisance, they were not an existential threat. There was another group – a much younger and more diverse group – who, because they wore suits and drank mineral water, she regarded as barely a nuisance, but who were an existential threat.
Call these people what you like – the totalitarian humanists, the cultural Marxists, the New Left, the neo-puritans, the Enemy Class: there is still no agreed name for them, though we all recognise them when we see them. As with their name, their fundamental nature remains controversial. Are they disciples of Antonio Gramsci and the Frankfurt School? These are the people they read at university, and whose terminology they use. Or are they really the latest manifestation of Anglo-American puritanism? On the one hand, Gramsci and Marcuse had no interest in regulating sex and sexuality, and would have scratched their heads at the War on Smoking. On the other, the people I am discussing have no particular belief in God. There is room for continuing debate on these people. One thing, however, is clear. During the 1980s, they were moving upward in the state sector and in education and all the other sectors funded by the State, and they were growing to dominance in the media. They had no interest in controlling the price of bread, and cared nothing about the white working class. What they wanted was to get inside our heads and to remake us as a people in their own lunatic and evil image. They would do this in the first instance by their control of education and the media. If allowed, they would do it by direct control of the State.
What else is clear is that Mrs Thatcher and her ministers did absolutely nothing to slow their colonisation of the state sector and its associated bodies.
Indeed, they did worse. By 1979, if not so fervently as the Thatcherites, I accept that the trade unions were out of control. The Thatcherite answer, however, was to place the union movement in a legal straitjacket where the older style of trade union official was unable to operate. In consequence, the unions were taken over by university graduates who knew how to make the new system work in their own interests – university graduates, I hardly need add, whose nature and opinions I have already mentioned. Too concerned with her war against Arthur Scargill and his friends – a war in which the traditional working class was collateral damage – she did all but roll out the red carpet for those who later became the friends of Tony Blair and Peter Mandelson.
Foreigners often wonder how the revolutionary changes made after 1997 by Tony Blair could have been so swift and seemingly irreversible in a country so conservative as England. My answer takes me into a brief digression on the nature of the English Constitution.
For Americans in particular, a constitution is a set of words on paper. Matters of right and wrong in government policy are discussed in terms of how it is legitimised by the explicit wording of a document written in the eighteenth century. This is for me a most alien style of argument, and that is why I find conversation with American conservatives and even libertarians often so tiresome. Properly seen, the constitution of a county emerges from the settled nature of its people. Replace the people, and, obviously, a new constitution will emerge. Over time, the concerns of even a settled people will change in line with new circumstances, and so the constitution will change.
Within this loose framework, radical or ill-considered breaks from what emerged in the past will be prevented, or perhaps slowed, by fixed constitutional rules. This, I grant, justifies much American discussion of exactly what was settled in the 1780s. At the same time, a written constitution is always open to reinterpretation. For example, the first and second sections of the American Bill of Rights appear at present to hang on who nominates the next Judge in the Supreme Court. In America, it is less important who makes the rules than who interprets them.
England has no written constitution. The long stability of our institutions rested instead on a sense of tradition, or an imagined sense of continuity with the distant past. If, in 1980, you had asked the average Englishman to justify trial by jury, his answer might have been that it was a useful check on political justice, and something about the unwisdom of allowing case-hardened judges sitting alone to decide matters of disputed fact. More likely, the justification would have been that trial by jury had existed since at least the thirteenth century – which effectively meant it had existed forever – and that abolishing it would therefore be as unwelcome and outrageous as trying to metricate the clock and the calendar. I suspect this is also the case in America. Once you get behind the verbiage about what such and such a clause of the Constitution says and what it means, you pass to an instinctive belief in not changing what has been long settled. The main difference between our countries is that we avoid the verbiage – and we maintained a free constitution, I will add, for about twice as long as America has existed.
Now the body of customary rules and assumptions and expectations that make – or made – up the English Constitution has no hold on the imagination as a set of individual parts, but as an undifferentiated mass. Everything is connected to everything else, and everything supports everything else. Trial by jury has always existed. So has the English system of weights and measures. So has the wearing of horsehair wigs in court, together with names like “bailiff” and “sheriff” and “plaintiff.” Abolish and make radical changes to any one, and the others are weakened. Make sufficiently radical changes in a short enough time, even to supposedly incidental parts of the constitution, and the fundamental parts may come to be seen as so much clutter from the past, to be cleared away in the supposed interest of fairness of efficiency. The Tory case against constitutional reform in the early nineteenth century can be expressed in one sentence by Lord Eldon: “Touch one atom, and the whole is lost.”
Before about the 1960s, however, constitutional change in Britain was either organic, in the sense that new meanings were, by unspoken consent, attached to ancient forms, or carried through with a decent regard for the unamended remainder. The genius of the Victorian reformers was that they made radical changes to the substance of the Constitution without touching the surface forms; and even the Judicature Acts of the 1870s, which were probably their most fundamental break with the past, were soon absorbed into the perception of an unchanged structure. By 1901, only legal scholars or older lawyers were aware that the courts had ever worked differently.
The Thatcher Government made a century of changes in eleven years. These were carried through with an almost gloating disregard for the proprieties, and were generally to enhance the power of the State. We were given pre-publication censorship for the first time in three hundred years, and a real War on Drugs, and ex-post facto criminal laws, and punishment without conviction or trial, and reversals of the burden of proof in criminal cases. The ancient right to peremptory challenge of jurors was abolished, together with the ancient right of an inquest jury to find a general verdict. The rights to political speech and association were curbed. The agreed rule that police officers were civilians employed and given uniforms to do what everyone else had the right to do was swept aside for the creation of an increasingly armed pro-State militia.
And, talking of militias, it was the Thatcher Government that disarmed us. The Firearms Acts 1920 and 1968 only regulated the right to keep and bear arms. So long as you knew how to fill out the right forms, and what public admissions to avoid, you could have as many guns and as much ammunition as you wanted. The Firearms Act 1988 was our first substantive step to victim disarmament.
I passed my twenties denouncing these changes. I denounced them as bad in themselves, and bad so far as they weakened the cohesion of our ancient constitution. I said they formed precedents for an even more dictatorial future government. I was called a fool and told that the changes were needed to maintain firm and efficient government. Or I was referred to the words of the neo-Marxist Martin Jacques about “a free market in a strong state.” No one paid attention to my reply that there was no free market, and that government was not made observably more efficient.
The volume and speed of change intensified after Mrs Thatcher resigned in 1990, and the Major Government was probably our most authoritarian since the 1680s. In 1997, the Blair Government came in. It found the entire Constitution already broken apart. No work of undermining was needed. This was a government predominantly of the people I have mentioned. It was the work of only three years to clear away the broken mass of our Constitution and create the new order under which we now find ourselves.
In 2001, I had lunch with an old university friend. He complained that the Blair Government was the nearest thing England had ever seen to a Jacobin revolution. I disagreed then, and I disagree now. The Blair Government was Napoleon, creating a new order to replace what had already been destroyed. The Jacobins had been the Thatcher and Major Governments. They had destroyed the ancient constitution. They were the ones who had broken what Walter Bagehot called “the cake of custom.” Every precedent of importance had been set by the Thatcher Government.
When I came out as a libertarian in 1977, I thought it reasonable to support the Conservative Party led by Margaret Thatcher. I joined the Party. I took time off my A-Level revision to campaign in the 1979 general election. I hailed the Conservative victory as a new dawn for English liberty. After much head-scratching over the next three years, I had a fresh burst of enthusiasm when the Falklands War began. I spent that war jumping up and down with a Union Flag in each hand. I believed Mrs Thatcher’s libertarian and conservative rhetoric. I was not alone. The millions who voted Conservative in 1979, 1983 and 1987 believed that the country was being saved. I was earlier than most in my disillusion, though not so early as I now feel I should have been. I also took the trouble to write it down at the time. But it is now thirty seven years since Mrs Thatcher became our Prime Minister. That is long enough to see her in perspective. She was no champion of liberty. She was no Ron Paul. Assuming he is what I am assured he is, she was no Donald Trump. She pushed through – or, on the most charitable estimate, she unwittingly fronted – the transformation of our wonderful and beloved England into a sinister foreign country.
At the beginning of my speech, I mentioned her foreign policy. That, however, would be another speech in itself. It is enough to say that, by the time she left office, she had done what every previous British Government since 1945 had carefully tried to avoid. She turned us into an American satrapy. If, before then, it had required American consent, hardly one bullet left the gun of a British soldier by 1990 but on American orders. What she called making Britain strong in the world amounted to nothing more than making us the more efficient servant of a foreign power – and, I would add, a foreign power hostile to our true interests as a nation.
Oh, and no mention of the European Union either – something else she did much to promote, before and after she became Prime Minister.
And so I do not admire Margaret Thatcher. She competes with Tony Blair for the status of our worst peacetime Prime Minister in the century since 1914. For the reasons I have explained, she may have been worse than Tony Blair. I ask you to look through what she promised and then claimed to have delivered. Look through the blast of hot air that attended her death three years ago. Look at what she did. By their fruits ye shall know them, said Christ. She was a corrupt tree bringing forth evil fruit, the bitter taste of which may never leave our mouths.
Tory MP Claimed Driving Expenses In England While He Was In Australia [ 12 December 2016 ]
Another Tory, another thief. To be fair, Tory is the Irish word for thief.