Pledges for progress
Wednesday, March 17, 2010 Ahead of the Institute of Ideas' Pre-Election Summit: The Battle for Politics on Saturday, the IoI has published a manifesto - or what it calls "21 Pledges for Progress" - including a pledge to "allow pubs and clubs the option of permitting smoking".
Unfortunately, however libertarian the IoI may be (and the likes of Claire Fox, who runs it, is one of the most libertarian people I know), their leftist republican leanings scream from the rooftops with pledge number 12: "Abolish the monarchy and the House of Lords in the interests of a fully elected legislature and executive."
Change, perhaps, but progress? Doh!
So while I support many if not most of the pledges, I'm not sure I want to go the whole hog and sign up. Anyway, the full list is HERE. Make up your own mind and let me know what you think.
Details of the Pre-Election Summit: The Battle for Politics can be found HERE. No-one can ever accuse an IoI conference of being dull so whatever your politics I warmly recommend it as an antidote to most political conferences, not to mention the rehearsed spin we hear every week on Question Time and other TV programmes.
Reader Comments (24)
Sorry Simon, whilst I may agree with you on many things I do not agree that you have to be a screaming leftie to be embarrassed and irritated by the British royal family. There are several constitutional monarchies lingering around Europe and Scandinavia, members of some of these families have also managed to show their contempt for their own people in one way or another. Maybe it is time to move on. The worst excesses of the current political class seem to me to come from a desire to emulate the ruling classes of earlier times, whose only qualification was to have privilieged parents.
Heretic, my view is that the monarchy offers Britain more pluses than minuses, whether it be tourism or giving us a national identity. I like having a king or queen as head of state - better that than an elected (or non-elected) president, in my view, not least because it offers continuity and, you could argue, a sense of stability, even though the British monarchy has very little power.
It's not perfect but it seems to work for Britain, so why change it? Capitalism, democracy - they're not perfect either but they're better than any realistic alternative so I say, stick with what we've got.
Don't confuse support for the monarchy with support for every member of the royal family. It's the institution I support, not the individuals within it. Sure, there are some I like better than others, but the whole point of our system is that you can't choose the individual so it's not a popularity contest and is all the better, I think, for that.
PS. The present House of Commons is a disaster. Why would we want a second elected chamber? Bring back heredity peerages, I say (although I know it will never happen). The majority of heredity peers were genuinely independent and could offer our system of government something that the political classes can't. For one thing, they weren't beholden to any party so they didn't have the whips telling them how to vote.
Hereditary peerage is better.
Just look at some of the labour peers antics .
Sheesh !
As for the monarchy possibly the best head of state this nation ever had was Henry VII.
The royal family are also a good fallback if for example our looney parliament really gets out of line.
See the end of Franco's Spain for example.
Dear Simon, Thank you for the curtesy of a reply. We will have to agree to disagree. As far as I am concerned obtaining a position of power and influence by virtue of nothing more than the accident of birth is an anachronism that breeds into its beneficiaries an overwhelming sense of entitlement and none at all of obligation.
At least we can vote MPs out when they pass bad legislation and steal our taxes. The Lords rubberstamps most of the Lower House legislation except where it affects them and they should be abolished.
The Royal Family may attract tourism to London, Windsor, Sandringham etc but they have no function. The Queen signs what she is told to sign even when it means the troops she is leader of are sent to their deaths in needless wars. If she disagreed with sending these young men to their deaths she gave it legal sanction so as any sort of barrier to bad government she is useless.
Scrap the lot and leave it to the House of Commons to make law as they are the only people we as voters can hold accountable.
We have no second chamber in Scotland, Michael, and I would not say we are any better off, even with proportional representation.
Shortly after the smoking ban came into force on 1 July 2007, I read a brief report somewhere (I can't remember where) that the Queen had expressed her sympathy for British smokers. Our present Queen has got her head screwed on better than most of our politicians.
Unfortunately, I don't feel able to say the same about her eldest son and heir.
@Heretic
I have to say it is hard to argue against the fact that our head of state is there by an accident of birth. However as the Queen is apolitical I find it a comfort that my patriotic allegiance is to her rather than Gordon Brown. The same for Labour voters when the Conservatives are in power.
I agree with Simon, I wouldnt like to see the Monarchy go. Its part of what England is and gives a sense of continuity and it was a big mistake getting rid of the hereditary peers.
After all, there's quite a few dopes in government that hold hereditary seats.
At the risk of getting shouted off the page: No one who describes themselves as a libetarian can possibly justify supporting priviliege conferred on the basis of birth alone. If you are prepared to say that this person is worthy of power and influence purely on the basis of who their father was then you must be content to have human beings condemned solely on the basis of who their parents were.
@Heretic
No one wants to shout you off the page. It is just a debate, as I said it is hard to counter your argument about accidents of birth.
The libertarian section of the Conservatives, the Progressive Conservatives out of 400+ members I am in a minority in being a a. staunch monachist and b. a Christian.
That is why we have free speech.
HM the Queen has never interfered in my social life, working life or with my civil liberties - that's good enough for me. Once 'they' get rid of the monarchy, they'll be lining up to take over all the palaces, privileges etc. and the thought of that makes me feel sick. This seems to happen when all monarchies are removed - just look at history. Like Dave A above, I remain a monarchist and a Christian because the alternatives are not very pleasant.
Heretic,
libertarian's are so wet!
Speaking as a life long anarcho-monarchist (a hard one to defend!), I think you are looking at this problem through the wrong end of the telescope!
It's better to dump the MP's and keep the monarch. And here is why - monarchy is a super efficient democracy with regicide as the ulitmate snap election.
The problem we have now is that we have five law making bodies in the UK that are churning out laws on an industrial scale. They can't help themselves because if they are not seen to be doing something then they are voted out. Big Problem! Too many laws! Prisons choc a bloc! So how about saying to MPs: Ok you can have your jobs for life and quess what , your kids can take over when you die.
Less laws! Great perks! A very good insentive to do the job well.
Brilliant! Now they don't have to worry about getting their jobs back and they can get on with the horse trading and thieving like they would under any other political system. But sadly the penalty for upsetting the majority
or upsetting a significant minority, or anyone who cares enough is death - because people have no way of voting you out. So there is more of an insentive not just to please the majority but anyone else that might want to kill you.
But sadly, this would lead to a lot of dead MPs. So cut out all the middle men and just have one monarch on the same contract! Super cheap!! After, this monarch has finished building all their palaces - there will be even more reason to try not to get killed and considerably cheaper for eveyone than having 650 odd MP's horse trading and thieving. You will get some dead monarchs from time to time but it keeps them on their toes!
The problem we face is really I believe due to the poor quality of politician we have now.
Typical career path.
University political group i.e
Socialist
Conservative.
Wimmin'
Blag Blah yada yada.
Party political researcher.
Candidate.
MP.
Our problem.
Their problem no real world experience.
I sometimes think they believe what they read in the MSM.
LOL.
Fredrik Eich, lovely post. "Regicide as the ultimate snap election" excellent, may I please please quote this.
Heretic,
Of course!
Hi Simon
I can't really understand why you could possibly want a hereditary head of state or parliament.
You say there are more pluses than minuses with the monarchy but don't really point to any. Stability isn't provided by a pointless palace and a Crown that empowers our politicians to do almost anything they wish. Our national identity is far more robust and inspiring to be reliant on an out of touch family.
If you don't think our democracy is very good, fair enough. Most republicans would agree, because of course our current democracy is founded on monarchy. The answer isn't to surrender responsibility for our politics by begging the paternalistic protection of nobles and aristocrats, the answer is to build a better and more accountable republican democracy.
As someone else said, republicanism is not a leftish idea. Republic has support from across the political spectrum.
You claim that tourism is one reason to keep them yet without the royal family we wouldn't have to pay there outrageous working wage and we could hand over the estates to the national heritage and bring in more money for the country. People will still visit these sites with no "royal" family, its not like they are there signing autographs and posing for pictures.
The other argument I hate is the charity; yes they do alot for charity.... great so do a lot of over people... maybe we should put bill gates there since he does more for charity?
I personally hate that we live one step down from a dictatorship.
Graham,
Over the last hundred years more and more people are commiting crime.
See here:
Indictable Offences Known to the Police (per thousand of population) in England &Wales 1900-1997.
Is this because people are more evil now or is it because we have more laws?
If it is not that people are more evil and it is because of big government and too many laws - see my last post!
@Fredrik
Or is it because the population has increased
Or is it because the law has had to change
Or is it because policing has gotten better
... I could go on but I have a lecture
Outspoken,
Or is it because the population has increased?
No because the crimes are per thousand!
Or is it because the law has had to change?
Partly because bad laws are needed to fill loopholes in bad laws.
See the last 50 years war on drugs! Despite the fact that what people do to their own bodies is their business and not the business of the state. We still insist on filling prisons by democratic demand! Tyranny of the majority! Mind you, I am still waiting for someone to explain to me why dueling is illegal!
Or is it because policing has gotten better?
Probably that too but lets face it with 5 law making bodies churning out laws - you will need a lot of better police! And council busy bodies!
Liz has power - she could potentially choose the next Prime Minister in the event of a hung Parliament and there's precedent for this within living memory. There is no reasonable argument for monarchy - if you were creating a system of government from nothing now would you in all reason create a hereditary unelected bloodline? It is the institution not the individuals that count - they are the patsies, the smoke and mirrors that an unaccountable institution and those within it hide behind. The people at the centre have been dragged in from obscure far reaches of Europe in order to keep the thing going, to suit the suits as they are now. No. It's corrupt, oppressive, stifling to ambition and aspiration, it's a poison, clogging up the works of public life and government, giving us a rotten core to our unwritten morass mess constitution. Long past time for it to go.
Fredrik Eich, I am still enjoying the odd chuckle over the regicide remark.
Duelling is illegal because it resulted in the untimely deaths of an unacceptable number of the scions of the ruling classes, thus limiting their ability to rule by right of birth.
Heretic,
all the more reason to legalize Dueling! Then!!!