The Conservative party has taken a beating, and rightly so. There are signs it is moving towards its centrist dad comfort zone: mere conservatism. But I am sticking with it.
Completely agree that our problems are not caused by free markets, individual liberty, limited government, low taxes, low spending, fiscal surpluses and sound money. You have a better memory and background that we have not had those since 1914.
The conservatives gave not stood for liberty and free markets in a long time. You might have more insider info on how it is doing to work but I can't see it? Shall we list a few policies: lockdowns, vaccine mandates, banning smoking, net zero mandates, sugar tax, etc.
So I find it very hard to reconcile your note with the reality as I see it day to day and backed by empirical evidence per examples above. Also pursuing power in a spirit of ruthless expediency surely is problematic?
Curious how are the conservatives the natural party of government when they don't respect and value freedom, limited government etc.
In regards to practical politics, yes both first part the post and proportional representation have flaws. In current party politics one can only vote for a basket of policies rather than individual policies and this distorts the real mandate that people can give. At least I feel like this. Much better when you can make individual decisions daily by how you spend. Government can't ever make the best decision for everyone. Also we forget that the only purpose of government is protecting your life, liberty and property from the only authority that we can delegate.
Finally, surely Reform don't take the credit for wiping out the Conservatives from parliament. Isn't that the doing of conservative MPs themselves who were in the wrong and evidenced for by you leading or contributing to numerous rebellions?
Well yes, if what people keep doing is staying disengaged.
I’ll write about the consequence of the collapse of political party membership another time.
What Reform are illustrating is the impossibility of creating a useful new party. If they triple their MPs next time, they will still be irrelevant. And 10 years will have passed before they have another go.
Of course the FPTP system yields highly unstable outcomes, in which Reform might triple their MPs or - with a bit more growth - might end up with hundreds all at once. It yields very sharp tipping points like that.
Look forward to reading more on consequences of political membership.
As a free market libertarian, I'm sure you value the benefits that competition brings to consumer outcomes. As it relates to political parties per your post wouldn't we all benefit from more choices? Also given the premise and practically of our current political landscape, I hope you will agree that it's no fun having to pick from two bad options?
Finally as challenging as it might be, I'm hesitant to be so definitive in my judgement to say it is impossible for any party to make a difference.
A further thought on why a large number of people appear disengaged.
It could be that they can't see how they can influence the situation. The political process gives an option (tends to be picking the best of two bad options) once every few years with little ability to influence anything in between.
Further, per your post on what MPs do, MPs can't scrutinise the breath of legislation well enough and the prevalence whipped votes which diminishes the perception of proper, independent representation of constituents.
As you've said before (and I agree), we have to much government, too much politics and not enough freedom for people to make their own determinations.
So some thoughts to consider if we want more engagement, noting that for some politicians and people in positions of authority, a lack of engagement may work very well.
Whilst I total agree with your sentiments Steve and applaud both your pragmatism and ‘glass half full’ attitude I can’t help thinking that we cannot attain the holy trinity of sound money, small government and balanced budgets without going through our very own Weimar Republic moment as we are perilously close to if not beyond the point where we are in a debt trap. If we are then having an attitude of realistic optimism exemplified by Vice Admiral Stockdale and maybe some gold would be handy!
Steve, you say that PR is a terrible idea, firstly because it does not create a government based on a single manifesto ( in theory but as we experience now and over at least the last 14 years not in practice) and secondly because it focusses disproportionately (haha) on the creation of a ranked candidate list.
But one does not need such a list. Aggregate national votes determine proportionately the number of MPs per party. And then the ranking of party candidates is determined by the percentage of votes each candidate achieves (of the total votes actually cast) in their constituency.
This does not guarantee one MP per constituency - there may be a modest number of constituencies with two or no MPs - but it does encourage a high turnout which minimises that process weakness.
It also encourages much more disciplined manifesto promises and also encourages pre-election discussions between the parties as to what certain coalitions would “promise”.
I could say more about Prime Minister choice and about by elections but I’ll leave it at that to avoid too long a post.
Reform has a small presence but it is new. The Labour party didn't exist 125 years ago. After it was founded, it took 22 years for it to win enough seats to attempt to form a government.
The Conservative Party now has an *extremely* serious 'boy who cried wolf' problem. It has repeatedly stood on manifesto commitments to significantly reduce immigration which it has not simply failed to achieve, but has appeared to enthusiastically gallop away from in the opposite direction.
I don't think the brand damage can ever be repaired.
The Conservatives clearly suffer from 14 years of aimless government, admittedly hampered by Covid and Ukraine but with no memorable “Conservative” achievements, best exemplified by Sunak’s crazy Manchester conference focussing on a new name for A levels, a 60 year transitional smoking ban and an abandonment of the Manchester leg of HS2.
You could not make it up and now that they have lost their leader, two thirds of their MPs and lots of their experienced brain power they have dug themselves into a deep hole.
With a strong Conservative government and a reasonable financial performance, the 2024 election challenge for a policy-void Labour party would have been considerable. They succeeded but just look at how well the other opposition Liberal Water Sports party did with just one uncosted policy on the NHS and social care.
As things stand I can see why Reform has a fair chance of precluding a single party majority government in 2029.
Thanks for the post Steve.
Completely agree that our problems are not caused by free markets, individual liberty, limited government, low taxes, low spending, fiscal surpluses and sound money. You have a better memory and background that we have not had those since 1914.
The conservatives gave not stood for liberty and free markets in a long time. You might have more insider info on how it is doing to work but I can't see it? Shall we list a few policies: lockdowns, vaccine mandates, banning smoking, net zero mandates, sugar tax, etc.
So I find it very hard to reconcile your note with the reality as I see it day to day and backed by empirical evidence per examples above. Also pursuing power in a spirit of ruthless expediency surely is problematic?
Curious how are the conservatives the natural party of government when they don't respect and value freedom, limited government etc.
In regards to practical politics, yes both first part the post and proportional representation have flaws. In current party politics one can only vote for a basket of policies rather than individual policies and this distorts the real mandate that people can give. At least I feel like this. Much better when you can make individual decisions daily by how you spend. Government can't ever make the best decision for everyone. Also we forget that the only purpose of government is protecting your life, liberty and property from the only authority that we can delegate.
Finally, surely Reform don't take the credit for wiping out the Conservatives from parliament. Isn't that the doing of conservative MPs themselves who were in the wrong and evidenced for by you leading or contributing to numerous rebellions?
Well, yes. As I said in the post, the party is often depressing and useless. But sometimes it pulls its socks up and does something good.
If I may, it reminds me of the quote "Insanity is doing the same thing and expecting different results".
Well yes, if what people keep doing is staying disengaged.
I’ll write about the consequence of the collapse of political party membership another time.
What Reform are illustrating is the impossibility of creating a useful new party. If they triple their MPs next time, they will still be irrelevant. And 10 years will have passed before they have another go.
Of course the FPTP system yields highly unstable outcomes, in which Reform might triple their MPs or - with a bit more growth - might end up with hundreds all at once. It yields very sharp tipping points like that.
Look forward to reading more on consequences of political membership.
As a free market libertarian, I'm sure you value the benefits that competition brings to consumer outcomes. As it relates to political parties per your post wouldn't we all benefit from more choices? Also given the premise and practically of our current political landscape, I hope you will agree that it's no fun having to pick from two bad options?
Finally as challenging as it might be, I'm hesitant to be so definitive in my judgement to say it is impossible for any party to make a difference.
A further thought on why a large number of people appear disengaged.
It could be that they can't see how they can influence the situation. The political process gives an option (tends to be picking the best of two bad options) once every few years with little ability to influence anything in between.
Further, per your post on what MPs do, MPs can't scrutinise the breath of legislation well enough and the prevalence whipped votes which diminishes the perception of proper, independent representation of constituents.
As you've said before (and I agree), we have to much government, too much politics and not enough freedom for people to make their own determinations.
So some thoughts to consider if we want more engagement, noting that for some politicians and people in positions of authority, a lack of engagement may work very well.
Whilst I total agree with your sentiments Steve and applaud both your pragmatism and ‘glass half full’ attitude I can’t help thinking that we cannot attain the holy trinity of sound money, small government and balanced budgets without going through our very own Weimar Republic moment as we are perilously close to if not beyond the point where we are in a debt trap. If we are then having an attitude of realistic optimism exemplified by Vice Admiral Stockdale and maybe some gold would be handy!
Absolutely. I gave up on reform quickly after 2010 and became a seed investor in Glint, which has already reintroduced gold into the payment system.
https://glintpay.com
This could become a long story for another day.
Steve, you say that PR is a terrible idea, firstly because it does not create a government based on a single manifesto ( in theory but as we experience now and over at least the last 14 years not in practice) and secondly because it focusses disproportionately (haha) on the creation of a ranked candidate list.
But one does not need such a list. Aggregate national votes determine proportionately the number of MPs per party. And then the ranking of party candidates is determined by the percentage of votes each candidate achieves (of the total votes actually cast) in their constituency.
This does not guarantee one MP per constituency - there may be a modest number of constituencies with two or no MPs - but it does encourage a high turnout which minimises that process weakness.
It also encourages much more disciplined manifesto promises and also encourages pre-election discussions between the parties as to what certain coalitions would “promise”.
I could say more about Prime Minister choice and about by elections but I’ll leave it at that to avoid too long a post.
It is an interesting proposition Ian, thank you.
I’ve not come across that Reagan quote before. I like it.
Reform has a small presence but it is new. The Labour party didn't exist 125 years ago. After it was founded, it took 22 years for it to win enough seats to attempt to form a government.
The Conservative Party now has an *extremely* serious 'boy who cried wolf' problem. It has repeatedly stood on manifesto commitments to significantly reduce immigration which it has not simply failed to achieve, but has appeared to enthusiastically gallop away from in the opposite direction.
I don't think the brand damage can ever be repaired.
You are right Diviciacus.
The Conservatives clearly suffer from 14 years of aimless government, admittedly hampered by Covid and Ukraine but with no memorable “Conservative” achievements, best exemplified by Sunak’s crazy Manchester conference focussing on a new name for A levels, a 60 year transitional smoking ban and an abandonment of the Manchester leg of HS2.
You could not make it up and now that they have lost their leader, two thirds of their MPs and lots of their experienced brain power they have dug themselves into a deep hole.
With a strong Conservative government and a reasonable financial performance, the 2024 election challenge for a policy-void Labour party would have been considerable. They succeeded but just look at how well the other opposition Liberal Water Sports party did with just one uncosted policy on the NHS and social care.
As things stand I can see why Reform has a fair chance of precluding a single party majority government in 2029.