Wednesday, 6 April 2011

Compassionate Conservatism/Socialism - and the Fence-Sitters

"Give people responsibility and you make them responsible"
Sir Keith Joseph

David Cameron has talked about "compassionate conservatism", whatever that is - or was, as he seems to have gone rather quiet on the subject. Possibly because it becomes increasingly clear, as each day passes, that there is not that much difference between a Coalition led by one who supposedly believes in compassionate conservatism and what we have experienced during the 13 years of the Labour administration.

What is still being experienced is too much government intervention in peoples lives with no thought of the consequences to which that may lead. We have even more statist government tinkering in health, education, defense, welfare; we continue to to be led into military conflicts with no clear military objective, unless of course it is with a view to securing an energy source that is required to provide cover for the impending deficit, one that will become apparent, in our energy supply by being forced to follow an energy policy that is patently unsuitable. What we are seeing in virtually every Coalition policy is mere political posturing, presenting a humanitarian face using someone else's money whilst ignoring any bad consequences that may arise.

What we presently have is a government that exhibits neither compassion nor - allowing for the restraints imposed by linking up with a party that is unable to decide in which camp it sits (be that socialism or free enterprise) - conservatism. If we had a government that had any feeling of compassion it would not allow the situation to arise where those sections of our society that are considered vulnerable suffer, due to withdrawal of government money, whilst at the same time money is spent on military action which is unnecessary and not of our concern, we would not be donating money to countries for educational purposes that are spending twice that amount on military hardware. We would not have a situation where children are removed from parents by social services on the most flimsiest of evidence, we would not have a situation whereby the indigenous population are treated like second class citizens at the expense of foreigners - said foreigners being able to live to a far higher standard than those that are holding down two jobs in an attempt to make ends meet and provide for their families.

If we had a government that had any belief in conservatism, we would now have a government in office because they had campaigned on what are true conservative values. We would not therefore be subject to rule from abroad, we would have a government that recognised that the greatest gift possible is the freedom for every person to keep as much as possible of their earnings and to provide the freedom to care for their family in whatever way they think best, we would have a government that recognised we have a right to live our lives as we think best thus facing the consequences of our own acts, so that we can take care of ourselves and to help those that we decide are worthy of our help - not to be coerced into providing help dictated by politicians whose sole aim is to improve their image, or to pay off some political/campaigning group.

Political governance, presently, is most definitely not compassionate, regardless of whether it is delivered by any one of the Lib/Lab/Con - and whether Conservatism exists any longer, as a political philosophy, is most definitely subject to debate. Forcing people to contribute to humanitarian objectives, be that by military action in the name of exporting democracy or granting aid, is moral arrogance no more no less, especially where one's own people are not firstly provided for. Forcing people to be generous is neither humanitarian, effective, compassionate nor moral. Surely only acts that are truly voluntary can be truly compassionate?

For the past few decades, governance is most definitely not for the people, neither is it by the people; it is governance for the benefit of the political elite. That form of governance has to be stopped in it's tracks now otherwise the final result will mean there will be no difference between our country and the most totalitarian of states imaginable.

The burning question is how many people - who believe in the freedom to live their own lives free from government coercion and who therefore believe they should be able to determine their own futures - are willing to do something about it? Just how many people are willing to forget their in-bred tribal voting loyalties and seriously consider the policies being offered by, for example, the UK Independence Party (UKIP) and the Libertarian Party UK (LPUK) and recognising that the Lib/Lab/Con have always "screwed up" - mainly for political gain at the expense of our country's gain - and consider trying something different? All things being equal, they could hardly make a bigger mess of governing our country than their predecessors!

Apologies, just thinking out loud again.............


Anglichan said...

Excellent 'thinking out loud'. It should be some Party's mission statement.
Thanks for that.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

A: You are very kind - and if only......

Woman on a Raft said...


Sadly, I think things have gone much further than people may realize as most of locking legislation was well under way by the 1989 Children Act.

I don't think Mrs T was a willing participant but it is none the less a matter of historical record that she - not Shirley Williams - signed the death-warrants of most of the grammar schools when she was education secretary in the mid 1970s. She was in the Conservative party which endorsed the ECA72 with its inertia selling whereby everyone was told that it didn't change anything, although all the judges knew that it did.

It was on Mrs T's watch that the Children Act 1989, which makes children the property of the state rather than the charges of their family, was enacted. It was she who pushed for the national curriculum and then allowed it to be hi-jacked by treacherous elements in the 1988 Education Act, the worst of which changed religious (i.e. CoE) instruction for religious education which suggests all religions are equally valid in Britain and fails to point out that this is a protestant country with the Crown being the head of that church.

It was Mrs T who signed the Maastritch Treaty.

To be sure the pit got deeper under NL but the spade work was done by undermining Conservatism until it is barely a faux version of its proper self.

kenomeat said...

A wonderful piece. Opinion polls conducted since the last GE seems to suggest that the smaller parties, especially UKIP, are making some headway. As I've said eleswhere, a few big name defections from the Tories to UKIP (being a real conservative party), added to an effective publicity campaign, might just bring about the breakthrough.

WitteringsfromWitney said...

WoaR: Thanks. Accept your points about Mrs. T, also about the demise of Conservatism.

k: Thank you too. Much as it would,a s you say help UKIP, I don't foresee any defections as they too wedded to their careers and their principles have been forgotten.