I cannot see libertarians cuddling up to left-wing blogs, they have totally different agendas and are in total opposition when it comes to the role of the state in politics. Yes, they might both disagree with the Conservatives on some issues but it will be for entirely different reasons.

“A Cameron-led government will be as disappointing to many on the Right as the new Labour government was to those on the left.”

Labour wasn’t a disappointment until Brown turned up – Blair won three elections in a row and there was hardly any discontent voiced in public. In addition, I don’t you or I or anyone else is in a position to judge how right-wing David Cameron would be in government. His strategy before the election does not necessarily bare any resemblance to what might follow.

It will also be very interesting to see what happens to Conservative Home, or Continuity IDS as Mike Smithson calls it. Will it become the official notice board of the new government, or will it go into full “betrayal” mode as soon as the Cameron administation fails to cut taxes? To take an MSM parallel, the Mirror faced this dilemma in ’97 and ended up going for the latter option.

@1

> Blair won three elections in a row and there was hardly any discontent voiced in public

Eh? That’s a joke, right? Barely a squeak from the Tories out there, indeed, beyond the odd Angry of Surbiton letter to the Mail. But much (most) of the vicious opposition, online and on the streets, came from the left.

> I cannot see libertarians cuddling up to left-wing blogs, they have totally different agendas and are in total opposition when it comes to the role of the state in politics

Eh, again? I’d say you have a lot to learn about left-wing blogs. Way, way, way before Iain Dale and those who rode in on his coat-tails came along, plenty of those sort-of-libertarian blogs you’re thinking of had reasonably similar anti-New Labour agendas to us. Of course, the twain shall ne’er meet on some things, but there’s much to agree on. They’ll turn on Cameron’s Tories within 5 minutes of his arrival in Downing Street, if not before.

If you’re thinking of sites like LabourHome et al., then of course. But they aren’t “left-wing blogs”. They’re places for party hacks to wave at each other.

LfaT: you mean bear a resemblance. And there was LOADS of discontent with Blair from Lefties. You’d have had to be blind not to notice it. It’s just that the Tories are such a bogeyman to most of them that they feel the Tories would be worse.

Brown was the great hope for the end of the Blair era: now most lefties have realised he will just be a continuation of it, that’s why the disaffection is coming to the surface now.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, if these allegedly popular rightwing blogs think they got it good now sticking it to the gov just wait until we get a Tory one. You’ll see the left blogosphere ablaze and focused like never before.

Letters, you really want to be careful, you’re veering dangerously close to Praguetory territory these days…

I gave Labour two years before my disappointment and disillusion got the better of me in ’99. I would probably have given Thatcher until ’81 had I been the right age then, because the same happens with every generation.

Now I’m too sceptical not to be a direct participant in the political process.

Tsk. You need to be reading more around the liberal blogosphere. Dealth with back in December:
http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/misc/meta%11blogging-%28definition%3a-blogging-about-blogging%29-20071213494/

“Matthew D’Ancona had a piece in The Guardian about political blogs and blogging earlier in the week and he asks the interesting question of whether, as, if and when there’s a Tory government again whether the current (perceived perhaps) success of the right-wing blogs will give way to one of the left-wing such. The point being that it is both easier (and more fun!) to oppose and also that when in opposition anything which bashes the rulers is helpful, rather than the more controlled message necessary if you’re in power and want to stay there.

If we confine ourselves to the nakedly party political blogs I think he might well be right, that there will at least be attempts to control the message. Unlike D’Ancona I think such attempts at control will probably succeed, too, if we again confine ourselves to the nakedly party political blogs. For those who run them are indeed party political animals and will continue to work, as they do now, for the success of their “tribe”.

Where I think his ultimate conclusion, that blogs won’t be controlled is correct, is with respect to those that lie outside such party limits. For example, Samizdata make no bones about their virulent dislike of Tories, of social authoritarians just as much as economic ones. I’ve been known to make the same point myself. It’s most unlikely that this blog will roll over to have its belly rubbed just because the blue rosettes got into Number 10 either.

For I think there’s a fault line that runs through “political blogging” which isn’t in fact properly appreciated. There are those who blog for a specific group, for a party, for their tribe. And there are those who blog in support of certain ideas, or ideals. The former group will indeed be liable to capture by the centre (“don’t rock the boat old boy, not now we’ve got back into power again”) and the latter will continue to scream for their cherished goals whichever party is in power. “

Tim Worstall is spot on, and as a point of information Conservative Home has disagreed with Cameron and his team on countless occasions and will continue to do so. Regular readers of the blog see it all the time – low taxation being a classic point of strong disagreement.

I said that there was “hardly any discontent voiced in public”, which is absolutely true. I don’t care what people on ‘the street’ and online were saying – Labour MPs fell in line and Labour voters followed suit because they wanted him to stay in power. If they felt strongly about socialist principles they wouldn’t have voted for him in 2001 and 2005 because it was obvious that he had abandoned traditional left-wing ideals, but the fact is that they voted for Blair rather than abstaining because any negative feelings towards him were not strong enough to want him out.

LfaT, I say again, it wasn’t that people didn’t hate Blair, it was that they truly believed that the Tories would be worse. Similarly to the fact that in the eighties, it’s wasn’t that people didn’t hate Thatcher, it’s that they genuinely believed that Labour would be worse.

The Tories have now gone through the sort of process of renewal that Labour did in the early nineties, and Labour is as tired as the Tories were in the early nineties, and thus the merry dance begins again.

Tim’s correct in noting that there’s a significant ‘fault-line’ between the independently-minded political blog sector and the party-hack sector – and the latter is already regarded as more than a bit of an embarrassment in any case.

Yes, it will be interesting to see what happens to Guido, Dale and the Continuity IDS, especially as the Cameroon’s attempt to establish Platform 10 has died on its arse.

Guido has dropped hints before that he may move on after a future Tory win, but I think he’ll at least stick around long enough to try and shit-stir in any post election Labour leadership contest.

Dale? Who knows for sure but his clear aim over the last couple of years has been to work his way into the mainstream, hence 18DS and Total Ashcroft, and he may well bow out at some point, not least because he’s already there to be shot at and only going to become a bigger target if Cameron gets in.

As for Tory Home, again who knows for sure – it may become the online home for the Tory awkward squad or it may be that the party can reign it in.

What may change, and this is where it could get interesting, is that Iraq and TWAT (the war against terror) effectively stripped Labour of any significant support amongst those left-wing bloggers who can and do make an impact and if that changes around things could start to get pretty interesting.

LfaT – Let’s all argue ideology!

Who is ‘they’ anyway? Isn’t that just anyone who is ‘not me’?

If a defeated Labour party ditched some of the worst of their authoritarian stuff, a broader liberal-left alliance could easily develop on the blogosphere and beyond. Remember it is always easier to reject those kinds of policies and step away from those kinds of issues when you are not in power.

Because despite Cameron’s liberal posturing I find it very hard to believe that there would be any serious move towards liberal policies. The ID card proposals would be dropped of course, (the grand gesture) but I can’t see them rolling back things like CCTV, databases etc. Under pressure from the security services and business we would probably see more of the same if not an increase in state powers.

In those kinds of conditions, anti-Tory coalitions could easily develop.

@9 LfaT

> Tim Worstall is spot on

Curious, because he’s essentially contradicting what you said at @1.

You: “I cannot see libertarians cuddling up to left-wing blogs”

I’m telling you, as someone who’s been around “left-wing blogs” (i.e. not hack sites like LabourHome and the like) for a few years, that, as Tim implies, this was happening long before Iain Dale and his well-organised Tories came along. And will happen again before Cameroon has chosen his curtain fabric. You’re flat wrong.

> I said that there was “hardly any discontent voiced in public”… I don’t care what people on ‘the street’ and online were saying

That’s a contradiction, within the space of one sentence. Either there was or there wasn’t dissent voiced in public – which includes “streets” and “online”. Or do you mean in parliament? Which is it?

> the fact is that they voted for Blair rather than abstaining…

Labour Party General Election vote:

1997: 13.5m
2001: 10.7m
2005: 9.5m

So your “they” obviously doesn’t include about 4m people. I’d be prepared to bet that the majority of them would describe themselves as “left”. What’s your explanation?

The fact that Blair was skilful enough to keep a “centrist” coalition together to win 3 elections isn’t in dispute. You’re claiming that there was no NuLab disillusionment until Brown arrived; that large numbers of people didn’t abstain. Where’s your evidence? I’d suggest, as above, that you’re flat wrong again.

An interesting debate has evolved from the initial post.

However, I’m not sure the British blogosphere is worthy of such focus. Guido et al aren’t particularly relevant. There is nothing like the grassroots movement we have seen in the States around HuffPo, MoveOn, and Kos. The Tories are on the way back to power, but let’s not pretend people – esp. the young – are pleased about it.

There is no Cameron movement. He’s a vacuous shape-shifter. No-one is passionate about him. No one is buying into Tory politics, only change.

Apart from what Tim, Jennie and Donald said (saying the libertarian blogs tend to read a lot of liberal/left blogs and I used to do the occasional post at DK’s years back), Aaron is almost spot on with this:
“No one is buying into Tory politics, only change.”

Oppositions rarely win elections, incumbents lose them. Ken lost, Boris was the default other option. Brown is losing, Cameron might get a landslide or wipeout unless we’re careful (reasons to be a Lib Dem #546—they’re the only chance we’ve got, and it’s not a good one).

Cameron has done exactly what I said years back the Tories needed to do to win—tack towards the Lib Dem position, but not so far you abandone the core—just as Blair managed in ’97.

Once in power, there’s a danger that, as with Blair, the “keep the tabloids happy” mentality will shift them back towards authoritarianism. So we need to either stop that from happening and/or make sure “the left”, and I care not what party we’re talking about here, is in a position to bounce back.

Aaron I agree with you on the second point. However, I think we are in relatively early days with the British blogosphere. The big impact it has already is on its main audience which are the mainstream media themselves. Most journalists are basically a lazy bunch and will do anything to avoid actually getting of their desks and reporting on anything. As such, the press are increasingly feeding off of the political blogosphere making it ever more influential.

We shouldn’t overplay it of course but a new Tory government would be the first British government to come into power with the network of political blogs already in place. it will be fascinating to see how Cameron, a man who as sold himself as Mr new media will deal with this situation and how the blogosphere will deal with him. It will also be interesting to see how different areas of the blogosphere maneuver themselves over the next two years in preparation. And of course how newspapers and broadcasters do the same.

So your “they” obviously doesn’t include about 4m people. I’d be prepared to bet that the majority of them would describe themselves as “left”.

I’m not sure that you’re correct there; a lot of them are “middle-class” people who voted NuLabour because they genuinely thought that they a) were different from “Old Labour” and b) couldn’t be worse than the Tories (I would argue that they were conned on both points, but hey…). I suspect that the majority of them would not describe themselves as “left”; I wouldn’t think, for instance, that Dr Crippen (who voted for Blair in ’97) would describe himself as “left”). However, I could be wrong…

Re: blogs. As many of you will be aware, your humble Devil is a Libertarian and I genuinely think that the Tories will be little better than Labour; Cameron and his merry men will certainly not be getting an easy ride at The Kitchen (and they never would have done).

I would say that I have connections with a number of left blogs, e.g. Unity, Dillow and Bookdrunk (although I’ll admit that the last might be a bit of a cheat, as BD has been a friend in the real world for almost ten years). I have also been known to converse occasionally with Tim Ireland and DonaldS of this parish.

The above bloggers generally describe themselves as being left, but we share a certain libertarian outlook; on the other hand, there are some lefties that I would never form any kind of alliance with, e.g. Neil Harding.

Personally, I’m looking forward to Spam’s Tories getting in: it’s about time we had some fresh meat!

DK

Mat:
Once in power, there’s a danger that, as with Blair, the “keep the tabloids happy” mentality will shift them back towards authoritarianism. So we need to either stop that from happening and/or make sure “the left”, and I care not what party we’re talking about here, is in a position to bounce back.

This is exactly my thinking too.

Interesting.

One question that no-one is considering is what will happen to the blogosphere if Brown remains PM.

I’m also not so sure about the fault-line between partisans and independents. I’m pretty partisan, but have been known – horror of horrors! – to think for myself from time to time. I’ve even been quoted on Conservative Home for criticising the Labour party.

Part of the problem is thinking in strict left-right terms. You could say that both Neil Clark and Chris Dillow are very left wing, but they have very little in common. An ascendency for Cameron might affect the part of the blogosphere that supports him – perhaps they’ll be quiet to help ‘their man’, perhaps they’ll demand concessions – but the effects on those that are not particularly happy with any of the offerings from the main parties might not change that much.

xD.

@18 DK

> I suspect that the majority of them would not describe themselves as “left”

Fair enough, it’s an unprovable as far as I can tell. A quick look at Tories’ numbers would suggest, though, that what’s happening isn’t switching one to t’other but disaffection with “our man”.

1997: 9.6m
2001: 8.3m
2005: 8.7m

So, dunno. But, yes, some of those lost Blair voters were probably disaffected Tories. I’d still be surprised of a majority weren’t self-described left, though. Or at least a plurality.

It’s worth drawing comparisons with the American commentariat. The Republicans may be in power, but this doesn’t stop the conservative commentators lambasting the ‘liberal stranglehold’ on the media/academia/opposition etc.

And congratulations are due, Adam. This article is the fourth best thing on the web, if the Guardian is anything to go by: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/index.html

Not got time to do the full numbers geekout that I could, but definite;y worth observing that turnout will be up at the next GE—not sure it’ll go back to ’97 levels, but I’d put money on beating ’01 (if I had any).

’92 was a high turnout for a damn good reason. ’97 was less so as it was a foregone conclusion—next GE won’t be a conclusion on that level. Tories haven’t been in a position to win since ’92. They’ll turnout this time—the London results prove that.

Letters From A Tory: “I cannot see libertarians cuddling up to left-wing blogs”

It was before your time, LFAT.

Only fourth eh?

Thanks Ben

They should come to me!

I am also the Creator and Operator of http://www.1party4all.co.uk – an opinion-polling direct democracy website.

As the Devil has noted above, Libertarians have an entirely different agenda to the Tories. There is perhaps a little hope that the Tories will reduce the power of the state but it will be minimal in effect in any case.

This is not to deny that Libertarians are not partisan, (we do have our own Party now), but illiberal measures will be greated with the same vitriol, regardless of where they originate.

Tony Benn considers himself a libertarian.

*laughs*

Doesn’t libertarianism variously describe different aspects of the profusion of fundamentalist, reactionary and extremist tendencies within liberalist thought?

What is Libertarianism if not the goal of Minimum Government, which is the fewest possible laws and the lowest possible taxes in which it is possible for Justice to subsist?

Anyone else care to give a better definition?

Thomas, Tony Benn could consider himself to be the flying spaghetti monster, it wouldn’t make it true.

Libertarianism is focused on the primacy of Liberty, (yes, negative liberty rather than the authoritarianism that calls itself positive liberty).

Quite where you get fundamentalist, reactionary and extremist from I have no idea but I would be interested to understand just how you became so misinformed.

JSM himself:

The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others. His own good, either physical or moral, is not sufficient warrant.

You reject that idea, you’re not a liberal, left or otherwise.

@29&30 and that’s what is so wrong with it: dogmatic adherence to ‘minimum government’ instead of ‘self-government’; gestures of opposition instead of accepted and understood use of available tools to the purpose of coaligned common interest; anti-social, anti-educational, anti-evolutionary, anti-integrational, ultra-individualistic one-sided opportunistic attempts to redefine and qualify liberty according to whoever wishes to manipulate language on their own terms without consideration of any audience.

‘Libertarianism’ is fine for hermit survivalists (loner web geeks?) who’ve been infantilised by exposure to the nannyish state and want to return to the womb before becoming ‘born again’ (evangelical and pentecostal christians etc), or commit ultimate political rebellion (class-confused establishment dynasts a la Tony Benn) or make bold desperate attempts to set the world to rights in one grand act (Michael Ryan, Timothy McVeigh, suicide bombers etc), but the absolutism that lies at the heart of it is ultimately incoherent and threatening.

I understand there is an appeal to escape the dirt and confusion of modern society to become purified and cleansed, but the radicalism of all absolutist positions mirror each other in their abstractions, absurd parallels and rejectionist tendencies, whether libertarian, communitarian, authoritarian or whatever.

Maybe a contract of trust was broken and the disappointment of it causes you headaches, but you’ve got to get over it and understand that perfection isn’t a reality: mourn and move on.

Why tie yourself to imperfect definitions of political philosophy when you can be free?

I call myself a liberal for your benefit because I don’t see that liberalism is a philosophy – it is being. I don’t think I’m always right and you are perfectly entitled to pull me up – I hope you can, because I want to learn. In the meantime I’ve got to go and get my funny-bone tickled.

Getting back to the thread, IMO the pro-establishment bloggers will attempt to be absorbed by the new establishment, while those which are rejected will feel scorned and retreat, or join in with the chorus of dissonant voices to fight back.

Oh what a happy merry-go-round!

Thomas, I’m not sure what you’re getting at here. “Self government” is by defintion impossible, governance requiring social interaction, do you mean personal responsibility?

Minarchism is far from a dogmatic position, it recognises that some government is desirable but that it is both a waste of resources and something that goes beyond its intended function if it grows too large. The exact size government should be is routinely debated among minarchists with a variety of positions.

I find your “they’re all nutters / murderers / religious fanatics / infantilised idiots” argument not only inaccurate but pathetic. I understand all too well that there is no shining vision of a perfect state that we can reach, that does not mean that it is impossible to recognise areas that can be improved in specific ways. Nor is Libertarianism some bizzare “back to the soil” cult.

As for apparently calling yourself a liberal because you believe the term has no meaning, FFS go and read some philosphy and political theory. Whatever you believe it will help you shape and understand your views.

“FFS go and read some philosphy and political theory. Whatever you believe it will help you shape and understand your views.”

I agree, minarchism is a debating position that was outmoded and outmanouvered in the middle of the 19th century, before being subsumed into the more mainstream threads of liberalist thinking. As with libertarianism, neither has a claim to first principles and therefore neither can claim to be a general independant area of political philosophy – which is why any party that forms around those ideas is only a sign of a shift of the political barometer, not of anything fundamental or new.

There are many self-proclaimed members of the ‘left’ and ‘right’ who can accurately ascribe to libertarianism and your distaste for certain fellows only highlights the incoherence and artificiality of it as a self-contained system.

I am also concerned about the proprietorialism you exhibit over who discusses the preferred or exact size of the state (I’ve taken the liberty to paraphrase for accuracy) – don’t you think this is something everybody has a stake in and a different perspective on?

Finally I am particlarly concerned that you attempt to concieve of existence and it’s percieved experiences as the product of theory rather than as something real which is lived – maybe you do need to get out more.

ARTICLE 1
Any citizen who has reached the age of 18 who accepts the Party’s principles and is willing to join and work actively in on its behalf and agrees to pays his membership fees may apply for membership in the Party.

ARTICLE 2
(1) Members of the Party are to act in the National Interest.

(2) Members of the Party are at all times ordinary citizens. Party members must not seek personal gain or privileges, although the relevant laws and policies provide them with personal benefits and job-related functions and powers.

ARTICLE 3
Party members agree to the following:

(1) To interest themselves in the theories and practices of good government throughout the ages and throughout the world while suspending any cultural, religious, social or political prejudices they may have.

(2) To implement Minimum Government by which is meant the fewest laws and the lowest possible taxes necessary for Justice to subsist.

(3) To use these minimum laws and taxes in service of the greatest good of the greatest number.

(4) To practice personal responsibility while encouraging others to do so.

(5) To strive for the economic, social, cultural and educational advancement of the Nation.

(6) To speak out and address an issue that he perceives to affect the National Interest, even if it goes against the current orthodoxy (whatever that may be).

(7) To rigorously analyse the logic of any argument used or the truth of any statement relied upon.

(8) To act in accordance to with the highest standards of ethical behaviour that is consistent with Truth, Justice, Reason and the National Interest.

(9) To uphold the Party’s solidarity, unity and singularity by resolving disagreements through debate, a thorough investigation of the issues and voting.

(10) To be open to discussion, whether in defending one’s views or questioning another’s.

(11) To maintain close ties with non-member citizens, informing them of Party policy and thinking, consult with them when problems arise, keep the Party regularly informed of their views and demands and defend their legitimate interests.

(12) To approve only laws that are proportionate to the evil to be addressed and in the National Interest, which are necessary to prevent crime, nuisance, damage to property and other ascertainable and provable evils. (For example, smoking in a public house or smoking in a public place is not a “provable evil.” Citizens dying sooner as a result of smoking-related diseases that are self-inflicted is not provably harmful to the Nation.)

(13) To repeal any anti-discrimination “thought crime” legislation in existence that limits the citizen’s freedom of association and contract.

(14) To NOT

(a) use legislation as a means of favouring one group over another, such as apartheid, or

(b) use legislation to prevent citizens from discriminating against any groups, such as legislating against age, sex, race, sexual orientation and disability discrimination.

(15) To urge what is good and forbid what is evil, after due consultation and debate.

(16) To accept the truth of the following propositions in a speech made by Abraham Lincoln in 1865:

“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage-earner by pulling down the wage-payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of many by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man’s initiative and independence. You cannot help them permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

ARTICLE 4
Party members enjoy the following rights:

(1) To attend relevant Party meetings, read relevant Party documents, and benefit from the Party’s education and training.

(2) To participate in the discussion of questions concerning the Party’s policies at Party meetings and in Party newspapers and journals.

(3) To make suggestions and criticisms regarding the work of the Party.

(4) To criticise any Party organization or member at Party meetings, to present information or charges against any Party organization or member concerning violations of discipline or the law to the Party, to demand disciplinary measures against such a member, or call for dismissal or replacement of any incompetent or corrupt member.

(5) To participate in voting and elections and to stand for election.

(6) To attend, with the right of self-defence, discussions held by Party organizations to decide on disciplinary measures to be taken against themselves in the appraisal of work and behaviour; and call on other Party members to bear witness or argue on their behalves.

(7) In case of disagreement with a Party decision or policy, to make reservations and present their views to the Party, provided that they implement the policy while it is in force.

(8) To put forward any request, appeal, or complaint to the Party and be entitled to a substantive response.

(9) No Party member or organization has the right to deprive any Party member of the above-mentioned rights.

ARTICLE 5

Party oath to be sworn by members:

“It is my intention to implement the Party’s programme of Minimum Government and work in the National Interest. I believe that the National Interest is best served by a meritocratic political system where there is no representation without taxation under which citizens practise personal responsibility, self-sufficiency and are educated, open-minded, ethical, versatile and rational in their decisions in the exercise of direct democracy.”

Would any of this appeal to Libertarians?

Interesting and honorable for the most part.

I can’t accept dogmatic adherence to narrow party ‘singularity’ – where has it got you in terms of representation? what are the implications for understanding the dynamic nature of political debate? I also am in disagreement with the inferred tendency towards using regulation as a means of prohibiting.

All in all it is fine for a faction of liberalism.

Now reading if you let me get back to reading my history again, what did happen…

Bit late to this debate. But looking to the US – I am not so sure the opposition argument holds up – the US blogosphere is still relentlessly right-wing despite Bush in government. Maybe in the UK it will be different – but I think something deeper is going on – the internet is stil a rich kids playground – it is the middle class who have the time and inclination to blog on politics – so don’t be surprised if it remains skewed to the right.

Oh DK – scary but we do agree on the Citizen’s Income and I too think GB is a @$&!