A man I’d like to describe as a friend of mine and certainly someone I admire and respect, sent me an email:
Odd – you think you’re a Tory but your approach to politics is more like that of a Whig radical – perhaps your conservatism is about conserving the democratic progress of the last 200 years?
The answer to that is that we’re all complex creatures and if you find a man so dedicated to one goal, to the point of blind obsession, then you would probably start worrying about that person.
This is why political parties are a ridiculous concept because they imply a homogeneity of opinion which clearly doesn’t exist. Far better is an assembly of men and women of diverse opinion, an assembly officially recognizing no one group but with certain assembly members gravitating naturally in certain directions and for those who feel more comfortable with blind loyalty, they could call themselves a party.
With such a setup, there might be less likelihood of terminally falling out and splits because we’d fall out over certain issues but come together on others.
Such an assembly, in Dan Hannan’s terms, would be small and would take care of essential business. The overall approach would be Lord T‘s Libertarian Lite, which is basically classic liberalism, yet recognizing its place in the traditional society which need not necessarily exclude G-d, Queen and Country, those entities being part of our heritage.
The sticking point here is the middle one – the monarch. Britain has for so long felt comfortable with a constitutional monarch as a sort of Chief Executive Officer of some pomp and circumstance, some gravitas.
I’ve never opposed the essential non-equality of people, as long as opportunity exists to rise, by dint of pure hard work and judicious association. I’m quite opposed to State imposed equality which must always lead to tears before bedtime.
Thus I’m a Tory, being comfortable with G-d, Queen and Country and leaning more strongly towards the former and the latter.
In matters of the much reduced assembly and bureaucracy, in a sovereign nation which trades bilaterally and sometimes multilaterally, which welcomes guests from abroad as guests but rewards guests who make the transition to an assimilation as citizens, business in such an assembly would largely be bureaucratic, our traditions and heritage providing the foundations on which to make decisions.
There would be provided, if people could be bothered, the technology to have a say on matters of state. So, local electoral officers would sell [not freely provide] as a percentage of income received, a vote-meter which could sit by the phone and share the socket or else could be meshed into the internet function and this would allow feedback on any matter you felt to be of importance.
EU membership would never arise because it does not gel with the tradition and heritage and wouldn’t come up for discussion. If it did though, classic liberal tradition would demand that it be allowed to be put as a proposal and people would have the right to vote on it, via their vote-meters.
One would need to pass a test on history and politics, set at about Year 9 level and taken at the local electoral office, to qualify to have one of the vote-meters. Ignorant thickos would not have the vote until they knuckled down and studied for it. The test would change every six months, with a rotating series of questions.
Police would be local and the commissioner subject to a monthly meeting with local cits. Policy though would have come down from the Assembly, such policy itself deriving from the vote-meters and ensuring continuity across country and borough lines.
I can’t give you a policy on defence and social services because of course this would depend on the votes of the people. Now, if the people are voting, then who is legislating?
Assembly members, of course. That’s why the local area would vote in, on a per capita basis, members for the Assembly. Given an overall of 640 members, say, then larger constituencies would return more members, by definition.
So, the Queen is the constitutional monarch, the assembly members who gained enough votes within the assembly would be the committee which produced new legislation but anything produced would always be subject to the vote-meters. If one member was heading towards dominance, that might or might not be a good thing, according to vote-meter owners and the thing would self-actualize.
What this kills off is imperialism. Such a thing would be difficult under this system and so the frontier would be the white cliffs of Dover and trade would be the determiner of relations with other nations. Naturally, tradition is tradition and if, say, these islands were threatened by a European nation which were not democratic in this sense, then natural allies such as the United States would be invited in to assist, again subject to the votemeters.
How to deal with the communists, socialists and other malcontents
They can get knotted. There is a tradition of these malcontents in these islands also but this is not necessarily a perfect political system we now have in place – it is just fairer than some and excludes upsetting the applecart. Alien systems do not get a look in and are just shouldered out.
Getting to this position
This could only come through a banding together of the centre of politics, the loyalists to this country, people who believe that an Englishman’s home is his castle, that the family is the basic unit of society, along with the individual, etc. etc.
It would take another generation to fully implement this and in the meantime, it would take a fixed term committee to get it in operation. The vote-meters could be in place within two years and the best time for the change would be during the mayhem of 2010-12. That’s where we recapture our country from the global socialists, right at the death knell, at the eleventh hour.
A stirring tale and a ripping yarn for our young to tell their eventual grandchildren.