Tim Worstall

Cameron as Gorbachov

Yes, an interesting analogy.

Cameron is Gorbachov, bringing perestroika while what is in fact needed is the blowing up of the system and the starting again.

This is a regime where both (or all) parties are
merely different wings of the same political elite committed to the
same broad policies. Admittedly, some element of cross-party consensus
is inseparable from democracy; otherwise civil war breaks out.

But
we know we are living in a one-establishment state when the parties
agree on a series of major issues over which the voters are either
divided or united in opposition to the "consensus". This false
consensus drains democracy of its lifeblood – accountability – and
instead we have a "one-establishment" regime with disturbing echoes of
one-party rule.

This one establishment state is in fact here, both in the UK and the EU. It’s statism. The idea that The Man in Whitehall knows best, that we the people are timid little baa lambs who have to be told what to eat, drink and how to wipe our botties. And what is needed is indeed a revolution, to re-establish the basics of a liberal society: sure, there should indeed be a State, certainly, there should indeed be interventions by it into wider behaviour. But they are to be only where collective and coerced actions are the only possible solution. That means abandoning about 80% of what the State currently tries to do.

Vive la Revolucion!

In

6 responses

  1. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Tim,
    You’re all over the shop here, old chap.
    Please advise me of a revolution, any revolution, which left the people better off in real terms than they were before.
    Russia? France? Cuba?
    And BTW, 1776 was not a revolution – it was a rebellion which could not have succeeded without the intervention of a foreign power. Different thing.
    Societies which undergo revolutions are fundamentally destabilised by the process. They are never the same again, and are rarely the better for it.
    Disengagement from the EU would not be ‘revolutionary’ but quite the opposite – it would be reactionary, involving as it would the reclamation of historic powers surrendered without mandate.
    And I know you’ll love me saying this, but I find your comment that “But they are to be only where collective and coerced actions are the only possible solution” ever just slightly (cough) fasc…fasc…I say it quickly…fascist.
    In human affairs there is never only one solution to any problem.
    Tim adds: 1688

    Reply
  2. Philip Hunt Avatar
    Philip Hunt

    But we know we are living in a one-establishment state when the parties agree on a series of major issues over which the voters are either divided or united in opposition to the “consensus”.
    The FPTP electoral system almost guarantees you’ll have two big parties fighting over the center ground. Change that, and you change everything.

    Reply
  3. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    ‘1688’ –
    I said ‘in real terms’.
    If memory serves, 1688 was, at root, sectarian rather than economic in character.
    And if ‘the people’ were better off, why was it later necessary to…extend the franchise?

    Reply
  4. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    Martin, you made a challenge and it was met, now you’re supposed to cede victory. You didn’t demand that the outcome of a revolution need be a utopia, only that it was an improvement on that previous. A move away from absolute monarchy and towards parliamentary democracy is unequivocably the former.
    How about the Indian independence movement as another example? Not perfect but self-determination counts for a lot.

    Reply
  5. Martin Avatar
    Martin

    Philip,
    You write that,
    “You didn’t demand that the outcome of a revolution need be a utopia, only that it was an improvement on that previous. A move away from absolute monarchy and towards parliamentary democracy is unequivocably the former.”
    Sorry, no. What is wrong with absolute monarchy per se? It’s not the system that’s the problem – we shun it because the people in the job usually become a problem. Compare the careers of Louis XIV, XV and XVI and you’ll see what I mean.
    1688, like all such eruptions in English history up to about 1832, had more in common with a fight between rival Somali street gangs than anything to do to with the peoples’ betterment.
    Actually, 1688 was a pretty crap outcome if you were a MacDonald of Glencoe – without it, you wouldn’t be likely to have been murdered four years later.
    “How about the Indian independence movement as another example? Not perfect but self-determination counts for a lot.”
    The Indian independence movement? Which was founded by an Englishman, Allan Octavian Hume?
    Indian independence was not a ‘revolution’, Philip. If we had not decided to give it up – or more properly, had to give it up as a result of usurious loan terms imposed by the Americans, terms which not even Keynes himself could negotiate us out of – we would have been thre for another 30 years; until we decided to leave of our own accord.

    Reply
  6. Philip Thomas Avatar
    Philip Thomas

    Martin, it seems that you’ve created your own definition of revolution that prohibits any example that might counter your claims. Semantics is a very dull way to argue. Furthermore, seeing as you don’t regard the transfer of power (however slight) from an entrenched ruling elite to the populace as any form of progress, then it is unsurprising you view all revolutions as backward steps.
    Oh, and the old argument of “they didn’t win, we couldn’t be bothered to continue” is tired. All conflicts are won because somebody refuses to continue, whether through lack of willpower or other resources.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Discover more from Tim Worstall

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading