It is no coincidence the New Labour figures you name came from a hard-left, Trotskyist background. Feigning centrism (‘Peace. Bread. Land. All power to the Soviet’) then ruthlessly executing a coherent plan, without popular legitimacy, to achieve their political objectives, is the essence of this concept of political action. It is telling that Peter Hitchens, who came from the same Trotskyist background, was the one voice calling this out and remains so to this day. Alas, the sophistication of the revolution is such it defeats simple explanation in red top headlines, which would garner popular opposition. Raab appears to have understood the problem and started to moot solutions but was vomited out by the Administrative State as a consequence. To undo the Blair/Brown revolution will take an equally intelligent, determined and organised team on the right, prepared to ride roughshod over opposition, once they have power. Maybe a catastrophic election this year may allow such a team to form in the wreckage.
An interesting poke at the minutiae, David. A few remarks on this....
Firstly, I am at a loss to understand how taking this case to the courts was in any way practicable, since it surely was not cheap to go this route, which raises further questions. I see it was raised by 'Public Interest Lawyers'. I feel there is a story here we might not have access to.
Secondly, the parallel with Roe vs Wade in the US in 1973, in so much that it was (as they say) an 'activist ruling'. It was readily apparent that 'privacy' was not the relevant issue, but this approach allowed access to abortion to be enshrined *above* the legislature, as 'precedent'. The effect was to undermine the rule of law by forcing opponents of abortion to resort to methods such as 'stacking the deck' for the Supreme Court. More or less every other nation managed to resolve this quagmire politically... the US was prevented from doing so, with seriously deleterious effects to its political landscape. There's a warning here that neither faction can see because the issue became so hopelessly overcharged.
Finally, on the woeful decline of Kant's rightful condition (Recht) from which human rights descend and then, rapidly after they appeared, degenerated into code for 'things we really want' (an accusation Alasdair MacIntyre was keen to make). No amount of flag-waving for 'progress' can obscure the regression that has gone on in moral and political philosophy, as exemplified in the transition from Kant to Rawls. While left of you politically, I think we agree that something went horribly wrong here.
It was once thought that the purpose of university education was to prepare people to be good citizens - to think for themselves, and to understand the foundations of knowledge and indeed statecraft. Now, going to university is apparently purely an economic decision for everyone concerned. Now that we are eroding academic freedom as well, it is hard to honestly suggest that 'university' today has any connection but the etymological with the concepts that animated it for half a millennia.
I know he's a troll and a provocateur, but Richard Hanania makes compelling points about the intellectual inadequacies of conservatism in the US. Having become interested in conservative perspectives I find it very strange that this stack stands out as one of very few from which I ever actually learn anything with any intellectual heft.
Anecdotally I've always noticed that the conservatives in my personal world were the least gifted as thinkers. And the way that genuine fools rise to prominence in the Conservative Party - deeply unserious caricatures like Rees Mogg spring to mind - suggests that there's something in the DNA of right politics that prevents it from really accomplishing anything, beyond the enrichment of donors. What the hell is going on here?
It seems to me,an increasingly despairing cynic, that an activist judiciary is complicit in the lawfare now prevalent,as Blighty is in danger of becoming a DINO: democracy in name only.
Finally, not entirely on message, but- a lament from Stasi-land- aka Scotland- as the Hate Crime legislation comes into force on April Fool's Day, thanks to the Holyrood Commissars.
I am hoping that JK Rowling will sue Police Scotland and that a host of similar challenges will clog up the system, as with the Poll Tax protests many moons ago.
Finally,where are wisdom, accountability and true representation ?When we look at our entitled MPs and the host of Conservative resignations, will our fears of the consolidation of an essentially one party state be borne out?
It is no coincidence the New Labour figures you name came from a hard-left, Trotskyist background. Feigning centrism (‘Peace. Bread. Land. All power to the Soviet’) then ruthlessly executing a coherent plan, without popular legitimacy, to achieve their political objectives, is the essence of this concept of political action. It is telling that Peter Hitchens, who came from the same Trotskyist background, was the one voice calling this out and remains so to this day. Alas, the sophistication of the revolution is such it defeats simple explanation in red top headlines, which would garner popular opposition. Raab appears to have understood the problem and started to moot solutions but was vomited out by the Administrative State as a consequence. To undo the Blair/Brown revolution will take an equally intelligent, determined and organised team on the right, prepared to ride roughshod over opposition, once they have power. Maybe a catastrophic election this year may allow such a team to form in the wreckage.
An interesting poke at the minutiae, David. A few remarks on this....
Firstly, I am at a loss to understand how taking this case to the courts was in any way practicable, since it surely was not cheap to go this route, which raises further questions. I see it was raised by 'Public Interest Lawyers'. I feel there is a story here we might not have access to.
Secondly, the parallel with Roe vs Wade in the US in 1973, in so much that it was (as they say) an 'activist ruling'. It was readily apparent that 'privacy' was not the relevant issue, but this approach allowed access to abortion to be enshrined *above* the legislature, as 'precedent'. The effect was to undermine the rule of law by forcing opponents of abortion to resort to methods such as 'stacking the deck' for the Supreme Court. More or less every other nation managed to resolve this quagmire politically... the US was prevented from doing so, with seriously deleterious effects to its political landscape. There's a warning here that neither faction can see because the issue became so hopelessly overcharged.
Finally, on the woeful decline of Kant's rightful condition (Recht) from which human rights descend and then, rapidly after they appeared, degenerated into code for 'things we really want' (an accusation Alasdair MacIntyre was keen to make). No amount of flag-waving for 'progress' can obscure the regression that has gone on in moral and political philosophy, as exemplified in the transition from Kant to Rawls. While left of you politically, I think we agree that something went horribly wrong here.
It was once thought that the purpose of university education was to prepare people to be good citizens - to think for themselves, and to understand the foundations of knowledge and indeed statecraft. Now, going to university is apparently purely an economic decision for everyone concerned. Now that we are eroding academic freedom as well, it is hard to honestly suggest that 'university' today has any connection but the etymological with the concepts that animated it for half a millennia.
Stay wonderful!
Chris.
A brilliant exposition David.
I so wish you were on the policy team of a mainstream political party :(
I know he's a troll and a provocateur, but Richard Hanania makes compelling points about the intellectual inadequacies of conservatism in the US. Having become interested in conservative perspectives I find it very strange that this stack stands out as one of very few from which I ever actually learn anything with any intellectual heft.
Anecdotally I've always noticed that the conservatives in my personal world were the least gifted as thinkers. And the way that genuine fools rise to prominence in the Conservative Party - deeply unserious caricatures like Rees Mogg spring to mind - suggests that there's something in the DNA of right politics that prevents it from really accomplishing anything, beyond the enrichment of donors. What the hell is going on here?
It seems to me,an increasingly despairing cynic, that an activist judiciary is complicit in the lawfare now prevalent,as Blighty is in danger of becoming a DINO: democracy in name only.
Finally, not entirely on message, but- a lament from Stasi-land- aka Scotland- as the Hate Crime legislation comes into force on April Fool's Day, thanks to the Holyrood Commissars.
I am hoping that JK Rowling will sue Police Scotland and that a host of similar challenges will clog up the system, as with the Poll Tax protests many moons ago.
Finally,where are wisdom, accountability and true representation ?When we look at our entitled MPs and the host of Conservative resignations, will our fears of the consolidation of an essentially one party state be borne out?
and the