This is your best work so far. It shows a clear understanding of conservatism in the Burkean, Disraelian and Scrutonian sense. The health of a nation is one of those collective assets - along with peace, cooperation, sanitation and goodwill - that no single person can acquire alone.
I see a lot that I agree with here. I have a libertarian slant, but I believe in universal, free at the point of use, healthcare. That “what” is distinct from the “how”.
I also agree most people do not have the information to always make the right choices. I stress the always. There has to be sensible limits, and an institutional aversion to overreach. How to do that should earn a Nobel Prize.
As to Beveridge, I would begin by re-ordering the list. These things are important. Words and precedence are key to shaping thought.
Instead of “want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness”, I would put idleness at the front or second place. Want as the first may well be why the state’s knee-jerk reaction is to spend and subsidise, not fix.
If people are not idle, their mental heath has more of a chance, for example.
Squalor has been built and rebuilt to this day.
I would say if you are poor but in good health, busy, living in a pleasant home and in safe and orderly surroundings, material wealth is down the list.
Totally - the SDP recent work on handouts vs Investment ("The Investment State") is a real eye opener on this. The uniparty would rather subsidise idleness than address it.
The Politicians have been bred to believe they are our masters. They look down on and talk down to the 'plebs'. Nothing will force them to relinquish that power. We must however resist those that favour piano wire and lampposts, lest we become Maximilien Robespierre, Georges Danton, and the Marquis de Lafayette. There has to be a better way to restore democracy in this benighted land.
This is way better than you kippers article. The dissident right will just never admit the core issues of why the political system is bad, it's mostly about rage-bait and placard carrying in order to let people vent the issues but not the real issues at large.
I largely agree with this — and particularly the idea of the Christian morality behind interventions such as Beveridge's. And it is here that we can see where the problem with state intervention comes...
The simple problem is that many of the guiding principles of this benevolent Christian state (if I might call it that) have been abandoned along with the moral framework that founded it. So education, to take one strand, is no longer about what is the best foundation for the individuals — it is about pushing the fashionable shibboleths of whichever organisation is in power at the time (which may or may not be the government of the day). Reading, writing, and counting become less important than indoctrination in socialism and eco-zealotry.
(All of the above are, of course, less important than maintaining the lightest work and highest wages for the unionised workforce in a "producer capture" that affects all state industries.)
Christianity and morals that it underpins (or that underpin it, in the English sense?) has been largely killed by the Church of England, and by the state, and by Marxist thought, etc. People's attitude now is much more that of God's opposition: "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Without these underpinnings — the moral imperative to act for the benefit of others — the "the arms of the state" are left only with the power that accompanies the legal monopoly on force. And as we know, "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
If one recognises this corruption, then the obvious push-back becomes — lacking the near-magical ability to instil morals into these agents and agencies — to cut the power of the state. The most recognised name for which is "libertarianism".
Well my problem with a nanny state that claims to be bossing people around “for their own good” is who gets to draw the line between justifiably needed health initiatives and useless overreach like which direction you can walk in The grocery store. I will NEVER forget how horribly the govt treated us during COVID. I will NEVER give one inch to any authoritarian over reach like that again. If that authoritarian bullshit is what you are proposing. I can’t type what I think of you.
"the 1942 Beveridge Report in which Sir William Beveridge identified five major social evils: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Probably more than any other influence, this provide the moral basis for the modern British state. This is perhaps what is most lacking from modern politics. A sense of moral purpose."
Probably the most interesting thing I have ever seen you write Mr North.
The curse of both the modern left and right is that they have both failed to elucidate clearly their purpose. What do they stand for? Why should they govern us?
Instead, both have imported more of the same 'want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness' without even attempting to address existing ills in the furtherance of their goals aligned superficially with diversity, inclusion & equality, international human rights and the pursuit of nominal GDP growth.
Interesting piece with which I can agree, to a point. I accept that there may be a role for government in the health system, I absolutely will not accept that it should look anything like the NHS; and I say that as someone who has lived in four other countries. I also accept that, in principle, people often need to be protected from themselves, but it can be a slippery slope argument, especially when it's a mask for fads, vested interests and nannying. Lastly, a 'duty of care' for our fellows is fine in principle, but when it's taken to absurdist lengths like providing tit jobs for confused blokes all moral argument has been lost.
You really should start your own podcast or go get interviewed by others. You are a clear thinker and write very well. But the debate has moved to podcasts.
This is your best work so far. It shows a clear understanding of conservatism in the Burkean, Disraelian and Scrutonian sense. The health of a nation is one of those collective assets - along with peace, cooperation, sanitation and goodwill - that no single person can acquire alone.
A lot in here to agree with. A really good piece.
It's a strange issue to priorities, bit of a distraction unfortunately.
Superb analysis, Pete, and a great summary of the reasons that I've kept my SDP membership.
I see a lot that I agree with here. I have a libertarian slant, but I believe in universal, free at the point of use, healthcare. That “what” is distinct from the “how”.
I also agree most people do not have the information to always make the right choices. I stress the always. There has to be sensible limits, and an institutional aversion to overreach. How to do that should earn a Nobel Prize.
As to Beveridge, I would begin by re-ordering the list. These things are important. Words and precedence are key to shaping thought.
Instead of “want, disease, ignorance, squalor, and idleness”, I would put idleness at the front or second place. Want as the first may well be why the state’s knee-jerk reaction is to spend and subsidise, not fix.
If people are not idle, their mental heath has more of a chance, for example.
Squalor has been built and rebuilt to this day.
I would say if you are poor but in good health, busy, living in a pleasant home and in safe and orderly surroundings, material wealth is down the list.
Totally - the SDP recent work on handouts vs Investment ("The Investment State") is a real eye opener on this. The uniparty would rather subsidise idleness than address it.
Excellent piece. Thank you. You have set some very useful and new (to me) ways of looking at things.
The trouble with public health is that it's not a pill you can sell.
Conservative or otherwise nothing will change until the 'people' have more power and our politicians become our servants instead of our masters.
https://harrogateagenda.org.uk/
The Politicians have been bred to believe they are our masters. They look down on and talk down to the 'plebs'. Nothing will force them to relinquish that power. We must however resist those that favour piano wire and lampposts, lest we become Maximilien Robespierre, Georges Danton, and the Marquis de Lafayette. There has to be a better way to restore democracy in this benighted land.
Copy the Chartists and use Gene Sharp's peaceful methods following the a starfish structure and 'People Power' can win.
The Chartists unfortunately for us, lived in times with a different demos.
People Power is still real IF exercised.
This is way better than you kippers article. The dissident right will just never admit the core issues of why the political system is bad, it's mostly about rage-bait and placard carrying in order to let people vent the issues but not the real issues at large.
I largely agree with this — and particularly the idea of the Christian morality behind interventions such as Beveridge's. And it is here that we can see where the problem with state intervention comes...
The simple problem is that many of the guiding principles of this benevolent Christian state (if I might call it that) have been abandoned along with the moral framework that founded it. So education, to take one strand, is no longer about what is the best foundation for the individuals — it is about pushing the fashionable shibboleths of whichever organisation is in power at the time (which may or may not be the government of the day). Reading, writing, and counting become less important than indoctrination in socialism and eco-zealotry.
(All of the above are, of course, less important than maintaining the lightest work and highest wages for the unionised workforce in a "producer capture" that affects all state industries.)
Christianity and morals that it underpins (or that underpin it, in the English sense?) has been largely killed by the Church of England, and by the state, and by Marxist thought, etc. People's attitude now is much more that of God's opposition: "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law."
Without these underpinnings — the moral imperative to act for the benefit of others — the "the arms of the state" are left only with the power that accompanies the legal monopoly on force. And as we know, "power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely."
If one recognises this corruption, then the obvious push-back becomes — lacking the near-magical ability to instil morals into these agents and agencies — to cut the power of the state. The most recognised name for which is "libertarianism".
Well my problem with a nanny state that claims to be bossing people around “for their own good” is who gets to draw the line between justifiably needed health initiatives and useless overreach like which direction you can walk in The grocery store. I will NEVER forget how horribly the govt treated us during COVID. I will NEVER give one inch to any authoritarian over reach like that again. If that authoritarian bullshit is what you are proposing. I can’t type what I think of you.
"the 1942 Beveridge Report in which Sir William Beveridge identified five major social evils: want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness. Probably more than any other influence, this provide the moral basis for the modern British state. This is perhaps what is most lacking from modern politics. A sense of moral purpose."
Probably the most interesting thing I have ever seen you write Mr North.
The curse of both the modern left and right is that they have both failed to elucidate clearly their purpose. What do they stand for? Why should they govern us?
Instead, both have imported more of the same 'want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness' without even attempting to address existing ills in the furtherance of their goals aligned superficially with diversity, inclusion & equality, international human rights and the pursuit of nominal GDP growth.
Interesting piece with which I can agree, to a point. I accept that there may be a role for government in the health system, I absolutely will not accept that it should look anything like the NHS; and I say that as someone who has lived in four other countries. I also accept that, in principle, people often need to be protected from themselves, but it can be a slippery slope argument, especially when it's a mask for fads, vested interests and nannying. Lastly, a 'duty of care' for our fellows is fine in principle, but when it's taken to absurdist lengths like providing tit jobs for confused blokes all moral argument has been lost.
You really should start your own podcast or go get interviewed by others. You are a clear thinker and write very well. But the debate has moved to podcasts.
The first few paragraphs led me to conclude you were thinking of the past.
I used to think of myself as a socialist. There was a divide between myself and a Tory over privatisation, health care, taxation etc
What is the divide now?
Labour embraces privatisation of publicly owned operations like trains and water. Tories expand healthcare to health tourists.
Tories tax anything that moves whilst Labour tax anything that doesn’t move.
People still hold their values, it’s just that the parties haven’t.
People worked to provide the lifestyle they desired, never borrowed what couldn’t be afforded, bought according to their means.
The parties moved, people didn’t.
The new voting generation can’t make an independent life for themselves as buying property is so far out of reach, it’s impossible.
They can’t apply the older generations values.
So they don’t bother trying and instead work part time and live for today with parents.
I’m still a socialist, but amusingly, I’m right wing, according to today’s ‘philosophy’.
Go figure.
YES ALL OF THIS.
AMEN.