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.
Whenever I hear William Clouston speak it agonises me that he's eclipsed in stature and influence by so much dross. Libertarian attitudes towards drugs, smoking and alcohol have always been a major turn-off for me, while the combination of cultural conservatism and economic interventionism espoused by Clouston feels far more intellectually coherent.
That said, about a year ago I flirted with joining the SDP only to find that my local branch was stuffed full of social liberals whose values were probably more aligned with the SDP of old, which surprised me because I always identified the party as fundamentally conservative.
Still, I would happily vote SDP if they fielded a candidate in my constituency.
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.
A lot in here to agree with. A really good piece.
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/
Whenever I hear William Clouston speak it agonises me that he's eclipsed in stature and influence by so much dross. Libertarian attitudes towards drugs, smoking and alcohol have always been a major turn-off for me, while the combination of cultural conservatism and economic interventionism espoused by Clouston feels far more intellectually coherent.
That said, about a year ago I flirted with joining the SDP only to find that my local branch was stuffed full of social liberals whose values were probably more aligned with the SDP of old, which surprised me because I always identified the party as fundamentally conservative.
Still, I would happily vote SDP if they fielded a candidate in my constituency.
Superb analysis, Pete, and a great summary of the reasons that I've kept my SDP membership.
It's a strange issue to priorities, bit of a distraction unfortunately.