Should British "Conservative Party" change its name to "Libertarian Party"?

[Cubus]

[nightdrot]

For my part, as an American who follows British politics I answer the question with some diffidence as I am not "on the ground," so to speak. So my answer is somewhat speculative, though I add that I am an Anglophile - I know all three verses to "God Save the King" for gosh sakes! - and my loyalties would tend toward the Conservative Party. Also adding that my philosophy tends to the more "Tory" tradition - Burke, Disraeli and the like.

Having said that, a case can be made not so much that the Conservatives are not so much tending libertarian perhaps, but certainly in the classical liberal mode. "That government is best which governs least..." and all the rest. Having moved that way at least since the government of Lady Thatcher. (Whom I also greatly admired - then and now - but who did not really reconcile some of the contradictions in her philosophical outlook.)

In part this was a reaction to the "hard left turn" - remember the "Looney :Left"? - of the Labour Party in the 1970s and 80s. In part also because of the populist turn politics has taken throughout the Western world. Thus making respect for the established institutions of society - a hallmark of the "Tory" tradition - problematic.

It being hard to reconcile "the common man" to the aristocracy from whom the Conservative Party historically drew its' leadership and its' philosophical traditions. Not that free market economics was or is incompatible with the Tory tradition. Rather merely that Tories did not and do not invest the promethean pretentions in free market economics that the classical liberals and libertarians - they are not the same thing, though related - tend to.

Edmund Burke, father of the Tory tradition in the Conservative party, once said, "The effect of liberty to individuals is that they may do as they please. We ought see what it will please them to do before we risk congratulations." The old Conservative party, while generally supportive of free market economics, put that qualifier on capitalism. The current Conservative party is far less apt to do so.

The reasons for this change are sociologically complicated. As the economy transitions from a manufacturing/extractions base to a service/high tech base, social resentments are bubbling up. The response to this has been, among a certain strata of British society, an emphasis that can be summarized somewhat crudely as "You can't tell me what to do."

Thus a greater emphasis on freedom and less on deference to established institutions and thus a market for classical liberal and, to some extent, even libertarian ideas. It is to this that the Conservative party is appealing and it has changed the party.

Not completely, of course. The Conservatives are still the party of the monarchy, the established church and the aristocracy insofar as it opposes abolition of the House of Lords. (Of course, it is worth adding that the Conservatives did NOT even attempt to undo Labour's removal of the hereditary peers from the Lords.)

So, long way around, to change the name of the Conservatives to the "Libertarian Party" would be a misrepresentation and an oversimplification of what is transpiring. However, there is no doubt, free market "classical liberal" thinking is now - not completely - a far more prominent strand in Conservative thinking than had been the case at earlier periods in history.

[Cubus]

Tories have moved too far to the left on world view issues since Cameron to be called conservative.

[nightdrot]

Well, do you have some specific examples? Keeping in mind that two conservatives, Disraeli in Britain and Bismarck in Germany, founded the welfare state. The difference being that they sought an ameliorative welfare state to assist the public with the difficulties associated with old age, illness and temporary unemployment.

It was only later that the parties of the left sought to establish a transformative welfare state whose purpose would be the engineering of social arrangements. This to attain pre-determined social and cultural outcomes.

Allowing for that, do you have examples of cases where the contemporary Tories have sought to expand the scope and range of government for the purposes of social engineering? As it is, there appears to be several people below who disagree with your analysis.

[Cubus]

I do not talk about economy. I talk about world-view issues.

[nightdrot]

Okay, so give some examples. Again, I speak as an American who is an Anglophile, works in - and is interested in - politics, and follows British and international politics as best I can. As with any political party there will be various factions that tend to place greater emphasis on some policy areas than others.

That all said, the essentials of the Conservative party, from what I can tell at this distance, seem fundamentally what they have been historically. True, Thatcherism introduce an element of classical liberalism that previously had been the monopoly of the Liberal Party.

However, as that party declined in the post-WWI era, the classical liberals drifted into the Conservative party and thus setting the stage for Thatcherism. However, free market economics was and is not incompatible with traditional Toryism. Moreover, the Tories seem to remain committed to the established institutions of British society.

So, with that as the philosophical - not merely economic - premise, illustrate your point. As a follower of British politics, again albeit at some distance, I am interested to hear your arguments.

[Cubus]

Tories:
- support abortion
- support and actually introduced gay marriage (and kicking their congressman out from their party for saying "I will always support the right of homosexuals to be treated - within common sense - equally and with respect, and defend their right to choose a private lifestyle, but I will not accept their behavior as "normal", or encourage children to engage in it.")
- put safe zones on abortion clinics which prohibits anyone from suggesting there are other options
- Increased immigration to the country

[Cubus]

I would risk a statement that Labour is currently more right wing on world-view issues. Starmer in his convention was talking about pride of being British, patriotism, "family values" and criticised Corbyn for treating every patriotic act like a sign of nationalism.

[nightdrot]

Actually, if I might briefly digress, kicking their "congressman" out from their party? Congressman?

Parliament has a House of Commons and a House of Lords. Members of the former are called MPs. The latter are called "peers," Lords or Ladies or other such honorifics.

Would you clarify, please. I note that you are from Poland. How familiar are you with British politics? Also, what MP was expelled from the party - what was his name? Do you have any background on that?

Superficially you make a fair point - though weirdly, although I would not do it, you could make a conservative case for gay marriage. It after all being better to keep sexual and familial relations within the ambit of institutions and the law.

As to abortion, I am pro-life and confess that it would be almost impossible to make a conservative case for it. That said, as I noted, since the Thatcher era, the Conservative Party has been an amalgam of old Tory and classical liberal views. The abortion position, no doubt, falls within that latter category.

At any rate, I appreciate your response and if you would be so kind, please respond to my questions above.

[Cubus]

You know what I'm talking about when saying "congressman". It's only semantics.

[nightdrot]

No. It is not. The titles are different and while I do not mean to offend, the fact that you used improper terminology suggested to me that you might not know as much about the subject than I had originally given you credit. Hence also my other questions.

[Cubus]

"you could make a conservative case for gay marriage. It after all being better to keep sexual and familial relations within the ambit of institutions and the law."

That's the difference - conservatives in most of the world want to protect the marriage as a union between a man and a woman. In the Western Europe the marriage position is so bad that they are happy anyone wants to do this still and make all options possible.

As for me : if anyone can marry then marriage loses its special place. It becomes meaningless. And studies shows that introduction of gay marriage decreases number of heterosexual marriage.

Besides: marriage is a form of sacrum that should not be treated like this.

[Cubus]

"That said, as I noted, since the Thatcher era, the Conservative Party has been an amalgam of old Tory and classical liberal views. The abortion position, no doubt, falls within that latter category."

Banning freedom of speech at a spots several meters around abortion centers is all but liberal (in european meaning - in USA liberal=left).

And the guy name was Philip Lardner

[nightdrot]

No, marriage is an institution of society constructed and protected by law. It affords certain legal and other benefits that conduce to a stable and a traditional social order.

In those societies where marriage is being dispensed with, children tend to do poorly, women are not afforded legal protections, abortion is more common. The list goes on.

In fact, you are making a liberal case for marriage that is radically individualistic when conservatives of the Tory school recognize marriage as an infinitely more complex thing. Involving not just two individuals but the laws, customs and traditions of society.

If I may, if you would be interested, read the American writer George F. Will's book "Statecraft as Soulcraft." You may find it interesting and at a minimum you will see that politics and conservatism are more complex than you assume.

Also, again if I may, please answer the other questions I asked you above.

[Cubus]

"the fact that you used improper terminology suggested to me that you might not know as much about the subject than I had originally given you credit."

Believe what you want. I do not want to make a shitstorm about semantics.

I know how your houses are called but never cared about how you called its members. And I believe it doesn;t change the topic.

[Cubus]

"No, marriage is an institution of society constructed and protected by law. It affords certain legal and other benefits that conduce to a stable and a traditional social order."

This is a state marriage. Which was created as an instrument of vassalising the Church during absolutism in Prussia and Austria. Which is not really something I care about, because I do not feel anything special about given benediction by a state clerc.

[Cubus]

"In those societies where marriage is being dispensed with, children tend to do poorly, women are not afforded legal protections, abortion is more common. The list goes on."

Actually its opposite. Especially about abortion.

[Cubus]

"In fact, you are making a liberal case for marriage that is radically individualistic when conservatives of the Tory school recognize marriage as an infinitely more complex thing. Involving not just two individuals but the laws, customs and traditions of society."

Homosexual marriage is as far from tradition as you can get. You can only go further by legalising marriages between siblings (because they also want to be in a loving, commited relationships).

[nightdrot]

State marriage is marriage. In the USA, when someone marries in a church wedding, they also sign a marriage license - issued by the state. Marriage is both a cultural and legal institution and absent one or the other, it typically does not last.

In any case, I recommend the book to you. As to the rest, if you consider the proper use of titles mere semantics, then I suppose any meaningful discussion is problematic.

After all, if we cannot be sure that the words we use have the same meaning to each other, then substantive conversation will be, at best, problematic.

[Cubus]

"As to the rest, if you consider the proper use of titles mere semantics, then I suppose any meaningful discussion is problematic."

No problem. I am willing, but if you say that's the reason not to discuss.

[nightdrot]

You speak of the "vassalizing" of the Church. You do understand that in the UK, the monarch is head of the church and that the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Archbishop of York and the 23 bishops of the church of England sit, debate and vote by right in the House of Lords. It having been that way for approximately 700 years.

There is no vassalage to speak of. Rather the church and state are intertwined in mutually supportive institutions. Again, even in the USA where church and state are constitutionally separated, a church wedding still includes, at some point, the issuance and signing of a marriage license.

Society profits from being sustained by institutions like the church that gives its' traditions legal standing and protection. Of course this is an ongoing process and there are risks in it, but in those societies where it has been balanced - which is to say most of the West and, to some degree, even in your native Poland - it has proved beneficial.

You also wrote: "In those societies where marriage is being dispensed with, children tend to do poorly, women are not afforded legal protections, abortion is more common. The list goes on."

Actually its opposite. Especially about abortion.

Really? Abortion is MORE common where marriage is well established in the culture? Then ought you not favor the abolition of marriage?

Finally, your use of the word "shitstorm" suggested that you did not wish to discuss this further. Thus why I opted to discontinue the discussion. As it is, I am still not sure to what degree you are familiar with British politics.

[LiamJHayden]

No. The Tories are less conservative than the average US Democrat, and neither is close to being libertarian.

[Cubus]

What name do you suggest?

[Lucy68]

I don't know if it'll work in there to be honest. I mean everything will have to change and most people wouldn't want to participate in certain changes

[Cubus]

Libertarian to their degree.

[Lucy68]

Thank you for the MHO

[Cubus]

You're welcome

[Levin]

I don't think the Conservative party is a libertarian party. I mean, look what happened over covid.

But in some small way, we should be thankful we didn't have Labour in power. They'd have gone in much the same way as NZ, Canada and Australia; pretty much, mental..

[Cubus]

Explain please

[USLegionary]

Why would they do that when they don't have any libertarian values, they are closer to the Democrat party in the US rather than antmy libertarian party. They are for big government. The UK is probably the heaviest taxed country on the planet. The UK government has to get a cut of everything where money changes hands.

[Cubus]

Truss resigned because of backlash to her tax cuts proposals.

[USLegionary]

Was that not due to the cuts on corporation tax while taxing average people's income instead?
The uk conservative party is too authoritarian to be libertarian for starters.

[Cubus]

On the other hand they are too left wing to be called "conservative".

[USLegionary]

Authoritarian, nationalist, monarchies, capitalist...

[Cubus]

Authoritarian and capitalist are not conservative.

And no - they are not nationalists.

[USLegionary]

Of course they are nationalists. Up until the1960s they were imperialists. Can't be imperialists without an empire. What's more authoritarian than 4 countries ruled through one seat of government with an unelected head of state? Let's not forget the British Conservative party were arresting people for slight infractions of their covid rules while breaking them themselves throwing parties, pretty authoritarian

[Cubus]

Your comment would made some sense if British king had any influence on the governing. He is only a representative and nothing more.

[USLegionary]

he's an unelected head of state. The British prime minister is elected by his party not the people, the leader of the party with the most votes has to ask the British head of state for permission to form a government and its not just the British prime minister its also the Canadian, Australian and New Zealand prime ministers. The king of England is also the Head of the British armed forces. The laws of the land starting in 1066 and later as Wales, Ireland, and Scotland as well as the various islands were unified into a united kingdom have been written to exclusively maintain the postion of the monarch and aristocracy. The King of Britain may be the single most powerful and richest individual on the planet.

[Cubus]

Richest - maybe.

Most powerful - clearly not.

Yes - he is a head of state, but he has no power.

"The king of England is also the Head of the British armed forces. " - except, again, it's only formal. King does not dictate the battle strategy in any way

[USLegionary]

The president of the United States does not dictate battle strategy but is still commander and chief.
In 1970s Queen Elizabeth 2nd dismissed the Australian Prime minister and his government, shut down the Australian Parliament. The British king has real power eve if he like those before him rarely if ever wields it.

[Cubus]

How often does it happen compared to full monarchies like Saudi Arabia or Qatar?

[USLegionary]

Not often which is why the British monarchy is still in power whereas the monarchy in Saudi Arabia isn't even 100 years old. The British monarchy use soft power, they get what they want done without having to reveal theif power. The entire establishment swears allegiance to them from the lowest civil servant to the prime minister and they buy up celebrities, journalists, scientists, law professionals, billionaires and athletes with honors like knighthoods and they back the Royals

[Cubus]

"The British monarchy use soft power, they get what they want done without having to reveal theif power"

Yes, except it's not king who does it.

It was not Elizabeth II who used soft power against Russia.

[USLegionary]

The monarch has minions to do that. People of influence. Those who are members of the order of the garter or order of Bath and so on.
Not sure what Elizabeth the 2 did with Russia. Russia being a foreign state.

[DryGermanGuy]

The UK already has the Liberal Democrat party.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Democrats_(UK)

[Cubus]

I know about it. That's why I proposed "Libertarian" and not "Liberal".

[DryGermanGuy]

I appreciate the (potential) distinction, but how much party fragmentation is sustainable in a country of 65 million people?

[Cubus]

Look at Israel.

[DryGermanGuy]

That’s a good example, they have not had a stable government in years!

[Guy13]

No that would change whole platform

[Cubus]

Why you believe so?

[Guy13]

Conservative and Libertarian are different belief set and that’s why they are separated groups.

[Cubus]

Except Tories are not conservative.

[greenice27]

Maybe it will change.