Modern Conservatism, perpetual war

Neil Clark wrote last summer about how the modern Conservative party have been wholly captured by the neo-conservative hawks. I knew about Gove, Hague and Fox, but it turns out that all the key figures in the cabinet have similar views. Neil Clark also touches on how the Cameron campaign was orchestrated by special interests.

So what a Modern Conservative election victory would bring us is more confrontation with Russia, support for sanctions against Iran for what is an entirely legitimate nuclear programme, an escalation of the war in Afghanistan and forays into Somalia (justified by gloopy humanitarianism). And this is a time of austerity, when the middle classes will have to take the hit on welfare benefits and tax rises.

The Eastern Europe watch blog noted how apathetic the poles are about involvement in Afghanistan, a war opposed by the majority there. It also points out the blindingly obvious but politically incorrect observation that there is less muslim immigration in Poland, and therefore less danger of home-grown terrorism. Eight years after 9/11, immigration to Britain continues unabated. The British people are sceptical about the benefits of mass immigration and they are also sceptical about defending Britain by fighting wars on the other side of the world. The ordinary member of the Conservative party to a large extent will reflect the population as a whole.

But Modern Conservatism means you take the power of decision from the rank and file, who are too reactionary and stupid to make the correct decisions and leave them to an enlightened, progressive clique. Who needs democracy? William Hague has said that a conservative goverment would need to turn around public opposition to the Afghanistan war.

It is also noteworthy that the Immigration Advisory Service (IAS) had a presence at the Conservative party conference. At time of writing, there are two postings on the IAS home page. One from Modern Conservative Immigration spokesman, Damien Green, tells the IAS in-crowd that a future government should not follow public opinion. Here Green also talks about Europe-wide solutions. The second posting on the IAS site has an IAS person saying joined up thinking and curbing human rights abuses across the world is the way to fight immigration. Those caring people in the IAS are dispensing a presciption for perpetual interventions and wars across the world in the name of "human rights". Tightening our own border controls and asylum regulations is not the kind of change approved of by Modern Conservatism and its allies. "Joined up thinking": where did we hear that before? Is that Blairism? or Blameronism?

There is a link between immigration and modern utopian wars. The globalist elites, which includes the modern conservative and republican party elites, have given up on controlling their own borders; and in order to make immigration safer, they try to control large tracts of the rest of the world, which are the source for migrant invasions. In order "to make the world safe for globalism democracy".

The fact that Al-Queda and the Taliban hate Shia Islam as much as they hate West should make these War-on-Terror fanatics think that Iran and the West have common cause. The nebulous concept of "global security" means that all local conflicts are seen through the simplistic prism of Free-world vs Islamic extremists; "global security" necessitates that the vaguest of threats demands a military response from an economically bankrupt and war-weary US and UK. As Ron Paul said, sanctions are an act of war. A vote for Cameron is a vote for the McCain-Cheney axis. George W. Bush was a realist compared to these.

More British deaths in Afghanistan

Eight more soldiers died today, part of an offensive operation with the Americans. The consequence of the increase in casualties is that politicians can't ignore this far-away war any longer. The Media are now covering the story and the parties have to declare their position, beyond these formulaic declarations of sorrow.

Everyone I talk to thinks it a disgrace that soldiers should be sent to war without being properly resourced. The whole country sees it as a scandal, and whether people believe the war is justified or not, they want the troops to be protected. What is also scandalous is how the politicians had contrived not to discuss the issue until last week.

It is especially scandalous that the Conservatives have been quiet because their leadership is very much in favour of intervention. But Cameron stayed quiet. It took the Anti-war Liberal Democrat party to break the silence. If the Conservatives are supposed to competing on the same ground in the next election, then Clegg wins on this. Clegg calls himself a liberal interventionist, which seems to be a break from the previous leadership.

In many ways, Afghanistan is a liberal war: people like Harman are understandably horrified by the way the Taliban coerce women. But, I don't see how we can supplant an entire culture, without coercion; we are meant to be on the side of the people, not against them. Liberals don't like solutions based around ethnic differences, but Afghanistan itself is so fragmented that a weak central state with iranian, pakistani/pashtun, uzbecki spheres of influence, all based on ethnic ties, would probably be the most stable solution. This would be more effective than top-down economic development (which is likely to be misdirected anyway).

This war is not like the cold war, where scepticism was confined to left-wingers. Ordinary, strongly patriotic people will say that the soldiers shouldn't be there in the first place. The government say candidly that the soldiers are in Afghanistan to protect us from Terrorism, Gordon Brown today and Harriet Harman in Prime Minister's questions on Wednesday. But beyond the assertion that Afghanistan is the cradle of terrorism, it is never explained how terrorists can bomb British cities from thousands of miles away or how you can stop someone from Britain who hasn't been to Afghanistan from committing a terrorist act. Our presence there is just as likely to provoke a terrorist attack as stope one.

Those thinkers who believe the war is a good thing are talking about a long war. This is in spite of our indebtedness and general economic weakness. This under-resourced, politically naive war is leading to the deaths of British soliders, with no end in sight.

MPs and democracy: more MPs means more people-power

David Cameron, before the MPs' expenses row, had suggested reducing MP numbers by 10% on the grounds of increasing efficiency. A reduction in numbers wouldn't be noticed, he said, as happened when the number of Scottish MSPs were cut back. However, Christopher Caldwell noted in this weekend's Financial Times that congressmen in the US represent on average 750,000 electors compared to British MPs representing an average of 100,000, so British MPs, he says, are closer to the people.

Less MPs, as proposed by Cameron, means on average more voters per constituency, therefore greater distance between MPs and individual voters. Secondly, larger constituencies leads to more voters trapped in constituencies that their preferred candidate has no hope of winning (this is a problem with first-past-the-post, yet PR serves the party machines by cutting the link between MP and constituency). Third, lobbyists are very efficient at commandeering the votes of the relatively few US politicians.

And is "efficiency" the criterion we should be applying to democratic repesentation?

So I propose more MPs. Specifically we should double the number to 1,300 or so.

This would mean:

1. MPs are closer to individual electors, therefore more accountable, more representative, better known as individuals to the people who vote for them. Their connection to local interests would be stronger, their sense of obligation to serve their constituents would be greater. An organised party electoral machine would be less of a factor in getting a candidate elected.



2. More MPs in parliament means a lower proportion of elected MPs will serve in the executive; the chances of advancement will be considerably lessened. Many MPs will be less inclined to try to please party leaders, because they will not expect preferment or will have given up hoping.



3. More MPs mean it is more difficult for lobbyists to target them. The effectiveness of lobbyists blights American democracy, no doubt due in part to the low proportion of representatives in relation to the population.



4. We could expect to see more independent MPs in parliament, representing local interests. More ethnic minority or religion-based parties, more save-the-local hospital candidates. That is diversity mandated by electors, not "A" lists.

What I'm saying is against the conventional wisdom. To many wiseheads, reducing MPs has a modernising, cutting-a-swathe-through-old-habits-and-ways-of-doing-it air: less elected representatives means more "efficiency", saving on wages (they're a waste of space anyway, you'll say), more room to sit down in the commons - so the "cream", the really talented guardians of our democracy, who rise to the top by party patronage shining merit and get elected to their privileged seat, can be a bit more comfy.

In part answer to that, we could save money by paying them less, a blow against the professionalisation of what should be public service. But more to the point, how, exactly, is reducing MPs meant to serve democracy?

People will say that more MPs make parliamentary democracy more unwieldy; but what's wrong with that? The problem with government today is that too few people are involved in the decision-making, resulting in poorly thought-out legislation, and narrow ideology triumphing over the concerns of the electorate. This is less effective law-making, probably in direct proportion to the gain in expediency. We need more unwieldiness, slower decision-making, more argument, more scrutiny, more diverse interests chipping in. Heaven forbid, it could mean less laws being passed!

The downside is that more MPs would be anonymous to the media; but apart from party leaders and a handful of "star" MP's, this is true anyway, so this is not much of a downside at all. The House of Commons chamber doesn't have capacity for the existing number, so some have to stand; more MPs makes this more difficult. A good old-fashioned British compromise would be to halve the increase, so we have approximately 975 MPs, although this would weaken the impact.

But I'm sure they could find a way, if the principle was accepted that a greater number of MPs was a more accountable and effective way of representing voters.