Two weeks ago, the Queen undertook a week-long homecoming to Canada.  On the 1^st of July, she and the Duke of Edinburgh were in the nation’s capital to celebrate Dominion Day, marking 143 years since the enactment of the British North America Act and Canadian Confederation.

Yet the United Kingdom and Canada have more in common than Queen Elizabeth II and constitutional monarchy:  the rule of law, parliamentary government, and inter-twined histories are just a few political realities shared by these two Commonwealth members (and countless others).  Both countries are also witness to the successful exploits of One Nation Tory politics – ‘progressive conservatism’ – of which the Victorian prime ministers, Benjamin Disraeli and Sir John A. Macdonald, were master practitioners.

The monarch, serving in Walter Bagehot’s ‘dignified capacity’, is above the hurly-burly of partisan politics, and offers to all parties the benefit of its accumulated wisdom, signified by its prerogatives rights to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.  ‘The nation is divided into parties, but the crown is of no party.’  Nevertheless, the monarchy represents two ideals that have especial resonance for progressive conservatism:  limited government and the obligatory State.

Limited government, as historians will attest, is predominantly a Whig tenet.  But when the alternative on the political spectrum is the all-encompassing State, setting limits to legitimate government becomes no less a conservative principle, too.  King Louis XIV is rumoured to have boasted, ‘L’état, c’est moi’, setting up visions of material and financial rapacious as the ends of absolute monarchy, though this is not necessarily the case, according to Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Professor Hoppe is a libertarian economist (or ‘anarcho-capitalist’) and, true, if he had his druthers, there would be no State at all, but simply free people co-operating voluntarily amongst themselves.  That being said, he believes that monarchical government has a valuable lesson to teach democracies:  ‘if one has to choose between two evils, a monarchical state or a democratic state, then monarchies have certain advantages.’

Because everybody knew I cannot become a king, there was resistance against attempts on the part of kings to increase taxes and to increase exploitation of their subjects.  Under democracy, the illusion arises that we all rule ourselves even though it should be perfectly clear, of course, that also under a democracy there exists rulers and people who are ruled.  But because of the fact that everybody can potentially become a public employee, the illusion of “we rule ourselves” arises and this then leads to a reduction of the resistance that existed vis-à-vis kings when it came to the attempt of increasing tax revenue.

A king sits on the throne with only the impediments of old age to curtail the longevity of his reign; he views public lands as personal property, to be passed on to his heirs, and tends it with care and with an eye for its future prosperity.  Likewise, his subjects, knowing that they will never directly partake of the royal bounty, are jealous of their own property rights.  A relationship of mutual (if wary) respect is established, which is reflected in restricted policies of appropriation and aggression:  an overzealous king must always fear the loss of popular support and ensuing revolution.  Monarchy thus inculcates, after its own fashion, the conservative beliefs in personal freedom, property ownership, and the modest State.

In a democracy, however, the tension between rulers and ruled is weakened, since it is widely held that ‘we are the government’.  The limited government that constitutes the relationship of king and people morphs into the unlimited government of citizen legislators. Elected officials, holding office for the short-term—and with no concern for the circumstances of their political successors—more readily spend for immediate public gratification (and sometimes for the benefit of their associates and hangers-on).  Furthermore, according to public choice theory, these leaders are more apt to spend on initiatives that will help them get re-elected.  Citizens, meanwhile, who see themselves as possible office holders themselves one day, are less jealous in defending their rights.  As many public works will benefit them, and with the tax burden spread among many, democratic welfare programmes are welcomed.  Funding concerns are left to another day.  Bagehot, in words that predate Hoppe, believed the Crown could provide a salutary counterweight:

But a wise and great constitutional monarch attempts no such vanities. His career is not in the air; he labours in the world of sober fact; he deals with schemes which can be effected – schemes which are desirable—schemes which are worth the cost.

These are the dangers of atrophied accountability and the evils of expanded government, that centuries of royal rule and experience can teach modern democratic States—but these lessons are wholly of a negative character:  a caution against democratic government encroaching upon our rights.  A more positive libertarian approach to the monarchy is to emphasis our natural rights as individuals, which no authority, royal or democratic, can morally infringe. ‘Governments are instituted among Men,’ in Jefferson’s immortal Declaration, ‘deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed’.  This is the truest sense of equality under the law.  As Seán Cronin argued in ‘A Libertarian Defence of the Monarchy’:

But the most important, if least tangible benefit of a constitutional Monarchy, is that if forces [the First Minister] to refer to himself as ‘Her Majesty’s Prime Minister’.  He is Her Majesty’s servant, and not just him but all politicians.  The constant reminder that there is someone set above them, that they serve someone else, must have a salutary effect on the most arrogant mind.  It is true that these are only symbolic words, and real power lies with the Prime Minister—as is perfectly proper, because we exert some control at least over his excesses.  But anyone who doubts the importance of symbolic words in politics is ignoring the reality of what is, in favour of what they believe should be. [...] Better for my freedom, and yours, that our Head of State be a constitutional Monarch, able to rein in politicians but not to reign politically, than the alternative.

Admittedly, the United Kingdom and Canada are both constitutional monarchies, yet each has seen exploding deficits and crippling debt accumulation—where is the royal reproach when we need it?  Obviously, the virtues of limited government need additional proponents than the example set by the monarchical model.  Still, the relationship between the Crown and the premier is a symbol of the limits of power—whether exercised by the Crown or its ministers—a lesson not to be forgotten by prime ministers in relation to their cabinets and backbenchers, and duplicated by governments toward the people.

This is the conservative element in royalty and politics.

The Crown also serves as a symbol of the obligatory State.  What do I mean by the obligatory State?  Libertarians, as exemplified by Professor Hoppe, view the State as a coercive institution, compelling people through its laws and tax policies to redistribute property from those who generate wealth to those who don’t.  True concern for the least advantaged, they argue, is exemplified by voluntary charity, given freely and without force.

Under the obligatory State, however, our natural relations, arising from time immemorial—‘no man is an island’—are understood as embodying more than the voluntary associations of civil society, as valuable as they are.  As members of society we have obligations that transcend the here-and-now.  ‘As the ends of such a partnership cannot be maintained in many generations,’ insisted Edmund Burke, ‘it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.’

Classical liberals, for instance, make the case that it is quite legitimate to pool our resources to pay for security services (domestic and foreign) and to establish a legal system.  Yet if it’s permissible to establish government services in these affairs, why not go a step further to support community initiatives, as well?  Why be bound by arbitrary definitions of State action?  Why not progress to a more inclusive, more organic, point of view?

The question of the degree of government support will always arise, and it is important to remain vigilant about the insidious growth of welfare statism—ever mindful to resist majority tyranny over the minority—but that is no reason to spurn using the levers of government altogether to achieve community-approved goals.  Even Simon Heffer, a Gladstonian liberal, advances a template of government activity that hews fairly closely to the One Nation Tory vision:

The state’s functions, in a compassionate and ordered society, can be confined to relatively few things.  It should protect the public with a police force and armed services.  It should provide education and health care, while perhaps finding ways to incentivise people to use non-state provision wherever possible.  It should give the support that the elderly and the disabled require to live with dignity.  It should see that public hygiene and essential infrastructure are maintained; and that’s about it. This requires a revolution in our way of viewing the state’s relationship with us.

The Monarchy, in addition to its own charitable causes, patronises voluntary organisations and honours those selfless volunteers who give of their time and skills for the public welfare.  And as Head of State, the Crown sanctions those government activities that aim to help the young, the aged, and the disadvantaged.  These are obligations we owe to each other as inter-dependent citizens, obligations that are beyond the finite abilities or comprehension of civil society—obligations that are as ageless as civil society itself—which, as the overseers of government, we direct our elected representatives to undertake on our behalf.

This is the progressive element in royalty and politics.

In British political history, the monarchy has deep and long-lasting roots—a tradition that spread throughout the Commonwealth and is nowhere more evident than in Canada.  The Tory tradition, too, is strong in both countries.  Together, the Crown and Conservatism stand for government limited to its proper sphere, in service to the people who are its governors; at the same time, the monarch and the Conservative party are proof that government has a legitimate role in offering progressive legislation that aids and embodies society’s aspirations for the Common Good.

Our Queen’s presence in Canada to celebrate Dominion Day is an opportunity to remember our continuing blessing under the Crown and our glorious progressive conservative legacy.

Vivent la reine et le pays du Canada!

Stephen MacLean’s research website is focussed on Organic Toryism

I recently wrote about the possibility that having a Coalition government could in fact undermine the ultimate proof that the Conservative party has changed – in other words, that people would think that the Lib Dems were the ones doing all the good things, and the Tories all the bad things.

Of course, it’s generally assumed (though not always true) that the larger party in a coalition takes the credit for the good things, and the smaller party takes the blame. I think that in the UK, we could in fact be the opposite – the Lib Dems did pretty well taking the credit in the Scottish Parliament, for example.

Maybe it’s just a Lib Dem thing? Anyway, I’ve been thinking further about this one.

This week, the Budget has been the big story. It has been stoutly defended by Shirley Williams (on Newsnight and on the Week in Westminster), Vince Cable (great job on Question Time) and Nick Clegg (slightly shellshocked interview on Today).  But there have also been a number of Lib Dems who, in carefully worded arguments, have tried to firstly say that they will amend the Budget to make it more progressive and secondly that they knew for a fact that the ideologically driven Tories were held back in their slashing and burning by Lib Dems.

It is unlikely that any serious amendments will be made to the Budget, not least because while individual sections seem to be unfair, the package as a whole is designed to be as fair as it’s possible to be while still succeeding in sorting out the financial mess. There will be further measures, as for example Iain Duncan Smith outlined, which will go further in making work rather than benefit claiming pay – but that is a separate point, and will work in a different way.

It is also very unseemly for individual MPs to be trying to claim that it was only Lib Dems that saved us all from the baby-eating Tories. Much of the strength of the Coalition rests on the fact that it has entwined the two parties so comprehensively, and that every single announcement and spokesman underlines that it is agreed Coalition policy.

I wonder if there needs to be a reminder to both parties, perhaps from the’ Whips offices, about the nature and necessity of the Coalition, combined with a warning that this is exactly why Labour are so keen to attack the Lib Dems rather than the Conservatives. Because if the Coalition is to last, and be able to take the necessary decisions for the country, they cannot fracture under pressure. They took this historic step for a variety of reasons, and they must all be prepared to see it through.

I am a huge supporter of the Coalition. I think it has enormous potential to achieve great things. I think it should last the full five years, and I think it will radically change our society for the better.

So far, so good.

But in purely party political terms, could it actually be bad for the Tories? I wrote, before it was first agreed, about the benefits and risks to both parties. One (background) part of my assessment was that it provided useful cover to both parties to ditch commitments that were slightly batty, unaffordable and out of tune either with these austere times or with the generally liberal, decentralising attitude that the Coalition holds. And yet…

That useful cover may in fact be a hidden danger. I was talking to someone over the weekend who on paper is a true swing voter but who is absolutely DEAD against voting Conservative “because they’re Tories and I remember what they were like in the 80s”. That attitude is really hard to counter (reading today’s Guardian’s CiF comments is just a flavour of the scale of it).

Of course, actually being in government and proving those doubters wrong about Conservatives’ motives and actions is the ultimate ‘decontamination’. What I’m beginning to wonder is whether the way that this government is formed may in fact be counter-productive in achieving that.

When it comes to the next election, we’ve got two sets of candidates, governing together, but each trying to paint the other side’s more ideological wings as the enemy. We’ve then got two political parties – which, by definition, are made up of the more activist, more convinced, more ideological parts of society – and which are both coming to terms with working with each other nationally, and the compromises and difficulties that inevitably come from that.

It seems that the Lib Dems’ work to take their party with the negotiators went a long way to assuaging many activists’ fears – or at least allowing them to be aired. I wonder whether the Tories shouldn’t have done something similar? Because there is no real outlet or forum for discussion privately within the party, it often seems as if only the extremes have a voice – and therefore only those who are discontent are heard. We hear a lot about the Tory right and about rebel backbenchers and so one – but what isn’t mentioned is that the great majority of MPs, members, and voters are supportive of what David Cameron is doing with and has done for the party.

Yet isn’t the danger – particularly for the Tories – that the ultimate decontamination of actually showing what they can do for the good in government could be undermined by the perception that it was force of circumstance rather than a desire to actually be a good, fair and trustworthy government that meant they were a good government?

Personally I – it goes without saying – think that a majority Conservative government would also have been a good one. I do think that the optimism and consensus building that the Coalition has produced are beneficial. I also think we can admit that the two leaders – Nick Clegg and David Cameron – probably have more in common with each other than that do with the outer wings of their parties; and I do think that Betapolitics’ post yesterday may well have something in it. But in achieving this historic and potentially revolutionary coalition government, have we set back the modernising cause?

I can’t believe I’m about to do this. I SWORE I wouldn’t write any more about bins… but it turns out I still need to.

One of the main headlines on Today this morning was that bin taxes were going to be abolished by the new government. Then on WATO, Eric Pickles described beautifully how Conservatives want to help people not hinder them.

That is all very well. But do you know what?

IT IS UP TO COUNCILS TO GET RID OF OUR RUBBISH.

IT IS THEREFORE ALSO UP TO COUNCILS HOW OFTEN, BY WHOM, HOW, AND IN WHAT WAY THE BINS ARE EMPTIED.

To be less shouty about it, I don’t think the best way to encourage people to produce less waste and to recycle more is to charge them more. But I do think it’s a local decision. And, building on that, if a council decides that’s what it wants to do then it is accountable at the ballot box if local residents decide that they want something different.

The only way that the localist agenda is going to work is if central government really means it, and doesn’t get sidetracked by Daily Mail-esque campaigns for or against certain things.

The way it will work is if central government means what it says and lets local people decide.

Coalitions are nothing new. The main political parties in Britain have always been coalitions of compromise between separate groups, competing to dominate decisions over direction. The Conservatives contain economic libertarians who are social authoritarians, and social liberals who back a certain amount of state intervention. Some of us believe that decisions related to the environment are the most important we will take. Others are convinced that environmentalism is as scientific as astrology. But, while these factions lean in different directions, all our feet are firmly rooted together in the cause of conservatism. The ‘wets’ backed Thatcher in the same way she and the neo-liberals publicly supported the actions of the Heath Government.

Currently there is a tug-of-war going on between economic liberal Thatcherites and the socially orientated Disraelite brigade. Where should Conservatives priorities be, in fostering a Big Society or promoting small government?

Earlier in the week my Platform 10 colleague, David Skelton, blogged about the need to embrace the ‘living wage’ campaign. This led me to have a twitter debate with Conservative Home contributor David Breaker, which highlights the broader debate happening in the Party.

@davidbreaker

Worried by Tories such as @DJSkelton advocating a wages policy under new moniker #livingwage.

@betapolitics

There should be balance. Where business doesn’t get it right, it’s ok to put pressure on. Morality has a place in capitalism.

@davidbreaker

The issue isn’t “morality” or “balance”, the issue is that it’s wrong for Gov to decide what you can/cant offer as a wage.

The “balance” should always be decided by individual people and individual employers. The Gov has no role dictating wages.

@betapolitics

What happens to others affects the society I live in. It’s wrong to remove ‘morality’ from decisions. Especially with cash.

Politicians should deal with what concerns people. Nothing is out of bounds, certainly not the markets.

@davidbreaker

No, lots of things should be out of bounds. Gov must always respect individual freedom over tyranny of majority

Why is a “living wage” moral anyway? Setting higher minimum wage reduces demand 4 labour, meaning more unemployment!

And what happens to others is their business, no one else. Living wage will leave people out of work.

@betapolitics

Tryanny of the majority could be interpreted as tyranny of those who have the majority of resources.

People are free to join together, pool their power, and lobby for what they think is right.

Everyone in an organisation should profit from success. Millionaires paying subsistence wages doesn’t feel right.

@davidbreaker

Not everyone running a business is a “millionaire” and so what if they are, its their company! Don’t like wage? Don’t do the job.

If everyone should profit from success, should everyone pay for failure? And isn’t having a job at all a form of profiting?

Help low income earners with lower taxes & bigger allowance. Tapered benefits. Maybe a negative income tax.

It is obvious that on some things, in particular the role of the state in markets, David and I will always disagree. But I also know that there are many matters where we are strongly united. Having such internal debates, which encompass the spectrum of the party, allow for ideas to be tested and developed, thus strengthening our ability to govern. Sometimes you may lose the argument but through being together we all win by having an inclusive party that is able to make the best decisions for this formidably complicated organism know as society. Political parties are at their strongest when they are broad and inclusive. No single doctrine has an infinite monopoly on the truth.

Being in coalition government with the Liberal Democrats is a new factor in this battle of ideas. It will be interesting to observe how this situation will impact on our internal debates. If the Lib Dems start to join us in these conversations, rather than having their own separate strands, it will be a sure sign that we are moving towards a deeper arrangement.