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

Different? Please?

William Hague via Twitter (but in the Queen’s Speech debate) announced today that the UK would for the first time be making public the maximum number of nuclear warheads it holds.

On the one hand, hurrah for openness and leading by example. And yes it’s good that the announcement will presumably be made to the House of Commons first, before it’s made anywhere else (have they learnt the lesson of leaking the Queen’s Speech?).

On the other, though, announcing that you’re going to be announcing something is not really what I expect from the new politics.

Let’s not have five years of pre-re-post announcements. Let’s just get on with it.

In one fell swoop of a press release on Thursday afternoon, this Government has abandoned all pretence it has to a human rights legacy.

In what appears to be a rushed move to secure an environmental legacy ahead of the general election, David Miliband announced in a press release entitled ‘New protection for the marine life of the British Indian Ocean Territory’, the creation of a marine protected area (MPA) covering a quarter of a million miles around the Chagos Archipelago which constitutes the British Indian Ocean Territory. The Commissioner of the British Indian Ocean Territory has been instructed to carry out the orders of Mr Miliband. The FCO stated in its press release that the measure is a ‘further demonstration of how the UK takes its international environmental responsibilities seriously’. The unbelievable thing about this mealy mouthed press release is that it fails to even mention the exiled Chagos islanders who have been fighting this government for their right of return.

The Chagos islanders were forcibly evicted in the late 1960s/70s as a result of the decision of the then Labour government which had made a secret deal to lease Diego Garcia to the United States for use as an air base (since famously used as a preferred destination, not for tourism but for rendition). For the islanders a peaceful existence came to an abrupt end as they were forcibly evicted and duped into leaving their homes. This small and brave community has been fighting for its right to return to live in the Chagos islands ever since. After an initial victory against the government in the High Court (subsequently overturned by the government who misused the royal prerogative to do so), they wait for the European Court of Human Rights to rule on their case. As an aside, the Government has seen fit to exempt the BIOT from the applicability of the Human Rights Act, almost unique amongst British overseas territories!

The creation of an MPA which ignores the role that the Chagossians have to play when there were other options on the table which would have preserved the unique marine environment of the Chagos islands whilst allowing for the right to return, is deeply concerning to the islanders. This announcement makes their return almost impossible in practice since one of the principal means of sustenance available to them on return will be fishing. The premature timing of the announcement, with only three sitting days to go before Parliament is dissolved means that it will be impossible to have this issue debated properly and, as the Vice Chair of the Chagos All Party Parliamentary Group, Lord Avebury, has described shows a contempt for Parliament and a total disregard for the interests of the Chagossian people whom Parliament and the Government is morally obliged to offend.

I can’t think what the Chagos Islanders have done to deserve this treatment but they are deeply saddened and disappointed at yet another blow. Knowing the community as I do, I am sure that this proud people who have lived through so much will fight on.

Millions of miles away, tapping on a computer in the South East, why do I care you might ask? Why am I indignant? To me this is a David and Goliath struggle for human rights in which Britain’s human rights record has been hugely tarnished. It is a struggle against the injustice, lies and deception of this government and others. The Chagossians are torch bearers for all of us who believe in human rights, these British citizens deserve their right to live in the land of their birth like you or like I. It is a damning indictment of this government that one of its final acts in its dying days was to wave through a measure that unnecessarily commits grave harm to a group of its citizens – well done on your legacy Miliband, let’s hope that the next government can do rather better!

Marcus Booth is Vice Chair of the UK Chagos Support Association, and Chairman of Conservative City Future

As the Argentines rattle the sabre in the South Atlantic -  many of us recall again with pride how, in 1982 a large British task force set out on a 7500 mile journey risking life and limb in order to liberate a group of tiny windswept islands in the South Atlantic – a truly heroic chapter in our Imperial decline. Today there is no doubt that, if we could, we would do the same again and defend the rights of an island to call themselves British. Sadly however and as I have discovered our attitude to the rights of the citizens of our remaining island possessions is not entirely consistent and in another faraway ocean a rather different tale is told.

 A few years ago, I picked up and read a copy of Ben Fogle’s book, ‘The Teatime Islands’. The book is a light hearted, engaging and personal account of Fogle’s visits to the last flag-flying outposts of what remains of the British Empire – largely a collection of islands too remote or strategically vital to be allowed to go it alone. It was Fogle in this book who alerted me to one of the most shameful episodes in our retreat from Empire – the plight of the Chagos islanders exiled from their homeland by the British over 40 years ago. The shame is compounded because rather than the join the list of post colonial apologies made or “wrongs righted” – our government continues to perpetrate a profound injustice and use the might of the British state’s legal armoury to crush the right of a people to live in their homeland. In its treatment of the citizens of this island paradise, New Labour has lost the right to lecture the world about the ‘rule of law’ and respect for property rights.

 The plight of the Chagos islanders which has been the subject of legal wrangling for forty years is now reaching its final stages at the European Court of Human Rights. Harold Wilson’s government in the late sixties drove the entire population of Chagos islands into exile and impoverishment. The present Labour government, which once talked of an ‘ethical foreign policy’, stands by this injustice today.

 The high politics of the Chagos affair is extraordinary. In order to prevent the geographically important Chagos islands (a group of 55 islands about 2,000 miles east of Africa and west of Singapore) from falling into the hands of Mauritius on independence, the British government in 1964 created the “British Indian Ocean Territory” the only colony to be formed since decolonization began. The islands were given a flag, a detachment of Royal Marines to defend them and even produced a few stamps.

 In the midst of the Cold War, the United States, however, decided it wanted a military base in the Indian Ocean to keep the USSR and China from threatening the Arabian Gulf. Suddenly the Chagos archipelago was more than just an insignificant speck on the map. The US’ first choice location for a new base was the uninhabited Aldabra Atoll, but Harold Wilson feared antagonism from ecologists, as Aldabra is home to a rare breed of turtle! So, he offered Diego Garcia instead, even though it was inhabited. Harold Wilson’s government agreed in secret to loan Diego Garcia (the largest of the islands) to the U.S military for fifty years (with a twenty year extension option) in exchange for a discount on Polaris nuclear submarines. It was agreed that the islands would be ‘fully swept’ – in layman’s language – ‘emptied’. The deal was not disclosed to the United Nations, the US senate, or Parliament. Diego Garcia of course recently hit the headlines again as our Government was forced to admit that this last corner of Empire was one of the preferred stopover destinations for the notorious CIA rendition flights.

Despite the fact that many Chagossians were fifth generation inhabitants, the Foreign Office claimed that they were only itinerant labourers with no right of abode on the islands. The islanders were deported, often tricked and intimidated into leaving on temporary excursions as their homes were destroyed. They were loaded onto boats, allowed to take only one bag with them, and deposited in Mauritius and the Seychelles where a life of poverty awaited them – many also ended up in Crawley simply waiting to return home. Some committed suicide, their plight was shrouded in secrecy – a duped, dumped and ruined people. In 1973 the British government transferred £650,000 to the Mauritian government for the aid of the Chagossian exiles. Some of this money was intended to be used to resettle the exiles on farm land but there was much disagreement and the exiles were so desperate for money that the resettlement plan was abandoned and, eventually, in 1978 the money was disbursed. Although this money helped some of the exiles to obtain better housing, most of them were left no better off. It was not until 1982 that any more money came from the British government. A sum of £4 million was allotted as a ‘full and final settlement’ – but in order to obtain a share the exiles had to sign away their right to ever return to their homeland.

In 1997 the newly elected Labour government made great play of promising an ‘ethical foreign policy’ and in 2000 the High Court ruled that the exile was unlawful, a verdict which the then Foreign Secretary Robin Cook accepted. However, Diego Garcia assumed renewed strategic importance after 9/11 and the government tried to block returning islanders through the use of two executive orders or royal “decrees”. In 2006 the Court of Appeal over-ruled the use of the orders describing their use as “repugnant”, and in 2007 the Court once again affirmed the right of islanders to return home. The following year the government successfully (and sadly) over-turned the verdict in the House of Lords by a majority of just one. The case is now under consideration at the European Court of Human Rights.

Meanwhile the islanders face opposition from another direction. The archipelago is an outstanding example of marine bio-diversity with over a million square miles of pristine wildlife.   In 1992 the Chagos Conservation Trust was launched to protect the archipelago from commercial exploitation. They stress the need for the islands to remain “uninhabited”, and their proposal for a ‘marine protection zone’ has unsurprisingly (!) been warmly received by the government.  If the protection zone is agreed before Strasbourg reach a verdict, then any favourable verdict could lead to another legal row. While the islands are of course an outstanding natural habitat that need protection, the human rights of native inhabitants have to be accommodated – the Government must not be allowed to use conservation as a fig leaf for the abuse of human rights.

 The case of the Chagos islanders remains a shameful blight on the UK’s reputation. In 2009 Gordon Brown argued that world peace depends upon “freedom, democracy and fairness.” These are virtues that all of us can agree with, yet in Chagos – Labour has failed to live-up to them. What is more, it is hypocritical of Britain to lecture on freedom and democracy while this display of arrogance continues. As David Cameron promises our country change, a new Conservative government could make a profoundly important gesture of change and facilitate the return of the Chagos islanders to their homeland. For a new Conservative government to over-turn this injustice would be a clear and welcome break from Labour’s forty years of deceit on this issue and would send a message that we take the rights of humans in Britain’s care as seriously as the rights of turtles – this would truly be a change that we can believe in.

 Marcus Booth FRSA is Vice Chair of the UK Chagos Support Association

Rainforests are not only the ‘green lungs’ of the planet but also the source of the forest resources that directly contribute to the livelihoods of 90 per cent of the 1.2 billion people living in extreme poverty. Emissions from deforestation also account for 17.4 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions – this is more than the whole global aviation and transport sector. Without urgent action to halt deforestation, we haven’t a chance of beating global climate change. Like all good climate policy should be, saving our forests is a good thing in itself. There is no magic solution to saving the rainforest but one measure we can take is to choke off demand for illegal timber here in the UK market.

In a speech ahead of the Copenhagen climate summit, my colleague the Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague set out the strength of the Conservatives commitment to tackling deforestation, and in particular to address illegal logging – in order to protect both the world’s rainforests and the rights of indigenous forest people.

William gave a clear commitment that a Conservative government will introduce new legislation to make the sale of illegal timber a criminal offence. We have supported the Government, and remain committed to, strengthening the draft EU Regulation ‘laying down the obligations of operators who place timber and timber products on the market’ but it is clear that action at the European level will only go so far.

In 2008, the United States amended the Lacey Act and made it illegal for a person or company to import, export, transport, sell, receive, acquire or purchase timber or timber products illegally taken, harvested, possessed, transported, sold or exported. The Lacey Act amendments are widely seen as a historic breakthrough and already leading to changes in practices among US retailers, importers, and manufacturers and logging companies.

There is no reason why this can’t be replicated here in the UK yet the Government has refused to legislate to this effect. If the Government does not act to make the sale of illegal timber a criminal offence, a new Conservative Government will, if we are elected. My Ten Minute Rule Bill is intended to send a message to the rest of Europe that we are ready to lead on closing the market to illegally harvested timber and protecting the extraordinary biodiversity of the rainforest.

Yet again Labour has failed to match its rhetoric with ambitious policy. Conservatives stand ready to make the changes to help save our forests.