Against radicalism
PETE NORTH
If there is one way my policy research has changed me this year, it’s that I no longer demand sweeping radical changes. That’s not what people actually want. They want good government. They’ll support and demand radical sweeping change if that’s what it takes to get good government, but as I’ve found, it’s not actually necessary – and not particularly desirable.
This is something I’ve bumped into while exploring the options for leaving the ECHR. It’s a huge can of worms and it doesn’t necessarily get us where we want to be. Rather than big radical gestures, there are smaller, more precisely amendments we can make that will get us closer to our objective of a sensible and fair immigration system.
This applies in many other areas. We don’t need a sweeping Great Repeal Bill to kill off DEI. According to James McSweeney, if we wish to eliminate DEI policies from British life, it would be very easy to do. If we remove Part 11 from the Equality Act 2010, almost every diversity scheme becomes illegal overnight.
With this adjustment, any private or public body pursuing diversity targets would become liable to near-bottomless lawsuits for violating the Equality Act’s prohibition on discrimination on grounds of race, sex, religion, gender identity or sexuality. Overnight, statements of intent to alter any group’s share of the workforce would become damning legal evidence. The entire diversity bureaucracy would be severely damaged.
This is what I’m finding in my search for solutions for The Manifesto Project. A whole raft of bogus immigration claims can be cut out by selective amendments to the Modern Slavery Act.
As such, I am always going to look more favourably on parties and pressure groups who actually do the work and set out their plans. I happen to know that Restore Britain and Advance UK are looking at a Great Repeal bills, as a Reform, but the more I explore this idea, the more dreadful it sounds. The idea of unpicking thirty years of constitutional evolution in a single act is both dangerous and absurd.
There is certainly a principled case of doing this (carefully) and, in spirit, it’s one I agree with, but there can be no half-measures. It is essentially a complete reworking of the British constitution. But it is a long term project that cannot be rushed and will require a long transition. I do not support embarking on such a transition unless there is a widely understood and a properly detailed vision of what it is we are transitioning to.
On this, the right is muddled. Farage advocates for a British Bill of Rights while Braverman et all calls for a reversion to Common Law – while Starkey and the restorationists, supported by Lowe and Habib, are calling for a reversion to the pre-Blair constitutional norms without regard for how the British relationship with the state has evolved.
The pre-Blair constitution was contingent on a functioning Church, parliament and monarchy. A reversion to 1996 fails to take into account the evolution of politics in the internet age. The people won’t stand for a reversion to a quasi-aristocratic model – and certainly not without a Christian revival which is not likely to happen. The nation has evolved and so must the constitution.
As such, I cannot support ECHR withdrawal etc until I see a careful, credible plan, a coherent vision of what follows, and a mitigation strategy for the very serious political and economic consequences. But when you’re dealing with people who deny there are serious political and economic consequences, you cannot expect an honest appraisal of the risks or a credible plan. Consequently, I will oppose them. If offered the choice between a radical rabble with big ideas versus a collected, measured manifesto based on credible research, I will go with the latter.
It remains to be seen as to whether the Tory party will shape itself in that image or whether it will seek to compete on Reform’s terms. I actually don’t think it matters at this point. If they commit to leaving the ECHR, nobody will believe them, and Reform is already offering that. But if they don’t they have an upward struggle convincing people that a more moderate approach will work and that they are the people to deliver it.
As such, it looks like Rishi Sunak blew the last chance to do things in a measured and intelligent way. Calling an early general election ensured that we never got to see whether the Safety of Rwanda Act (disapplying international law and the Human Rights Act) would work. With public patience at an end, any talk of more discerning reforms just looks like more procrastination and betrayal.
With at in mind, the Manifesto Project feels more like an academic exercise. There is apparently no demand from the parties for coherent policies, and voters seem to prefer vibes over substances. With Reform galloping away in the polls, they have no incentive to change or improve.
I think there are consequences to this. Radical, sweeping reforms have a way of eating their instigators. Brexit certainly consumed the Tory party, and any party taking on the ECHR mess will likely bite off more than it can chew. They’ll squander political capital they don’t have on distractions. There is a growing consensus already that Reform simply aren’t up to the job, and might not even last a term before falling apart – begging the more troubling question of… what then?
This article (Against radicalism) was created and published by Pete North and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply