The Euston manifesto: second thoughts

Dave asks a good question about the Euston Manifesto: what substantive point could David Cameron disagree with?

I fear I may have over-interpreted the document, because I read it as containing several strong claims which only a minority of people – among them me – could accept. For example:

We are committed to democratic norms, procedures and structures — freedom of opinion and assembly, free elections, the separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers, and the separation of state and religion. We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold.

I read this in the exact opposite way to Phil - as an aspiration to direct democracy. To me, “democracy”, unless qualified, means direct democracy, just as whisky means neat whisky, not some concoction with lemonade. Had they meant otherwise, I thought, they'dhave said "representative democracy."

No intelligent person, I thought, could accept as democratic a political system which gives almost unlimited power to a party that wins the support of just 21.6% of the electorate.

And the support for “separation of legislative, executive and judicial powers”, I thought, meant opposition to the Legislative and Regulatory Reform bill and to the Home Secretary’s control orders.

We hold the fundamental human rights codified in the Universal Declaration to be precisely universal.

As freedom of movement is a human right, I understood this to entail free, unrestricted immigration.

We espouse a generally egalitarian politics. We look towards progress… towards broader social and economic equality all round.

This is vague, but I understood it to mean some sort of greater equality of outcome; unlike Tim, I’m not sure anyone is seriously committed to equality of opportunity, as this would entail the abolition of private education, inheritance and the family. And I took “social equality” to mean an opposition to deference in all its forms, and to the notion of “leadership.”

So, I thought there was substance in the Euston manifesto – a substance which Cameron would reject. Better still, I thought it was a substance intended to appeal to libertarian leftists like myself, who are alienated by the illiberal hierarchical politics of New Labour; unlike Jo, I thought its appeal to those of us outside the Labour party was a virtue.

Was I right? Or was I guilty of a perverse combination of wishful thinking, the halo effect (decent people must have high ideals) and literal-mindedness?

Comments

[dearieme]

Come, come: a move towards equality of opportunity reqires the abolition of State Education.

[Laurent GUERBY]

dearieme, you meant 100% tax on inheritance, right?

[Phil]

Close reading is your friend, I'm afraid. The first sentence you quote is good and can reasonably support a radical reading, but the second?

"We value the traditions and institutions, the legacy of good governance, of those countries in which liberal, pluralist democracies have taken hold."

This says that a) a 'liberal, pluralist democracy' is something a nation either has or hasn't got; b) the authors can tell which nations have got one and which nations haven't; and c) they value the established traditions and the existing institutions of the first group of nations. Nothing about direct democracy there.

I think you were half right - it is intended to appeal to libertarian leftists (I think there are more of us out there than you might think), but it doesn't really have any substance.

[dearieme]

Sorry, Laurent, you've lost me. But on the argument that a 100% tax would annihilate the income subject to it, the only 100% tax that I'd support would be one on pop music.

[Fisking Central]

I support a 100% tax on those buggers that charge £1.50 to use a cash point, and on any advert where the volume is louder than that of the programme it interrupts. Apart from that, nothing else...

Chris D, I think what Cameron thinks is neither here nor there. He is almost entirely lacking in any political philosophy whatsoever. Now if you asked the same question about say, Douglas Hurd, what do you think the answer would be?

[CB]

Re: Your point about democracy. No-one would choose out of *all* options a system that would elect someone with 20% of the population, but as a counterbalance to something that represses the choices of the majority of the population with violence and doesn't seek any kind of a mandate it's a *better* option. Your point wilfully misunderstands that crucial difference. Wishful thinking aside, it's about flawed and worse options, not about a fictional perfect against a real imperfect.

[Phil]

"it's about flawed and worse options, not about a fictional perfect against a real imperfect."

That's exactly why I wouldn't trust Euston with a bargepole: it demands adherence to a least-worst option as a matter of political principle.