December 5, 2002

KEEP HOPE ALIVE:

Vichy Britain: we are living in a one-party state in which all but a few are driven to collaborate (Peter Hitchens, The Spectator)
So here we are, a one-party state in fact but not in name, with the unopposed regime gathering ever more of our wealth and liberty into its greedy hands, and every stupidity justified by a commitment to these sacred public services, which — as in East Germany, the USSR and Cuba — are nothing like as good as the propaganda booklets claim, and of course never will be. All the supposed protections of our ancient constitution — almost all the institutions, movements and traditions which were supposed to prevent precisely this chain of events — have failed us and have sought to save themselves. Those that remain are lonely and beleaguered. Why should dissenters carry on complaining? We, too, would be made welcome if we finally learned to love Princess Tony.

Here is why: Mr Blair’s slow-motion putsch is not yet as irreversible as he would like to think. Though the Tory party does not wish to voice it, a mood of discontent is growing which could, if properly harnessed, remove him from office and install a government that loves this country and respects its laws and constitution. This is a matter of great urgency: if that discontent is not led by lawful parliamentary democrats, it may turn elsewhere, with horrible consequences.

Though deliverance now seems as unlikely to us as it might have seemed to East Berliners in 1982, it was closer than anyone there believed, and the same may be true of us. Those of us who have not yet been gathered into New Labour’s great group hug have an obligation to point out, day after day after day, that Britain’s transformation into a People’s Republic is neither inevitable nor right. Tempting though it is to denounce collaborators, we should not be too personally unkind to those who have weakened, because we will need to leave a door open through which they may return to us. There will be doubt, hesitation and pain, but let us have the recriminations after we have had the liberation parade.


The more steadfast Hitchens still thinks the Tories have it within them to be a truly conservative party. We're dubious. Posted by Orrin Judd at December 5, 2002 3:49 PM
Comments

How do you reconcile Hitchens's position on Blair with your statement below that Blair is a "worthy successor" to Thatcher?

Posted by: pj at December 5, 2002 3:51 PM

Thatcher was Britain's last conservative. Today Blair is more conservative than most Tories (the most "conservative" of whom hate America and are wildly pro-Europe). Blair would be a moderate Democrat here, but is a conservative there.

Posted by: oj at December 5, 2002 4:03 PM

Ancient constitution - I thought the Brits. didnt have a constitution.

Posted by: nordic at December 5, 2002 5:42 PM

I believe they consider the set of documents that includes the Magna Carta to be a kind of informal constiutution

Posted by: oj at December 5, 2002 6:05 PM

"Blair is more conservative than most Tories (the most "conservative" of whom hate America and are wildly pro-Europe)."



The current Tory party has its' flaws but this observation is very inaccurate. Most Tories are very anti-Europe and even those which are, aren't as enthusiastic about the "European project" as Labour or the Liberal Democrats.



And there are very few Tories that Blair would beat in the conservatism stakes.



He's just very conservative for a member of Labour.

Posted by: M Ali Choudhury at December 5, 2002 9:21 PM

The Europhiles punted Maggie Thatcher and even William Hague could not run on a full-bore anti-EU platform.

Posted by: oj at December 6, 2002 6:58 AM

A constitution is a set of laws on how a country is governed. The British Constitution is unwritten, unlike the constitution in America, and, as such, is referred to as an uncodified constitution.



More...

Posted by: Uncle Bill at December 6, 2002 5:00 PM
« THE ZIONIST CONSPIRACY ADDS AN UNLIKELY MEMBER: | Main | TURNOUT EXPERT?: »