Tradition: to be cherished, for better or for worse

I’ve had reason to say before that England is a country that values its traditions.

That’s why, every time the old lady from Buckingham Palace gets her eco-friendly, horse-drawn conveyance out and travels down the Mall with all the smart fellows in red coats trotting around her, so many Brits – and not a few tourists – all turn out to wave and cheer and generally enjoy engaging in behaviour exactly as obsequious as people have been displaying for centuries. It makes us all feel good to know that if we’re still dominated by feelings of deferential self-abasement, well, so were our ancestors.

So it’s great to find evidence of the longevity of some of our traditions. For instance, I’ve also previously mentioned Nadine Dorries, Member of Parliament for Mid Bedfordshire who, despite being a Conservative, summed up the leadership of the Tory Party in terms that I couldn’t possibly hope to better.

Nadine Dorries: no flies on her when it comes to her party leaders

She described David Cameron, Prime Minister (pro tem, scheduled expulsion from Downing Street, 2015), and George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer (as we quaintly refer to our Finance Ministers) (possibly facing an even earlier exit), as ‘two arrogant posh boys who show no remorse, no contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others.’

She made this statement by way of clarification of a previous remark to the effect that they were ‘two posh boys who didn’t know the price of milk.’ Personally, I didn’t feel that needed a lot of clarification, but I suppose the word ‘arrogant’ sheds a little more light on their characters and the comment on the lack of passion provides additional insight too.

Now it’s curious but it seems that Conservative women are good at these things. I was amused to read, in his biography of John Adams (wittily entitled John Adams: a Life), John Ferling’s comments on the views of Abigail Adams from the time when her husband was not yet the second President of the United States, but still the first US ambassador to London. Though they were a ‘revolutionary’ couple, the revolution they favoured was merely intended to secure independence; on social issues, they were as Conservative as any Tory could hope.

In fact, they’d refused to support the Boston Tea Party – which happened more or less on their doorstep – and that would probably make them ideal material for the Tea Party today.

Abigail Adams: no flies on her eitherProbably a lot brighter than the second US President

Abigail was a smart woman, probably with a sharper mind than her husband’s. Apparently, she was ‘affronted by the manner in which the English elite treated their own people, and she expressed particular shock at the squalid living conditions endured by a large percentage of the population. She thought England a hopelessly corrupt country.’

It sounds like we were being run by some pretty nasty posh boys back in 1780s too. It’s a tradition, see, and we value tradition.

That’s why people who are facing foreclosure on their home, if they were ever in a position to buy one at all, or worried about paying the next month’s rent if they weren’t, turn out to celebrate the passage of one of the world’s richest women in her dandy little coach.

And cheer their little hearts out for joy.

Tale of two Tory women

Whatever its faults, and they are legion, the British Conservative Party does have the knack of producing female politicians who are strikingly colourful. The most notable such figure in the Tory Party, as we like to call it, though not always out of affection, was of course Margaret Thatcher who may have lacked other qualities – one thinks of moderation, compassion and tolerance – was certainly not short of colour.

Right now, we are being well entertained by two others who, though they don’t have Maggie’s stature, nonetheless are as curious specimens as one could possibly wish for. 

One of these is Nadine Dorries, with whom I find it difficult to agree on much. And I really mean ‘difficult’: sometimes I’m probably in more sympathy with her than might be apparent, because she sometimes presents her views in ways that are curious to the point of being incomprehensible.

She describes herself as a committed supporter of a woman’s right to choose, but has put herself at the head of the movement to reduce abortion time limits, a measure mostly supported by those who see it as the first step towards prohibition. She describes herself as supportive of gay marriage, but not as long there is any possibility that churchmen might be forced to perform such ceremonies. It’s never really easy to tell just where she might be on any question at any time.

She’s in the news at the moment because she’s decided to absent herself from Westminster and her constituents for a month, to take part in a weird TV programme called ‘I’m a celebrity get me out of here’. It takes place in Australia and, as I understand it, contestants are required to feed on ostrich balls and take baths in pools of live worms or some such thing until they get voted out of there.

A lot of people seem terribly upset about her doing this. Neglecting her duties and all that. And they may be right, but I can’t help feeling that they’re saying rather more about their own sense of humour failure than anything else. And they may also be betraying some other and more sinister motives.

Because if there is one statement of hers with which I agree wholeheartedly it’s her comment earlier this year on the nature of the two men who lead her Party and the present government, David Cameron and George Osborne. ‘Two arrogant posh boys,’ she called them, ‘who don't know the price of milk – who show no remorse, no contrition and no passion to want to understand the lives of others.’

Nadine Dorries: not posh at all, but intriguing

There are plenty of people around the country who feel the same, though not many who’d say as much inside the Conservative Party let alone the Parliamentary Conservative Party, working in principle under the posh boys’ leadership. No wonder they’ve kicked her out the parliamentary bit, for now. Australia was, I suspect, just a perfect pretext.

Dorries isn’t, however, the only interesting woman Tory just now. Another is Louise Mensch. She made a tidy fortune publishing novels which, those who’ve read them assure me, are only a step from well-deserved oblivion. She decided that it would be nice to become an MP, perhaps the next stage in a pre-ordained glistening career, and in 2010 won the difficult seat of Corby in the East Midlands.

Louise Mensch: much posher. But a little deadlier too?

The following year she married Peter Mensch who manages the band Metallica and is, therefore, based in New York. Now there’s lots to be said for Corby but it probably doesn’t have quite the glamour of Manhattan. Besides, the two places are 3500 miles apart, and that’s a bit of an obstacle when you’re trying to build a marriage. Political service in Corby or a marriage in New York? No contest for Mensch.

So she stood down forcing the Conservative Party to fight a by-election this very Thursday. They're pretty well bound to lose, delivering a welcome scalp to the Labour Party. At a time when it is leading a deeply embattled government, that’s hardly what the Tory Party needs. Can’t help feeling Mensch’s behaviour is little short of betrayal.

And yet there’s been nothing like the same chorus of disapproval about her as there has been about Dorries. Odd really. Except when you think that Dorries comes from a working class family in Liverpool. Mensch wouldn’t dream of saying anything nasty about the posh boys; why, she’s a posh girl herself.

Which rather suggests that for Cameron and cronies it doesn’t matter how bad what you do is, as long as you’re ‘one of us’. Deeds don’t matter half so much as words. Or, putting it differently, who cares how badly someone behaves, if they do it with the right words pronounced in the right accent.

Always offers an edifying spectacle, the Tory Party.

So hard to agree with the Right, however hard I try

It’s difficult finding common ground with the political right. Even when I agree with one of their cardinal principles, I find they don’t agree with it themselves.

The principle is question is the one they refer to as ‘small government’. As I’ve pointed out before, it was most eloquently summarised by a radical of the left, supporter of the revolutions  in America and France, Tom Paine: ‘That government is best that governs least.’

Tom Paine: would have supported the Boston Tea Party,
but probably not the modern variation

I feel the wisdom of this view all the more strongly the closer any of the alleged supporters of ‘small government’ get to power. Michele Bachmann proclaiming to Americans that hurricanes are warnings from God to Obama to reduce the deficit. Rick Perry asserting the right of the United States to launch pre-emptive wars. Yep. If they ever get anywhere near government, I’d like it kept as small as humanly possible.

But do these people actually favour small government themselves? After all, Rick Perry launched his presidential campaign with a prayer meeting. He and Bachmann seem deeply committed to governing with God.

How much bigger can you get than that?

Over this side of the pond, the ‘small government’ lot are in office right now. In the aftermath of the recent street disturbances, David Cameron called for powers to shut down Twitter and Facebook at times of trouble.

One of the more remarkable reactions to the looting was the great cleanup in Clapham the following day. It was organised through Twitter. Had Cameron’s approach been adopted at that time, this highly positive response wouldn’t have been possible.  

Sadly, the momentum seems to be going out of Cameron’s initiative, as it has out of rather a lot of others in the past (selling off Forestry Land, reorganising the NHS, sucking up to Murdoch). Still, he probably thought it was a good idea because of how much better life is in countries where governments can shut down bits of the internet at will. Like China. Or Iran. Or North Korea.

In what sense, though, would it keep government small?

Postscript: a woman’s right to choose and everyone’s right to know

Conservative MP Nadine Dorries and Labour MP Frank Field are pushing a parliamentary measure to force women considering a termination of pregnancy, to get counselling first from an organisation that is not involved in the performance of the abortions themselves.

This would sound sensible if, say, those organisations had some financial interest in maximising the number of abortions they carry out. They are, however, charities with no such incentive. And most of the organisations who might provide the ‘independent’ counselling seem to be aligned with the anti-abortion movement.

But just who are they?

Difficult to tell. Asked to reveal who was backing the campaign for her measure, Dorries wasn’t prepared to say.

Curious, isn’t it, given that the campaign calls itself the ‘Right to Know’.