[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Taking off the edge off Thatcherism (click to view)
Date: May 12, 2010
Well it looks like the previous day's cartoon was a bit off. British Liberal Democratic Party leader Nicholas Clegg ultimately decided to throw his support behind the Conservative Party and form a left-right coalition government with them, eschewing any apparent ideological contradictions. Conservative leader David Cameron has formally assumed office as prime minister, and Clegg will be his deputy. It's the first British coalition government in 62 years, they say.

Cameron is an interesting guy. Though he's often presented as someone who has worked hard to "moderate" his party's hard-right Thatcherite conservatism for 21st Century sensibilities, he's really a more complex figure than that. Watch his first press conference or his inaugural speech for example, and you'll see a guy who is very thoughtful and purposeful in his rhetoric, spelling out an vision for Britain that is quite unique in agenda and scope. He still comes off as identifiably conservative, but it's a different sort of conservatism. Less angry, divisive, and money-focused, and more traditionalist, in the sense of championing traditional social values like responsibility, self-reliance, charity, and maturity.

One of the biggest problems in the contemporary UK is the phenonom of what they call "anti-social behavior," which is understood to mean rude, cruel, or disrespectful attitudes and actions which collectively lower the morale and culture of the nation, as well as motivate other, more serious social ills. It's a particularly big deal in the context of British society, which has been historically famous for its manners and restraint, and an issue Cameron has vowed to make one of his top priorities as prime minister. I think it's quite interesting to have a conservative politician addressing social problems in such a way. Conservatives are usually known for being reactionary, in the sense of formulating policies that react to things, such as crime, terrorism, illegal immigration, taxes, big government, etc. Cameron's vision is more geared towards "root causes" — an approach that has traditionally been the understood realm of the left, though it doesn't have to be.

Cameron has the potential to be quite a transformative figure in Anglo-American conservative thought and rhetoric the same way Margaret Thatcher was decades ago. The importance of Thatcherism stemmed largely from her free-market / anti-socialist arguments, which in the context of her time, were indeed important and influential. But now there's a great deal of consensus on economic issues, and far less on social ones. I don't think the future of conservatism is to simply jettison social issues, as some are always encouraging, but to rather explore them in new, thoughtful ways that supersede the traditional abortion-gay-religion axis. That seems to be the essence of Cameronism.

Of course, it remains to be seen how exactly he plans to address these social-cultural problems in practice, especially in the context of a coalition government with a party much more liberal than his. But the potential for a new kind of politics is certainly there, and I wish the Prime Minister well in pursuing that goal.

[CKASlacker]

Newsbot wrote:

Less angry, divisive, and money-focused, and more traditionalist, in the sense of championing traditional social values like responsibility, self-reliance, charity, and maturity.

One of the biggest problems in the contemporary UK is the phenonom of what they call "anti-social behavior," which is understood to mean rude, cruel, or disrespectful attitudes and actions which collectively lower the morale and culture of the nation, as well as motivate other, more serious social ills. It's a particularly big deal in the context of British society, which has been historically famous for its manners and restraint, and an issue Cameron has vowed to make one of his top priorities as prime minister.

If he can do something to remove the chav culture endemic to large urban areas in the UK... good luck to him. I can't see many of those who voted Labour complaining if scenes like this were removed from British streets:



Still, I don't see it being likely. I'm not sure how a politician can really influence social mores on a large scale like he's (apparently) proposing.

[Proculation]

I don't really understand. From his bio on Wikipedia, Nick Clegg doesn't seem so left wing. He's for privatization of healthcare, tax cuts, decentralization of social programs.

That seems a logical coalition.

We are not talking a Conservative-NDP coalition here.

[Teikiatsu]

It will be interesting, that's for sure.

EDIT: As an aside, I think you drew too soft of a portrayal of Thatcher. You didn't show her eating babies or standing on a pile of skulls, for example </sarcasm>

[Harminder]

Arguably what has happened here in England has also happened in Canada.
1. Paul Martin brilliant Finance minister, same with Gordon Brown.
2. Both were said when the become prime minister they will bring a golden age for their respected countries.
3. this one is an my opinion, both engineered plots to oust the leader.
4. both were defeated by a Conservative government
5. both conservatives had a minority government.
6. both had to join with a smalled Rd party.
The only difference i can think is Paul Martin survived one election as prime minister where as Gordon never did not as prime minster or election as Labour leader, i for one am glad he's gone.

[martin14]

CKASlacker wrote:

Still, I don't see it being likely. I'm not sure how a politician can really influence social mores on a large scale like he's (apparently) proposing.

No, that wont be easy at all.

But still, I will wish him luck in trying to get the UK

to give itself a kick in the pants, so they can dust themselves off

and get back to being one of the great countries of the world.



Hopefully some ' common sense ' will prevail for a while.

[EyeBrock]

Harminder wrote:

Arguably what has happened here in England has also happened in Canada.
1. Paul Martin brilliant Finance minister, same with Gordon Brown.
2. Both were said when the become prime minister they will bring a golden age for their respected countries.
3. this one is an my opinion, both engineered plots to oust the leader.
4. both were defeated by a Conservative government
5. both conservatives had a minority government.
6. both had to join with a smalled Rd party.
The only difference i can think is Paul Martin survived one election as prime minister where as Gordon never did not as prime minster or election as Labour leader, i for one am glad he's gone.

Not entirely true. The Tories in Canada didn't enter in to a coalition.

[Harminder]

My bad, almost the same.
Majority of it is the same only a few minor differences such as, as you said the coalition.
But it cannot be denied that their are largely similarities between England and Canada.

[JJ]

And it highlights another problem with the parliamentary system, how the public can be forced to endure long periods of rule by an unpopular man no one elected, who takes control of the country through an undemocratic succession process.

[EyeBrock]

Harminder wrote:

My bad, almost the same.
Majority of it is the same only a few minor differences such as, as you said the coalition.
But it cannot be denied that their are largely similarities between England and Canada.

I agree on a few of the things you have said but the coalition part isn't a minor difference, it’s a pretty huge one.

If you read up on this minority government, the opposition parties looked at forming a 'coalition' right after the last election to bring the Tory government down.

The big difference with Canada vs UK is that a large chunk of votes in the second largest province go to a party that only has candidates in that province and it’s raison d'être is to break up Canada.

This party was going to be the main partner in the coalition that failed to be.
In the UK the Tories and the Lib-Dems are willing partners looking at a coalition government in a very European way.

In Canada it’s old Westminster all the way and no ground is being given by either side of the House.

There are some similarities but comparing the two countries too closely is being a little simplistic.

[Mr_Canada]

Lol, good post. Love the comic. You make an excellent observation, we'll have to wait and see now.

[Psudo]

JJ wrote:

And it highlights another problem with the parliamentary system, how the public can be forced to endure long periods of rule by an unpopular man no one elected, who takes control of the country through an undemocratic succession process.

Godwin's Law?

[EyeBrock]

Godwins Law is bollocks.

[westmanguy]

EyeBrock wrote:

Harminder wrote:

My bad, almost the same.
Majority of it is the same only a few minor differences such as, as you said the coalition.
But it cannot be denied that their are largely similarities between England and Canada.

The big difference with Canada vs UK is that a large chunk of votes in the second largest province go to a party that only has candidates in that province and it’s raison d'être is to break up Canada.

Not true. Scotland is the U.K.'s version of our Quebec. Scotland runs the SNP (Scottish Nationalist Party) which does win seats in the parliamentary elections there in the U.K. (although they don't win as much seats as compared to the BQ in Quebec).

Scotland is very autonmous.

[ShepherdsDog]

Yes, and like Quebec, Scotland sucks money out of the English taxpayers pocket.