Time for a New Party of the Right

When pollster ask the British public about issues of governance, there is usually a majority in favour of policies which most people would typify as Right Wing.

This is particularly so when the questions are contentious. For example immigration, capital punishment, benefits and work, crime and punishment.

This Right Wing constituency is not well served by our current political parties.

The Conservatives are centrist. Although many of their MPs do actually favour proper Right Wing policies, the leadership cannot. This is for good electoral reasons. In order to win elections they have to appeal to voters outside their traditional supporters. That means attracting disaffected Liberal Democrats and Labour supporters who would be frightened off by policies too overtly on the Right.

So if there is a natural majority for Right wing policies, why don't the Conservatives have a natural majority?

Well, it's because many people do not vote for policies, they vote for a Party. Many of those with Right Wing views are from the British working class. They have a long and deeply embedded history of voting Labour, and tribal loyalties would never allow them to vote Tory. Despite many Tory policies that fit better with their basic instincts. (Many of these are BNP supporters, a surprising jump from the soft Left to the very hard Right).

A great many of these 'Labour by tradition' voters are in the Celtic fringes of Scotland and Wales. (In England the Conservatives have a majority almost 'built in'). In those areas, historically, the Conservatives are irretrievably linked to wealthy land owners and factory bosses. The decline of heavy industries and the 1980s Conservative government's removal of the subsidies essential for their survival hit those areas hard. Not only did that reinforce their traditional image, but much of the employment which replaced it was in the public sector. A long standing source of Labour supporters.

All very good reasons why the Conservative Party can never be a standard bearer for principled Right Wing views.

The BNP has been growing in popularity, and many of its policies do articulate the views of that inbuilt right wing majority. But - and it's a very large, deal breaking, but - It is hopelessly contaminated with the politics of hatred and thuggishness. Its current leader, Nick Griffin has done a lot to make it more electable. But, in the past he has been linked to outrageous statements, kept some very dubious company and encouraged hostility based entirely on race. He has tried to disclaim his former life, but his opponents will never let him forget it. And despite some decent and respectable supporters the BNP still has some very unsavoury characters in both its rank and file and its leadership. 

The natural standard bearer for the Right should be UKIP. They are respectable, untainted by violence or racism, have a charismatic orator as leader in Nigel Farrage and are generally to the Right of the Conservatives. So what's the problem?

They are clearly perceived as a single issue party. Even their name reinforces that view. Nigel Farrage is an MEP, so every well known speech he makes is about the EU. They do have distinctive Right Wing policies, but they all seem to eventually concern the EU. Their web site seems entirely concerned with - the EU. Even their party logo features a pound sterling symbol clearly in opposition to - the Euro.

Nobody can doubt the EU and our place in it is a critically important factor in the future of this country. But do voters regard it as the most important issue right now? No, they are much more concerned about the economy, immigration and unemployment. It is possible and maybe justifiable, to link these issues back to the EU. But in the simplistic world of political presentation the link is too extended to resonate with voters. It can too easily become "just UKIP banging on about the EU again".

I wish most sincerely, that UKIP could become the new party of the Rational Right, but sadly I see no signs of that happening.

So, it seems to me that the UK needs a new party of the Rational Right (just a provisional working title). One untainted by violence and racism. And certainly one unconnected to slightly crackpot religious groupings like the American Tea Party!  A secular party that reflects the views of millions of respectable British men and women. It would not be a party of government. There is not enough electoral support for that, and the British system works heavily against minority parties. But it would be a party that could take votes from the BNP, the Conservatives, traditional Labour party working class supporters and sadly UKIP.

So, a major plank of policy would be to openly state they would enter into a coalition government with the Conservatives. Certainly such a party would be a much more comfortable fit for the Tories than the current Liberal Democrat alliance. It would give comfort to those concerned the Rational Right was a stalking horse for rather nasty right wing extremism and it might even give comfort to traditional Conservatives concerned about the Party's drift to the centre.

As for other policies, I think they are fairly obvious. Just look at the opinion polls. And incidentally, I think the Rational Right should support far more direct democracy, with major policy matters being put directly to the electorate with referenda. As for the name, well it could be The Rational Right, but I would prefer something that connects with the middle and working classes, does not sound too nationalistic and without any historical baggage from this country or any other. The People's Democratic Party? Answers on a post card please to . . . or maybe just leave a comment here. 

                         

The Case for Capital Punishment

Recently there was a debate in Parliament about Capital Punishment. This was in response to a petition that attracted over 100,000 signatures. The motion was about a referendum on the Death Penalty. It was defeated easily. Yet whenever they are asked the British public always shows a majority in favour of restoring Capital Punishment. If the question asked includes the Death Penalty only for specific types of murder, the majority is overwhelming.

So why are politicians so out of step with the voters. One reason might be the presentation of the case for restoration.   

Whenever I see Capital Punishment discussed, those in favour are always (well, nearly always) portrayed as populist, knuckle dragging, brutal, right wingers with a thirst for bloody revenge. Whereas the opponents are presented as cool, intelligent folk with evidence based argument based on reason and logic.

I believe there is a respectable intellectual case to be made for Capital Punishment that is based on reason.

The deterrence argument i.e. does the threat of execution deter would be murderers is highly contentious. Reasonably compelling evidence can be found to support both sides of this argument. For example, murder rate per 100,000 of population has incontrovertibly doubled since abolition in the UK. On the other hand, it is often said that thoe US states without Capital punishment have higher murder rates than those with. 

My view is the Death penalty is important as a symbol. It says: even in our civilised, humane, society there are some things that are just too bad to tolerate. A line in the sand.

Symbols are vitally important to human society. There are a great many examples, but I think the most powerful is in your pocket. Money has no intrinsic value. It's just paper or small pieces of metal. or even just numbers on a computer screen! And yet it is a powerful symbol of value without which our society could not function (despite the pipe dreams of some rather potty anarchists).

So let's look at the counter arguments:

Number one: An innocent person might be executed. 

True, it could happen. But we accept thousands of innocent people dying every year so we can all live in a modern society. In the UK Over 2,000 innocent people die in road accidents every year. Around 4,000 innocent people die from accidents in their home. We all accept these risks as the price we pay for living in a civilised society. The risk of being executed for a crime you did not commit, is vanishingly small. Especially if you are not a criminal. It's a risk I am prepared to take for the benefit of living in a safer society. I am sure I am not alone.

Number two: A civilised society does not put people to death, it brutalises us.

I'm afraid a great many civilised societies do put put people to death. And they spend a great deal of money doing it. Virtually all states have Armed Forces whose only function is to kill people. The UK spends billions to that end every year. It uses its armed forces to protect our society and in doing so kills enemy combatants. And virtually always, innocent civilians are killed in collateral damage. I regard murderous UK citizens as my enemy. More so than many of the foreign combatants we have killed. So do many others.

Number three: Putting someone to death makes the state no better than the murderer.

Using that logic, when the state fines someone it is no better than a thief. When it imprisons someone it is no better than a kidnapper. When it goes to war it is no better than a murderer. The state is not an individual. Legal sanctions performed by the state are not equivalent to the same actions performed by an individual. To say they are is false logic.

Number four: It does not deter murderers, it's simply revenge.

No convincing evidence has been provided either way. So deterrence is not the issue. I have rehearsed the argument in favour above, and all legal sentences have a (fairly large) element of retribution, punishment or if you like emotive language - revenge. Prison seldom reforms serious criminals, despite our best efforts. Yet very few people are suggesting its abolition.

Number five: It is a "cruel, inhuman and/or degrading punishment"

Cruelty implies physical suffering, it is perfectly possible to kill humanly as anyone who has ever had a pet euthanized knows. Inhuman is an entirely subjective judgement. Imprisonment is certainly degrading, most legal punishments are. So even if execution is degrading, it's just a matter of degree.

Number six: It's too expensive.

This argument is always based on the US experience where very long delays are common. There is an old legal expression "Justice delayed is justice denied." It need not happen. And even if it was true, expense should not be a yardstick for justice.

Number seven: I think it's wrong.

Just about the only valid argument. Everyone is entitled to an opinion. But I don't think your opinion trumps mine, and a great many people seem to agree that we should restore Capital Punishment. We live in a democracy where the will of the majority is supposed to hold sway.


Which neatly leads me to the debate about which crimes should attract execution as a punishment.

It's a vexed question. Clearly not all murder is the same. And some would advocate the Death Penalty for child sex abusers and rapists. This is a subjective business. So the following are my personal views, not backed by evidence or even very strong logic. Exactly what I am accusing the abolitionists of! Still, I don't claim to be a lawyer or even a politician.

So, I think the death penalty should be reserved only for murder. it is our most extreme response and should be reserved for our most extreme crimes.

I believe the death penalty should be mandatory for all murder. But in most cases it should be commuted to imprisonment, whole life where appropriate or a lesser term if justified. Only where the crime is especially heinous, should the death sentence be carried out.

The reasoning is, anybody committing murder cannot be sure they will not face death.

What is especially heinous? Well every crime is different, but I think we all know evil when we see it. For example Child rape and murder seems an obvious candidate, and I would add indiscriminate murder of civilians by terrorists.    

Those who are against the restoration of Capital Punishment will probably not change their minds. That is not really my aim. I am just trying to lay the mythological arguments that have been put for abolition and against restoration. Everybody is entitled to an opinion and most of our opinions are primarily emotional. That's OK, my support of Capital Punishment is probably my emotional response to some truly terrible crimes we have seen in our time. But I am trying to prove that logic does not support the abolitionists case. And that restorationists (I may have just invented that word) are not idiotic, red in tooth and claw, reactionaries. We have logic and rationality on our side too.