There is a simple dilemma facing us as the election approaches. This is what I will call the Goodwin-Hitchens dilemma. The dilemma, for those of you who want to vote, is whether to vote for Reform or vote against Labour.
I call this the Goodwin-Hitchens dilemma because there is no question to my mind that the cases for each side have been stated most effectively by the academic political scientist Matthew Goodwin and the journalist Peter Hitchens: not least in the debate that Unherd hosted last week, ‘The Alternative Election Hustings’, where Goodwin and Hitchens spoke against each other, as well as against Rod Liddle and some others who presented quixotic, charming or alarming but ultimately irrelevant arguments in favour of other parties.
There is a consensus that the Conservatives have, over the last few years, performed poorly and ended up in a tangle. This was perhaps inevitable given their attempt to ride through Brexit. But it was certainly complicated by their capitulations to many standard administrative Leftist policies, most obviously concerning COVID-19, but also concerning Net Zero, Immigration and Diversity. These have unstuck the historical Conservative party as its subtle or cynical habit of capitulating to these while pretending not to has worn so thin that it has put itself in the position of having to admit that it is in fact in agreement with Labour — hence vote Labour — or that it has gone completely wrong — hence vote Reform.
The wonderful thing about this consensus is that it is almost universal. The entire nation is bonded together as effectively as if Henry V and Churchill and Harry Kane had formed a triumvirate. I see Labour and Green pundits using the same rhetoric of “decline” and “a need for change” as Reform and all but the most rigor-mortised brain-in-an-Egyptian-vase Conservatives. And of course now, as everyone anticipates a change, we see everyone working up a history of modern Britain in which the last 14 years are treated as a block, so that Nick Clegg and George Osborne are supposed to be part of the same rot as Boris Johnson and Liz Truss. Just as everyone came to revise their estimation of 1997 in terms of the War in Iraq and the Financial Crisis, so everyone is coming to revise their estimation of 2010 in terms of Cost of Living and the Boats. Here in the Daily Sceptic we may deplore the evident absence of any discussion of COVID-19 but, let us face it, no politician ever wants to admit responsibility — except ostentatiously, for their achievements — and the truth is that what really happened during COVID-19 is still so embarrassing that it will have to be left to some future A.J.P. Taylor to tell the story at a time when everyone is willing to receive it.
Anyhow, back to the dilemma, for it is about whether we want to be positive or negative, whether we want to try to work for a long-term reform of politics — and accept that the worst that could happen has happened—or try to prevent the worst that could happen from happening. Our assessment of this depends on how serious we think it is that Labour will entrench a set of antipolitical protocols that will lock in a foolish administrative Leftist politics. Perhaps it will, perhaps it will not: perhaps, like all governments, it will do a certain amount, but then discover that the system of mediations running downwards from the monarchy, acrosswards from the institutions, and upwards from media and mass, will clog and clot its progress, and generate a situation of unexpected vicissitudes which will require the sort of headless-chicken virtue-signalling improvising which is nine-tenths of politics nowadays.
Goodwin has a point. If Labour has happened, if the thing is done and dusted, then a vote for the Conservatives will be a wasted vote, because it will appear to ratify the Bad Old System of the Uniparty or Blob — or what I prefer to call (having a taste for 18th-century language) the Court — in which Labour is the kamikaze wing of the consensus and the Conservatives are the carpetbagging wing of the same consensus. If we ratify this system then we are still stuck in the 1990s or 2000s: a mythical world in which we enjoy voting for or against Tory ‘scum’ and Labour ‘silt’, with no one doing anything about the quality of the water in the river of our politics. The problem with the Hitchens position is that although Labour is appalling, and even more appalling for lacking the decoration of hypocrisy which reconciles so many of us, at times, to the Conservatives, the Conservatives are pretty appalling too, and logically at the moment a vote for Conservatives just seems to be an admission that we are more half-hearted and cynical than Labour, while mostly agreeing with them. Hitchens’s reason for voting Conservative is very Hitchensesque, but, alas, it still ends in a vote for the Conservatives.
But Hitchens also has a point. This is because Starmer is extremely Blairite in one and perhaps two respects. He is Blairite in one obvious way, and this is in the positively Mandelsonian attempt to avoid letting Labour startle the pigeons. No one in Labour will disturb those busy dirtbirds of the City of London. Labour wants economic stability. This is New Labour redivivus: respectable, anti-Corbynite. And Starmer is perhaps Blairite in a second respect — if Hitchens is right — in that there is a conspiracy of the Latter Day Trotskyists to pretend to be sweet and reasonable when in fact they are committed Gramscian Marchers-Through-The-Institutions and intend to tie up the nation in a lot of what we now call lawfare, DEI, SDGs and goodness knows what else — with all sorts of newly recruited Thought Police to steer us along in our new comfortable conformity. If this is so, and it certainly seems at least possible, then Starmer’s regime may seem to be the telos of everything that has happened in the United Kingdom ever since the phrase ‘political correctness’ was first heard, whenever that was (let’s say, for sake of argument, the 1990s). Equity, Trans, Zero, Crisis, Economy, Ophobia, Privilege — everything will be bundled together in a grand Amazon packet and ‘delivered’ in such a way that it cannot be refused, even if we have to break down our doors to get the whole multi-purpose, rainbow-coloured, naughty-stepping, swear-boxing, procrustean-sleeping, brain-chipping, knee-bending, heat-pumping machine into the house.
But both sides have their problems.
Goodwin might be contributing to our doom. If Hitchens is right then there is no long term. The short term — Labour — will become the long term once Labour establishes its politics in the constitutional frame of our system.
On the other side, Hitchens might be contributing to our doom by condemning us to an unreformed system in which there is no likely that anyone will even be able to envisage opposition to the current Court of the higher-educated — half the population, remember.
What to do? No advice here. Historically, sceptics were always high-and-dry sorts who said — like Sextus Empiricus or David Hume — that one should not seek to change the world but, rather, go along with its traditions even if one personally was not entirely comfortable with them. Michael Oakeshott, a recentish sceptic, used to shrug his shoulders whenever asked a question about politics and say, “I don’t find it necessary to have opinions on such matters”. This sceptical doctrine, of course, was held at a time when societies were traditional. And we no longer live in a traditional society. Which is perhaps why sceptics are having to come out of the woodwork, the ivory tower, or the garden to say, “What the hell is going on?”
Good luck!
Dr. James Alexander is a Professor in the Department of Political Science at Bilkent University in Turkey.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Many thanks to the Daily Sceptic team for all their work throughout another testing year. Have a wonderful, well deserved Christmas.
To all contributors and subscribers Best Wishes for a Happy Christmas. Let’s keep this site together.
Mine’s a large one. Cheers.
🍺🍺🍺🥃
Seconded, Hux. We may have moaners about DS, but it is doing a valuable job. It is getting an alternative narrative out to people prepared to listen and do their own thinking. Its a long road before us, and our opposition to the global blob is bound to fail, but not to try would be the greater shame.
Merry Christmas, if you do, Happy holidays, if you don’t.
Much appreciated Neil.👍
It depends how ‘alternative’ you want to be, but then we’d spend all day arguing about nano-bots. The MSM does report many of the ‘events of the day’ but many with a strong left bias. We should not reject the MSM completely, but rather see the picture behind what they are offering, i.e. an alternative view. If there is a site with better alternative view, perhaps you’ll share its location.?
Merry Christmas, hux, and to all of the decent, respectful posters to this most valuable site, who still make up the majority, thankfully. My living room looks like an explosion in a wrapping paper factory, but the cat’s enjoying herself so I’m leaving it… 🙂 And what could be more appropriate than a Christmas monologue from our Neil Oliver;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nBS16GjWsPk&ab_channel=GBNews
Thanks Mogs. Have a good one.🥂
Seconded.
I wonder if the DS were more transparent about income and costs whether more would donate – I suspect they may be getting kept going currently by the personal largesse of one or two people and perhaps often unpaid work. Not intended as a criticism – just a suggestion. I think people would love it go from strength to strength but sometimes we have unrealistic expectations. I’m sure running a site like this and expanding the coverage to include more original content is far from simple or cheap.
Agreed!,
Merry Christmas and a happy new year to one and all of you! 🥂🌲
Yes, Merry Xmas. Merry Xmas to everyone. Particularly those who are incapable of respecting different opinions and utterly consumed by hate – I wish you all the very best.
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/time-to-start-thinking-the-unthinkable-about-king-charles-iii/
This short article posted today over at TCW. Very disparaging about Charlie Windsor. He’s got to go as I have been posting for many months.
He’s a treasonous barsteward.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/propaganda-roundup-hillary-claims-climate-change-targets-pregnant-women/5843773
“We know, and estimate*, that we probably could measure about 500,000 deaths [from climate change last year], and the majority of those are women and girls, and particularly pregnant women,” Hillary Clinton declared at a climate change summit recently — one she almost certainly transported herself to via private jet.”
Firkin evil cow.
This is a cracker.
A group of protesters go in to a Bezos Whole Food store, steal food and exit wearing Bezos face masks.
God Bless them.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/road-freedom-one-liberated-apple-time/5844029
Apologies. I forgot the bloody link.
(Re – stealing from Bezos / Whole Foods).
I’m not even a Christian and I celebrate Christmas, because it’s tradition here in the West and how I was brought up. I also manage to respect the important festivals and holidays of other religions throughout the year. This seems beyond the capabilities of many members of society, apparently, with videos and stories all over social media of hateful yobs trashing Christmas trees and decorations, gatecrashing Santa’s grotto and scaring the kids or the decapitation of nativity figures in various countries. Basic respect for others appears to be an old-fashioned concept which is losing value these days, evidently. Nobody should be spoiling anybody’s festivities and important celebrations, end of. It comes to something though, when the bleeding obvious needs pointed out. 🙁
”With Europe’s Christian identity in the crosshairs, Christmas is under fire, both literally and metaphorically. On the one hand, extremists threaten to target festive gatherings and celebrations. On the other hand, the woke agenda is attempting to cancel Christmas as a non-inclusive holiday.
This year especially, security concerns are of unprecedented gravity. “With the upcoming holiday season, there is a huge risk of terrorist attacks in the European Union,” said Ylva Johansson in early December. The EU Home Affairs Commissioner has already been proven right – as has Thomas Haldenwang, the president of Germany’s Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution who said that “a new dimension (of threat) is now emerging”.
However, Christmas is not only threatened by militant extremists. It is the woke agenda too, together with political correctness, that aim at cancelling the very nature of Christendom’s biggest celebration.
It was two years ago, when the European Commission received heavy criticism for an internal guidelines document which advised that Christmas be substituted with “holiday period”. And though the document was retracted, the general spirit remains.
Groups and NGOs for inclusiveness, like Watch this Space, are warning that festivities could be exclusionary to those who do not celebrate Christmas, and are calling for workplaces to forgo their usual office Christmas celebrations in order to cater to all employees’ tastes and beliefs.”
https://brusselssignal.eu/2023/12/lets-stand-up-for-christmas/
I utterly despise any body or organisation which seeks to undermine Christians and Christmas. I hope they rot.
Christmas celebrates the birth of Jesus Christ. There is no evil in Christ’s message and fundamentally the modern celebration of Christmas is all about family. It is the breakdown of family and family values that is undermining our society.
I will always celebrate Christmas.
Well said, HP. I would add that the deliberate undermining of Christianity and religion generally by “the globalist machine” (let’s call it) has left a massive hole in people’s lives. I think, even for non-practicing Christians, Christian culture and values (humility, kindness, respect for others, etc) hugely underpinned European society.
Happy Christmas all…
Well put Michael.
Thanks HP
Quite! I may add that when I lived in Easton, inner city Bristol 30 years back, where many Muslims also lived, our Muslim neighbours would always say “Happy Christmas” to us, and admire the rather fabulously decorated Xmas tree we had in our front window. They were also largely responsible for the economic regeneration of the area. Not multicultural, but multi-ethnic, with many Indians and West Indians there, it was a community at ease with itself.
Sadly, further generations have thrown that all away
The loss of Christianity as the core behind the West means quite simply the collapse of the West. Any culture that loses the common belief that binds it together is in a death spiral.
As we are witnessing.
Impossible not to agree.
It is apparent the Tories have been round all their sympathisers in the MSM to get favourable stories. The best Heffer could do was to say Labour would be even worse. Hardly a basis for enthusiasm among their remaining members!
Vote Reform!
https://www.conservativewoman.co.uk/it-was-christmas-day-at-the-sunaks/
A little bit of light-hearted relief from TCW although there’s anger in the doggerel.
A very Merry Christmas to you all , including your family’s & friends & everyone at The DS 🎄🎅🍻🥰
200 acres of glass in Peak District is bad enough but we are getting 900 acres on the one bit of reclaimed marsh on Swale/Thames Estuary that is not a SSSI or nature reserve. It includes a 700 MWh battery to game the system by smoothing the supply troughs it causes; also the toxic fumes when it explodes of course.
https://www.favershameye.co.uk/post/project-fortress-previously-known-as-cleve-hill
It’s not just Harvard – it’s all of US and UK academia. Better still, over here we fund the production of economically useless graduates, who leave University hell bent on destroying the civilisation that reared them.
Stop public funding, and it will be stopped in its tracks
Of course Harvard and places like it have huge endowments and are financially independent. Probably Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial too.
But I agree.
Much less so at UK universities, Cambridge did look at option of detaching itself from HMG teat. Cambridge at least saw off the ghastly Toope and 87% of Regent House voted to substitute ‘tolerate’ for ‘respect’ in his sinister ‘Free Speech’ proposals (the complete opposite of course). Prof. Ahmed has been appointed Director of freedom of speech and academic freedom, which is some progress at least, he lead the revolt against Toope.
https://www.cai.cam.ac.uk/news/prof-ahmed-appointed-director-freedom-speech-and-academic-freedom
That’s interesting about the vote – I didn’t know that. Regent House consists of academics – I had to look that up. The other two amendments were good too. I wonder how the students would have voted.
Cambridge has an endowment of £9 billion and an annual budget of £2 billion so they’d still need to charge fees, but I can’t see them having trouble finding people to pay fees that are not paid for by the so-called “student loans”.
Wishing everyone a peaceful Christmas. Stay strong and keep asking questions. Don’t self-censor. We will prevail. Support free speech above all.
👍👍👍