What Should the More Right-Wing of the Two Parties in Britain Be Like?
Whether this outfit is the Conservative Party reformed or something new emerging out of its ashes and off the back of Reform, here is how I'd want this party to be constituted.
In two-party systems, there is a more left-wing party and a more right-wing party. In the US this is the Democrats and the Republicans, in Canada it is the Liberals and the Conservatives, in Australia is it Labor and the Liberal/National Coalition, in New Zealand it is Labour and National, and in Britain, it is currently Labour and the Conservatives.
As per my previous article, there is a small chance that since Nigel Farage’s return to the fray on the 3rd of May, in the upcoming British election we could be looking at the destruction of the Conservative Party akin to the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in the 1993 Federal Election, and therefore the replacement of Britain’s right-wing party. This is because the Tories have continuously betrayed their voter base, who have come to see both the Tories and Labour representing the same uniparty Blairite consensus.
I’ve previously advocated reforming the Conservative Party by selectively standing depending on the faction the MP belongs to, and if Reform still gets under the Conservative Party, which is still probably the most likely thing, that would still have been the best option; the strategy being perused is high-risk.
However, the reform of the Conservative Party that I had in mind was always designed to be so dramatic as to almost be a party change, having a party leader re-found the constitution on a democratic basis and withdraw the Whip and expel a substantial minority from the party, just like Boris Johnson did with Brexit (his best move to date).
Also, if we do get a Canada 1993-style situation, Reform UK is a corporation-party and effectively only serves as a Political Action Committee to get right-wing politicians into Parliament. It would be highly advisable for the party to be dissolved and a new major party of the right set up, absorbing the elements of the Tory Party that align with us, like the Reform Party of Canada did (though that was an actual party, not a corporation/PAC Party).
So what would this new party look like? What would be its structure and constitution? What would be its overall ideology?
Here are my proposals. I will avoid making this a wish-list and will try to articulate a vehicle that could genuinely replace the Tories, being a ‘big-tent’ of various factions, but still having an overlapping focus and ‘core’ which would prevent it from being institutionally in thrall to Blairism. How this party comes into being is less important than understanding it is one of the two-parties, and First Past the Post and its majoritarian effects continue being the electoral system for the time being.
Principles
The Conservative Party of Canada is a superior outlet to the British Conservative Party because it has in it’s constitution an outline of what it believes and how it is different from the Liberal Party. This helps establish a consistent ideology that it substantially different from their opponents.
In contrast, the British Conservatives have since their inception envisioned themselves as a ‘catch-all’ party catering to people of all different persuasions, however ‘A Church Too Broad Cannot Convert’. Whilst there must be room for disagreement and various factions on particular issues or emphasis, there must be enough common ground ground to have a distinct identity and recognisably make it a party of the centre-right.
Here are principles, known as the ‘15 points’, that I believe should be enshrined in the constitution of this new party. One must sign a pledge saying they agree with these principles in order to be a member, and members are liable to expulsion if they significantly depart from them. The principles may be changed through a constitutional change by a minimum 2/3 majority of the annual conference, but because all members would have pledged to support these principles this is unlikely to occur.
I will name this hypothetical party the ‘National Coalition Party’
The Union: We believe in the United Kingdom of the Home Nations of England, Wales, and Scotland, and are committed to the Good Friday Agreement in Northern Ireland.
Sovereignty of British People: We believe that British citizens should have the right to determine the laws that govern them, represented in the ancient institution of Parliament, and through citizens initiatives and referendums provided for by an Act of Parliament and protected by the upper chamber, that affirms Parliament as the living, breathing will of the British people.
The British popular will should not be obstructed by unelected bureaucrats, quangos, or political activist judges on the national level, and all Parliamentary Acts that facilitate such obstruction should be repealed. It should also not be obstructed by multigovernmental institutions or NGOs on the continental and international level, with British law always sovereign over international law. The nation-state is the upper limit of an effective democracy, and we oppose British membership in multigovernmental political unions like the European Union, though we support interstate co-operation on areas of joint interest.
Constitutional Monarchy: We support the system of constitutional monarchy that has existed in this country since the 1688 Glorious Revolution, the 1689 Bill of Rights, and the 1701 Act of Settlement, themselves reaffirmations of the basic principles of the Magna Carta. We believe that the House of Windsor should remain on the British Throne and serve as Britain’s Heads of State.
The Market Economy: We believe that a capitalist free-market economy is better than any other economic system that has been tried. Private enterprise and competition are the drivers of growth, innovation, and development.
We acknowledge that a capitalist economy does not always lead to perfect results, and believe that a capable and efficient state is needed to make it work to its fullest potential through the enforcement of private property rights, preventing the rise of predatory monopolies, providing a basic social safety net, protecting the health and safety of both people and the environment, and maximising opportunity across society so that people, no matter their background, may best make use of their talents and have the opportunity to thrive in a market economy.
Simple and Minimal Taxes: Whilst taxation is an inevitability in a functioning society, we believe that taxes should be as simple, transparent, and easy for people to file and pay as possible, and not any higher than are necessary to support the general welfare of society. Our ideal is for the tax-burden to not exceed 35% of GDP.
Fiscal Responsibility: We believe that in non-recessionary periods, the revenue spending by the government shall not exceed tax receipts, and capital spending shall not exceed the rate of economic growth. Debt-to-GDP ratio should be kept below 60%, to maintain low interest-rates on government bonds in case of a recession or emergency, in which case budget deficits above the rate of economic growth may be permitted to stimulate the economy. Due to our commitment for taxation to not exceed 35% of GDP, so too do we want to reduce government spending to GDP to that amount.
Demographic Preservation: We believe that the indigenous Anglo-Saxon and Celtic peoples of the British Isles have a right to determine who can become a citizen, and to implement policies that will ensure they do not become ethnic minorities within their native lands.
As a maximum, there should only be as many immigrants coming into Britain as there are emigrants leaving, the principle of ‘net-zero’ immigration, and ethno-cultural factors should be considered when determining who may immigrate. Whilst we sympathise on a personal level with those who wish to get a better life, the duty of the British government is to put the welfare of the British people first, and illegal immigrants who broke the law should be returned home and barred from returning to Britain.
Britain should move towards a system of single citizenship, with the future acquiring of dual citizenship, particularly from countries culturally far removed from Britain, only permitted in exceptional circumstances such as through marriage, although law-abiding dual citizens who respect the indigenous population and their history shall be permitted to stay no matter their race or religion, and shall have the option to become sole citizens.
Equality Before the Law: We believe that sole British citizens, no matter their class, income, race, religion, biological sex, or political opinion, shall be treated equally in a court of law, and shall not have unequal status in the eyes of the law. In the case of biological sex, the law shall acknowledge their difference whilst affirming their equality.
Meritocracy: We believe that one’s position in society should be based on their individual character and skillset, without regard to circumstances of birth, whether that be class, race, or (with qualifications) biological sex. We shall maximise opportunity so that those who come from modest or disadvantaged backgrounds can utilise their natural talents.
We do not believe meritocracy involves the lowering of standards, or ‘reverse-discriminating’ against groups who historically may have had unfair advantages, which leads us to oppose diversity quotas, affirmative action, and disparate impact. We also acknowledge that a meritocratic system may lead to unequal outcomes between groups, due to average cultural or genetic attributes, though maintain that this shall not inform how people from particular groups are treated, which shall always be on an individual basis.
Freedom of Opinion and Association: British citizens shall have the legal right to free speech, so long as it is not slander, libel, or a direct incitement to violence that presents a clear and present danger to the individuals or groups affected. This leads us to oppose most legal restrictions on speech, even and especially those which claim to be in favour of the common good, like ‘hate speech laws’.
When it comes to protest movements, whilst the right to express ones grievances is a traditional British freedom, certain groups show the notion of ‘free speech’ so much contempt, and believe violence is acceptable against their political opponents, that they must be legally sanctioned so that a free and pluralistic society can be maintained.
We believe in classifying certain economic and communication activities as ‘common carriers’ that shall not discriminate on the basis of political opinion, and believe that one’s personal anonymity shall be protected so long as it is within the law, with ‘doxing’ made a criminal offense.
People shall be allowed to associate with whoever they please, and practice and promote their religious faith, within private organisations like churches, civil society organisations, and businesses that are not ‘common carriers’, without the state legally mandating them to include particular people within their spaces or legally sanctioning them for discrimination. We believe the legal concept of ‘hate crime’, ‘hate incident’, and ‘hate speech’ should be abolished.
Personal Liberty and Responsibility: We believe that people should have the ability to make choices, including poor choices, but which one should also bear the consequences of. Individual liberty is a double-edged sword, with rights come responsibilities to oneself, one’s family, and one’s society. However, the state should take a backseat role whenever possible, not trying to erase risk by passing ever-greater regulations, but allowing people the right, within reason, to make their own choices and accept the consequences if they are bad choices, without a ‘nanny-state’ trying to protect them from harm.
Effective Welfare and Efficient Public Services: We believe that welfare should be a last resort, as our beliefs in subsidiarity lead us to support family, mutual aid networks, and private charity support, though is important to assist the truly destitute who cannot rely on family or charitable aid. We pledge to keep the NHS a single-payer system that is free at the point of use, though believe that citizens who pay into the NHS should have the right to use private healthcare, and the NHS paying what they would pay public hospitals, if they so desire. We believe public services should be efficient and good value for money without sacrificing quality of provision.
The Scientific Method: We believe our worldview should be informed by science, and should not fall down a rabbit-hole of conspiracism, circular reasoning, and politicised doctrines posing as ‘science’. We utilise Occam’s Razor and Popper/Lakatos’ empirical falsification principle to determine the most likely truth and what is science and what isn’t, with humility needed in understanding that our knowledge of the world around us is always changing. We reject conspiratorial and anti-scientific thinking wherever it comes from, anti-vax and climate denial on the right, and transgender ideology, gender fluidity, and the idea that men can become women due to an innate ‘gender identity’ on the left.
Pride in British Cultural and Natural Heritage: We are patriots who are immensely proud to be British, having a rich cultural and natural inheritance for which it is our duty to maintain so that our descendants may enjoy what has been passed on to us by our ancestors.
This leads us to support the preservation of historic buildings and monuments, to support museums and preservation societies, as well as preserving the natural environment from pollution and spoilage. We must vigorously defend such heritage from militant activists who believe our history to be ‘racist’. We will defend the memory of the British Empire as a moment of national pride and greatness, and will not indulge or humour hostile elements within our society who promote views of self-loathing and deconstruction of our identity, and such tendencies should receive no taxpayer-funded promotion.
Atlanticism and Support for Allies: We support Britain’s special relationship with the United States built on shared cultural heritage, as well as the former Dominions of Canada, Australia, and New Zealand. We are steadfastly committed to the NATO Alliance and commit to maintaining a strong and efficient military fighting force with a minimum of 2% of Britain’s GDP committed to defence. We are also committed to the State of Israel, and shall support its survival as a Jewish-majority state. (This is to keep the cranks out, and legitimise talk of Jewish overrepresentation so long as you support Israel. On NATO we’d be adopting the positioning of Brothers of Italy.)
Party Structure
It is important to have a party that is democratic but also ideologically consistent and electable, can represent local concerns but still has good party discipline and can unite behind a common programme.
The method of direct leadership elections is a poor fit for Britain’s parliamentary system. In the Conservative Party, the choice of the members is almost always not the choice of the MPs, resulting in them almost always getting thrown out, like Ian Duncan Smith and Liz Truss. However, whilst in terms of leadership elections parties have become more membership involved, the local autonomy of constituency parties to select candidates has been gravely reduced since 1997.
The new right-wing party should synthesise elements of restoration and innovation. Once again, local parties would choose the candidates, and the MPs would choose the leader. However, unlike in the past, once candidates have undergone basic checks (no criminal record, agrees to support the party platform, etcetera), they are subject to an American-style party primary in each constituency, whereby every member is sent out a ballot as opposed to the nominations happening in closed ‘smoke-filled rooms’.
Here would be the structure:
Membership
Party membership is available to all British citizens over the age of 16 without a criminal record, regardless of sex, race, religion, or background.
In order to be a member of the National Coalition, one cannot be a member of any other party simultaneously as they are a member of the National Coalition. If they are currently a member of another party, they must leave that party if they wish to join National Coalition.
People who wish to become party members must sign a pledge saying that they agree with the values of the party outlined in the ‘15 points’.
When a member of the National Coalition, a member pledges to always support the National Coalition’s candidates and not publicly support any other candidate or party.
All party members shall pay the agreed amount of party dues.
All party members shall receive a membership card and a unique party number.
All members are free to leave the party at any point, and the membership office shall comply request to terminate their membership.
Former members who have left voluntarily are free to re-join the party at any point, subject to the same conditions.
All members are expected to abide by standards of good behaviour, and to disagree with fellow party members respectfully. Uses of slur-words at party-organised or affiliated events are forbidden. They also are forbidden from engaging in threatening or violent behaviour towards non-party members, including political opponents, and must always present a good image of the party.
Each constituency association will elect a president and a committee. They shall be responsible for disciplinary action against party members, issuing out warnings and if necessary, excluding them from meetings.
The regional commissioners will make the decision to terminate party membership if judged to be uncommitted to the 15 points, or have engaged in unacceptable behaviour towards party members or non-party members. This decision may be appealed to the National Executive Committee, who’s judgement is final.
The forming of party factions and caucuses is permitted, so long as they still agree with the 15 points, and do not publicly oppose any selected candidates by endorsing political opponents.
Candidate Selection
Party candidates shall be chosen in a party-primary election of their local constituency association, with all members residing in the constituency given a ballot, and utilising the Supplementary Vote (SV) system. If for some reason, the selected candidate from the party primary is unable to stand after the primary has taken place, their replacement shall be nominated in a closed convention with all who attend voting, and with those members unable to attend delegating their vote to other individuals, through an exhaustive ballot system.
Sitting MPs have no automatic right to be nominated by the party in the next general election, and must win a local party-primary if there are challenger candidates.
In order to stand in the party primary, one needs to:
Have been a member of the party for at least 1-year.
Be a sole British citizen, a dual citizen of Britain and another Anglosphere country, or a dual citizen through marriage to a foreigner.
Be a person of good character, without any criminal convictions.
Not have any visible social media history which use offensive language or advocate for ideas contrary to those of the 15 points, that could be used by political opponents to discredit the party, of which aspiring primary candidates shall be warned of what is disqualifying to give them a chance to remove beforehand.
Sign a pledge to support the 15 points, the party leader, the election manifesto, and vote-in-line with the party-whips, even when they might disagree.
This vetting process will be undertaken by the regional party commissioners, posts that shall be directly elected by the members of that region, and not subject to the party leader or NCHQ. Any member who meets the criteria is entitled to stand.
Primary candidates agree to support the winner of the local primary, and understand that standing as an independent candidate, or candidate for a different political party, against the winning candidate will result in their permanent expulsion from the party.
Candidates may personalise their campaigns in their constituencies, so long as they emphasise their support of the party leader and promise to implement the party’s manifesto.
Standards for MPs
Sitting MPs must vote in line with the Whips, unless the Whips, appointed by and answerable to the party leader, allow a free vote on an issue.
If an MP defies the Whip, the leader has the decision to withdraw the Whip from them, making them sit as an independent in the House of Commons, though they retain personal membership.
If the MP with the withdrawn Whip does not resign, and stands as an independent candidate against the National Coalition candidate, they are permanently expelled from the party.
MPs may form caucuses with specialised ideologies and interests, and as long as they are not cabinet ministers, may publicly criticise the leadership on specific policies. However, as MPs elected on the National Coalition platform, they shall be expected to vote with the government even if they disagree.
MPs that are suspected of criminal wrongdoing are suspended for the duration of their investigation, with the Whip removed if found guilty.
MPs guilty of non-illegal misconduct which nevertheless brings the party into disrepute may have the Whip removed by the discretion of the leader.
Leadership Selection
The party leader is also the Prime Minister if in government, and the party’s nominee for the position of Prime Minister when in opposition.
The party leader is chosen by the sitting MPs.
The leadership election process is overseen by the ‘NC Parliamentary Committee’ (like the 1922 Committee), though the rules for leadership election shall be determined in this constitution in the following points and shall not be changed ad-hoc by this committee.
Any MP who wants to become leader may stand.
The winner is chosen through an ‘exhaustive ballot’ system, with as many rounds as there are candidates standing, until a final round is held between MPs.
There is no ballot of all members, as the Parliamentary system of Britain relies on MP support for the leader, and therefore it should be the MPs that determine who should lead them.
The leader is selected with the intention of serving for the full Parliamentary term. If the leader is Prime Minister, a leadership election is held shortly before the election to decide whether to stick with them as the nominee for Prime Minister, or to choose somebody different.
To stop the party becoming too dominated by one individual, a Prime Minister may only serve for a maximum of 10 years.
Powers of the Party Leader
To appoint the leadership of NCHQ (equivalent of CCHQ).
To appoint the party Whips.
To withdraw the Whip from party MPs who have not obeyed them.
To permit the holding of ‘free votes’.
To hire and fire ministers or shadow ministers, and members of the cabinet or shadow cabinet.
To appoint special advisors and their leadership team.
If Prime Minister, to appoint the leader of the House of Commons, and set the Parliamentary timetable. If Leader of the Opposition, to determine the agenda of opposition-led debates.
Has exclusive right of initiative for policies to be put in the election manifesto, subject to approval by the ‘Manifesto Drafting Assembly’, elected by nominated candidates in the ‘Candidate Convention’, and going for a final approval by the convention.
Removing the Party Leader
If found guilty of a criminal offense or contempt of Parliament, the leader shall be removed automatically.
Outside of those circumstances and the re-nomination required shortly before each election, to trigger a leadership ballot will require 20% of all party MPs sending letters of no-confidence with their name on, to the NC Parliamentary Committee. Ministers or Shadow Ministers must resign in order to send a latter of no-confidence.
There may only be one leadership challenge per Parliamentary term.
If that happens, there is a vote of all MPs in the party. In order to remove the leader, a minimum 2/3 majority of the MPs is needed, after which case another leadership election takes place amongst MPs.
The Whip cannot be withdrawn from MPs for starting a leadership challenge if they continue to vote in line with the leader, though naturally they will be passed over for cabinet appointments and their local concerns will have less audience.
Manifesto Drafting
The party manifesto shall be determined by a combination of the party leader, a Manifesto Drafting Committee, and the Candidate Convention which elects the later.
The party leader has the sole ‘right to initiative’ of what goes in the party manifesto, though it is subject to negotiation with the Manifesto Drafting Committee, and must be approved by the Candidate Convention.
The Candidate Convention is a body formed by all candidates standing under the party’s banner shortly before a general election, both incumbent MPs and candidates not elected. In the election of both the Manifesto Drafting Committee and the final approval, incumbent candidates (MPs) get 2 votes, whereas unelected candidates get 1 vote.
The election manifesto must be oriented around the 15 points, and debate focused on how to best achieve the goals of the 15 points and the specific policies required to get there.
Constituency Associations
The constituency association is the bedrock of the National Coalition Party, responsible for holding primary elections for candidates and organising local campaigns.
All members residing in the constituency are entitled to attend meetings and vote for positions, and ballots will be sent out to all members for both the primary election and the election of the President and Board of the association.
Constituency Associations are to be a professional, respectful atmosphere, with all party members treated with appropriate respect, disagreements expressed calmly and intellectually, and unity of purpose.
Constituency Association’s primary purpose is to campaign for candidates; it’s secondary purpose is as a social club for individuals.
Regional Branches
Regional Branches exist to co-ordinate campaigning resources, to provide a basic vetting process to primary candidates as described in the previous section, and be the first port of call for suspension and termination of membership.
The Chair and Board of the Regional Branch shall be elected by all members residing in that region; any member may stand, and members will receive appropriate information about the candidates to inform their choice. The electoral system used shall be approval voting.
National Executive Committee
National Executive Committee organises the annual conference, and is the final body of appeal for membership suspensions and terminations.
It decides which motions go to a vote at the annual conference, unless it is member initiated.
It is directly elected by all members using approval voting.
Annual Conference
The annual conference is a conference representing the members, allowing ideas to be debated, factions to set up stalls, and constitutional amendments to be adopted.
The annual conference shall be organised by the National Executive Committee.
The votes of the conference operate on a model of ‘interactive representation’. All members who show up can cast a vote, but members unable to be present can delegate their vote to somebody to vote on their behalf, using a secure means of verification. Anonymity will be sacrificed for security and verification.
Affiliated Organisations
An affiliated organisation is an organisation with its own constitutional and internal functioning, which is oriented towards increasing support for the National Coalition Party, though usually with a more specialised function.
Such affiliated organisations include a youth-wing, students-wing, women’s-wing', young-women’s wing, various professional associations which are committed to building support for the party’s values and platform in elite occupations like law and teaching, and a trade-union wing.
To become a formally affiliated organisation, the annual conference must vote by a majority to admit them.
There may be party faction organisations that are not formally ‘affiliated organisation’, representing a various issue or ideological tendency.
Amending the Party Constitution
In order to amend any aspect of the party constitution aside from the affiliated societies, it is required that it is adopted by a minimum 2/3 majority of the annual conference.
Any member may suggest an amendment.
The National Executive Committee will have the power to choose amendments, either those suggested to it or those it or the leader has suggested, to a vote at the conference.
Members may have an amendment automatically brought to a vote at the annual conference if 1% of the membership sign a petition in favour of it. This should only be limited to a single subject.
Which Factions Would Be Included and Which Excluded?
A broad coalition needs to know where to draw the line, and the ‘big tent’ approach for the Conservative Party is what has led to the highest levels of immigration on record and the complete capture of institutions by Woke under a nominally Conservative government. We simply cannot have people like Theresa May, who says ‘I’m Woke’, in the party of the right, if we want to avoid ‘14 wasted years’ again.
In British politics, there have traditionally been three mega-factions of the Right.
‘One Nation’ Conservatives
Free-Marketers
High Tories
All Conservative Prime Ministers over the past 14 years, with the exception of Liz Truss, were in some way or another connected to the One Nation wing. This is a confused tradition; it gets its name from Disraeli which should suggest a populist, almost Gaullist worldview. However, what it really has meant is what Thatcher called a ‘wet’, somebody who is happy to dance along to the left’s tune. In the 1950s, that was the economic left, with Harold Macmillan accepting the changes that Attlee had made.
However, since Blair, the definition of ‘One Nation’ has been selling out to the cultural left, aka, a globalist, socially liberal Blairite. All of the MPs in the ‘Tory Reform Group’ and ‘One Nation Caucus’ are ‘wets’, endlessly moaning about ‘soft power’, ‘international law’, and fear of being the ‘nasty party’ (desperately trying to appease people who hate them).
In my pre-Farage voting recommendation, I suggested that all of the energy of ‘zero seats’ should be directed to the One Nation Caucus and Tory Reform Group, that I used the Americanised (C)INO to describe. Every single one of these MPs needs to be nowhere near this new party, and indeed they would be excluded by various parts of the 14 points. The Lib Dems are clearly the better home for them, I’m sure they’ll drop their aversion to PR almost instantly once they’re forced to join the Lib Dems.
Since 2019, there has been another faction known as the ‘Populists’. These were the representatives of the ‘Red Wall Realignment’ and represented by people like Miriam Cates and Lee Anderson, and tend to be economically left-wing and socially and nationally conservative.
This faction should absolutely be included, though synthesising their concerns with the free-marketers will not be easy, though UKIP and Reform picked up similar types of voters whilst being economically right-wing. The big cleavage will be on immigration, which many free-marketers continue to support, but the ‘15 points’ should put that debate to rest. ‘Thatcherism in One Country’ seems the most obvious and likely synthesis.
Left and Right Flank
My friend
had a very interesting idea in the ‘Neo-Lib Cycle’ (not much to do with neoliberalism), that is basically the inversion of the Neocon Cycle that we should hope to implement. By pushing out the CINOs and making the Lib Dems the Conservative Party of 2010, we would have expanded the Overton Window rightwards, hopefully followed by many other ratchet-effects.Already, there is no place for remainers, i.e., people who want to rejoin the EU, in the Conservative Party despite being hugely controversial in 2016, or even people who want to rejoin something like EFTA. The hardcore Europhiles were purged in 2019, something that still remains Boris Johnson’s most based move. The Tories are now the party of Hard Brexiteers, even the ones that are formally still ‘One Nation’.
Unfortunately, the remaining CINOs, that constitute at least a third of the MPs, have simply replaced the EU with ‘international law’ and the ‘European Convention on Human Rights’ to tie the hands of elected governments.
It makes sense to outline where the ‘barriers’ will be in this hypothetical party. People talk about their personal beliefs, but not nearly enough on which disagreements they’ll tolerate and which are too fundamental to be part of the same party.
All movements need to gatekeep; this isn’t a ‘free speech’ issue as much as its an issue of free association; one can support the right to free speech, wishing to ban doxing, and support social media companies as common carriers, whilst still having nothing to do with people who cross certain ‘red lines’.
People who fall outside of this spectrum have every right to start a party of their own, and those to our right we will defend against the left’s cancellation attempts. But an element of cancel culture is part and parcel of human behaviour, the problem today is that it all goes one way (Woke towards anti-Woke), and affects all spheres of one’s life rather than just one. There are also no clear rules as Woke orthodoxy is always changing. By making the rules clear from the start we are being consistent and fair.
So I will outline the range of opinion that would be permitted. I will talk about various ‘axes’ and what the people on either side of the axes would believe in or what they’d be forbidden from crossing.
Economic Left-Flank: West German-style Ordoliberalism and Christian Democracy; supports public ownership of utilities, sectoral bargaining, and works councils, but combines this with an emphasis on subsidiarity and fiscal responsibility.
There will also be some that advocate American Compass/American Affairs-style protectionist policies both financially and in terms of goods and are concerned about trade deficits, with people aligned with the modern SDP and Blue Labour getting a hearing. So too will Georgist LVT advocates. Progressive taxation may be allowed to be advocated so long as its goal is taking the burden off of the poor rather than redistribution, and there is still a desire for maximum simplification.
Generally the party won’t have anybody who supports public ownership of production beyond natural monopolies. The party is explicitly non-socialist and non-social democratic, the latter of which is a mixed economy based on the redistribution of wealth; even the most economically-left in the party would believe most of the economy should be in private hands, and will not believe in redistribution as a policy objective.
Economic Right-Flank: The NHS must remain a state-owned public fund and be free at the point of use. Whilst advocating for other models is not usually beyond the realm of acceptability in most countries, one of the most persistent claims from the left has been that the Tories want to ‘privatise the NHS’ (by which they always mean ‘make it the American system’ which nobody in their right mind would advocate for). We should put these claims to rest in order to be electorally viable, whilst still looking for reforms to make the NHS long-term sustainable, for instance transforming it into something similar to Australia’s Medicare system.
There aren’t really any other red-lines, but the need to appeal to general electorate will keep it in check. Generally, the budget rule enshrined in the 15-points is Chicago School rather than Austrian School, and permits deficits in times of economic recession, which would likely not be compatible with those who want to return to a commodity-backed standard.
Of course, if open immigration is seen as an ‘economic right’ policy, that also is not permitted.
Social Left-Flank: Essentially the most socially left-wing tendency in the party would be TERFism. These individuals want to leave gay marriage but still would be absolutely ferociously against transgender ideology and demand that no concessions be made towards it. There would be no space for transgenderist sympathisers of any kind.
Social Right-Flank: One may be a hard-line pro-lifer and religious conservative, but advocating theocracy Adrian Vermule-style would not be acceptable, and one must accept religious pluralism. Adultery and homosexual actions in private should not be criminal offenses, and those who advocate as such would be beyond the pale.
‘Racial and National’ Left-Flank: Somebody on the left of the party on this issue would still want net-zero immigration and to deport all illegal immigration, but generally okay with guest-workers and the idea of Britain being a multi-ethnic society, so long as Whites remain the majority.
‘Racial and National’ Right-Flank: Those on the right-wing of the party would advocate using state funds to subtly encourage non-White sole citizens to return back to their country of origin. There cannot be any formal incentive structure when it comes to sole citizens as that would be preaching equality before the law, which is one of the ‘15 points’, but encouragement would be permitted. Racial antisemitism and Holocaust Denial is also forbidden, as is any support for Nazism. Jared Taylor, Charles Murray, and Nathan Cofnas-style HBD is within the party mainstream, but racial slurs and stereotyping (Blacks are lazy) is forbidden.
‘Respectable/Schizoid ’ Axis - Respectable Flank: All must oppose the Covid lockdowns, the infiltration of scientific authorities by trans activists, accept the evidence of grooming and mutilation by Libs of TikTok and Chris Rufo, and the reality of the Twitter Files. The establishment has indeed lied through its teeth and we should not give them undue confidence, even though we should take efforts to avoid ‘wignat’ tendencies.
‘Respectable/Schizoid’ Axis - Schizoid Flank: One can personally not have taken the Covid vaccine, be against mandates, and talk about how it wasn’t justified for children, but conspiracism about how the vaccines are harmful for all groups is beyond the pale, as is any talk of 5G. 2020 election theories must have collaborating sources other than the mouth of Donald Trump. One can criticise Britain’s net-zero policy, question the importance of fighting climate change when balanced with other concerns, and question the reliability of predicted temperature increases, however talk of climate change not happening or not being caused by humans is crankish, as is blanket objection to all low-carbon forms of electricity that have other benefits aside just fighting climate change. Theories and claims must pass Occam’s Razor and the Empirical Falsification Test.
‘Constitutionally Conservative/Progressive’ Axis - Progressive Flank: All party members would support the monarchy as it is one of the 15 points. All must support the repeal of the 1998 Human Rights Act, and repeal of the 2005 Constitutional Reform Act (creation of the UK Supreme Court), a ‘reactionary’ (status-quo-ante) stance.
‘Constitutionally Conservative/Progressive’ Axis - Conservative Flank: All must support the implementation of binding citizens initiatives, as a means to bridge divides between party members on other issues related to constitutional and political reform.
Existing European Parties that Should Inspire Us
The Swiss People’s Party seems to me the best idea of where we should go. Being Swiss, of course they work within the citizens initiative system, but their philosophy of national democracy and the supremacy of national law over international law, the integrity of the Swiss nation, and small government are good approaches which should be applied here in Britain, with us taking the decentralisation and direct democracy of the Swiss.
Other parties to take from would be the Czech ‘Freedom and Direct Democracy’ party, ‘Brothers of Italy’, and ‘Alternative for Sweden’. Economically (not culturally) we should take from the Estonian Reform Party and the Georgian United National Movement (better than Estonian Reform Party).
‘National democracy’ seems far more credible if there is a means for citizens to directly initiate legislation. Whilst I continue to have issues with universal suffrage, it is more justifiable if it is linked to an integral view of nationality and nationhood, with one getting the vote for being a member of the nation rather than having it as a ‘right’.
Opinions on proportional representation would differ, but if we had citizens initiatives a vote could be initiated on the subject of electoral reform whenever there was demand for it, and it wouldn’t just be ‘if the stars align’ and we get a minority government with the Lib Dems being the kingmakers. The current First Past the Post system is clearly unfair, with the spoiler effect, the ‘wrong winner’ risk, and the difficulty of fairly redistricting.
Though PR also has disadvantages of its own; the reason why ‘The Guardian’ readers love it so much is that they love the political culture of Germany where there is a giant uniparty and all the parties just agree (and the one that doesn’t is shunned), with them forced to peruse the Green’s suicidal anti-nuclear policy.
It also basically enshrines the hegemony of the previous majority-government. I think Britain would have been better if we’d had PR by the 1920s, and then had neither Attlee nor Thatcher and economically had settled closer towards the middle, but that is just hypothetical, and if PR was introduced today it would just enshrine Blairism forever by making the Lib Dems and Greens.
Conclusion
It is still far from a foregone conclusion that the Conservative Party will be finished in this election. Still, the most likely thing is that they remain larger than Reform.
However, the fact that Reform outpolling the Tories is a serious possibility shows that we live in highly interesting times when many things are possible. I once dismissed #ZeroSeats as a fantasy, but if Farage manages to hit the ball in the net this first time, that would be a good thing.
As I’ve said, Reform as it currently stands is not a long-term vehicle for power, but if it can serve as a PAC to get some more right-wing figures elected who are not complete cranks, or even just destroy the Tory Party so that it is forced to refound it as an entirely different entity and absorbing a lot of the populist energy of Reform, completely eradicating the influence of the CINOs, that would be a good thing.
It is good to have an image of what the party of the centre-right should look like, so however it forms, we have an effective vehicle to destroy Wokeism in Britain.
Thanks for reading, and if you liked this article, please subscribe.
This is very good, and shows how awake Arcto is to the need for pragmatism over purity (yet with clearly defined limits linked to principles). All of us on the right have certain things we might see as essential that aren't touched on here, but that doesn't mean it needs to be in the constitution.
I would question certain things needing to be in the constitution, but the short term value of them (I.e. NHS being free at the point of use) is worth it. And if any such party did want to dispute those things the need for a 2/3 vote would ensure proper scrutiny, debate and political calculation was had.
I'm not entirely sure about the 10 year limit for leadership, although I do see the point of it, and think that may need a little more discussion.
Interesting points. I’m American, but I agree that the Market is the best, but I do prefer Tariffs on our enemies and maybe tax businesses who do business with nations like China. As for Welfare, I support pro-family policies like lowering taxes for couples with two or more kids, interest-free loans to couples so they can buy a home, and maternity/paternity leave. Peace ✌🏻
P.S. Since you’re name is AngloFuturist, do you have any thoughts on Futurism from 1920s Italy?