Hello

I’m going under the surgeon’s knife myself on Tuesday, though not at my own hospital, for a small genito-urinary operation; hence the fact I’m going somewhere else. I’m looking forward to the week off, not least of all because Mrs Salisbury will have me on light duties as well, so no gardening or DIY.

It’s a bad sign when an operation on your genitals seems more pleasurable than going to work though.

Yesterday my wife and I visited the National Memorial Arboretum at Alrewas. I first visited it two years ago, when my wife and I were first courting. I was struck then by the juxtaposition of old and contemporary; of remembrance for those long since fallen, but still mourned, and those still paying the supreme sacrifice today.

Alongside memorials to units which have already passed into history; the WRNS, the ATS, the Royal Green Jackets, are memorials to the fallen of particular industries (for example the Post Office), often with accompanying displays explaining the roles they played in the wars of the 20th and 21st centuries. Old memorials from factories and offices now defunct and demolished have been relocated to it’s garden. There was a memorial to the fallen at my old school, closed since the early 1980s. I’ve often wondered what happened to it; it would have been wonderful if such a place as this had existed then. How many other memorials were just consigned to skips as junk.

The trees at the arboretum are still young; saplings mostly and the memorial has the air of something unfinished. In a few years as the trees mature it will look splendid, but not yet. It’s one of the reasons I intend to visit annually. However the most striking thing is the central memorial. The names of the fallen since the second world war are listed there, listed by year of death and by service. It’s updated annually; 2009s fallen are already inscribed, and the ground beneath bears cards and wreaths from grieving parents, wives and children, their pain barely mitigated by profound pride.

The novelty of a Liberal Conservative coalition hasn’t quite worn off and I’m still reflecting on the nature of Liberal Conservatism and why I’m so comfortable with it. Progressive Conservatism would be a contradiction in terms; I don’t think Liberal Conservatism is.

I really dislike the term “progressive”. It implies an ongoing and cumulative improvement in the moral stature of human society. It legitimates the destruction of existing social relationships and confuses change with progress. The last thirteen years show the distinction between the two like little else. Perhaps most of all I hate the conceit of moral superiority that the self application of the label Progressive implies.

Socialism believes in the New Jerusalem, yet to come. It’s about outcome not process. The outcome is a better world and because it’s a better world strategy becomes a means to an end. Liberalism, I think, is more about process. There is no new Jerusalem, there’s just the road we’re on, and the rules we choose to govern ourselves on that road are more important than the destination we end at. (Conservatives Liberals are the ones inclined to think the best has already been). Liberal Conservatism assumes that the way we are, the way we do things, is the product of experience. We usually do the thing we do because usually they work; Conservatism is not a moral position, it’s pragmatic.

What a few days. I’ve been trying to blog between jobs, but every time I come back to it the circumstances have changed. Will Nicky go out with Dave or well, who? Will the warm corpse of Gordon Brown continue to stink out Downing Street or will somebody have the decency to call the funeral director? At the moment it looks as though Dave and Nicky are back together but who knows what the situation will be this time tomorrow. Personally I think Nicky is a bit of a slut.

Nick Clegg seems to have behaved very foolishly, though to be fair that’s as much his party’s fault as his. He’s also not done much for the cause of PR. This is something which shouldn’t be seen in isolation from wider electoral reform. It’s clear the nation’s priority is the economy but the Tories would be wise to look at Labour’s constitutional legacy and resolve the complications before the next election.

There is a clear need for constitutional reform. Under Labour, the House of Lords was dissolved; replaced by something scarcely more representative and clearly less effective. Certainly the second chamber is unrepresentative and lacks any real legitimacy. The government of the day has maintained a stranglehold over the House of Commons, resulting in badly considered legislation being passed without effective opposition. The constitutional relationship between the component parts of the United Kingdom has been fundamentally altered without an answer to the Mid Lothian question being found. All of these issues were treated in isolation and none of them have served the British people well.

One of the major deficiencies in our constitution is the fact that constitutional law is no different from any other law; it can be changed by any government with an absolute majority. Both Conservative and Labour governments have done exactly that over the last thirty years, while the population have passively sat by, feeling increasingly disenchanted with the whole electoral system. I’d suggest this is inimical to the liberal tradition running through both the Liberal Democratic Party and the Conservative Party (A party still known as the Liberal Unionist Party in parts of the UK, including my own Birmingham, until comparatively recently). PR shouldn’t be seen in isolation, as something to be granted to the Lib Dems for purely party political reasons. The events of the last five days should show that. The Tories should show their genuinely liberal credentials by tackling these much bigger issue and seeing that we end up with a political system that actually works.

(Gordon Brown resigned while I was writing this but I didn’t have the heart to start again).

[The Liberal Democrats] are the most intelligent, the most reasonable and the most far seeing of Britain’s political parties.

Ed Randall, Liberal Democrat Voice 10th May 2010

You forgot most self serving too though, Ed

I’m beginning to feel vaguely optimistic. The Liberals seem to be seriously trying to put some sort of constructive deal together with the Conservatives (and vice versa). This seems to be coming a surprise to those on the left who see this as an act of betrayal by a fellow “left of centre” party.

Conservatism, or at least 20th century conservatism, has a strong Liberal tradition too, however. If Clegg and Cameron can unite about this the implication could be very positive. The question, of course, is can they. It’s comparatively easy to imagine an alliance between liberal Conservatives and conservative Liberals, harder to see any alliance between the other wings of their parties.

One of the greatest deficiencies of the British constitution is that constitutional law is no different from any other law; it can be changed by simple majority. Under First Past The Post that enables any government of the day to change the rules, even against overwhelming opposition. Over the last thirty years both major parties have done exactly that. You don’t have to like PR (and I don’t) to recognise that isn’t right. Personally I’d like to see changes to the constitution go to referendum, though no one else seems to be talking about that.

In 2004 I started a blog called The Salisbury Pages, which I maintained briefly before realizing that writing an essay every day wasn’t a good way to relax, besides, I turned out to be a lot less clever, or funny, than I’d thought. More recently it has occurred to me that it would be useful to have somewhere to pop my occasional rants; if only to stop me posting them on facebook and alienating my friends. Unfortunately I can’t remember my login details for The Salisbury Pages, so I’ve had to start a new one; I’ve also discovered WordPress.

I’ve used the Salisbury name again because I’ve a soft spot for Lord Salisbury, Prime Minister twice in the late nineteenth century. To summarize him (badly) he believed it was the duty of government to do as little as possible, because whatever governments tried to do they invariably got wrong.

It’s a philosophy I’ve embraced enthusiastically, to the annoyance of my wife and work colleagues. However I can’t help feeling that the country would be a better place if twenty first century prime ministers had embraced the philosophy as keenly.