Have we entered a new era of 'Liberal Conservatism?

First off apologies for my first post as my friend quite rightly said I sounded like a 14 year old girl. I put it down to post B.A stress and needed an outlet.

This will be just a quick one I am hoping to develop this further when I have more time so if anyone has anything they feel would support this view let me know, discussion should be encouraged!

Anyway down to the real stuff...

With age I have appeared to become more socially Liberal (and I do mean it with a 'L') this change I don't think I can explain but I certainly don't think it has anything to do with Mr. Cameron. As a Conservative I pride myself (and I hope others do to) on the fact it is more of a disposition rather than a rigid dogma. It is what one can define Conservatism as fluid strands of thought that although these may appear opportunistic have become more of an omnipresent logic in British political thought.

It struck me whilst listening to a presentation on socialism that there is still somewhat of a idealogical tribalism whereby failure in statecraft appears to push a party to return to what could be considered its idealogical roots as an attempted to reclaim political ground which may of been untouched for some years. As William Hague showed in 2001 this can result in disaster but only time will tell to see if the Labour Party will make the same mistake following the election of a new leader.

It would far to simplistic to say the Conservative Party have reverted to socialist ideas and have accepted what is traditionally seen as 'socialist territory'. What I mean by this is initiatives such as 'the big society' and the protection of the NHS. These things historically may mark a leap in socialist ideas but surely the longevity of institutions such as the NHS signifies a shift in social attitudes whereby health care is no longer a privilege but a fundamental right. Anyone who has watched Micheal Moore's 'Sicko' knows exactly what I'm talking about.

Since my last post the Queens speech was put before Parliament and as a whole I think we can be fairly happy with it, but what do we mean when we talk of 'Liberal Conservatism'?

For me Conservatism has always had this classical liberalism strand but it has to be noted this is far from the concept of the 'night watchman' state that is associated. A good example that one might not think of would be von Hayek's view of welfare. Surprising for some Hayek moves away from this night watchman style state where the state has control of the absolute minimum. Hayek belives there are people who cannot make their own living in the market:

• The sick
• The disabled
• Widows
• Orphans

These people are in the situation they are in through no fault of their own. From Hayek’s point of view these people should be helped as these people’s circumstances cannot be pre-empted. Through ‘communal action’ which is enabled by government relinquishing centralised power can a community help those in need-which appears to echo the contemporary concept of big society.

But this throws up a wider debate of if the state should help those who don’t help themselves for example smokers being a burden on the NHS however making the choice that they could potentially harm them.

However Hayek stresses that individual freedom of one to make those decisions must be upheld. Hayek feel to help those who are disadvantaged in society there is a need for a minimum income which provides a floor which is a protection against misfortune. Hayek regards it is an individuals responsibility to make provisions for themselves as they would become a charge on the public purse. An example of this would be car insurance that we have compulsory car insurance for an eventuality we cannot predict. This principle can then be applied to forms of welfare such as pensions, housing, and life insurance and of course Hayek intends the minimum income guarantee to enable those suffering temporary misfortune t continue to pay their premiums and as such this lifts pressure on the state and in fact one could argue that it would be cheaper and more responsive.

For me the basic concept is spot on and really echo's much of the German attitude to healthcare would be. However although it is highly unlikely the U.K would revert to this model the principles remain the same of taking away the power of the state and allowing communities (if they so wish) to make decisions without state interference which I think has been exemplified in the 'decentralisation and localism bill' and the 'police reform and social responsibility reform bill' (amongst others).

What I suppose I am arguing (as much of a rant this may seem) is that there always has been a certain degree of 'Liberal Conservatism' that has appeared to influence conservative political thought, even Edward Heath spoke of the 'unacceptable face of capitalism'. It is still early days to see if the coalition will define an era as the 'new politics' but what is certain is that the Conservative Party have continued to do what they have (and quite successfully) for the past century and adapted to the needs of the times.

To start this blogging malarkey

OK so where do I start? I guess the first thing to do is tell everyone why on earth I decided to start blogging. 1) I've always wanted to keep a diary of sorts 2) be able to vent my frustration(s) but also to keep a note of significant events.

So for my first entry I would like to explain my current situation...

It has long been a goal of mine to live and work in London and over the course of this year I have applied for many jobs, however it seems whilst in search of my dream job I'm being undercut by people who hold Masters degrees. It then seemed whilst campaigning on behalf of the Conservative Party in the latest general election I met some fantastic people and found myself having opportunities being thrown at me that required me to stay in Swansea. I did some research and saw the new MA in Public Policy being offered by my school as a way to get that missing piece to my prospective career puzzle.

Before I begin and I realize that I'm jumping all over the place but this is really important as this is crux of this entry.

For the past year i have lived in a beautiful house that I have shared with my best buddy Tom and 2 Norwegian girls Ida and J.C. Tom and J.C actually lived in the house the year before with another 2 friends of mine Helen and Matt. Both Helen and Matt have been in the U.S on an exchange year which for the purposes of this discussion left two places free in the house. Tom chose me and J.C chose Ida and it may be worth noting that this was a decision taken purely on the grounds of nationality meaning the girls really didn't know each other when they committed to live with each other. It was then going to be the case that Tom, J.C and myself were to move out at the end of the year, Matt and Helen were then going to live with Ida and Ida had someone of here choosing as she was essentially the last person in the house.

Anyway to cut a very very long story short this year has been an absolute nightmare with Ida who has thrown tantrums over me not taking my shoes off (yes I am serious!), threatened to call the police and me charged because I went into her room and turned off an electric heater (I should be hanged) and just generally making cruel and hurtful comments to EVERYONE!!! (no joke).

So my way of dealing with her was just to ignore her I figured don't talk to can't get bitten right? wrong! Everyone else's way was to act like nothing had ever happened and just get on with it and then complain about her! Behind her back! WHY!? I could write a book on all the instances of this year from being forced to pay TV rental to being told that turning lights off when leaving a room actually costs more money than leaving them on...gimme a break! So the end result is Ida living in this almost pseudo reality where everyone nods and smiles where she can say disgusting things a about people and there be no repercussion's and everyone let her think that, why? apparently they are scared of her...(Ida self confessed anger management issues)

And this is where it becomes so so so juicy and interesting almost like soap opera...

So how does link in with the first part of this entry? Well (and I take an epic sigh...) I spoke to Matt over Skype (which we do almost daily) and informed him of my intention to stay on. He then told me that the girl Ida had selected to move in and take the last spot wanted out due to an altercation with Ida (Ida had insulted her in some way). Matt suggested I take the remaining spot, in which I got on the phone to our landlady (Sally) and told her of my intentions. It then came to light that the girl (Raanvieg) and not actually told Ida yet and was not going to tell Ida the real reason but make up a story that was less likely to anger Ida.

So it seemed pretty straight forward I had made my intentions known even before Ida was told and all that had to happen once Ida found out was to get Raan to sign the contract over to me. It was to be fantastic as I would get to live with another one of my best friends and someone who I find intellectually stimulating and a great politics buddy. As the Meerkat would say SIMPLES!! ..I wish.

A huge row EXPLODED with Ida refusing to show support for me staying on next year, even though I had the support of Matt, Helen and to an extent Sally. Ida's argument was there was a formal agreement that had said she had the "right" to pick someone which was complete nonsense. Stalemate ensued with Matt and I trying every trick of diplomacy we could; talking; letters; gestures of good will; getting Sally to talk to her etc etc etc etc ...but nothing worked she would not budge. Sally informed all parties involved that Raan was not to sign over the contract until everyone had agreed which seemed pretty unlikely.

From the point of view of Sally it seemed that Ida needed to know the truth and by getting on with us she may learn a thing or two about conflict resolution etc.

Anyway I could bore anyone reading this with the nitty gritty but what happened next is pretty well spineless.

Raan signed the contract over to another Norwegian girl of Ida's choosing without consulting me (even though she knew I was interested) Matt or Helen (when she knew they did not want anyone new) and Sally (even though she has explicitly said to me she would talk to Sally before making a decision!) This was down to one simple fact...Raan wanted to appease Ida. She realized that next year she would have interact with Ida on some level and thought that by appeasing her she would not upset her and of course she has no intention of telling Ida her real feelings.

Where does this leave me? upset, angry, betrayed and above all homeless I was counting on staying here because I had nowhere else to go.

SO you're probably thinking why didn't Sally intervene? Answer: Sally told me she cannot approve or disprove anyone, it is for individuals in the house to decide....I know IrOnY!!

This leaves me with a thought about human nature perhaps one this is quite Hobbesian....no matter how much one does the right thing (through mediation and diplomacy in my case) it is human beings that ultimately decide one another's fate and those decisions will primarily be taken in the absolute interest of that individual who will have a blatant disregard of what is morally just and of those directly affected! This may sound obvious but those who think humans are naturally good willed creatures READ THE ABOVE!

I can confidently say that not all my entries will be like this I will also ponder politics and the like.

Before I bring this lengthy entry to a close I would like to also say a big thank you to Bronwyn, Matt and Tom who have supported me through that ordeal love and friendship to you all!