On conservatism - a personal view

Old Polish saying: Umiesz liczeć? Licz na siebie. - 'Can you count? Count on yourself'. Counting on others - counting on the state - to bail you out when times are tough is not a good idea. Self-reliance is, I believe, the cornerstone of conservatism. Not nationalism, not traditionalism, not allegiance to a leader, but the notion that you are the master of your fate, and that this ownership should not be delegated to any higher authority.

I was inspired by Margaret Thatcher the most when she spoke of conservatism in terms of a household's balanced budget, of taking responsibility for your own actions - or indeed inactions.

I've written several times about the differences between British and Polish conservatism, and how as a British conservative I cannot feel at home around Polish conservatism.

On the spectrum of individualist vs. collectivist, I veer towards individualism. Obviously no man is an island, we need roads, schools, hospitals, security, territorial integrity. We need the rule of law to defend the sanctity of private property. Courts to enforce it fairly. Yet these are the constructs of a society, of a collective. Good to have; a framework within which an individualist can thrive and prosper. I'm glad that such a framework was there for me as I was growing up in the UK, and I'm delighted to have been able to witness such a framework being created around me here in Poland.

But I expect nothing from anyone. No help, no cheery word of encouragement, no free lunch, no Christmas presents. Should these things happen - hey! I'm delighted. I am truly thankful. As I am for health.

But I can't - I don't - expect these blessings. As Jacek Koba commented on my blog a few months ago, happiness is when the ratio of your expectations to reality is 1:1.

Suddenly, a crashing change of gear as this post takes another direction.

I read that the output of the construction sector in Poland is down 20% compared to last year. I look out of my window and see this (below). Dear readers, this is the private sector at work. Individuals, privately owned companies, operating for profit. Hard at work. A skyline of cranes. Warsaw is full of them - in the centre, in the suburbs. A barn. A distribution centre. A car showroom.

So why's there a big fall in Polish construction?

Because the public sector is postponing its investments.

The money (from the EU, mostly) is there - but the local authorities, the government agencies, the national infrastructure operators - don't know how to spend it. They don't have the know-how in project management. They don't have the people. Those that are involved in having to spend public money to procure projects live in fear of being sacked for taking the wrong decision. For taking any decision. And so construction companies who were counting on the state to give them work are going hungry. Licz na siebie. Trakcja PRKiI, the company that's modernising the Warsaw-Radom railway line, has just announced that it will be laying off several hundred people come next July, as this and other rail modernisation contracts comes to an end. There's plenty of money for further projects - it's just that the tenders have not been issued, decisions are being postponed.

Conservatives want to see a small, efficient state, not a bloated bureaucracy that's employing people for the sake of giving them jobs - that add little or no value for the taxpayers' money.

At a conference I'm speaking at this week, I gaze down the delegate list and a certain local authority will be sending nine people, when most private-sector firms will send one or two.

The public sector should be a tight ship, everyone pulling their weight for the public good, getting paid a competitive salary with the private sector, but with the expectation that their employment will be for the common good.

The dobra zmiana promised by the current government is merely a replacement of one lot of party political placemen with another - though the new ones lack the expertise or experience to do their job properly.

This is not conservatism. This has nothing to do with small-state government, nor promotion of self-reliance.

My brand of conservative government focuses on education - giving a solid grounding in basic facts for the bright and the less-gifted up to high-school level, then universities that teach students to think for themselves, to question, to push the boundaries of human knowledge. My brand of conservatism focuses on delivering a world-class infrastructure, which would enable private business to thrive and create new jobs and wealth. Not just railways, roads, airports and waterways, but broadband internet connections. And a paperless state, where you don't have to visit your local urząd twice when you simply wish to register a vehicle. An environmentally friendly state that is awake to the danger of climate change and wants to step back from burning fossil fuels to generate electricity and power vehicles.

It's easy to hold a view about abortion, in vitro fertilisation or gay rights. Anyone can launch into a heated discussion on these subject. You don't need to be an expert. However, you do need to be an expert to plan urban drainage systems, balance the nation's energy needs with carbon emissions, negotiate trade deals with emerging nations or set the optimal monetary-policy course for forthcoming years. Wise regulation, balancing the interests of different groups, is crucial. This government is focusing its energy on those issues that merely raise heat and social division rather than on doing solidly those things that a modern state needs to do to provide a strong framework for a strong economy and happy (yes, happy) society.

A final point about British conservatism. Since the days of Mrs Thatcher, the dividing line within the Conservative party seemed to have been Europe. Now, after the EU referendum, it's now clear the split lies far deeper than arguments that have their roots in the shape of post-war Europe. No, we now go back to the 1840s, to the repeal of the Corn Laws, where the real argument is Free Trade vs. Protectionism. The supporters of Hard Brexit (i.e. the UK leaves the single European market and imposes visa restrictions on visitors from the EU) have roots going back to the landowning classes who wanted the British market in wheat protected from imports. Those militating for a more open trading relation with the EU are heirs to the free-traders who wanted the Corn Laws repealed, so that traders could trade freely and consumers would benefit from lower prices. In this configuration, who are the 'Wets' and who are the 'Dries'? It looks like the free-traders are being branded 'wets' by the protectionist, nativist wing of the Conservative party. How times change.

I am for free trade - I am an economic liberal (and for the record a social liberal and environmental illiberal).

This time two years ago:
Between equinox and equilux

This time four years ago:
Heritage or high-rise?

This time five years ago:
Shopping notes

This time six years ago:
My grandfather

This time eight years ago:
Surreal twilight, ul.Karczunkowska

This time nine years ago:
From Warsaw to Seville, via Munich and Madrid

Is Conservatism rural in its nature?

Chatting to TokFM's Adam Ozga about the UK political scene, I pointed out that the political map of England was essentially a sea of blue (mainly rural constituencies represented by Conservative MPs) dotted with red islands - (mainly urban constituencies represented by Labour MPs). He pointed to a similar picture in Polish politics - in the second round of the 2011 presidential election, 63% the urban population voted for Bronisław Komorowski, while 58% of the rural population voted for Jarosław Kaczyński.

I have written before about the differences between Polish and British conservatism (here and here), but one thing intrigued us - the tendency for rural voters to be more conservative - while urban voters tend to be more progressive in their views. Is this really the case? Let's step back into history...

Franco's Spain and Salazar's Portugal never experienced fascist regimes. Franco and Salazar were deeply conservative, traditionalists, religious nationalists. Fascism was a 20th Century concept, born in Italy of Futurism. I would posit that the main reason that true fascism never took hold in Iberia was that it lacked the urban, industrialised base necessary to mould the masses into a movement that - in the pre-war Italy and Germany was heavily influenced by an aesthetic that glorified industrialised progress. Communism did this too - and Spain's industrial cities were the last bastions of the leftist Spanish Republic before they fell to Franco's troops.

While cities yield to progress, to new ideas good and bad, the countryside views them with suspicion, clinging on to old certainties. The core of the word 'Conservatism' is the verb 'to conserve'. The question is - what should one conserve? What's worth conserving? (or preserving?) Rural England is like a repository of national values; well-kept villages, courtesy, community. In a way, rural England is a civilisational advance over urban England. The opposite is true in Poland. The driving forces behind Poland's resurgence after more than a century of partition were urban intellectuals, the AK (Home Army) was a largely urban-based movement (Wołyń being a notable exception).

As I've written before, the English countryside is what one aspires to; you make your career in the city then move to an agreeable village away far from the madding crowd. In Poland, the countryside is where young people want to escape from - to move to the cities where there are job prospects and excitement.

I can see a certain equilibrium descending across Europe in the future; the countryside is where children are raised, to increasingly prosperous parents; they are schooled locally but move to the cities to study and to make their careers - once they are wealthy enough, they'll move back to the countryside to raise a family. And so on. Entrenching the rural = conservative, urban = progressive split. And my guess is that redistribution of wealth, that old Anglo-Saxon definer of left vs. right will find a balance, driven by pragmatic economically argued factors rather than by ideology.

What will be left to swing elections will be social liberalism vs. social conservatism. And the bastion of the former will be the cities, the bastion of the latter, the villages. Mankind is increasingly concentrating in cities. Hence, with a note of sadness, I foresee a long-term diminishing role for conservatism in the UK. And in America, where as MSNBC's Adam Serwer points out, the conservatives have lost two elections to a guy who wears mom jeans. Sadness because I see an ebbing away of the spirit of self-reliance, which is where I see the core of conservative values.

However Polish conservatism is not about the virtues of self-reliance or about conserving the legacy of many generations' hard work. It is defined by an introverted sense of belonging and tradition that blocks any dialogue concerning social progress. A healthy process of modernisation will weaken Polish neo-Francoism. Perhaps - I hope - it will evolve into something more Cameronian. In the meanwhile, a new generation of urban-dwelling nation-builders is slowly but inexorably, on many fronts, making Poland a better place to live.

This time last year:
Poland's roads get slightly less deadly

This time two years ago:
It's expensive being rich in Warsaw

This time four years:
Winter commuting in colour and black & white

This time five years ago:
Zamienie in winter

This time six years ago:
Really cold (-12C at night)

David Cameron, the EU and Conservatism

I listened watched David Cameron talking about Britain and the EU this morning and was most impressed. This will surely go down as a historically significant speech, one that will have far-reaching repercussions within the UK and indeed within Europe.

While fervently wanting the UK to remain firmly within the EU, I am nonplussed by its headlong drive towards Federalism and greater integration; despite the total lack of popular support by any of the peoples of Europe for this. There have been no protests in the streets of Rome, Paris, Berlin, Madrid, Warsaw, London or indeed Brussels, calling for a United States of Europe Now. The European Project, which has kept the Continent from warring for many decades, has been driven from the centre, but where it's going today fills many of its citizens with anxiety - the least of which is the lack of consultation about it.

There is, however, a commonly-held view across the 27 (soon to be 28) Member States that being out on one's own in a globalising world is extremely risky, and that it is better to be in than out. But in what, precisely? I agree with Mr Cameron that the EU should be more of a network than a bloc.

Mr Cameron's speech was brilliantly targeted at three groups: at home, Labour (will they call for a referendum on the EU? If they say no, they will appear undemocratic) and UKIP (outflanked, they will lose support in the polls) and in Brussels (the thought of a British exit worries everyone save the French), as the threat should push other EU governments to steer a less integrationist path.

How did it go down? The bellwether of opinion on this one, I believe, is the Daily Telegraph, upmarket of the loathsome Daily Mail yet also the voice of Middle England. Its story on Mr Cameron's speech attracted well over 800 comments, the lion's share being eurosceptic, hostile to the prime minister, to the coalition government, to the Tory party - and these are not Labour voters.

These are people seeking an extra-dry Conservative Party, the equivalent to the Tea Party movement in the US, people hankering over a return to 1955.

Yet their language, their tone, is not deferential, not gentlemanly, but aggressively radical. The Death of Deference (what's that in Polish?) has led to a situation where the same small 'c' conservatives who are railing against modernity and all its flaws are using decidedly un-conservative language.

Mr Cameron position is a difficult one to explain and defend; a middle road between isolationist Little-Englandism and full-on Euro-integrationism. Which opens him to attacks from both sides. And this means having to construct clever, nuanced arguments to fend off one side without the other side turning it against him.

I predict that today's speech will have the following three effects: 1) a weakening in support for the Labour Party in the polls, 2) a weakening in support for UKIP in the polls, and 3) increased support for Britain's position on the EU from other Member States.

I shall certainly be actively campaigning for the UK to stay as one country and within the EU - a family of nations more competitive, less bureaucratic and more flexible than it is today.

And its politicians - more accountable. What's 'accountability' in Polish? Literally, it should be 'rozliczalność' - but there's no such word. Maybe because the Polish language lacks a word for 'accountability', its politicians often behave as though they are not!

David Cameron's historic speech coincides with Moni's 20th birthday (Happy Birthday, Darling Daughter!)

This time last year:
Citizen Action Against Rat Runners

This time two years ago:
Moni at 18 (and 18 months)

This time three years ago:
Building the S79 - Sasanki-Węzeł Lotnisko, midwinter

This time four years ago:
My return to skiing after an eight-year break

This time five years ago:
Moni's 15th birthday