,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
Yes, it is. He argues the prorogation of parliament violates both basic constitutional principles and fundamental tenets of conservatism. Though I'm not sure the word "conservative" can be used this way anymore.
It's been so widely appropriated by parties and politicians who are not a bit "conservative," in the temperamental sense he means here: cautious, incremental, respectful of norms and traditions, aware of human limitations. But Johnson heads up the "Conservative" party;
and other nominally conservative parties--from the US to Hungary, etc.-- have similarly jettisoned conservatism in the sense @alanjrenwick means here.
So he's right: what Johnson's doing is naturally repulsive to anyone of what we once called "a conservative temperament."
So he's right: what Johnson's doing is naturally repulsive to anyone of what we once called "a conservative temperament."
But linguistically, we no longer share a common understanding of the word "conservative" in a political context. The word is actually in the process of semantically inverting itself, a bit in the way the word "liberal" inverted itself in the US.
Anyway, he's right: Johnson's move is neither normal nor trivial; whether it's "not conservative" depends how you understand the word, but clearly it isn't traditional, it isn't respectful of norms, it isn't cautious;
it isn't the right thing to do in light of what we know of human failings (whether you support his aims or not, this sets a precedent *bound* to be abused); and on top of it, it's apt to produce sudden and radical upheaval, not organic and incremental change.
It might make more sense to readers, at this point, to say this isn't "prudent" than to say it isn't "conservative." Or perhaps, "It's just not good common sense." Or, "it's radical," or, "We just don't do things this way. Haven't you ever wondered why we don't?"
