Section:GDN 1J PaGe:2 Edition Date:190909 Edition:01 Zone: Sent at 8/9/2019 18:30 cYanmaGentaYellowblac

• The Guardian Monday 9 September 2019

2

with a similarly unthinking zeal. Moreover,

instead of easing the turbulence created

by a globalised capitalism whose new god

was “disruption”, government policy long ago became a

means of accelerating it.

Tony Blair advised the public to be “swift to adapt,

slow to complain, open, willing and able to change”. In

the wake of the 2008 crash, David Cameron whacked

us with austerity, and then demanded we participate

in something he called “ the global race ” – rhetorically,

at least, the kind of haughty, borderline meaningless

stuf that Tory Brexiteers have taken into the realms

of absurdity.

And all the while a new political stereotype was

taking root: that of the adviser who stalks the corridors

of Whitehall, clutching Sun Tzu’s The Art of War and

bemoaning the inertia of the government machine.

First, those belligerent Blair-era insiders convinced

that Labour had to embrace free markets and corporate

power ; then Cameron’s ridiculous guru ; and now the

increasingly infamous Dominic Cummings.

What combination of factors allowed such people

to acquire their inl uence, and all this damage to

happen? On the left, there were too few strong voices

making the case for equality – which is roughly where

Jeremy Corbyn came in. On the right, the story of

the last four decades is reducible to the demise of

genuine conservatism , that tangle of beliefs resolutely

sceptical of grand schemes, and romantically attached

to a lost country of patrician kindness, family and

community, and the rule of pragmatism. Its passing was

symbolised by last week’s withdrawal of the Tory whip

from old-style Conservatives such as Kenneth Clarke,

Nicholas Soames and Rory Stewart – the last of whose

run for the leadership was essentially this worldview’s

i nal stab at inl uence in the party.

As the party chases unicorns and follows the orders

of a leader who is apparently prepared to trample

whatever gets in his way, now is a good time to dig out

the famous quotation from the English philosopher

Michael Oakeshott , who said that to be conservative

was “ to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer

the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to

the possible, the limited to the unbounded ”. Of course,

this l attering description ignores the malignancies that

lurked under neath. I would no more vote for this kind of

Toryism than I would for the current version. But it still

strikes me as a creed that might eventually speak to a

country that has been disrupted to death.

I

n the distant future, a reinvented conservatism

might rediscover its reverence for this

country’s conventions and institutions. It could

emphasise the local over the national, and small

over big business. Its proponents might suggest

leaving teachers, doctors and nurses to do their

jobs, as free from bureaucratic interference as

entrepreneurs, and spurning huge infrastructure

projects in favour of the protection or restoration of

post oi ces, branch railway lines and sustainable town

centres. At a push, I could even imagine a retrospective

acknowledgement that if ever there was an example of

the follies of an over mighty central state, it was what

became of Brexit, and the spectacle of a few maniacs

at the heart of government playing fast and loose with

almost every aspect of our national life.

But where are we now, and what has modern Toryism

given us? The prospect of the HS2 line , carving an

increasingly expensive scar through rural England; the

sell-of of Royal Mail and the destruction of so much

of what holds places together by the worst kind of

capitalism; schools so strangled by Whitehall edicts that

teachers don’t want to teach any more; a politics that

cannot speak convincingly about “community” because

it will not stop turning people against each other.

To cap it all, many Tories seem entirely relaxed

about the break up of the United Kingdom , the ultimate

sacrii ce in their headless pursuit of our divorce from

Brussels. Clearly, they are locked into this deathly

trajectory with no sign of any change of course. But

maybe in 15 or 20 years’ time, amid the wreckage, they

will look afresh at their own party’s name, and realise

where it all went so wrong.

The case for Brexit rested largely upon two

misapprehensions – or, to put it less kindly, lies. The

i rst was the belief that engaging in a deep and broad

partnership, with the necessary compromises and

disadvantages that brings alongside all its benei ts, was

an act of treacherous self-sabotage. The second was a

wholly unrealistic assessment of Britain’s international

status and heft, rooted in a vague, nostalgic vision of

its imperial past. A third myth sprang from these two:

that a post-Brexit Britannia would emerge triumphant,

a beacon of democracy , parliamentary sovereignty and

prosperity, shining across the waves.

The last three years have left such ideas in tatters;

the last week has ripped the remaining shreds away. Its

events have left Britain appearing not only backwards-

looking, irrational and divided, but fanatical, bitter,

frivolous, chaotic and heedless of any legal or customary

impediment to the executive. Boris Johnson promised

a stroll to sunlit meadows; now he of ers a grim, hellish

march towards no deal, and his troops have had enough.

The most damning attacks come from within: from

his MPs, and now his ministers. Amber Rudd ditched

her opposition to no deal as Mr Johnson ascended

the throne; now she has quit the cabinet and the

Conservative whip, accusing him of an assault on

“decency and democracy” for his purge of Tory veterans.

In interviews she pressed home her attack, noting that

legal advice on prorogation had not been given to the

cabinet despite repeated requests and that there is no

evidence that the government is seeking a deal, since it is

devoting 80% to 90% of its time to planning for no deal.

Days before, Jo Johnson quit, citing a conl ict between

family loyalty and the national interest. Kenneth

Clarke, ejected from the Tory benches after almost

half a century, warned that a no-deal Brexit could be

far more damaging to Britain’s economy than a Corbyn

Nicola Sturgeon’s speech last week setting out the

Scottish government’s legislative programme for the

year ahead coni rmed what was already pretty clear.

Scottish councils are set to be the i rst in the UK with the

power to levy charges on visitors, with Edinburgh likely

to lead the way.

Tourist taxes are not new. The Himayalan kingdom of

Bhutan has a longstanding policy of charging visitors a

daily fee. France’s taxe de séjour on overnight stays was

introduced to assist thermal spa towns to develop, and

around half of French local authorities use it today.

But such levies are on the rise. Moves by Barcelona

and Venice to deal with the phenomenon of “over-

tourism” through the use of charges have recently gained

prominence. Japan and Greece are among the countries

to have recently introduced tourist taxes, while their

collection by Airbnb is a condition of that company’s

licen ce to operate in Paris.

That the UK lags behind is due to our weak (by

international standards) local government, as well as the

antipathy to taxes and regulation of our aggressively pro-

market ruling party. Bath is one English council to have

lobbied without success for the power to levy a charge on

visitors. Birmingham’s plan for a £2-a-night hotel charge

government. As briei ngs from Downing Street grew

wilder, the lord chancellor felt obliged to announce

that he would abide by the rule of law and had spoken

to the prime minister about its importance.

Consider now the external view. The EU diplomats

with whom we will have to work, with or without a

deal, are ever more frustrated by the game-playing

and have accused the prime minister of reneging

on pledges to uphold the Good Friday agreement.

(The taoiseach, who will today meet Mr Johnson,

has already warned that he does not expect any

breakthroughs .)

But other parties are just as scathing. In his Radio 4

series As Others See Us , Neil MacGregor noted that

respect for Britain’s parliamentary democracy and

steady pragmatism are much diminished, and that

the world sees an unsettled nation cut adrift from

its moorings. One American columnist dubbed

this week Britain’s stupidest hour, while Canada’s

Globe and Mail, describing the appetite for national

self-destruction, observed that the Tories had

transformed themselves into a protest party “even

while continuing to govern a Group of Seven nation

with a permanent seat on the United Nations security

council”. Implicit in that statement was a question:

how long, in these circumstances, can we maintain

this standing and hang on to these levers?

That the Trump administration cheers Britain

towards the exit, as Vice-President Mike Pence did

again in London this week, is a cause for concern, not

reassurance. It wants to speed our course not from

its deep amity towards the UK, but its deep hostility

towards the EU. Any opportunity to undermine

European cohesion, weakening it in global trade and

diplomacy (notably vis-a-vis Iran), is welcome. A

trade deal with Britain, inevitably on terms highly

favourable to America, will merely be the glaze on the

chlorinated chicken.

With friends like these, who needs to make

more enemies? To say that Britain’s hard power has

long been in decline is merely an expression of the

obvious, not of doom saying. Now the Brexiters who

dream ed of restoring glory are daily eroding the soft

power it amassed as its empire shrank. Those who

doubted our goodwill and good intentions after the

2016 vote increasingly doubt our good sense too.

is more likely to be approved as the cash is needed to

fund the 2022 Commonwealth Games – and it already

has support in the House of Lords.

Such levies are no panacea. The amounts raised

would be tiny compared with what has been taken

away by central government since 2010. Still, it is to

be hoped that the SNP’s bold move will jolt others

to act. There is no reason why visitors to the UK,

or domestic tourists on holiday in hotspots such

as Cornwall, should be exempt from taxation –

particularly when vital local services including waste

collection, park maintenance and arts and culture

spending are under unprecedented strain.

On the contrary, compelling tourists to make a

i nancial contribution to the places they visit beyond

their personal consumption should be part of a

wider cultural shift. Westerners with disposable

incomes have often behaved as if they have a right

to go wherever they choose with little heed for the

consequences. Just as the environmental harm caused

by aviation and other transport must come under far

greater scrutiny, the social cost of tourism must also

be confronted. This includes the impact of short-term

lets on housing costs and quality of life for residents ;

cities including Paris and Berlin are leading a campaign

for tougher regulation by the EU. It also includes

the impact of overcrowding, litter and the kinds of

behaviour associated with stag and hen parties.

There is no “one size i ts all”. The existence of

new revenue streams for some but not all councils

is complicated, and businesses are often opposed,

fearing higher costs will make them uncompetitive.

But those places that want them must be given the

chance to make tourist taxes work.



 Continued from front

Tourist taxes can help

off set the harm caused

by holidaymakers

Travel

Politics

Brexiters promised Britain

would stand tall. They

have only diminished it

Founded 181 Independently owned by the Scott Trust No 53,821

‘Comment is free... but facts are sacred’ CP Scott

We face a stark choice. So why

are so many tuning out?

John Harris

RELEASED BY "What's News" vk.com/wsnws TELEGRAM: t.me/whatsnws