There is a lot to be said for ‘small c’
conservatism. Roger Scruton, the self-styled ‘right wing philosopher’, summarises
the main tenet of his belief as being very easy to destroy something, but
incredibly difficult to build it. For Scruton, the Paris riots of 1968 were
essential for him in forming this belief. Watching students daub walls with graffiti
and overturn cars forced him into the realisation that he wanted to conserve
what we had rather than dismantle it. But in less radical times, it is for me a
recognition of the preciousness of our landscape and some of this country’s
most treasured institutions which push me towards a more conservative outlook
than might otherwise be the case.
Since 1949 we have enjoyed our national
parks. Places of such beauty and national importance that, following the
destruction of war, we designated them with this important status. They are
places for us to enjoy but also ours to protect from permanent damage and
destruction. We are the caretakers of these precious places, and as we pass
through this life we should ensure they remain unsullied for the next
generation, who will in turn ensure they exist for generations to come.
Yet despite this significance, despite the
undoubted importance they represent, we are about to play a hand in their
destruction. Fracking has been seen a possible solution to our energy woes for
some time, or rather it has been sold to us as such. The government promised to
protect national parks and yet, through incentives for local authorities and a
seemingly relentless, crazed desire to dig up what fossil fuels we have left,
they have allowed our national parks to be ‘fracked’ through the back door. A
decision has been made to do just this outside the village of Kirby Misperton in the North York Moors, one of our
fifteen national parks.
And where would we be in our precious
countryside without the aid of an Ordnance Survey map? Most probably lost. The
Ordnance Survey have been mapping our country since 1791, and it is with a
degree of unfashionable imperialistic pride that I say Britain helped map the
world. This talent shows itself no better than in the mapping of our own
country with a level of detail that allows one to place themselves to within a
millimetre of their actual location, and most importantly, their proximity to a
public house. Impressively, the organisation brings in a profit of around £35
million a year, and this makes it a prime target for privatisation.
The government’s spending review looks to
raise £5 billion from the sale of the Ordnance Survey, the Land Registry,
Channel 4, National Air Traffic Services and the BBC. To an individual £5
billion sounds like an awful lot of money, or the holiday of a life time, but
to the treasury it is a near insignificant amount of money. Around 0.7% of the government’s
annual national budget.
My concern is not the vehemence with which
I oppose these policies, strong though it is, but rather that once they have
been made, there is little that can be done to reverse them. Budgets for
certain services rise and fall with governments, and policies come and go with
the daily news cycle. These are different. There is a permanence to their
perniciousness. Damage to our environment and countryside is irreversible. It
is therefore a decision that should be taken with the full consultation of the
public and with a comprehensive and dogged review of the possible consequences
before we start drilling holes
and flogging our tirelessly built institutions.
The privatisation of some our most valuable
national assets is no different. Private property is something that is very
much enshrined in our law, selling it to the highest bidder is an easy act for
a quick payday. But should we choose to retake ownership of these treasures,
the possession by a private party becomes a very difficult obstacle to
overcome. Repurchasing is costly and the policy of state confiscation is not
one of which I approve, creating difficult moral and legal questions of its
own.
Giving and taking money from the poor and
the rise and fall of tuition fees will wax and wane with successive
governments, but the scarring of our countryside and the selling off of the
family silver are irreversible. These are not the actions of those who want to
conserve our greatest assets, but the actions of those so hell bent on an uninhibited
free market that they have lost sight of what is sacred. These are decisions we
will look back on with embarrassment in years to come when all the money has
gone and all we are left with is a hole in the ground and no way of finding it.
