What happened to Conservatives who want to conserve?

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.