Please join the David Starkey Members' Club via Patreon www.patreon.com/davidstarkeytalks or Subscribestar www.subscribestar.com/david-starkey-talks

Given the scale & threat of the foreign mass migration crisis, the Tory Party's conclave's monocular focus upon cutting taxes for the rich is unsettlingly revealing as to who & what they are.

As an old Labourite I totally relate to this analysis. I have always been a hater of Liberalism in all its forms - ever since my University days. But thankyou David - this has got to be one of your best ones.

Only now are we beginning to see what an absolute disaster for this Country was that 1997 Election result which returned BLAIR, and entitled him to approach our late Sovereign Lady for permission to form a Government. What a vile thing he - and subsequent Labour politicians - have done to the working person's political party.

Perhaps we should look to the aberrations that led to the French Revolution, namely the abuse of power.

Brilliant insights as usual. Things start to make sense when David Starkey Talks

Academic Agent's "What Marx Got Right" made the same point but in the wider thesis of managerialism.

Thatcher was an Economic Liberal with social conservative values!

Thatcher was mostly a libertarian and not much of a conservative. Libertarianism, a liberal philosophy, is not at all easily compatible with conservatism.

Excellent analysis. Same thing is happening in the US except insert Democrats for Labour Party.

Thank you, Dr. Starkey.

'All bad ideas come from France.'

Good to see John Gillingham's volume on Richard III on your shelves David. I remember both of you at LSE, 1994-7

David, is there a precedent for criminal charges brought against politicians who deliberately ignored the democratic wishes of the people and who lie ? For example, if a party is elected to reduce migration on its manifesto and then does the opposite, is that a case for impeachment or whatever?

To lay the current ills of the Tories at Thatcher's door is just wrong. She left office over 30 years ago, plenty of time for successive leaders to refashion the party any way they see fit. Both major parties have since gone down the road of telling us we can have all we want and it doesn't have to be paid for. Or at least not now,and preferably by someone else. The size of our national debt should make anyone fearful for the future

💯 spot on as always! Academia doesn't deserve you.

Spot on.

At last! A voice of reason crying out in the British wilderness.

I always have a smile as an Australian when I remember the British Conservative Party persists with that title. It is even funnier when they are called Tories.

Everything now is about money, only got to look at the banks ,shutting down, not because people don't use them, it because, the can get rid a few more staff ,no bank less staff,less maintenance, less rates ,more profits

Thatcher was a mildly more conservative version of Major. Blair a less conservative version of Major. I don’t know much about Brown to be honest but the tories that followed have been Blairites in my opinion.

I walked right across London many years ago to visit Karl Marx' tomb in Highgate Cemetary all day & into the night it took me. Finally made it, I'll never forget that day.. best shit I ever had. 🤪

It's all very well putting forward these learned nuanced analyses, but the "Swinish Multitude", as Burke had it, don't give a toss. All they want is bread and circuses.

Thatcher squandered the one opportunity we had for prosperity with North Sea oil

Capitalism is an American political (not economic) ideology which was created by the 1776 Revolutionaries. People confuse it with free markets, which is a related but quite separate thing. Capitalism's core belief is that life is primarily about the pursuit of (lawful) profit at all the expense of virtually all else, & almost everything is suborned to that end. They erected a modern era Calf of Gold to worship on Capitol Hill when they removed the Crown & betrayed their motherland of England, & have been worshiping it ever since, & it will end the USA in its fifth century (by its deluging itself with 3rd World migrating populations after short term "economic growth") when it should have had ten. Sir Jimmy Goldsmith predicted a lot of this back in the early 90's I seem to remember. England should cease to emulate the self-destructive behaviour of its prodigal issue, lest it suffer the same fate.

Prof. Starkey is just revealing what is liable to take place whenever an idea is brought to its logical conclusion. Not every idea needs to be. In fact, most shouldn’t.

So whats the natural conclusion to the slow burn version of the French revolution?

Well it is at least as destructive.

It would be nice if the Tories were old fashioned enough to insist that their leader actually wins an election to become their leader.

I think the term capitalism and libertarianism (coined earlier as Classic Liberalism not to be confused with current left leaning liberals) is more often misunderstand and therefore misused. They are not directly related with money, it is from their system that the creation of prosperity and wealth for the citizens and their country has been most successful when applied. But it is not about money, its primary philosophy is about less government interference in the citizens lives unless the citizens' freedom is being jeopardised. For instance it should be the right of the shopkeeper to sell goods he or she sees fit at a price that makes sense, in order to make a profit, in order to make a living that makes it worthwhile for them to continue in this line of business. If it is too high for customers to pay, there is another shop they can go to, as under less government intervention another business would capitalise on this and try to find an innovative way to sell their products for either cheaper or slightly more but last longer due to better quality. All have the choice and don't need the government to interfere and say they have to sell their product at this price or that, or they can't buy that shop or this shop, etc. However all freedoms are taken away if they are robbed, hence why there would be laws against such behaviour to deter others from restricting other freedoms. This would be where the government steps in to ensure such laws are in place, considering the government in charge is a fancy name for temporary contractors voted in by the public and not rulers. The tory party have not been capitalist for a very very long time (if really ever, closest being Mrs Thatcher), John Major, David Cameron are EU supporters, who don't believe in the individual spirit but a set of rules each country in that group has to be sworn to with very little flexibility, Boris Johnson with the HS2 as well his green economy obsession, which would mean more Government spending and lastly the current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, has similar positions on funding for manufacturing and climate change. So just as Prof David suggests they aren't capitalist at all, just that capitalist are more inclined to vote for them as they would at least offer more friendly mandates and less restrictive measures by way of economic and social freedoms than the other left leaning parties.

Your argument seems to ignore inequality as a driving force for social change. Surely the French Revolution was galvanised by huge inequality between the wealthy aristocracy and the rest of the population. As human beings, we are acutely aware of inequality, but are largely accepting of it to a degree. It's when the perceived inequality reaches a tipping point that we see real social upheaval, and for what it's worth, I believe that is what's happening in the UK now.

So... Vote for Starkey??

Very unfair on Maggie. She was a Patriot & Christian first. Economic Competence was a divine imperative for her. She loved Britain above all else.

I think money is a good way of comparing things. How does a government prioritise its spending with limited resources. What shd be its focus. Values can drive these decisions but money allows us to “price” them to allow the costs and benefits of A vs B to be compared. The problem with recent “conservative” governments is that they have not “priced” what they have been doing. And so things have gone out of hand. Increased size of the state as % of GDP yet the quality and availability of public services have deteriorated. Or immigration - we need it, because the UK is at full employment (of those wishing to work). But we have replaced productive with non productive immigration if we look at pre-and post Brexit net contribution on a per capita basis And the failure to “price” this is the failing of recent Conservative governments. I think Starkey is wrong in blaming modern “economic liberalism” for this. And I do not defend Liz Truss’s efforts either as she did nothing o control teh size of the state either.

Tally Sticks. Tally Ho!?

Succinctly put in a nutshell!

not a fan of Starkey but some of this is en pointe ..in a truly consertive government nation should come first not the banks....good vid for the most part

FATCHA!!! >larf

Love Starkey but I'm not sure he's correct here. Classical liberalism is about freedom from the state and private property. These have nothing to do with new labour or contemporary "liberalism" which is as liberal as the modern Tory party is conservative.

Thatcher's hero, Hayek, argued that you can't have liberty without free-market capitalism. It's actually the other way around - you can't have free-market capitalism without social liberalism. Every human on Earth must be liberated - to become a consumer.

revolutions ALWAYS destroy; That's the point. Obviously they're uncomfortable and inhuman, but they are sometimes necessary. Are you really saying France should have stayed as it was under the ancient regime? A revolution without rebuilding is an apocalypse, but a stagnated hierarchical regime where the status quo is only valued for its familiarity and comfort is also a miserable thing. And the 19th c liberals didn't only value money. that was an establishment slur for the most part. but I suppose the death of religion has changed things in the 20th and 21st c.

ITS WHY I WONT VOTE FOR THEM NOW...!

tory liberalism is better than starmer's socialism. And I suspect Sunak is more conservative than he's letting on

Too much sub lettimg😢😢t

Interesting although I don't agree with you David

This is so dishonest of Starkey, Liberalism doesn’t uphold money as everything, Liberalism upholds individual liberty as its ruling *political* value. I say political, because Liberals themselves uphold many different moral values and to different degrees. A system of liberty, free market capitalism gives moral sanction to man’s pursuit of happiness. If he wants to create a successful business and become wealthy he is free to do so and the government exists to protect his right to do so, however if you want to pursue other values, like join the clergy you are equally free to do so. It just so happens that most people want to make money, why? Because money gives us a modern advanced economy like we have today with all of the associated benefits such as world travel, advanced medicine, entertainment and technology. If you want to live as an ascetic monk you are free to do so, but the rest of us want to maximise our opportunities and pursue our own success and happiness and demand by moral right our freedom to do so. To oppose this idea requires that you oppose my right to my own life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, and i dare you to do that.

Does anyone else see this guy as the class snitch that he clearly was. Snipes at everything, stutters when talking with only himself.. Offers no solution.. He just wants to win... whatever.

You wouldn't of thought he was a working class lad.Speak with a plum in your mouth, and you automatically think he is intelligent. Some people are different deal with it.