Lord Salisbury on suffrage

westernpromise

To give 'the suffrage' to a poor man is to give him as large a part in determining that legislation which is mainly concerned with property as the banker whose name is known on every Exchange in Europe, as the merchant whose ships are in every sea, as the landowner who owns the soil of a whole manufacturing town...two day-labourers shall outvote Baron Rothschild...The bestowal upon any class of a voting power disproportionate to their stake in the country, must infallibly give that class a power pro tanto of using taxation as an instrument of plunder, and expenditure and legislation as a fountain of gain.

Far-sighted chap, wasn't he?

antrobus

westernpromise wrote: »

...Far-sighted chap, wasn't he?

Presumably the 3rd Marquess. A dreadful old Tory in some respects. Perhaps the smartest PM we've ever had in others.

PasturesNew

I had to Google what a suffrage was

"the right to vote in political elections."

chris_m

PasturesNew wrote: »

I had to Google what a suffrage was
"the right to vote in political elections."

Well, what did you think the Suffragettes fought for?

chucknorris

chris_m wrote: »

Well, what did you think the Suffragettes fought for?

Cruelty to racehorses?

stator

He obviously forgot just how stupid and easily maniuplated most people are (daily mail)

Mortgagefreeman

westernpromise wrote: »

Far-sighted chap, wasn't he?

But did he know the difference between Expedia and Experian?

Jason74

westernpromise wrote: »

To give 'the suffrage' to a poor man is to give him as large a part in determining that legislation which is mainly concerned with property as the banker whose name is known on every Exchange in Europe, as the merchant whose ships are in every sea, as the landowner who owns the soil of a whole manufacturing town...two day-labourers shall outvote Baron Rothschild...The bestowal upon any class of a voting power disproportionate to their stake in the country, must infallibly give that class a power pro tanto of using taxation as an instrument of plunder, and expenditure and legislation as a fountain of gain.

Far-sighted chap, wasn't he?

Well in the strictest sense he was undoubtedly right, but I'm far from convinced that the change that he described was in any sense a bad thing. The fact is that up until the reform acts of the 19th century, parliament had essentially been selected by people from a very narrow class of people who generally placed people from that class in parliament. Unsurprisingly, Government was then run very much for the benefit of that class.

The extension of the vote by definition brought the views of ordinary people into politics in exactly the way that the quote suggests, and inevitably, that resulted in much needed changes that improved the lot of most people. And yes, that improvement was paid for by taxation that was largely levied on those who could afford to pay it.

Now you can make a good argument that at times in the modern era, that approach of taxation of some to pay for things that benefit others has gone too far. But there's no doubt that most of us (probably including you unless you come from "old money" stock) are a heck of a lot better off today then we would have been had "taxation as an instrument of plunder" not been employed in the way Lord Salisbury talked about.

Moby

westernpromise wrote: »

To give 'the suffrage' to a poor man is to give him as large a part in determining that legislation which is mainly concerned with property as the banker whose name is known on every Exchange in Europe, as the merchant whose ships are in every sea, as the landowner who owns the soil of a whole manufacturing town...two day-labourers shall outvote Baron Rothschild...The bestowal upon any class of a voting power disproportionate to their stake in the country, must infallibly give that class a power pro tanto of using taxation as an instrument of plunder, and expenditure and legislation as a fountain of gain.

Far-sighted chap, wasn't he?

The problem with Lord Salisbury and with you of course, (if you genuinely believe he was farsighted that is), is he assumed quite arrogantly and ignorantly that there was no dispute over the size of the stake and whether this could change. The thing that always amazes me is the deference shown to those who 'have' by those who 'have less'. The kings got to their position by being predatory robber barons. They then changed the rules to protect their gains and rewarded their retainers with land so that those 'bought' would reinforce their exploitation. Universal suffrage ensures this is less likely in future. I accept the elite scum will always find other ways of protecting their gains though and its up to us to hunt em down to their tax haven dens.

CLAPTON

westernpromise wrote: »

To give 'the suffrage' to a poor man is to give him as large a part in determining that legislation which is mainly concerned with property as the banker whose name is known on every Exchange in Europe, as the merchant whose ships are in every sea, as the landowner who owns the soil of a whole manufacturing town...two day-labourers shall outvote Baron Rothschild...The bestowal upon any class of a voting power disproportionate to their stake in the country, must infallibly give that class a power pro tanto of using taxation as an instrument of plunder, and expenditure and legislation as a fountain of gain.

Far-sighted chap, wasn't he?

it seems to me he spoke that which is obvious

'a rich man will seek to preserve his own wealth'

'whilst an idle man will vote for more free money to be given to him'

how it works in practice depends upon the culture and history and other specific conditions;
in Greece it seems that the entire country is involved in tax avoidance but have no mechanisms to break free

in the Uk we have pretty good institutions and the general acceptance of the necessity of paying tax even if individual seek to minimise their contribution.
The recent rises in tax allowance are somewhat questionable as it is creating another class that can vote for free money without having to pay a contribution via direct taxation

Malthusian

Salisbury overlooks two things:

1) Everyone, rich and poor, can suffer equally from the actions of government. If a merchant loses his entire shipping business thanks to some idiot politician he experiences the same amount of pain as a day labourer who loses his shack and all his meagre possessions. A day labourer is not less worthy of protection from the state just because he doesn't have many assets to lose. If you !!!!! him he still bleeds. Suffrage is not meant to be proportional to the "stake you have in the country", it is proportional to the stake the country has in you, to the state's ability to cause you pain. Hence the saying "no taxation without representation".

2) Power corrupts. Salisbury imagines that if two day labourers can outvote the businessman then they'll vote to seize his bank, causing misery to everyone. But if the businessman can outvote the labourers he could equally vote to introduce iniquitous labour laws or ban competitors to his business interests. All classes, rich and poor, are equally capable of wrecking the country if given power.

"Democracy" as any fule know comes from the Greek words meaning "the people" and "power". And power as Orwell pointed out is the ability to make another man suffer (unless he suffers you do not know whether he is under your power or acting of his own volition). Democracy at its worst is a barrel full of starving rats, each tearing at each others' flesh. But there is no point denying that Churchill is right, and it is also the worst form of government except for all the others. Current modern liberal democracies have reached a state of equilibrium where competing forces of power usually spend too much time pulling against each other to cause any real damage to the humans within their sphere, for which we all give thanks.

The essential point Salisbury missed is that none of the people he lists are fit to hold power over the others, not the day labourers, not the landowners, not the merchants.