Out of control
From Sir Peregrine Worsthome Sir: Fraser Nelson is quite right to question David Cameron about 'social responsibility' (Politics, 20 January), and I would appreciate a chance to follow suit. My gripe is that Mr Cameron does not seem to recognise that all responsibility involves control. Only someone in control can be held responsible, i.e. accountable. Personal responsibility means that each individual could and should take control of himself or herself. So presumably social responsibility must mean that some individuals take control of other people.
Unfortunately Mr Cameron fails to grasp this nettle. He envisages a new order of responsible social controllers, in addition to those now empowered by the state and/or the invisible hand of the market, without giving us any idea where this new order of authoritative citizens is likely to come from.
In the old days, of course, they largely came from a hereditary governing class, with the ingrained habits of authority, many of whose members — particularly the females — had the leisure and the resources to accept the responsibilities of social control voluntarily; a class, incidentally, which the old Tory party existed to cherish and protect.
For good or ill, however, in the last half century or more, thanks partly to socialism and partly to Thatcherism, that class has been demoralised and de-legitimised to the point where it is no longer fit for purpose. The question that needs to be asked is whether Cameron's talk of social responsibility is yet another example of playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark.
Sir Peregrine Worsthorne Hedgerley, Buckinghamshire
Previous page
