Tag: welfare

There are good Tories…just not many in the government

February 22nd, 2011 · · Society 3 comments - Tags: , , , ,

I’m a reasonable man – some might say too reasonable. I believe in debate and compromise. I believe in steady progress not revolution. I’ve never seen politics in black and white but recognise that most of the time reality operates in shades of grey – or even the full spectrum of colours.

That’s why despite leaning to the left I can respect the views of some further to the right. But only some: those that I call ‘good’ Tories.

Good Tories have varying views but they can largely be characterised as fiscal conservatives and social liberals. They believe in a smaller state, they believe that markets are the best motivators of progress and efficiency, they believe in personal responsibility. I may not agree with them but I can respect Good Tories as people of principle, who believe what they believe based on sound logical arguments that they can articulate.

This puts them in contrast to the bulk of the current government, who I believe are working on ideology not principle. I make an important distinction between the two: the principles that I respect in good Tories are approaches based on logic applied in the right situations. They have been tested and reaffirmed by their experience in life and business.

The ideology of the current government is more like a faith, applied rigidly and with a missionary zeal. It is unchecked by any real life experience that might have caused them to temper their principles with a dose of reality.

Hence we get suggestions like the unrestrained entry of business into state operations – something that no good Tory that I know would honestly countenance. We get the relaxation of tax laws enabling banks to move much of their trade offshore. We get the blind slashing of the Disability Living Allowance wiping out a large proportion of the income of some of our most disadvantaged citizens.

As I said at the start, I am generally someone of pretty balanced views. But I find it increasingly hard to keep a civil tongue when talking about this government. I don’t expect them to swing wildly to the left, and I am not denying the financial problems that the country faces. But when taking decisions that will undermine the livelihoods of thousands of people I just expect a little more thought, consideration and honesty to go into decisions and their communication.

For example:

  • Drop this ‘Big Society’ sham. Philip Blond may well believe in it but I don’t believe that Cameron and Osborne see it as anything other than a thin veil behind which to slash the state.
  • Stop presenting local government cuts as the fault of councils not being able to find ‘efficiency savings’ fast enough. Comparing wealthy, Conservative Trafford with poorer Manchester is hardly a fair comparison.
  • Don’t present cuts as ‘corrections’, and claim that the recipients should never have been receiving the benefits anyway, as Maria Miller did with the mobility aspect of the DLA. That doesn’t change the fact that people have been reliant on them and somehow need to make up a large gap in their income.

Good Tories are honest, principled, and logical. I don’t think that is a lot to ask of a Government.

The State of Welfare

February 28th, 2007 · · Society No comments - Tags: , , ,

I’ve just come back from a couple of weeks on the continent, doing some work, and having some fun. The first week was spent at 3GSM, the massive mobile industry trade show over in Barcelona. The second driving back through France, visiting friends and various tourist sites along the way. The trip has inspired a few new ideas and perspectives on the future.

A conversation with a friend in Paris sparked this particular post. He has been in welfare and social services, and helping to create policy around these areas, for the last thirty years. He has come to a conclusion that some might see as radical: that the current approach to the welfare state in Europe, largely driven by handouts, is doomed to failure. We need to tackle the root causes of poverty more effectively, and unfortunately the handouts themselves might be part of the problem.

It all sounds fairly right wing, the sort of language an old Tory government might have used before announcing swingeing cuts to the welfare state (calling benefits ‘handouts’ is typical Daily Mail-style inflammatory language, but that might just have been the translation). However, the point itself makes a lot of sense. The state can’t afford to budget for endless expenditure on benefits, given the growing and ageing population. We also simply can’t afford to have so many people not working. I learned at a conference yesterday that there are now a million less 20-somethings than there were 10 years ago, and apparently thirty percent of public servants qualify for retirement in the next decade.

Those capable of work need to be given every opportunity, and encouragement, to move in to work. This includes all sorts of groups even the discussion of whom is largely a no-go area for many politicians: notably the disabled, and single parents.

The root causes of unemployment are many, but there are some obvious ones that need to be addressed. The greed and laziness theories of some of the press, who describe armies of benefit cheats – largely asylum seekers in their misguided view – are generally held to be inaccurate within the profession. Education, childcare and simple lack of confidence are more pertinent issues to be addressed than criminality.

Where the difficulty lies is getting the right balance between carrot and stick. The stick is generally the withdrawal of benefits but this has to be applied long after people have been given the opportunities. The carrots are many: greater wealth should be the obvious one, but there is also the impact on self-esteem and quality of life that the right job can bring. Certainly though, if some people are genuinely better off on benefits then this needs to be addressed. The current British government seems to be moving in the right direction – if a little slowly – by increasing the provision of childcare before and after school. Free childcare for all might be scarily expensive from the chancellor’s perspective but it is hard to argue against the long-term benefits to the country, both social and financial.

And this is where the problem lies: the solution requires a long-term view. Yet most politicians seem to be more concerned with re-election than actually making a difference. Witness the glacial pace of change implemented by the ‘New’ Labour government despite a radical agenda and a landslide victory. The short-term approach means increasing benefits for popular or vote-winning constituencies (savings schemes for kids, re-establishing the link with inflation for pensions), and cutting those for the more unpopular groups (to the point where genuine asylum seekers are treated like criminals whatever their reason for entering the country).

So to the future: we either need more selfless politicians, or a different form of government. Flip-flopping between left and right every few years is a very slow way to make progress, and we can’t afford to be slow about this.