Confident Conservatism

TonyH Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 02:46:46 PM GMT Print-friendly version Facebook

From the Tory Diary at Conservativehome:

Compassionate Conservatism is fundamentally the right thing to do, morally, but there are two different forms of electoral politics at work here, too.  An agenda for the very poorest will win few direct votes but tells middle class and other comfortable voters that the Conservatives are a decent party that won't leave people behind.



I thought this a rather poor metaphor especially if you’re one of the 80,000 Londoners on income support who will have their travel is subsidy removed by the new Conservative Mayor…people who’ll be literally left behind.

The other thing that sticks out was this:

Political events permitting, the Conservatives are probably about to begin not a four year period of office but something much longer.  They should use that time to solidify the realignment that is now underway.

Now I don’t like partisan hackery and accept I may be sneering – but doesn’t this confidence stick in your craw a little bit?

I mean, we can understand an opposition Party blatantly play the old “whatever you say, say nothing” game with the press. But on Northern Rock, and the 10p tax abolition – HM Loyal Opposition were nowhere to be seen until the decisions were made and the shouting was over.

At least Vince Cable offered a plan on Northern Rock early on. It was Labour MPs who raised the alarm on the 10p rate – Cameron kept quiet.

Now these guys reckon they’re on their way to two general election wins??

Come on!

All this while our discredited clown of a Prime Minister can’t even get away with being absolutely right on the amount of food wasted in homes.

Something has to change. Perhaps it should be Brown, perhaps it shouldn’t.  All I know is that if we carry on like this, it would be very difficult to hear Tories go on like this for years – even for someone such as myself who has plenty of time for many of them.


tags: (all tags)

Display: Sort:
Confident Conservatism | 25 comments (25 topical)

Re: Confident Conservatism (#1)

by rosie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 05:58:22 PM GMT

'I thought this a rather poor metaphor especially if you’re one of the 80,000 Londoners on income support who will have their travel is subsidy removed by the new Conservative Mayor…people who’ll be literally left behind.'

Simple solution: Get off benefit and get a job!

There is nothing wrong with the Tories appealing to Middle England. They are the people who deliver power. They put and kept Thatcher in power, kept Major in power and put and kept Blair in power. It is the political reality in first past the post voting.


Re: Confident Conservatism (#2)

by Free Radical on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 06:36:55 PM GMT

Rosie

Simple solution: Get off benefit and get a job!

Presumably you are a Tory? If you are, then long may you make remarks like this in public because it shows up the Tories and their supporters in a revealing light, while Cameron and Co. play at being the nice party. It's reminiscent of Norman Tebbit's "get on your bike" comments from the Thatcher era.

Actually, although people in London unfortunately have to put up with Boris for the next few years, it may have an unintended benefit of showcasing for the rest of the country what a Tory adminstration would really be like - and I don't mean this as a compliment...


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#12)

by Floating voter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 12:29:49 PM GMT

Rosie: Simple solution: Get off benefit and get a job!

Free Radical: Presumably you are a Tory?

 

Well - what's the labour alternative? Get out of a job and get on benefit? What are you proposing? That people should be supported on benefits for life? No one should ever have to work?

 

"people in London unfortunately have to put up with Boris for the next few years"

People in London voted for Boris


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#3)

by rosie on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 07:03:47 PM GMT

No I am not a Tory, last three elections I have voted for Blair. I am just disillusioned with Brown and Labour.

Rather than people waking up to Tories only pretending to be the nice party, the voters are waking up to the fact that keeping people trapped on benefit during an economic boom is not good for them or the country. It's nothing like Tebbit's 'get on your bike', and until we wake up to this then the next election is lost.

It's a bit sad that if we don't tow the 'let them eat cake' line on this site, then we are automatically smeared as a Tory.


Re: Confident Conservatism (#4)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 08:29:38 PM GMT

The vast majority of people who were getting half-price bus fares get it because they have poor wages.

Presumably, you don't know that the vast majority of people on incapacity benefit want to get a job. Instead of forcing people into work, which just opens up the possibility of exploitation, we need to help them there. In fact, there are right-wing attitudes which act as a peverse incentive to stay on benefits. Benefits are immedietly withdrawn as someone goes on to wages. This most often means people get zero money extra.


Only Labour has the philosophy to have an ALMP to weather a recession. Wisconsin welfare only works well during economic boom. If we expanded the New Deal, to bring down unemployment, it would not only save you money in taxes, it is good for the economy.


Also, we need universal childcare. It's the biggest worry for many on benefits. This often makes up a big slice of the NPV of universal childcare.


And, we need a living wage. I am convinced that we are going to need a Keynesian, and higher public spending to weather a recession.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#7)

by AngryVoter on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:05:47 PM GMT

I disagree with higher public spending most stenously for obvious reasons, even on basic economics it's a silly idea to keep upping Public spending. That money has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is usually "The general public" which right now are irked by high fuel prices and all the other little "stealth taxes" introduced over the years.

They're at the limit and getting genuinely angry over it, "main" taxes are still at a managable level, but it's all the duties ontop of it that are cutting off any room for maneouver and ability for the government to spend any more. When 40% of our GDP is spent publically, I think we can safely say that we're at the limit.

In fact, there are right-wing attitudes which act as a peverse incentive to stay on benefits. Benefits are immedietly withdrawn as someone goes on to wages. This most often means people get zero money extra.

The problem is it becomes hard to justify extra benefits and "income support" when you're working for money. You're officially employed. That's it. End of. That's simply common sense, it might be "unfair" but if we continued to boost everybody who got a job with state money we'd have nothing left!

As much as the idea of "All men are equal" is a highly noble one, in any kind of applicable practise it simply doesn't work, unless broken down into an ultra-powerful ruling class and everybody being dirt poor. or the "All men are equal, but some are more equal than others" line from Animal Farm.

A more functional and indeed fairer society is to try to encourage everyone to be a winner, give them the skills, encourage them to win, and if they don't?

Have a safety net of benefits. Not a fishing net. During said "Safety net" you go back to basics if you have to, training, encouragement, moneytary management skills, the lot and keep building people up to make them a sucess. Not throwing money at them.

The other problem has been immigration. The Office of National Statistics and other reports have recently concluded that most of the million or so jobs created by Labour have gone directly to foreigners. It's a "knock-on" effect of open door immigration crunching down onto the economy by sheer numbers.

The British people need encouraging into the jobs available, "crap" according to them or not, and there's a very simply way of doing it and it's the Wisconsin method. It seems a bit "mean" I am sure for those on the left who genuinely care about these matters, but when the people on benefits of some form are pushing 3 million or more, we need to do something, hurling money is not the solution and we need more vigourous encouragment.

If anything it shows a failing on Labour's part that the Tories "Jump or we'll ruddy well shove you" is actually gaining favour with those on benefits as well as the Middle Classes and everything else.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#8)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:27:59 PM GMT

We differ on opinion about whether it's silly economics, let alone whether it's the right thing to do.

I'll give you an example. How about super-charging the New Deal, which saves money in the long term on welfare.

The problem with Wisconsin welfare, is that it increases poverty when hard times come by. An ALMP can weather a recession. Of course we need encouragement, that is why we need saftey nets, like universal childcare, a living wage, and phasing out benefits. Yes it costs money to only phase out benefits in the short term. Ultimately, in the long term, it will get more people off welfare. Look at Denmark, they have a strong ALMP, and they have 1.8% unemployment. 
 
And Wisconsin welfare? The most detailed study, conducted by Susan Hays, found that "One-half are sometimes without enough money to buy food. One-third have to cut the size of meals. Almost half find themselves unable to pay their rent or utility bills."

A safety net, should encourage people into work. You can't encurage people into work by offering them zero extra money, and then say, "Tough". Offer a carrot and a stick, but don't commit GBH with the stick as Wisconsin welfare does.


You say people are hurting. Yes they are. So tax the rich. The government has found longer term solutions for worries about fuel duty, such as with personal carbon trading schemes. I don't think people mind paying their fair due (well they do), but they are in effect paying less if the rich are paying more. Why do the privatise-everything gang imagine that if everything was privatised, noone would have to pay for anything? Ever? Health insurance is higher. Gas bills are high. Water bills are higher, as a result of private monopolies. Nor does the argument that privatisation means less beaurocracy stick. If you are going to say it, please tell that to the families of tens of thousands of American people who died, because they had to go through 37 page forms to get health insurance.

P.S. Don't say end of


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#9)

by Free Radical on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 11:08:30 PM GMT

It's hard to understand that someone who comes out with a line like "Simple solution: Get off benefit and get a job!" in response to a posting that deals with the difficulty that people on income support have with travelling should be surprised to be mistaken for a Tory.

If it were as simple you suggest don't you think that one of the governments in the last thirty years might have solved the problem?

Yet, perhaps these kind of Daily Mail type views are not so unusual in New Labour supporters. I suppose it really is a measure of just how far the party has moved to the right. It also illustrates how easily Cameron is now able to present the Tories as the nice party - even though I don't really believe him.

God help us.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#5)

by AngryVoter on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 08:32:36 PM GMT

Now I don’t like partisan hackery and accept I may be sneering – but doesn’t this confidence stick in your craw a little bit?

I have to admit, yes the overt confidence does stick a bit, especially as the Cameronian line is "No complacency until he's through the door.  However they're also vaguely right.

The last few governments have seen the incumberent gain and stay in power after the initial general election, and unless any "sucessor" government [such as Major and Brown] can pull something out of the hat within a year. They're doomed. No real ifs ands or buts.

Major managed to scrape by because of the Second Gulf War [1991] and his "Soapbox" campaigning style, but then subsequently lost over Black Wednesday.

However, one has to consider also that this often happens with the Tories and Labour. If they loose it's highly unlikely the Labour Party will be able to hold together as a consistent force post election.

There will be a lot of blood letting as the party is largely out of pocket and tied deeply now to the Unions again as many smaller and larger donors have abandoned Labour over perceived incompetence.

The Party situation is a lot different to the last time the Tories got thrown out of Number 10. There too, was blood letting and a fair bit of it with IDS and William Hague both facing the chop in fairly short order. However, the party itself didn't run around blaming everyone and anyone for long as instead fell into line as opposition as and where necessary.

Uniting in the fact that they don't have any serious power blocs within their own party that each dominate the party body as a whole. It's perhaps part of the less collectivist nature of the Tories [and indeed, the right-wing thinking as a whole]

Conversely Labour has the possibility of devolving into a massive slugging match between Three distinct blocs. Brownies, Blairites and the Auld Left. This is because Labour itself has fairly defined factional lines in this case, as indeed does some of the support apparently, attacking someone who isn't actually a Tory in a very base instinct "Yent wanna us" line.

This perhaps, is the problem. Internal debate is becoming stifled. Debate that should have been internal is subsequently spilling out onto the floor of the House [as in the several rebellions, attempted rebellions and everything else that's happened this year under Brown] and the Party seems about ready to rip itself apart simply because "The Blues are ahead"

[Which, admittedly, they have been at the back end of Blair and under Brown since the "bounce"]

 

Personally I beleive in the pendulum theory, we have to keep it swinging back and forth between the Reds and Blues. The problem is the Reds seem to have gotten it into their head it's their right to be in power, rather than the will of the voters. There's too many statements and quotes from here and from the government that sound very... childish, or "Let them eat cake" as also quoted.

It has to stop altogether in politics personally. It only means there's less opposition for us Tories, and that's no fun.


Re: Confident Conservatism (#6)

by jkitleft on Tue Jul 08, 2008 at 09:03:48 PM GMT

I disagree whole heartedly with the pendulum theory. I don't agree with change for the sake of change. 'Anyone but Labour'. Really? Even if the Tories were lead by Muqtada al-Sadr?

You need long term solutions. Otherwise, you just get each government reversing the decisions of the previous government. Short term solutions don't work.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#16)

by AngryVoter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 04:57:17 PM GMT

Aside from the New Deal [which didn't go far enough or cover a wide enough body because of the amount of paperwork needed to do it] what else has Labour done but fall into an old tax and spend routine on the really major issues?

Long Term unemployment figures from Thatcher and from Brown now seem to be hovering at the same amount [3 million] the 1 million or more jobs have predominantly gone to those who have arrived in this country, rather than being born here.

Now, reading up more on Wisconsin it seems you're partially right, but the fact is we have a different system in place here right now to assist in that, it's called Tax Credits. Even abolished under the Tories it'd be compensated with lower taxes [and, apparently, taking a large body of the lower-paid completely out of tax]

Eventually though, you do come across the workshy, or those who don't want to go picking crops at £6/7 Per Hour.

It's these people we need to target with the "Jump or push" approach and that's only really available via the Wisconsin system.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#17)

by Floating voter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:09:16 PM GMT

"Long Term unemployment figures from Thatcher and from Brown now seem to be hovering at the same amount"

Yes - it's odd the the media seem to miss that one. The total on incapacity benefit and employment has remained about the 4 million mark for decades, ever since the tories "solved" unemployment by shunting those on the margins into the "sick". A myth that Labour has been happy to continue.


[ Parent ]

Spot the typo AFTER you post! (#18)

by Floating voter on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 05:10:33 PM GMT

That should, of course, have read

"...  The total on incapacity benefit and unemployment has remained about the 4 million mark for decades..."


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#19)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:18:46 PM GMT

Well, long term youth unemployment has crashed from over a quarter of a million to just 5,000 in 10 years. That's why the New Deal should be expanded.


Oh I don't think it's true that the Tories would cut taxes for the low-paid. They've called for "flatter taxes". The architects of flat taxes admit that money would have to be redistributed from the poorer, and the middle-classes to the super-rich. Again, notice during the 10p tax debacle, the Tories NEVER said they would reintroduce the tax. Privatisation was frittered away on tax cuts for the rich, when they should have been to the poor, because the rich were gaining from privatisation anyway.


I don't disagree. But we would waste money by only going after the tiny minority who don't want to work. We should first get into work those who want to. Then, we can start cutting back benefits for those who refuse. Targeting cuts at those who can't find work, but who want to, as well as those who don't want to work, is on a moral level not good, but it also stops us targeting the workshy in the long term.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#22)

by AngryVoter on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 12:11:47 AM GMT

Well, talking to my economist friend [as a lot of it is beyond me] he seems to think a flat tax is a bit of a double edged sword.

Yes it helps the poor, as one can in theory remove them from the tax altogether with say, a flat 20-22% for anybody earning over 20k p.a

Conversely, anybody earning a six figure salary [like our MPs, no less] wouldn't find the tax so much of a burden on their own salaries.

Like any policy it has benefits and problems, but with the tax system so horribly bewildering and over complicated perhaps a radically simpler approach would be easier to work with.

"The Tories NEVER said they would reintroduce the tax." 

Slightly out of context I think, and often quoted by Labourites when they know more of it. Cameron said it was unlikely he'd have abolished it, but he cannot go running around promising tax cuts if the public finances are in the toilet or imbalanced. One of the smartest things to do is not promise things you cannot deliver, and restoring the 10p tax band without having the funding in place is one such issue.

To be honest it's a sensible and realistic approach to take, and it was one mirrored by Chancellor Darling right up until he bowed under immense pressure from Frank Fields and his rebellious MPs.

Darling taking the original line, before going to the city to ask for money to pay off, not those effected, but what seemed to be an internal Labour row, and even then that money has to be paid back eventually is perhaps the key issue that naffed Labour over in what was once it's safest seats.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#24)

by jkitleft on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 02:41:25 PM GMT

This is just what I've heard from the architects of the flat tax.

Brown had 2 options:


The 10p tax was complex, and it needed abolishing.

So he could have wasted £7bn to cut 2p of basic income tax.


Or he could've revolutionised the tax system. He could've used the £7bn to take all of those on 10p tax out of the tax system altogether, and upped taxes on the richest in society.


I agree with you on one thing. I don't think it was right to increase borrowing, while cutting taxes at the same time. The £2.3 billion was plucked out of the clear blue borrowing sky.


I think we should have increased spending, but not destroyed a balanced budget in the meanwhile. Along with right-to-buy, a cut of capital gains from 40% to 18% has been a bonanza for second home and buy-to-let owners. Corporation tax was cut by 33% to 28% and basic income tax from 23% to 20%.


Labour has not made the case effectively for taxation, and they should start doing it.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#10)

by simonmagnus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:45:15 AM GMT

Compassionate Conservatism?So was that want S-cameron was talking about when he did his version of mental maggies "there is no society speach" and basically told the lower classes to get off there fat arses and stop expecting help from the government or was it compassionate for lord dixon-smith to use his colourful language in the lords..S-camerons tories are like a cut and shut job,it looks nice and it drives nice but take the glossy paint job off and it falls apart but i suppose thats no suprise when the tories have a salesman instead of a politician at the helm.


Re: Confident Conservatism (#11)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 11:50:01 AM GMT

Can I just say, for the record, loving the 'Scameron'.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#13)

by simonmagnus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 01:06:16 PM GMT

He is a con-fidence trickster who has a past in scamming people.. i.e. check out his record for carlton digital he lost over a billion pounds whislt he was there.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#14)

by jaymason on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:23:54 PM GMT

after gordons gold sale, northern rock bail out etc etc i'd be careful with comments about losing money


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#15)

by simonmagnus on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 02:40:46 PM GMT

Jay,why should i be carefull,if i want to show S-hameron S-cameron as a buffoonish flyboy then i will in fact he had to be helped by "FAMILY"to even get a job at carlton tv which says it all about Demon Dave to me so you can blow your lame old (yawn yawn) comment out of your pump cannon MATE!


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#20)

by jkitleft on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 08:21:22 PM GMT

First of all, dozens of other countries sold gold cheaply at the same time. Please assure me a Tory chancellor wouldn't have followed suit. It was a mistake, yes.

Secondly, we will propbably end up making a profit from the Northern Rock nationalisation, as it will be sold to make a profit.


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#21)

by rosie on Wed Jul 09, 2008 at 10:08:24 PM GMT

'check out his record for carlton digital he lost over a billion pounds whislt he was there.'

Brown's lost this country much more than that.


Re: Confident Conservatism (#23)

by simonmagnus on Thu Jul 10, 2008 at 08:50:14 AM GMT

Under the last Tory government the then chancellor Norman Lamont raised interest rates from 10% to 12%, then to 15%, and authorised the spending of billions of pounds to buy up the sterling being frantically sold on the currency markets.This move cost the british taxpayer 27 BILLION take those rosie tinted glasses off ;o)


[ Parent ]

Re: Confident Conservatism (#25)

by NB on Fri Jul 18, 2008 at 09:54:43 AM GMT

Simon. If you spend £27bn buying pounds you have £27bn so the loss is only the extent to which the £ falls. Trading losses were only about £800M.  However the ERM membership did squeeze out inflation and also probably helped us avoid joining the Euro which would have been a disaster.


[ Parent ]

Confident Conservatism | 25 comments (25 topical)