Since David Cameron’s early days as Conservative Party leader, and Gordon’s Brown’s accession to the Labour throne, many believed the conventional wisdom about our respective Party leaders and by extension their parties:-
Gordon Brown, whilst not youthful or with the political skills of Tony Blair, was without doubt an outstanding Chancellor. Going forward, Gordon will steer the country in a clearer and more ethical direction than that of his superficial predecessor; possessing honesty and integrity, he will put an end to the spin culture proliferating in and out of the Number 10 press room.
David Cameron, whilst youthful and with some of the political skills of Tony Blair, is a priviledged Etonian/Oxonian, a man with little in the way of substance whose only experience working outside of politics was in Public Relations. By contrast with that man of steel, Gordon Brown, Mr Cameron is devoid of political ideas, preferring instead to perform vacuous public stunts, including but not limited to arctic adventures with huskies, solar panel spin, and riding a bicycle to work in front of a huge black motorcar of parliamentary papers.
It would be unfair to make too many direct comparisons between David Cameron and Gordon Brown, on the basis that whilst Brown had had to make real decisions for 12 years, Cameron has not. Neither do I want to make this piece a personal attack on our Prime Minster - it is not. However, I have still felt, certainly from the start, that the media and general public perception of Mr Cameron has been somewhat unfair, particularly where comparisons are made with Mr Brown and his record in Government.
Gordon Brown – policy and presentation
Whilst Mr Brown supposedly had a clear vision of the direction he was taking the country, it was the Conservatives who had been busy researching and advocating changes in the inheritance tax regime and the fiscal status of non-domiciled residents - only for Mr Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling to promptly steal them and present them as their own. Their almost ‘coincidence theorist’-style defences were unlikely to convince even the most ardent Labour members, let alone the public at large.
Mr Brown was supposed to represent a more honest way of doing politics –a President Carter, perhaps, to Tony Blair’s President Nixon. Yet we have a Prime Minster whose governing style is apparently more dictatorial and secretive than anything witnessed during the Blair years. People genuinely expected Mr Brown to be an honest – if not eloquent - communicator who was more interested in policy than in playing politics. Needless to say, this has not been borne out in our experience of Mr Brown, and is unsurprising when we consider his record of openness as Chancellor.
After all, it was Mr Brown who tried, in his final Budget, to present himself as a tax cutter when he was stealthily raising them instead; it was Mr Brown whose 2004 Budget attempted to make savage civil service cuts - purely for the purpose of party political gain; and of course it was also Mr Brown who attempted to gain political advantage off the backs of the lesser-off by abolishing the 10 pence marginal tax rate and claiming at the very same time to be committed to poverty reduction.
I'm not sure I can see any direction in the actions of the Labour Party under Mr Brown.
David Cameron – policy, presentation and deliverance?
All this is not to say that Mr Cameron is 'above it all' and that a Conservative victory in 2010 will wash away everything we have come to dislike about New Labour’s culture of Government. Mr Cameron is a politician who by very definition will not be immune from ‘playing politics’ where perceived necessary. And it does remain true that the Conservatives have further work to do in improving communication of their central message and continuing the steady progress in developing policy ideas.
One is able to assert, however, that there has been more straight-talk from the Blues under Cameron than the Reds under Brown. This is in addition to a clearer philosophical understanding of where the Blues are coming from and where they are going to – a sense of consistency in public policy proposals and an understanding of the conservative bigger picture. Whilst there have naturally been internal quibbles, over the UK’s place in the EU, for instance, and the place in society of grammar schools, these have been finer points of detail within the same philosophical-political framework that is informing the Conservative Party platform for 2010.
By contrast, I do see a sense of direction in Conservative Party policy, and signs that David Cameron and his team will govern with more openness and directness than we have become accustomed to of late.
Monday 28 December 2009
Wednesday 23 December 2009
The Challenge of Conservative reform
Come 2010, and there will be a general election to win.
But the greatest question remains, what general direction should a Conservative government be aiming to take the country in?
The most important pre-requisite to a successful Conservative administration is a radical change in Governmental outlook - a recognition, not just that New Labour has failed to deliver, but the reasons they failed to do so. In short, Labour failed not for the want of good intentions, or the personal failings of Tony Blair's Court, but for the top-down, 'Whitehall knows best' philosophy of their political thinking, encapsulated by obsessive political centralisation and targets in the Public arena, along with increased red tape and higher taxes in the Private.
Any conservative history of Britain will reveal that when government steps back - be it in any sector of public/private life - individuals and communities step forward, empowered by new freedoms. Conservative policy had this effect in 1951, when many new rules and regulations brought in by the 1945 Labour government were vanquished in a 'bonfire of controls'. Of even greater impact were the economic reforms brought in Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in the 1980s, where employment law was reformed to the great benefit of the individual, the City of London was released from governmental regulation, and income taxes were substantially cut by pioneering Chancellors Howe and Lawson.
It is with this same conservative spirit that I hope David Cameron's Conservatives will lead with. Contrary to the platitudinous cries that there are no real distinctions between the main parties, there are some unique and encouraging ideas developing into the Conservative Party Platform 2010. Presented in a somewhat broad-brush manner, I will be attempting to identify what I see as the 'centre ground' of the growing movement for conservative reform within the Conservative Party, and address different issues post by post.
Localism
Localism, as we all know, is something every party claims to champion. 'I'm a localist' - such is the refrain - 'I believe in power to the people!'
Sentimentalism is one thing, effective policy another. The central problem of the last few decades (and one partly attributable to unintended consequences of Conservative government policy) has been the stripping away of power from Local Authorities by Central Government and the failure to cede any power back. And the present fact that only a quarter of Local Authorities' revenue is generated locally tells us a lot about how beholden to Westminster they actually are, and subsequently impotent in their responsiveness to voter wants and needs. As has been argued many times by others, unless and until some measure of fiscal flexibility and the ability to raise their own revenue is pushed down to the level of our councils, voters will continue to feel frustrated and distanced from politics at their Town Hall, not to mention as far away as ever from their national representatives in Westminster.
Rights and Justice
Human Rights, as with Localism, is another theme politicians like to utilise when they consider it will give them political advantage. Unlike the supposedly wicked Conservatives, the Labour Party demonstrated its commitment to Human Rights by signing up to the European Convention and passing the Human Rights Acts 1998 into law.
The question remains, however, whether we are better off as a result of this incorporation, or whether we are simply more confused, as gay hard-core prison pornagraphers and aeroplane hijackers make a larger hole in our already-strained public purse. The pertinent question, which has become muddled in the public mind by semantics, is what sort of rights and responsibilities are desirable for us to cherish in our society.
In my judgement, the list of so-called 'negative' rights are the lynchpin of a free society, and the sort of rights that should be championed. Enshrined in our pre-existing common law system, these consist of the right to free speech, due process of law, and the freedom from the unrestrained interference by arbitary state power. These were the rights Communist dissidents fought for in the 1980s. These are the rights Aung San Su Chi is fighting for in Burma.
On the other hand, the wording of Article rights mislead the public and give rise to impossible 'positive' rights such as the 'right to a home' and just about anything that can be argued, regardless of feasibility, on the basis of the catch-all 'Human Rights'. It was obviously not the intention of the European Convention or our Labour legislators to create the impression of such new rights, but the Act has nevertheless raised expectations in the wrong direction, as much of the case law indicates. Add to this state of affairs the litigious mindset of the modern age, and you have a recipe for a more selfish society where everything is based on one's own (skewed) sense of absolute 'rights' and no sense of where rights might stop and personal responsibilities come into play.
Conservative proposals for a so-called 'British bill of rights' offer hope, although there is nothing to indicate it would offer anything not already fought for and won over the course of centuries. And until there is a recognition of the divergent nature of these two types of rights and the fundamental importance of the first, together with a sense of our obligation towards others, there will continue to be mass confusion and little proper debate on the subject. On a recent discussion with liberals, I was startled to encounter hostility to the mere opinion I had expressed that the HRA 1998 might not be all it was cracked up to be. I had not realised that opening the pathway to debate would be an obstacle but it is clearly one that conservatives will have to face up to if we are to communicate effectively.
Further posts will aim to address other dimensions of conservative reformism, notably dealing with the Economy, Public Service reform, and the European Union, and where the Conservative Party is offering signs of encouragement in these areas.
Allow me this opportunity of wishing you all a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
But the greatest question remains, what general direction should a Conservative government be aiming to take the country in?
The most important pre-requisite to a successful Conservative administration is a radical change in Governmental outlook - a recognition, not just that New Labour has failed to deliver, but the reasons they failed to do so. In short, Labour failed not for the want of good intentions, or the personal failings of Tony Blair's Court, but for the top-down, 'Whitehall knows best' philosophy of their political thinking, encapsulated by obsessive political centralisation and targets in the Public arena, along with increased red tape and higher taxes in the Private.
Any conservative history of Britain will reveal that when government steps back - be it in any sector of public/private life - individuals and communities step forward, empowered by new freedoms. Conservative policy had this effect in 1951, when many new rules and regulations brought in by the 1945 Labour government were vanquished in a 'bonfire of controls'. Of even greater impact were the economic reforms brought in Margaret Thatcher's Conservatives in the 1980s, where employment law was reformed to the great benefit of the individual, the City of London was released from governmental regulation, and income taxes were substantially cut by pioneering Chancellors Howe and Lawson.
It is with this same conservative spirit that I hope David Cameron's Conservatives will lead with. Contrary to the platitudinous cries that there are no real distinctions between the main parties, there are some unique and encouraging ideas developing into the Conservative Party Platform 2010. Presented in a somewhat broad-brush manner, I will be attempting to identify what I see as the 'centre ground' of the growing movement for conservative reform within the Conservative Party, and address different issues post by post.
Localism
Localism, as we all know, is something every party claims to champion. 'I'm a localist' - such is the refrain - 'I believe in power to the people!'
Sentimentalism is one thing, effective policy another. The central problem of the last few decades (and one partly attributable to unintended consequences of Conservative government policy) has been the stripping away of power from Local Authorities by Central Government and the failure to cede any power back. And the present fact that only a quarter of Local Authorities' revenue is generated locally tells us a lot about how beholden to Westminster they actually are, and subsequently impotent in their responsiveness to voter wants and needs. As has been argued many times by others, unless and until some measure of fiscal flexibility and the ability to raise their own revenue is pushed down to the level of our councils, voters will continue to feel frustrated and distanced from politics at their Town Hall, not to mention as far away as ever from their national representatives in Westminster.
Rights and Justice
Human Rights, as with Localism, is another theme politicians like to utilise when they consider it will give them political advantage. Unlike the supposedly wicked Conservatives, the Labour Party demonstrated its commitment to Human Rights by signing up to the European Convention and passing the Human Rights Acts 1998 into law.
The question remains, however, whether we are better off as a result of this incorporation, or whether we are simply more confused, as gay hard-core prison pornagraphers and aeroplane hijackers make a larger hole in our already-strained public purse. The pertinent question, which has become muddled in the public mind by semantics, is what sort of rights and responsibilities are desirable for us to cherish in our society.
In my judgement, the list of so-called 'negative' rights are the lynchpin of a free society, and the sort of rights that should be championed. Enshrined in our pre-existing common law system, these consist of the right to free speech, due process of law, and the freedom from the unrestrained interference by arbitary state power. These were the rights Communist dissidents fought for in the 1980s. These are the rights Aung San Su Chi is fighting for in Burma.
On the other hand, the wording of Article rights mislead the public and give rise to impossible 'positive' rights such as the 'right to a home' and just about anything that can be argued, regardless of feasibility, on the basis of the catch-all 'Human Rights'. It was obviously not the intention of the European Convention or our Labour legislators to create the impression of such new rights, but the Act has nevertheless raised expectations in the wrong direction, as much of the case law indicates. Add to this state of affairs the litigious mindset of the modern age, and you have a recipe for a more selfish society where everything is based on one's own (skewed) sense of absolute 'rights' and no sense of where rights might stop and personal responsibilities come into play.
Conservative proposals for a so-called 'British bill of rights' offer hope, although there is nothing to indicate it would offer anything not already fought for and won over the course of centuries. And until there is a recognition of the divergent nature of these two types of rights and the fundamental importance of the first, together with a sense of our obligation towards others, there will continue to be mass confusion and little proper debate on the subject. On a recent discussion with liberals, I was startled to encounter hostility to the mere opinion I had expressed that the HRA 1998 might not be all it was cracked up to be. I had not realised that opening the pathway to debate would be an obstacle but it is clearly one that conservatives will have to face up to if we are to communicate effectively.
Further posts will aim to address other dimensions of conservative reformism, notably dealing with the Economy, Public Service reform, and the European Union, and where the Conservative Party is offering signs of encouragement in these areas.
Allow me this opportunity of wishing you all a very merry Christmas and a happy New Year.
Friday 6 November 2009
Welfare
Encouraging a culture of work
Government endeavours to relieve the poor in our society have all too often undermined the creation of a free and independent-minded citizenry. Individual hope, opportunity and responsibility have been replaced with the Welfare mindset - a dependency on the State, a poverty of ambition, and a general resentfulness against the so-called 'haves'.
Milton Friedman, the late American economist, set out some radical solutions to our collective welfare problems in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. The ideas advocated could be applied across the welfare system, and included the replacement of Public Housing with individual cash subsidies, a system of school vouchers in Public Schooling, and the abolition of the minimum wage. Whilst far removed from what is currently political possible, they provide, at the very least, some potentially great ideas to draw inspiration from in the future.
But how can we begin to shift our welfare system onto the right footing? How can we help to replace spiritual poverty with a sense of hope, dependence with contribution, and resentment with aspiration? One method would be to focus in on Britain's Work and Benefits culture.
It is no secret that the current regime, on the whole, inadvertently discourages work. Get a job, and you will rapidly lose your Housing Benefit entitlement. Get a job, and your jobseekers allowance entitlement will similarly vanish. There may seem nothing wrong with these mechanisms in theory, but in practice they act as a disincentive for people to choose part or full-time work over welfare.
A much better system would be a genuine partnership between citizen and State. Such an arrangement would allow for people to gradually move away from Benefits and into full-time, stable work. In short, it would help to encourage work, over dependency. There would be a number of tools the State could utilise to advance this cause - tax incentives, for instance, to allow the newly-employed to retain more of their initial earnings, phasing out such breaks over time as the individual increased their general net income. Working tax credits, in the form of payments to the low-incomed and their families, are already in existence, could perhaps be made more of - State maladministration aside.
The other side of creating such a culture of work would be to encourage the private sector, rather than the State, to recruit the unemployed, invest in them, and receive State money after a job recruiting-training-establishment operation had been carried out successfully. Such a shift of emphasis was tried and tested in America, when President Clinton's welfare reforms returned responsibility for welfare back to individual States who then experimented with different ways of adminstering entitlements and getting people into work.
The effects of these and other reforms will not been seen overnight. This is the case for much of the reform agenda, and conservatives should be concerned with the long-term effects of policy, rather than their sound-bite quality or ability to appease the tabloid press. We should expect, however, to see the benefits of such reforms within a relatively short space of time - and with the forward march of a free and independent citizenry, a longer-term retirement plan for the Welfare State Leviathan.
Government endeavours to relieve the poor in our society have all too often undermined the creation of a free and independent-minded citizenry. Individual hope, opportunity and responsibility have been replaced with the Welfare mindset - a dependency on the State, a poverty of ambition, and a general resentfulness against the so-called 'haves'.
Milton Friedman, the late American economist, set out some radical solutions to our collective welfare problems in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. The ideas advocated could be applied across the welfare system, and included the replacement of Public Housing with individual cash subsidies, a system of school vouchers in Public Schooling, and the abolition of the minimum wage. Whilst far removed from what is currently political possible, they provide, at the very least, some potentially great ideas to draw inspiration from in the future.
But how can we begin to shift our welfare system onto the right footing? How can we help to replace spiritual poverty with a sense of hope, dependence with contribution, and resentment with aspiration? One method would be to focus in on Britain's Work and Benefits culture.
It is no secret that the current regime, on the whole, inadvertently discourages work. Get a job, and you will rapidly lose your Housing Benefit entitlement. Get a job, and your jobseekers allowance entitlement will similarly vanish. There may seem nothing wrong with these mechanisms in theory, but in practice they act as a disincentive for people to choose part or full-time work over welfare.
A much better system would be a genuine partnership between citizen and State. Such an arrangement would allow for people to gradually move away from Benefits and into full-time, stable work. In short, it would help to encourage work, over dependency. There would be a number of tools the State could utilise to advance this cause - tax incentives, for instance, to allow the newly-employed to retain more of their initial earnings, phasing out such breaks over time as the individual increased their general net income. Working tax credits, in the form of payments to the low-incomed and their families, are already in existence, could perhaps be made more of - State maladministration aside.
The other side of creating such a culture of work would be to encourage the private sector, rather than the State, to recruit the unemployed, invest in them, and receive State money after a job recruiting-training-establishment operation had been carried out successfully. Such a shift of emphasis was tried and tested in America, when President Clinton's welfare reforms returned responsibility for welfare back to individual States who then experimented with different ways of adminstering entitlements and getting people into work.
The effects of these and other reforms will not been seen overnight. This is the case for much of the reform agenda, and conservatives should be concerned with the long-term effects of policy, rather than their sound-bite quality or ability to appease the tabloid press. We should expect, however, to see the benefits of such reforms within a relatively short space of time - and with the forward march of a free and independent citizenry, a longer-term retirement plan for the Welfare State Leviathan.
Sunday 25 October 2009
Foundation Stones
Six political principles, setting out a visionary relationship between Individuals and the State in the United Kingdom.
1. Individual Sovereignty
Over his thoughts, speech and property, the individual is sovereign. We believe Public policy arguments in favour of regulating the first two should be put to serious public scrutiny. We should be similary vigilant with regard to the third, questioning any attempt to increase the overall burden of taxation, direct, indirect or otherwise.
2. Subsidiarity
We believe that decision-making should be made at the most local level possible. If some aspect of policy can be administered effectively by local government, there is no reason for it to be administered centrally by national politicians in Whitehall. Similiary, if policy can be managed well at the national level, there is no reason for interference from Brussels.
3. The Limited Role of Government
We acknowledge that Government can be a force for great good. We also acknowledge, however, that it should not be the role of politicians to identify and solve all of society's problems. As conservatives, we believe that deprivation and other social problems are best tackled through co-operation with the voluntary sector, and that even with all the resources and the best will in the world, top-down political attempts to solve these problems would fall short.
4. Traditional Values
We believe in the virtues of traditional marriage, and that the tax and welfare systems should be reformed to benefit, not hinder, married couples. We also support strong relationships between same-sex couples in the form of civil partnerships. We believe that any functioning society requires respect and certain levels of discipline and believe, for instance, in restoring authority in our classrooms by shifting powers back to teachers and parents and away from pupils.
5. Immigration and Citizenship
We acknowledge that immigration has been a source of strength, not weakness, for the UK, but believe that better systems need to be in place to determine how many people enter and leave the country each year. We believe that citizenship means more than permanent legal residence, and that those wishing to settle here should be able to demonstrate a basic understanding of the country's core political values, its history and institutions, and be able to speak English to a conversant level.
6. A humble Foreign Policy
We believe in a strong national defence but are committed to the principle that military action should be used only as last resort, where national security is genuinely threatened, and potential political solutions have failed.
SBS
1. Individual Sovereignty
Over his thoughts, speech and property, the individual is sovereign. We believe Public policy arguments in favour of regulating the first two should be put to serious public scrutiny. We should be similary vigilant with regard to the third, questioning any attempt to increase the overall burden of taxation, direct, indirect or otherwise.
2. Subsidiarity
We believe that decision-making should be made at the most local level possible. If some aspect of policy can be administered effectively by local government, there is no reason for it to be administered centrally by national politicians in Whitehall. Similiary, if policy can be managed well at the national level, there is no reason for interference from Brussels.
3. The Limited Role of Government
We acknowledge that Government can be a force for great good. We also acknowledge, however, that it should not be the role of politicians to identify and solve all of society's problems. As conservatives, we believe that deprivation and other social problems are best tackled through co-operation with the voluntary sector, and that even with all the resources and the best will in the world, top-down political attempts to solve these problems would fall short.
4. Traditional Values
We believe in the virtues of traditional marriage, and that the tax and welfare systems should be reformed to benefit, not hinder, married couples. We also support strong relationships between same-sex couples in the form of civil partnerships. We believe that any functioning society requires respect and certain levels of discipline and believe, for instance, in restoring authority in our classrooms by shifting powers back to teachers and parents and away from pupils.
5. Immigration and Citizenship
We acknowledge that immigration has been a source of strength, not weakness, for the UK, but believe that better systems need to be in place to determine how many people enter and leave the country each year. We believe that citizenship means more than permanent legal residence, and that those wishing to settle here should be able to demonstrate a basic understanding of the country's core political values, its history and institutions, and be able to speak English to a conversant level.
6. A humble Foreign Policy
We believe in a strong national defence but are committed to the principle that military action should be used only as last resort, where national security is genuinely threatened, and potential political solutions have failed.
SBS
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)