John Hayes MP on David Cameron's first 100 days: Social Justice

Every day this week ConservativeHome is dedicating Your Platform to a different take on the first 100 days of Cameron's leadership. John is Conservative MP for South Holland and the Deepings.

At the start of the last parliament I routinely used the term social justice in conversation with a fellow Tory MP. It was met with a mixture of disbelief and hostility - social justice is a socialist idea, I was told. Thank God the party has travelled a long way since then. David Cameron’s first act as party leader was to establish a policy group on social justice. There is every reason for all shades of Conservative opinion to welcome this new emphasis.

One nation conservatives should be automatic enthusiasts. They instinctively understand that you can’t claim to love Britain but be indifferent to the circumstances of many of your fellow countrymen. You can’t want to keep the pound but keep quiet about those without the money to make ends meet. Labour’s record on poverty is very mixed. Whilst billions of pounds have been sunk into battles against poverty, anyone familiar with life on Britain’s poorest estates knows that poverty is still winning the war.

If we are to win this struggle we can’t keep pulling the same levers and expect different results. David Cameron has promised to look for new, better weapons. He has spoken of the importance of social enterprise and of more rehabilitation places for people with drug problems. He has promised greater support for that much neglected institution that underpins any society’s caring capacity – the family. In this understanding there is much for ‘traditional values conservatives’ to welcome.

This emphasis should also encourage small government conservatives. One of the principal reasons for the fattening of government has been the growth of social problems. Every fractured family costs the taxpayer tens of thousands of pounds. Addiction fuels crime and diminishes economic capacity. Poor schools and the problem of truancy mean many children turn to crime and never fulfil their potential. If we solve social problems we’ll not only be doing the right thing, we will also be laying the foundations for a more limited state.

All this goes to prove how that Tory MP – no longer in parliament – was so wrong. Social justice isn’t a bolt-on extra for authentic Conservatives. The Conservative Party is at its best when it’s true to its compassionate roots. Throughout our party’s history we have fought to extend opportunity, ownership and democracy. When Labour next claim that they have a monopoly of compassion, remind them ours is the party of Wilberforce, Shaftesbury and Disraeli. When Liberals next claim that they care more than you, remind them that their party opposed almost every social reform introduced by those very same one nation conservatives.

Iain Duncan Smith and the Centre for Social Justice deserve enormous credit for the rediscovery of the party’s one nation tradition; Iain has led the party’s thinking on this central issue. All Conservatives should welcome the new breadth of David Cameron’s Conservatism. The ‘crunchy’ commitments to conserve the beauty of the environment and to stand up to soulless big business are fundamentally conservative. He has brought a reasonableness to parliamentary debate by avoiding the petty point scoring that turns people off politics. And he has elevated political discourse by understanding that politics is not just about what we earn but about who we are. The kind of people for whom quality of life – with all its cultural and social dimensions – is a root to fulfilment way beyond self-interest. That is why David Cameron’s emphasis on social justice offers the greatest promise. I hope ConservativeHome will find a way to help this emphasis evolve into a powerful new policy agenda.

STEPHAN SHAKESPEARE OF YOUGOV WILL BE EXPLORING DAVID CAMERON'S IMPACT ON THE OPINION POLLS TOMORROW.

Comments

[R UK]

Nice piece, Mr Hayes. The softening of the message undoes the negatives of Thatcherism with its emphasis on hard solutions.

Hard solutions, however are still the way to deliver the desired outcome of social justice. Useless and self-serving organisations destroy communities just as surely as crime.

The delivery of the programme will inevitably be hard - promoting new organisations and ideas means reducing the role and emphasis of others. Will Cameron be capable of transforming this soft-hearted embryonic first 100 days into a tough-minded delivery phase?

We don't just want words. We need action. Delivery on his EPP promise would be a nice first step - or have Conservatives become infected with collective amnesia? There is no mention of this any more anywhere. Anything real like exiting the EPP must not be allowed to spoil the current social justice love-in, I suppose...but someone who has all the words and none of the action will not cut it. where's the evidence that any of this will ever be delivered?

[Richard]

"When Liberals next claim that they care more than you, remind them that their party opposed almost every social reform introduced by those very same one nation conservatives."

One Nation Toryism was about passing Factory Acts in the Victorian period when factory workers were at genuine risk of death. It was not about protective a bloated welfare state that now absorbs 40% of government spending. Note that it was the Conservative Party in the early 1900s that opposed Liberal welfare reforms because they were believed to undermine working class independence.

Opposition to social justice doesn't just emanate from Hayekan liberals. In the Meaning of Conservatism, Roger Scruton (who opposed the obsession with economic liberalism under Thatcher) also considered it an unconservative concept.

That said I accept it probably sounds good with the electorate. I just wish they'd find a term different from social justice. If the Tories plan to empower voluntary organisations, they should refer to it as "giving people greater independence". But I suppose social justice is shorter. It's a nice catch-all term that doesn't have a definition if it isn't taken to mean leftism.

[Richard]

Just to add a point, there some Tories who favoured a more expansive welfare state in the early 1900s, notably Joseph Chamberlain. However, he had originally been a radical Liberal before he defected to the Tories. He then switched to become a member of what historians would call the "Edwardian radical right", many of whom were forerunners to British fascism. This doesn't mean that Tory welfarists are fascists (obviously not because Churchill was one), merely that Tory support for the welfare state has usually been a defensive reaction to socialism in an attempt to get elected, as opposed to a genuine article of Tory faith. Prior to the rise of socialism, the majority of Tories were opposed to the idea.

[Selsdon Man]

Excellent points Richard. John Hayes has traditionally been on the far right of the party on issues such as race and immigration. If my memory is right, he was a leading Monday Clubber.

Hayes remains a nationalist and protectionist, i.e. a vigorous opponent of free trade. He supports policies that raises prices for the poor and reduces their living standards.

[Editor]

Your memory is faulty, Selsdon Man. John was never a member of the Monday Club. You often complain about things people say about you (anonymous you!) on this blog. You should, please, be more careful about what you say about others.

[Interested Observer]

The principles that lie behind social justice have much to recommend them. My problem is more with the term itself. 'Justice' implies a reckoning of sorts, a retribution almost.

I always found it frustrating the way the 'fair trade' movement morphed into the 'trade justice' movement. That too suggested an element of punishment, as though the first world had to make reparations to the third world.

The emerging division in the party appears to be between those who favour social stability versus those who favour social change. Policies which enable people to fulfil aspirations (e.g. greater use of selection in schools, expansion of healthcare capacity through use of the private sector) appear to be falling out of favour. Instead, there seems to be a preference for policies which militate against social change.

If social justice means an enabling politics of aspiration, then great. If it merely becomes code for maintaining social stability by avoiding social failure, then I am less enthusiastic.

[Peter Franklin]

An excellent article from Mr Hayes and proof that there is no such thing as the Tory right. There are at least three distinct varieties -- crunchy cornerstoners like John, free market fundamentalists like Selsdon Man and nasty old misanthropes like... well I'd better leave things there!

[Editor]

This new definition might interest you, Interested Observer.

[Selsdon Man]

Editor, I will check about Mr Hayes' membership of the MC. He certainly held similar view when he was involved in the Federation of Conservative Students.

Mr Franklin is correct that there is no unified Conservative "right". My views are more than free market. That is to reduce them to economics. Having a fundamental belief in liberty is no vice.

I am proud to be an individualist in the tradition of Ayn Rand and Ludwig Von Mises. The word libertarian has been misappropriated by authoritarians (e.g. Blair) and nationalists (e.g. UKIP).

[Victoria Street]

Editor, a couple of words appear to be missing in the first line of the social justice definition.
I will now read the rest of it.

[Interested Observer]

The definition you refer to merely underlines that what matters is not what you call it, but what the policy detail actually is. As ever, the overuse of a term such as 'social justice' devalues it as a currency, and gradually strips it of meaning. Everyone has their own personal definition, and it is reduced to the level of motherhood and applie pie.

What matters is that policy proposals that seek to promote social justice are made in such a way that indicates respect for people who are vulnerable in society. My problem with some of the rhetoric (not from the CSJ, I hasten to add) is that it represents excessive paternalism, a sort of 'noblesse oblige'. This robs people of their dignity just as much as poverty itself does - they are seen to be 'helpless' without the beneficent intervention of a paternalist.

That is why I prefer policies which enable people to fulfil their aspirations, thereby promoting social change. It is far better than entrenching a benevolent elite by freezing society as it is, and militating against social fluidity.

[Sam Coates]

a couple of words appear to be missing in the first line of the social justice definition.
Has it been fixed now, or am I missing a joke?

[Victoria Street]

Dep Ed: "A term - being reclaimed by Britain's Tories - that is popularly understood to mean 'fairness for those in help and fairness to those who provide it'."

Fairness for those in help ??

[Editor]

thanks Victoria Street - the missing words have now been added.

[Derek]

"Social justice" is a sound bite, and although you have tried to define it, that is only your understanding of its meaning. I deplore the use of these sound bites. I think they are a kind of catch-all phrase which modern politicians use to convey an impression of caring, without actually spelling out their policies.

Oh how I long to hear a simple concept explained with clarity. Instead we have now a political dictionary of these terms.

I find myself in agreement with RUK above.

[Selsdon Man]

I with Hayek and the ASI on social justice. In politics, adding "ist" to "social" gives a better indication of what is being proposed.

[David Sergeant]

Can't anyone think of a better term than "social justice"? The very term limits the options available and one is reminded of the saying that by putting "social" in front of another word the meaning is reversed.

Suggestion; given the basic idea is to provide for people limited in helping themselves (for whatever reason) how about us using the term "social independence"?

[Samuel Coates]

"Social independence" would probably confuse people as an oxymoron. I can see what you are getting that, although for me, "justice" is a powerful word and as a concept it should be paramount in all aspects of social policy.

[Richard]

"I can see what you are getting that, although for me, "justice" is a powerful word and as a concept it should be paramount in all aspects of social policy."

How about the good old conservative "noblesse oblige"?

[David Sergeant]

It's just that the concept of "justice" in the case of Social Justice seems to be associated with the idea that anyone getting less than someone else should be compensated by the tax payer. I'm not happy that that gets us anywhere. If people thought that "justice" meant someone who works hard gets more money than someone who doesn't I don't think there would be a problem.

[Oberon Houston]

Interesting piece. I think the fundamental point that Conservatism and social justice can go hand in hand is one worthy of underlining. The difficulty with Socialist principles is that egalitarian manipulation can frequently hurt many in a well intentioned, but short sighted attempt, at helping a few. And it can also often lead to a perpetuation of the circumstances of those most in need.

We see this effect in Britain today under Gordon Browns leadership, where social mobility is falling and welfare dependence is increasing. However, we need to help people see beyond the simplistic argument that to help people they just need given money. We need to argue the case in a talented manner that their circumstances need improved, and helping them to live in their current situation is the least effective method of tackling poverty and depravation. A more intelligent and effective strategy is to identify what they need to be helped to change to alter their situation to improve and move out of their current situation. This is most effectively done by offering them real opportunities and choices for them to opt for. We need to be careful however when formulating and implementing this to ensure that people don’t get left behind. If this does occur in significant levels, then the old perceptions of us being uncaring and opportunistic will begin to look somewhat justified.