Cameron distinguishes GWB from GDP

Talking about a subject Conservatives have rarely broached, David Cameron will today say that the Protestant work ethic should be replaced by a "modern vision of ethical work". He believes we should talk not just about Gross Domestic Product but about General Well-Being too, hoping to triangulate between the issues by fomenting strong relationships and progressive employment practice in order to boost productivity:

"The traditional response of the right – that government can't do much about all this and shouldn't try – is inadequate. But equally, the response of the new left – that government should regulate the specific details of working life – is too ineffective. It produces unintended consequences that end up damaging our competitiveness. It's vital to create a space... which stands firmly between regulation and indifference. I refuse to choose between the intolerant impulse to right every supposed wrong by passing new laws, and the coldly amoral refusal to even take a view on the actions of others."

The Guardian reports it as wrong-footing Gordon Brown, Sky News as going for the Feel-Good Factor, and The Times as drawing a line under Thatcher.

Deputy Editor

Comments

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

Really fantastic stuff. I've felt for too long that as a party in the thrall of a Thatcher mythology we have been the fool who "knows the price of everything but the value of nothing".

I've posted on here before that the "politics of happiness" is the coming debate. I think increasingly people will look for a sense of well being as much as simply paying the rent. How content are we as a society, I can't help but feel that as a whole we are an increasingly despondent island which is having an insidious effect on all sort of policy areas.

[JP]

This is the sort of thinking that could only come out of the mouth of a millionaire southerner. Good luck in Manchester and Liverpool and Newcastle and......

[Annabel Herriott]

Are not us "gritty northerners" allowed to be happy, and enjoy well being, low cholesterol levels, and all the other benefits JP is implying that yon "metrosexuals" darn Sarf are supposed to be having??

[JP]

Annabel Herriott? Henry Edward-Bancroft? I rest my case. By the way did anyone see Dominic 'man of the people' Grieve on the box over the weekend? I thought his bow-tie was rather fetching.

[Ted]

This is a bit motherhood and apple pie - yes it is the quality of life that matters but what exactly is governments role?

Governments have two levers - legislation & fiscal.

Legislation produces unintended consequences and I have a lot in common with the late Eric Forth in thinking we need less legislation, compently enforced. Legislation in this area also tends to put costs on businesses while providing them with little commenserate benefits.

Then there are fiscal levers - these either move costs to the state or impose additional burdens through targeted taxation.

If neither of these is to be used we are then left with exhortation - useful but without supporting action not usually effective.

Dave, I like the story but I would like to know what you intend to do, rather than whats good to hear.

[Chad]

Surely leaving it up to employers to maintain a fair balance is like leaving it up to rail companies to play fair with price increases?

What happens when an employee asks for shorter or more flexible hours to spend time with their family, improving their general well-being, and the boss tells them to bugger off?

OK Mr Cameron, you believe in GWB. How is that currently failing in Britain, and what do you actually propose to do solve it?

[Martin Curtis]

This is spot on. I have been talking about the need for "responsible capitalism" for some time, this surely is a huge step in that direction.

[David Belchamber]

I believe that DC is absolutely right in his assessment of the practical effects of the two polar opposites - "unintended consequences" from the new left and "the government can't do much about all this and shouldn't try" from the right.
The tricky bit is to make his "third way" a practical reality and especially, as JP suggests, to make it work in the north.
As a northener myself, I feel that sturdy independence is a virtue and a conservative one at that. If, perhaps by the gradual implementatioin of local democracy in action, people's quality of life does improve, then we will over the years gain more support nationwide.
Sadly, in itself, quality of life is very unlikely to prove a vote winner in the North at the next election. It will require less airy-fairy attractions.

[Edward]

Great positioning, great soundbites, great way to convince the papers we're different now, Cameron. "Modern Vision of Ethical Work" though? Fatuous, meaningless, vacuous tripe.

[Ted]

I get confused about Northerners in comments on this blog:

They are sturdy independents, straight talking, no nonsense...
or
They are Labour dependents, living on Southerners tax, voting Labour to get more benefits...

Our job in the North seems to be about winning back people who went to New Labour or have gone to the Lib Dems. These don't fit the first stereotype. I'd like to understand what made them move leftwards before proclaining what we need to do.

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

There is amble evidence both, empirical and otherwise to show that there is real and tangible poverty in Britain today. I've no doubt that an incoming Conservative government will tackle this issue with a vigour that has been missing over the last 30 years.

However, there are equally large numbers of people for whom poverty is not so much material but emotional. It is right that as a modern government in waiting we are sympathetic to what Peter Mandelson would call "middle class concerns". That is to say, quality of life, work life balance, child care and a sense of well being.

[wicks]

OK i have to admit i'm getting a bit bored of all these vague speeches now, in so much as its hard to have any sort of opinion on them.

Cameron is talking a really good game but I really want to know now what he's going to DO to give us this utopia.

[JP]

Ted, are you suggesting northeners don't pay tax? That they scrounge off the state? I was under the impression the Conservative Party was changing, modernising, abandoning the sterotypes of the past? Are you Nicholas 'man of the people' Soames in disguise?

[Ted]

JP

I was just pointing out that in one thread on the Unfair Kingdom the North was being discussed as a nest of welfare addicts then suddenly its a hardy breed of independents. Suggesting that perhaps the sterotypes are rubbish.

[TimC]

This is clever - by putting quality of surroundings as a goal, we can then oppose Prescott's old plan to concrete over large parts of England.

[william]

Can we do this as an and? GDP and GWB, not one or the other.

These are false contrasts. Building a better society will involve a certain amount of wealth creation along the way.
Businesses grow best which provide contentment and happiness to their people. So do economies.

Make contentment a key value of business. Don't imagine that by reducing employment, investment and activity that people will become happier. As a rule people like to be busy in a cause or an activity they believe in.

If private wealth were allowed to increase by the aboliton of IHT for exmaple, the people would have more choice - to stop working for money, and work for charity or political ends, for example. If everyone is a wage slave, paying the mortgage, stressed and stuck in traffic trying to move, then they will be discontent.

If companies control all the wealth, that is what will happen. By allowing individuals to become welathy, different kinds of communities could come into being, where other facets of humanity can flourish.

Wealth creation will be needed as the underlying factor in improving quality of life. Don't kid yourself. Aim for GDP and give people the choices they need for GWB by cutting tax and getting government out of their lives, and by allowing people to accumulate wealth, reduce the power of big business to dominate everyone.

[esbonio]

It sounds to me like a mixture of a statement of the obvious (everybody wants a better quality of life) and more blather. Businesses (particularly small ones) are so worn down with regulation that they have little scope to cut their employees more slack. It is of course a lot easier for the tax funded public sector to
take a more holisitc approach towards employees. It must also be said there is more scope for large corporations (of which Dave has expereince) to do the same. It is though as I have noted a lot tougher for smaller employers. Perhaps Dave should focus on loosening things up for the latter and then we might have more and better jobs for all.

[Richard]

GDP is a flawed measurement anyway because the measurements are tilted towards consumption at the far end of the production chain. Anyway, pedantic point over.

Cameron was just on Radio 2 saying "there's more to life than making money" whereupon my mother said "that's easy to say when you've got it!".

To repeat other posters, what does Cameron plan to do? If he's not going to pass legislation to bring about this work-life balance then he is wasting his time. He's right about the unintended effects of regulation so I'm pleased he's not proposing any. I just don't see what else he expects to do though.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

I'd just say that it's important to remember that although we work the longest hours in Europe we don't have particularly high productivity, or happy workers. Family time gets squeezed out, stress rockets, and with ridiculous house prices and high consumer debt people are extremely vulnerable to unemployment and interest rate rises. There's nothing wrong with the protestant work ethic, but if you look a little closer at that ethic, it has some pretty stringent things to say about personal responsibility for your actions, debt and thinking of others. Most companies don't have an ethic which means anything, protestant or otherwise, perhaps there would be some benefits for them if they did.

Governments can't do anything about any of these problems, really. It's more to do with our work/family culture, the way we build cities so that people live hours from their work. Collectively we've all helped to create these problems, partly by refusing to to take a view on the actions of others and partly by letting the government get away with so much.

[Sean Fear]

I don't actually think there's very much governments can do to increase "happiness" per se - partly because happiness is impossible to measure objectively; partly because different people will be made happier by different things; and partly because one of the main determinants of happiness is the quality of our personal relationships - something which is wholly outside the influence of legislation.

IMO - governments should only promise things that they can deliver - and happiness isn't one of them.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

Governments can't do anything about any of these problems

[Chad]

"although we work the longest hours in Europe we don't have particularly high productivity, or happy workers"

Henry - surely you mean 'because' not 'although' - then you clearly have an area to focus on that government can get involved in.

It might just be me, but I've got a feeling that most people might just prefer to have more leisure time and less work time. They aren't actively choosing the latter.

What is the point of Cameron even raising this if he has no plans to introduce or reduce legislation to tackle the issue?

Cameron's preach/proposal balance seems out of kilter.

[Richard]

"Collectively we've all helped to create these problems, partly by refusing to to take a view on the actions of others and partly by letting the government get away with so much."

Agreed. But we live in an age of non-judgementalism and dependence on the government. It's going to take a huge cultural shift to turn things around.

[Henry Whitmarsh]

The point I'm making is that the sci-fi picture of a world run by global corporations wouldn't appear to be possible. Business people wouldn't want the hastle of having to deal with ideas of principle or ethics. In a funny way I suppose they like being treated like naughty children by the state, doing only what they can get away with, but I don't think that's good for them or for the wider community. I'm pretty sure that the board of a local company could put run rings 'round the local council, if they put their minds to it. Perhaps the big role of the state as the protector and the carer has made businesses be less caring, which has ultimately hurt business since the state has been able to stigmatise them for this percieved lack. In a world where there is less evidence of the state it might also mean that businesses have to take a more holistic approach to the communities they operate in. For instance, if the state took less of a role in education, businesses would still need qualified workers, so they might have to part fund colleges or internships ect ect.

[Hey Ho]

Clever old Dave, making all these telling points contra materialism, and going to a party at Beckhamingham Palace all at the same time ....... Repeat a thousand times: Cameron is a Fake.

[Annabel Herriott]

Dear JP
I may have a poncy name, which I had no control over, but my grittyness is beyond reproach! 45 years in the NHS would get me a pass mark in grit I believe.

[PassingThru]

Well said Sean Fear. This is simply wishy-washy unidentifible, undeterminable, unmeasurable pick as you please rubbish. So we focus on and 'improve' one issue (not sure how) there will always be 101 other issues the opposition can focus on. Its a fools errand.

Next he'll be saying vote Conservative and go to heaven...

[AlexW]

People who are condemning Cameron for uttering platitudes are rather missing the point: the whole object of the exercise is to expunge the stereotypical loadsamoney Thatcherite from the public's collective memory.

[Sean Fear]

I'm a good deal more interested in substance of what governments are capable of, Alex, than in spin.

[Stephan]

DC: "It's vital to create a space... which stands firmly between regulation and indifference."

The most important thing at this stage would be to define this space rather carefully. If it's not government action, then what is it? Some sort of glorified Public Relations Space, rather like the 'bully pulpit' which the Editor has in the past approved of?

How would a real live business navigate such a space? Would it look for clues in the speeches of political leaders, such as Cameron's 'Chocolate Orange' pronouncements, to guess what they should do?

Should businesses do what they think is right, or what they guess politicians think is right? They already operate in the 'court of public opinion', so what is this new space?

It's hard to object to the notion that there should be a public debate about the nature of society and the role of business within it, but we already have such a debate. I think most of us already "refuse to choose" between amorality and intolerance, even without Cameron's leadership. So what is David Cameron now proposing?

[Andrew James]

This looks like a snazzy attempt to show off some post-Thatcherite post-materialism... but DC should be careful how much of this he churns out. This won't convince anybody (North or South) that the Tories are sufficiently 'compassionate' to get into government, especially in the absence of any policy. Its vagueness and 'yummy-mumminess' is frustrating for those of us who elected Cameron to be honest and radical. He cannot afford the policy review to have a similarly unimpressive outcome.

The fact remains, that especially up here in t' North, for those living in the rows of terraces and high rises money is still very important - council tax, national insurance, benefits, etc. These are the people who were left behind by Thatch and who are ignored by this post-materialist message.

I think this effort from Cameron also shows how cautious the Party still is, when it comes to the economy. There is nothing wrong with tax-cutting and deregulation, except for the fact that Labour have made it impossible for us; by claiming that we will cut investment in public services. This simply does not have to be the case.

[William]

Governments can't do anything about any of these problems, really

I agree. But they do a lot to undo GWB by taxing people, and over-regulating.

One reason we have low productivity/higher stress in Britain is our poor record at capital accumulation. Other than buying houses, and playing the property game, Brits don't save and invest enough. One reason for that is we have the highest rate of IHT in the world at 40%. The world average is 20% approx.

Cut tax and regulation, Dave. We'll work out the rest.

[Stephan]

William, you put it really well. Unless a government has a very clear evidence-based idea of what it can do to improve GWB, it shouldn't do it. That's what worries me about this latest wheeze: what exactly does DC know about the GWB of other people? How is he going to find out?

And when he has found out, how will he apply this? I'm thankful he's ruled out more regulation. If he could also rule out whimsical judgements about what is or is not ethical business, I'd be even more grateful. But then there wouldn't be anything left for the triangulation.

It would be nice to hear what he might do to help British business become more productive, because unproductive business (as William has already pointed out) leads to more misery than chocolate.

[Derek]

I agree with Sean on this. We must be careful not to get involved with issues unless we can offer solutions. Mood music is all very well, but we can only hope its doing the business with the public. Those who take a deeper interest want more substance.

[Matthew Oxley]

I agree with what others, including Richard have said on the subject.

To people I talk to here in the 'North', they will scoff at this type of rhetoric and say he only says this because he is a millionaire already. This is, unless, of course, he has genuine plans to do something about the issue.

I really don't know what Cameron could do to legislate happiness without reducing competitiveness of business. I don't think our businesses would react well to 35 hour weeks and 8 weeks annual leave. If he has genuine ideas, however, I'm all ears.

[Chad]

I really don't know what Cameron could do to legislate happiness

Well he could save parents from having to work all hours to pay for school fees by supporting grammar schools.

[Serf]

The best thing that a government can do to increase our happiness is to stop telling us how to live, stop distorting the housing market so that we can't afford to buy, stop letting dangerous criminals out of jail early, stop sacking nurses in favour of diversity coordinators, stop choosing how we educate our children, in general, give us less to worry about.

[Andy Peterkin]

Where are B'Stard and Sir Greville when you need them>

[Chad]

"stop distorting the housing market so that we can't afford to buy"

Hi Serf,
Would you advocate delegating responsibility to the Bank of England to include house prices in its inflation target?

[David Belchamber]

I have always believed that government should exist in this country to create a benign environment for businesses and individuals to thrive in. DC's stated aim is effectively to do just that, because when you are thriving you feel a sense of GWB.
Largely as a consequence of the actions of this government, there is now one important section of the community that finds itself caught in a very difficult position without any sense of GWB.
I refer to 18 to 30+ year olds who could well face (i) the repayment of a student loan, (ii) little prospect of being able to afford to buy their first home, and (iii) equally little prospect of being able to contribute significantly to a pension fund.
The main reason for this is the property market. According to The Telegraph (20.05.06), only a decade ago houses were worth only 2.7 times the average wage. The article states that today average house prices are now about 5.6 times more than average earnings.
That situation is causing a great deal of angst among a large number of young people (many of whom have probably never voted before), so it would be well worth DC considering practical ways of providing this section of the electorate with a sense of GWB.
As other contributors have said, we now need a bit of substance from DC to back up the good ideas.

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

Interestingly the government used to a publicly funded "Campaign for Work-Life Balance" which, I notice, is now default. Cameron could do worse than re-establish this excellent arm of government.

[Henry Edward-Bancroft]

David - a very important point. I hope this is an area not ignored by the next (Conservative) government

[Chad]

Dave has already proposed that the young should all start moving in with one another as a solution.

The answer is to prevent runaway house price inflation, not shoe-horn as many young people into a single house a possible.

[Goldie]

To be honest, this kind of stuff makes me puke. I guess I'm not the demographic.

[Yet Another Anon]

I misunderstood the title and so posted a comment that pertained more to this thread in a more General Comments bit, I assumed that GWB referred to George Dubya Bush.

Anyway it seems an odd venue to give such a speech, business leaders after all from a job perspective are interested in fulfilling their shareholders wishes which mostly are to make a return on their investments - I don't think actually business leaders are any less aware that wealth isn't everything, in fact obsessions with material possessions go right through the world especially in Developed Countries and the USSR was as guilty of materialism as was the USA at times in the past.

[Biodun]

Largely as a consequence of the actions of this government, there is now one important section of the community that finds itself caught in a very difficult position without any sense of GWB.
I refer to 18 to 30+ year olds who could well face (i) the repayment of a student loan, (ii) little prospect of being able to afford to buy their first home, and (iii) equally little prospect of being able to contribute significantly to a pension fund.

Too right David. I am one of the unfortunates caught up in this demographic and have just had to change jobs from a so-called "Bluechip" just so that I can get a contributory-pension.

I am sure there are many like me who do not have parents who are able to provide money for a deposit, or who have a family home nearby they can squat in until they save up enough to buy their own place.

[Hmmmm]

Ugggh arrrggghh hruuuuuur.....sorry, was just throwing up. Its pretty hard to take this from a millionaire, whose going to inherit millions more, and is married to a millionaire, who is going to inherit even more than him.

Money makes some of us quite happy actually Dave, and even happier when we made it ourselves. but then you wouldnt know about that would you?

Oh and beauty in other things? - well Dave some of us have read books, and listen to music and know about art, and know the price of everything and the value of everything as well, without some snot nosed old etonian, ex bullingdon public school boy telling us where we are all going wrong.

[Chad]

From the BBC today:
High earners in debt firing line

"But large mortgages, rising school fees, keeping up with the Joneses and the increasing availability of credit have made debt a normal part of life for many of the middle class."

[Nigel C]

Tim C says focusing on Quality of Life is a clever way of opposing Prescott's plan to concrete over the south of England. There is a slight problem in that the East of England Assembly which put forward one of the housing plans has a Conservative majority and is promoting the Plan on the basis that it will "improve the quality of life for all". You might see a theme in my recent posts that until we sort out Conservatives on Regional Assemblies we run the risk of serious divisions and mixed messages.

[James Maskell]

I thought for one terrifying moment it said GMB!