The conservativehome.com blog

A road to smaller government and social justice

I’ve written a piece for this morning’s Times about reducing the demand for government.

The heart of the argument is contained in these paragraphs:

“Up until now the formulaic Conservative response [to the bloated size of government] has been to identify ever more detailed ways of reducing the supply of government services — Michael Howard’s carefully costed James review being the latest failed attempt to persuade voters that there are painless ways of slimming government bureaucracies.

The breakthrough insight… is to approach the problem from the opposite side of the equation. The problem of fat government can be cracked… by first thinking of ways of reducing the demand for government. Reduce demand and the supply problem takes care of itself. The public will never vote for cuts in state services until they are convinced that those services are no longer needed. Voters may be unhappy at the performance of the welfare state but they will support its continuation until there are fewer needy people or until vulnerable people can call upon superior sources of care.

Social breakdown is a leading cause of higher government spending. A Conservative programme to reverse this breakdown is urgently needed, therefore, to address the crime-ridden estates, weak extended families and substance abuse that have all created chronic forms of dependency.

Social reform is not only the right way to reduce the long-term size of government, it is also the road to social justice.”

I’d be grateful for any reactions to the piece…

I believe...

Do you remember Michael Howard’s January 2004 statement of beliefs? They were criticised at the time for their motherhood-and-apple-pie character but they did amount to an aborted CCO attempt to embrace positive politics. I recently came across a Canadian ex-blogger’s beliefs statement and I thought I’d try one of my own. I’ve outlined at least one belief for each of conservativehome.com’s main ten themes:

The case for universal benefits

At a difficult time for the Tories, a shining white knight rides to the rescue. His name? David Willetts, Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. And it’s pensions that have provided the Conservatives with their biggest hit of the campaign so far. Not only has Mr Willetts’ five point plan put his party ahead of Labour on this vital, yet easily fudged, issue – but Tony Blair has also been pressured into astonishing refusal to rule out the means-testing of the state pension.

It is difficult to exaggerate the damage that such a measure would do. Most obviously, it would impose a monstrously perverse incentive on those who do the right thing by saving for their old age. But worse still, it would divide the nation between the ‘gets’ and the ‘get nots’ – i.e. those that get something from the state versus those that get nothing apart from a tax demand.

Needless to say, most conservatives would like to see a smaller state. But we’re not libertarians, we see a role for the public sector – not least as an expression of nationhood, a sense that we’re all in it together. Moreover, there’s very few of us that are so secure in our prosperity that we don’t feel the need for a little gentle reassurance from the welfare state. If that support is withdrawn from the middle classes then sooner or later the middle classes will withdraw their support from the welfare state.

Labour steals another Tory idea

In May 2003 the Conservatives' 'Sixty Million Citizens' document promised:

"Conservatives would introduce a right for community organisations or entrepreneurs to first manage and then assume ownership of under-used public sector assets such as community halls, parks or vacant land."

In April 2005 the Labour manifesto promises:

"New opportunities for communities to assume greater responsibility or even ownership of community assets like village halls, community centres, libraries or recreational facilities."

Yet another example of Labour stealing Tory policies.