ConservativeHome's Dictionary: Social justice

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

It wasn't so long ago that social justice was a term that no Conservative would use. Many Conservatives accepted Hayek's famous critique of the term. Hayek thought that "social" was a "weasel word" that emptied meaning from every word it was coupled with. One US commentator wrote an article claiming that social justice was "code for communism".

Social justice, however, is now an idea that is central to the lexicon of British Toryism. The last but one Tory leader founded a think tank dedicated to the concept. The current leader has set up a policy group with the social justice title.

But what do the British people think social justice means?

A May 2005 YouGov survey for the Centre for Social Justice attempted to find out and the diverse answers are printed in the graphic on the right.

It is interesting that only a third thought it meant more state support for vulnerable people. The top answer was 'fairness for those who in need of help AND fairness to those who provide it'.

Fairness was defined by Iain Duncan Smith in the following way:

“[Conservatives] understand that fairness cuts two ways. Conservatives appreciate you have to be fair to the people who pay for the public services and for society's other responsibilities. People who build and run businesses. People who provide for their families and their futures. People who play by the rules and aren't a burden to the police or courts. People who are patriotic. People who advance social justice by giving to their communities.”

At its best therefore social justice will produce a compassionate conservatism that is dedicated to the most vulnerable people in society but without ignoring William Boetcker's famous 'Cannots':

“You cannot bring prosperity by discouraging thrift.

You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.

You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.

You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.

You cannot help the poor man by destroying the rich.

You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than your income.

You cannot further brotherhood of men by inciting class hatred.

You cannot establish security on borrowed money.

You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence.

You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.”

Comments

Nice at last to find a definition of "social justice". Shame about the weasel words used, and the "do this without that!" attitude. Everything that I have read recently suggests that Cameron does not share this definition. He still favours government interference in every moment of our lives and will tax us to the hilt to pay for it. Is that giving to some without penalising others?

Derek Buxton

Posted by: Derek Buxton | April 16, 2006 at 02:06 PM

"fairness for those who in need of help AND fairness to those who provide it"

I don't see how this differs significantly from "From each according to their ability, to each according to their needs".

Posted by: SimonNewman | July 14, 2006 at 10:44 AM

Another year on, and I came back and reread this entry, still trying to understand what 'social justice' is supposed to mean. It seems to mean a sort of soft socialism. I think Hayek was right.

Posted by: Simon Newman | June 24, 2007 at 12:28 AM

That was going to be my comment on your peuivors post. The quick staying in touch with people is a nice feature of Twitter. Although I might not care about your breakfast burrito, I might be interested if you're sick or if you sold your house or something else like that. I have a friend who is out of town a fair bit and I get an idea of what he does because of Twitter. I've actually gotten to know him better, 140 characters at a time.

Posted by: Mayur | May 17, 2013 at 08:44 AM