Letwin: We should redistribute

Oliver Letwin is one of the most influential members of David Cameron's team.  He was Mr Cameron's biggest backer in the early days of his campaign and has been appointed to oversee the new leader's policy process.  His Kyoto environmentalism and cautious approach to taxation have also been adopted by the new Tory leader.  When the Notting Hill set compared David Cameron to Frodo, Letwin was seen as a Gandalf figure - Middle Earth's older and wiser statesman (picture and story from The New Statesman).

Oliver Letwin has travelled a long way since being one of the authors of the controversial poll tax (I mean community charge) - one of the most regressive forms of taxation ever introduced in modern Britain.  Mr Letwin's journey has taken him from regressive taxation in the 1980s to redistribution today.

In an interview with The Telegraph Mr Letwin tells Rachel Sylvester: "Of course, inequality matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor. . . not by trying to do down those with most but by enabling those who have least to share an increasing part of an enlarging cake."  Ms Sylvester is struck with Mr Letwin's use of "the R-word": "It's more than a matter of safety nets," he says, "We should redistribute money."

A Telegraph leader is unimpressed:

"In one sense, Mr Letwin is merely stating the obvious when he says "we do … and we should redistribute money". It is, however, a naive choice of word, with overtones of the belief that national wealth is a fixed and limited sum, to be divvied up "fairly" by the government... The way to demonstrate compassion, however, is not to echo the obsolete consensus that has delivered such tragedy. Britain has enjoyed redistribution on a vast scale since 1997, yet the degree of income inequality has remained unchanged. Unless radical reform is undertaken in the public services, more money and more people will be sucked out of the productive and into the unproductive sectors of the economy."

Adam Smith – the intellectual father of capitalism – thought more like today's Letwin, however.  In The Wealth of Nations, Smith said that a society’s idea of ‘life necessaries’ changed over time. Two centuries ago he wrote:

"By necessaries I understand not only the commodities which are indispensably necessary for the support of life, but whatever the custom of the country renders it indecent for creditable people, even of the lowest order, to be without. A linen shirt, for example, is, strictly speaking, not a necessary of life. The Greeks and Romans lived, I suppose, very comfortably though they had no linen. But in the present times, through the greater part of Europe, a creditable day-labourer would be ashamed to appear in public without a linen shirt, the want of which would be supposed to denote that disgraceful degree of poverty which, it is presumed, nobody can well fall into without extreme bad conduct. Custom, in the same manner, has rendered leather shoes a necessary of life in England. The poorest creditable person of either sex would be ashamed to appear in public without them.”

Mr Letwin says that the Social Justice Policy Group, under the chairmanship of Iain Duncan Smith, has been charged with finding solutions to inequality.  He also tells The Telegraph that the pursuit of social justice "is not just about money... it is about the homes people live in, the lack of supportive relationships, the way parents bring up their children."

Comments

[Chris]

Not a good sign.
Didn't Letwin going into hiding during one campaign rather than answer questions about "cuts"?
Could someone remind me where he got this "great intellectual" reputation from.

[greg]

He was ORDERED into hiding by Portillo

[Richard Weatherill]

Sir Keith Joseph he ain't!

[Graeme Archer]

The Telegraph editorial is odd, since Letwin specifically says in the interview that he's not talking about a fixed-cake-divvy-up model, but about how to empower those with the least to get some access to the cake while not clobbering the rich so that the cake continues to grow.

There has to be a way to develop a Tory method of helping people that doesn't simply devolve to the issuing of benefit cheques. I read the article to mean that we're going to hear exciting things about building on the work of the CSJ (and others) - maybe (for example) that the state should pay non-state agencies to deliver help. That (for example) there might be a better way to deliver childcare than through the behemoth that is SureStart. On almost every estate, there are groups of people - in the business world we'd call them "leaders" - who tirelessly work for the improvement of their living environment. At the moment, we try to help them get at the levers of power that reside in borough town halls. Why don't we just give them the money directly, and allow them to get on with it? You would need some mechanism of accountability and control, which should be the function of the council.

I'm aware that this is in danger of cliche - that government should enable, rather than provide, services to the people. But why don't we just do it? Wouldn't it be exciting?

[John Hustings]

The word "redistribute" does suggest something else.

What worries me most about this is that at the moment the Tories appear to be giving out mixed messages (this may be Cameron's intention, however). It is difficult to argue the case that Graeme is talking about when our politicians fail to clearly, consistently articulate it using the appropriate language.

As a result, we will just come across as muddled, using political jargon which can more or less mean anything in any context.

[Richard Weatherill]

I agree with you John - but does the great mass of the electorate care? How many votes are won or lost by arguments that are consistently articulated "using the appropriate language"?

I don't much like it but that, I fear, is the reality.

[Michael McGowan]

It isn't very clear just what Letwin means. However, the Lib Dems should take heart: he may have held onto Dorset West but he begins to look more and more like a Lib Dem.....and not one of the Orange Book variety.

On a more important note, mixed messages like this confirm what Letwin's business clients at N.M. Rothschild already know. The Tory Party is no friend of wealth creation. Business should therefore focus on "offshoring" jobs to economies such as China and India, where the workforce is highly qualified, highly productive and the cost, tax and regulatory burden is far far lower than in "Old Europe", of which the UK is part and will remain part under DC.

[Wat Tyler]

Yes, you can read Letwin's comments in all sorts of different ways.

"Of course, inequality matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets."

But whether that signals a substantive change depends on what we always meant by "safety net". As Tim points out, Adam Smith and most of us have always recognised it can only be defined relative to everyone else. In terms of substance, safety nets always narrow the gap between rich and poor.

And Ollie says nothing about the crunch tradeoff between the distribution of the pie and its size. We might "aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor", but does that mean we would seriously jeopardize the cake's size in pursuit of a flatter distribution? Ollie doesn't say.

So why does he use the provocative (to us) R word? Polly T is forever going on about Tony not using it, so why does Ollie?

We all know why. We are into a massive image exercise. We Tories have decided we will not win unless we soften our image with voters generally. Ollie's doing his best to oblige. But substance is something else again.

I hope.

[Sean Fear]

"Redistributing wealth" certainly has socialistic connotations. We just shouldn't be using the language of the Left, because it implies we will adopt the policies of the Left.

[Selsdon Man]

Letwin's comments can only be described as socialist. His mother, Shirley, was one of Hayek's doctoral students at LSE. She must be turning in her grave!

[Adrian Owens]

Redistribution is not a word I like, but the substance is what matters and relieving the crushing level of taxation on the poorest in society has my full support.

That seems to me to be what Oliver Letwin is saying when he says: "..... not by trying to do down those with most but by enabling those who have least to share an increasing part of an enlarging cake"

Only by significantly raising the income tax personal allowance threshold are we likely to be able to do this. Altering VAT is constrained by our EU membership and in any case might have macro-economic downsides in other areas. Mr Letwin seems to me to be consistent with George Osborne's flatter taxes musing, though I'd prefer a different R-word to be used: Tax relief rather than that socialist-term, redistribution.

[Alexander Drake]

I agree completely with Sean. I don't mind using the language, tone and policies of the Centre, but the Left? Redistribution???

This is way, way, way too much. Trying to outflank Labour from the Left is dumb. I hope Letwin tones it down - promptly.

[Frank Young]

This is truly radical and I think a very bold move.

Re-distribution is perfectly natural and the only realisitc way to fight poverty and slum housing. We already have re-distribution inherient in our welfare state, a progressive tax system and National Health System and a benefits system. Its important that as an alternative government we not only maintain these features but advance them, we've done it as a party before and we should do it again.

[Andrew M]

Sean is right. We should stop using the language of the left. It implies they have won the intellectual argument, which in my view they have not. For example spending on public services is not investment but spending. You cannot invest in something that has no prospect of providing a positive financial return of some sort.

As for redistribution, as a conservative I also believe in redistribution but on a voluntary basis, with individuals of wealth choosing to use their money to benefit others as people such as Andrew Carnegie did or Bill Gates now does. A belief in state sponsored redistribution should be anathema to any conservative. Instead we should talk about empowering people and spreading opportunities wider and deeper than before.

Also in a competitive world, we will have to lower taxes over time to remain competitive. State sponsored redistribution will therefore have to decrease. If we ignore this then we risk following the foolish path of the French and Germans who seem to believe raising taxes especially on the strongest wealth creating part of society is the way to get out a recession. This is incidentally one reason why I believe Mrs Merkel will fail to prove an effective German Chancellor.

[Editor]

All of Mrs Thatcher's governments were redistributive. Most taxation does (and should) fall on the higher paid. A disproportionate share of the tax take is then spent on the least well-off.

If we are redistributing wealth we might as well say so.

It is politically inept to redistribute and say that we are against doing so.

The problem with Labour is that many of Brown's stealth taxes are regressive (falling on poorer council taxpaying pensioners, for example). A Tory way of redistributing would be to cut taxes on the low paid so that they can join the middle classes (large and healthy middle classes being a feature of free capitalist societies - not of socialist states).

[Frank Young]

This is truly radical and I think a very bold move.

Re-distribution is perfectly natural and the only realistic way to fight poverty and slum housing. We already have re-distribution in our welfare state, a progressive tax system a National Health System and a benefits system. It’s important that as an alternative government we not only maintain these features but advance them, we've done it as a party before and we should do it again.

We absolutely must pay attention to the gap between rich and poor, otherwise as Conservative thinkers have found before we quickly develop two nations, one rich one poor. Policies that address this concern for social cohesion and a decent society should be greeted warmly rather than with scorn. Well done Mr. Letwin!

[Frank Young]

Sorry for the double posts and hear hear Editor!

[Selsdon Man]

Frank, you are a socialist! If you are a member of the Conservative Party, then I suggest you are in the wrong party.

[Selsdon Man]

"All of Mrs Thatcher's governments were redistributive. Most taxation does (and should) fall on the higher paid. A disproportionate share of the tax take is then spent on the least well-off.

If we are redistributing wealth we might as well say so.

It is politically inept to redistribute and say that we are against doing so."

Maggie never tackled the welfare state. She regrets that now - just as she regrets supporting the European Single Market.

[Sean Fear]

The thrust of what Letwin is saying is not that the rich will contribute proportionately more towards common services, nor that they will provide for those at the bottom of the scale through welfare, but that redistribution, and thus equality, are good things in themselves.

That is anathema to any Conservative , or any economic and social liberal for that matter. In a free society, it should certainly not be the job of any government to reduce the gap between rich and poor, so long as the rich have acquired their wealth legitimately, either through hard work or inheritance.

This is simply reverting to the pre-Thatcher position where companies started calling profits "surpluses", because profit was a dirty word.

[John Hustings]

My point is that we should be clear about our language so that it doesn't look like we are aping the policies of the left. If Letwin proposes empowering the voluntary sector, he should say so, instead of implying he favours increasing state management.

[Frank Young]

Indeed I am a member and proud to be so.

I think we've always known the party was a broad church and there in lies much of its success. There are people in the party with all manner of different views about social policy, economic policy, Europe and so on.

We should welcome this and i'm sure most of us do.

[Andrew M]

Sorry there is something I wish to add on to my last post. Redistribution is only viable in so far as you are providing equality of opportunity as far as reasonably possible and providing a basic safety net through which no one can fall.

If you wish to redistribute to tackle the growing gap in terms of wealth distribution then all you will end up doing is screwing the British economy as the French have already done. Anyway if you believe in this then you should ask yourself why? Is it due to worries over social cohesion or jealousy in that you will never be able to lead the same life as a multi-millionaire?

Too many who believe in redistribution seem to do so because of the latter view, without realising that money past a certain level can never buy you sustained happiness as such. Just look at how winning the lottery derailed so many people's lives.

[Editor]

I believe in reforming the welfare state and I do not think my responsibilities to the poor are fulfilled by paying progressive taxation for others to care for them, Selsdon Man. But I do think that redistribution, a bigger poverty-fighting voluntary sector and stronger family policy are all (consistent) features of a Conservative welfare policy.

The fat (to use a Letwin expression) welfare state needs to be slimmer and more focused on the very young, very old and very sick - it also needs to do more to support the family (the principal component of the welfare SOCIETY) - but it cannot and should not be scrapped. It's part of what it means to be 'one nation'.

[Alex W]

I'm very skeptical of these overtures, and I hope that it's simply an image-recasting exercise as Wat suggests (although it begs the question as to whether coming out overtly in favour of wealth redistribution is actually going to net enough left-leaning voters without alienating the centre-right/right).

The real crunch will come in seeing which policies stem from this rhetoric. Reducing taxes for the poor (note: the current system of welfare redistribute from the poorest to wealthier public sector workers, especially in management and consultancy) or empowering local communities would be perfectly laudable methods of achieving "redistribution". Fettering our future growth with punitive rates of taxation and ill-thought-out socialist-style handouts will merely make us less competitive vis-a-vis more dynamic economies in Eastern Europe and Asia, decreasing everyone's income in the long run.

[Selsdon Man]

From BBCi

"We have gone as far as we possibly can with the redistribution of income.
Margaret Thatcher in 1975"

That says it all.

[Dominic Llewellyn]

"If you are a member of the Conservative Party, then I suggest you are in the wrong party." Selsdon Man, I do not believe Conservatism is about making the rich richer and the poor poorer. Conservatism, as William Waldegrave describes it "is the philosophy of man in his community." It is about believing there is such a thing as society. I believe in a dream where all have the opportunity to succeed in society, regardless of background. The Conservatives pioneered in breaking the shackles of businesses, now we have an even more important task, to break the shackles and chains which tie down the most impoverished and worse off in society. Children are born with the expectance of having to steal for their food and are on a one way road to prison, yes because of choices they make but also because of the environments they're in. Many of my friends are drug addicts, having been homeless, these people are like you and me, if they'd had the chances which I've had, they would have walked their degrees and be in high flying jobs. But the simple truth is they didn't and people still don't. Conservatism is about setting people free but empowering people to live free lives. Let's rediscover the social reforming agenda which was once held aloft by great Tories such as Wilberforce and Shaftesbury and see a nation changed.

[Michael McGowan]

Letwin actually used a lot of evasive ambiguities about redistribution. The Editor says that if the tax system is redistributive, we should say so. Yes, agreed but Letwin seemed to be trying to go beyond this.

His obvious contempt for any effort to break down the Berlin Wall between public and private education also indicated abject surrender to the gospel of the left. I have never been convinced that the Tory Party believes in social mobility and this proves the point.

[Selsdon Man]

I said tackle rather than scrap the welfare state, Ed. I would, however, like to see it wither away. Voluntary benevolence is preferable to state compulsion.

[John Hustings]

No-one denies that Conservativism involves helping the poor, the question is how you do it. That's where Frank Young sounded like a socialist.

[James Cleverly]

The reality is that we already have a redistributive tax model; our tax system taxes the rich more than the poor and even the advocates of a flat tax agree that there should be some form of tax free allowance for the lowest income groups.

I am very much of the bigger cake school of thought but unless we are in government we will not be able to do anything about making the cake bigger. If we don’t mirror the aspirations and priorities of the electorate we will not get their votes, in urban areas where rich and poor are often very close to each other issues like social justice and greater equality are perceived to be important. We have not been very good at winning over urban voters recently and if this kind of language helps to convince them that we are not ogres it would be no bad thing. As Bush found out what people want to hear are policies which are “good for me, good for my neighbour”.

In another post on this site I was given a bit of a hard time for advocating that we, as Conservatives, should champion greater equality, it is good to see that one of our “big thinkers” now agrees with me. What I would like to see if everyone getting better off and the very poorest in society getting better off quicker than the rich, why?

Firstly because it is the morally right thing to do, this is why I give to charity.

Secondly, self interest. Lifting people out of real poverty will help to reduce crime, improve educational results which will in turn improve business productivity and ultimately increase total tax revenue without the need for increased tax rates.

A move towards great equality is good for business and good for the country.

[Sean Fear]

Dominic, the fallacy in your argument is the belief that if the rich become richer, then the poor must become poorer.

The great thing about capitalism is that it enables both rich and poor to become richer.

Letwin clearly wouldn't agree with Churchill's view that "the great vice of capitalism is its unequal distribution of blessings; the great virtue of socialism is its equal distribution of misery."

[Dominic Llewellyn]

Thanks for your comments Sean. I do not believe that if the rich get richer the poor get poorer. What I do believe is that the gap between rich and poor should decrease, in a nation of such wealth, why is drug abuse rife, why are education pass rates in impoverished areas so much lower than elsewhere, why is divorce rampant? These issues need to be addressed. I would even go as far as say that social issues are at least as important as the economic issues this country faces today. We will indeed be a more prosperous nation if the dream of social justice is pursued.

[Dominic Llewellyn]

If the welfare state "withered away", wouldn't our natural selfishness leave their poor and needy behind?

[Sean Fear]

The problems you mention are real ones. But I don't see what they have to do with the distribution of wealth in this country.

Even in the richest countries, people make bad choices in life, and those choices have an impact not just on their lives, but on the lives of their children and neighbours.

My experience of living in a luxury housing development in Hackney Wick, in which half the units were sold off for social housing after the developer went bust, is that some people will wreck even the nicest environment they could be placed in.

[Selsdon Man]

"What I do believe is that the gap between rich and poor should decrease".

Would you use the coercive power of the state to achieve that goal?

[Dominic Llewellyn]

Sean I agree people do sadly ruin housing, we need to look at why they do it, there are root issues which need addressing. Do these people feel they belong, are they pleased with who they are, are they succeeding in life dreams. Do they have a dream?

Selsdon Man, I believe that while the state is not perfect and as I said isn't the New Jerusalem, I do think that it's not the evil beast which we in the Conservative Party can be guilty of portraying it to be. Taxation should pay for national security, education, health and a benefits system which empowers people to be free! There are many agents which need to be used to achieve social justice, the state is one of them.

[Biodun]

@Dominic and Frank, I agree with you wholeheartedly.
It is not about making people equal, but giving people equal opportunities to succeed. If they fail to use these opportunities then too bad.
The question we should be asking is "Have we done enough?"

@Selsdon man, you say "Voluntary benevolence is preferable to state compulsion."
But when it comes to things like Child Benefit, do you really think so? Would you really want children born into destitution to rely on voluntary benevolence?

The welfare state might be in need of reform, but voluntary benevolence is definitely not the answer.

@Sean Fear, "The great thing about capitalism is that it enables both rich and poor to become richer"

The whole point of Capitalism like you said, is that it should make many more people richer. Yet, social mobility is in decline in the UK.
http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/pressAndInformationOffice/newsAndEvents/archives/2005/LSE_SuttonTrust_report.htm
What does that mean? Either the welfare state is failing in its aims or capitalism is failing. Personally, I think the fault lies somewhere between the two and a whole load of reforms are required.

Letwin's comments are a breath of fresh air.

If there is one thing I am glad about after reading the above comments, it is that the Conservative Party really is a broad church of all types people from all walks of life who believe in a free and fair state.

For too long, the party has looked like it was under the control of a certain type or class of person. In reality, this is not the case, and Labour has exploited the myth.

The more we can show the populace that we really are the natural party of the people, as we're doing on this blog the better.

[real tory]

These people who have taken over the Conservative Party are idiots. They have no idea what they are doing. The sheep who are following them need to do wake up and understand what is happening.

[Sean Fear]

Biodun, social mobility is indeed in decline in Britain (although we remain a fairly socially mobile society). I would say that the biggest single reason for that was that from 1962 onwards, all political parties thought closing down grammar schools was a really good idea. A very great instrument of social mobility was destroyed.

Redistributing money from those with above-average incomes to those with below-average incomes won't solve that.

However, compare a capitalist society with a pre-capitalist society. In the latter, there are countless examples of people coming from the bottom of society to the top. In the former, such examples are very rare, and almost invariably based on military prowess.

[Graeme Archer]

I'm getting mildly tired of people telling decent Tories via this website that - quick paraphrase - "I don't agree with you, therefore you're some sort of socialist". It's a non sequitur, of course, nor is it particularly edifying.

There is, of course, a libertarian point of view about welfare and taxation, I think we're all au fait with it, frankly I'm sick of listening to it, because its oversimplification would fail to help people in need; just as decades of socialism have failed them. My take on it is simply: free markets work best when people are empowered to choose. If they are left for dead on failing housing estates and provided with substandard education and thus have sh*t life outcomes, they aren't empowered to choose so the market won't work.

Of course Tories can and should talk about this and many of the more decent ones - people like Tim Montgomerie - actually start doing something about it. The correct response to the work of Tim and others is, firstly, amazement that people can actually BE that good outside of the pages of Iris Murdoch (see Graeme passim) and secondly to learn from it - what is it that the CSJ does which works, what is it that's Tory about it, how can we turn it into national policy?

If getting people to listen requires using words like redistribution, well, I couldn't care much. I guess I would prefer empowerment though I know that makes some people cringe too. It's only a word and actually if by using it we can make some distinctively Tory approaches to welfarism electorally popular, then it will be not only worth doing - you never know, Selson Man et al, you might end up enjoying yourself at the discomfiture of the left!

[Dominic Llewellyn]

Merry Christmas real tory? So in your view what is true Conservatism?

[Dominic Llewellyn]

Merry Christmas real tory! So in your view what is true Conservatism?

[Graeme Archer]

PS Sean is spot on re grammar schools and I hope we don't shy away from backing the rights of schools to run themselves any way that their communities see fit.

[Sean Fear]

But Graeme, redistributing wealth is generally taken to mean using the power of the state to take from people on above average incomes, to give to people on below average incomes, and doing so in order to achieve equal outcomes.

Oliver Letwin may well mean something different, but in that case he should be using different language.

[Biodun]

EDITOR: DELETED AT REQUEST OF AUTHOR - SEE FOLLOWING POST...

[Biodun]

Oops. I obviously have no clue how to post a comment properly.

Ed, please can you remove my last comment, what I actually meant to say was this

------------------
So what's the difference between "re-distributing wealth" and "Sharing the Proceeds of Growth"?

and this
-----------
I'm getting mildly tired of people telling decent Tories via this website that - quick paraphrase - "I don't agree with you, therefore you're some sort of socialist". It's a non sequitur, of course, nor is it particularly edifying.
DITTO.

[english_tory]

"I agree completely with Sean. I don't mind using the language, tone and policies of the Centre, but the Left? Redistribution???

This is way, way, way too much. Trying to outflank Labour from the Left is dumb. I hope Letwin tones it down - promptly."

You mean John Howard didn't do this? See the difference now?

[malcolm]

I join with others on this blog who feel a little worried about Letwins interview.
As someone who is often on the left of the party on various issues and has been most concerned about the tone adopted by some of our spokesmen in recent years I still think it is a mistake for Letwin to adopt the language of the left.
There is a danger that in trying to be 'all things to all men'we lose sight of what the Conservative party really stands for.
One way we should differentiate our party from New Labour is that after 8 years of unremiting deceit we should provide an HONEST alternative set of policies to the electorate.
Sounding like a bunch of crypto-Socialists is no way to to win the trust of voters.They will only end up being disappointed as I imagine many former Tories who voted for Blair in 1997 have been.
Oliver Letwin seems a decent soul if probably a little naive,I hope he regrets the language he used in this interview and that he learns from it.
A very merry Christmas to all on this blog and I hope 2006 brings good fortune to our party.

[Michael McGowan]

Dominic, aren't you confusing cause and effect here?

Education pass rates are lower in poor areas in large part because the centrist consensus (including it now appears Oliver Letwin) refuses to (i) give poor parents an escape route from failing schools and (ii) refuses to fast track able children from poor backgrounds because that would threaten the expectations of the middle class children of politicians and journalists. This has little to do with how much money you spend. It is all about how you spend it.

Divorce is as much a cause of poverty and hoemlessness as a consequence.

The ability to consume drugs stems from relative affluence, not poverty. The grinding poverty in which my father and grandfather grew up in the 1930's and the Edwardian era left no room for buying drugs. The consequences of drug addiction of course include poverty and disease, which go hand in hand.

If you want to cure these undoubted social evils, then you have to make hard choices which have little to do with spending even more money.

[real tory]

"Merry Christmas real tory! So in your view what is true Conservatism?"

Real Conservatism, real compassion is about doing the right thing by the poor, creating a dynamic low-tax enterprise economy, introducing choice and competition to raise standards in public services, and providing what Letwin derides as a safety net. In short, a society where "there is a limit beneath which no man may fall, but no limit to which any man might rise," as Churchill put it.

Abusing Conservatives with the misplaced rhetoric of the left has nothing to do with conservatism or Christmas.

[Gillibrand]

I will (just) resist the temptation to set up http://labourhome.blogs.com/ to celebrate Mr Letwin's novel interpretation of Conservatism. If I want to redistribute some of my hard-earned money that's up to me not the state.

[don't blame me i voted for davis]

I am actually pleased about Letwin's inteview. What with that and Nicholas Boles' comments, captured and verified by The Spectator, the Cameron clique are finally revealing their true colours.

Of course, it would have been nice of them to have been honest about all this during the leadership election but it is pretty obvious why they choose not to be.

[this is stupid]

These people are making a mockery out of conservatism and the Conservative Party.

Keep it up and there will be rich dividends for UKIP and staying at home.

[Goldie]

I am sorry but the Cameron boys are going too far.

If this is the price we must pay for a 'conservative' government, I don't want to pay it.

Redistribution....unbelievable....it's pure socialism.

Someone like Letwin is just a political pygmee who's done nothing but harm to the Conservative cause due to his utter incompetence in the 2001 elections. He was an entirely ineffectual shadow Chancellor.

It's an unfortunate truth that the aristocracy has done much to build up the welfare state, owing to the guilt about their elevated position and lacking the intellectual resources to withstand the Left's ideas.

By the way, Cameron has deceived us.

If he had announced that he:

-Does not favor lower taxes, incl. the flat tax;
-Is in favor of taxing the rich to transfer the money to the poor, who he believes are virtuous by virtue of being poor;
-Is in favor of scrapping the very sensible quotum on immigrants in favor of 'taking asyum seekers to our hears' (although 95% of asylum seekers are bogus and merely economic refugees gaming the system);
-Is in favor of scrapping the policy of seeking a return of the fisheries policy to the member states;
And so on, ad nauseam,

I would never have voted for him or supported him.

The 'And Theory of Conservatism' is fine....
but conceeding each and every intellectual point of Conservatism in a naked pursuit to become the new New Labour is pathetic, ridiculous and unnecessary.

But it is what happens when you put a political pygmee like Letwin in charge.

[tory_worker]

And this man is in charge of policy development? Unreal.

[yuk]

Can we have a Conservative Party please?

[Martin]

Letwin knew how this would be reported. I cannot believe that he would use the "R" word and not expect a vastly negative reaction. What he really meant will be of no consequence, he knew this would be reported in an alarmist fashion. What did this supposed intellectual giant expect?

This is evidenced by how the Mail have reported his remarks with the headline banner this morning, "Tories will redistribute wealth and help poor, says Letwin." Using this kind of language is merely going to enrage conservative supporters and pick up, how many votes? Who is he trying to convince. I quite literally choked on my cornflakes this morning when I read the headlines.

[Biodun]

Well that'll teach people to vote for a leader who is policy-lite then won't it? At least two-thirds of the people on here must have supported Cameron and it couldn't have been for his policies!

David Davis was more clear about what he wanted to achieve, but people wanted Cameron charm and style and this is what you get.

Regardless of the fact that I was a Davis supporter until the very end, I still don't think Cameron and his team have put a wrong foot forward yet.

It shows that there is a lot of thinking going on within the party and I'm all for that.

[Chris Palmer]

I'll put my blinkers on... All I can see now is the finishing post and the Conservatives returning to power...

[party_loyalist]

All this from the same twit who as the party's number two economics spokesman couldn't keep to the party's line about tax cuts and had to go into hiding for the election. Of course, he was in favour of big tax cuts way back then (four whole years ago).

What with this buffoon and Chairman Maude this is a real high quality team Cameron has put together.....

[What's all the fuss about?]

What's all the fuss about? Nicholas Boles already explained the direction the party would now be taking. Doesn't anyone read The Spectator?

EXCLUSIVE: Top Cameron Aide Tells The Right - Don't Expect Tax Cuts, School Choice, Right Wing Conservative Government

[This story is slightly different than the version posted earlier. The reason is that Mr Boles complained that the story was wrong and demanded it be withdrawn. Phone calls have been made to check facts to ensure we are being fair. After speaking at length to people in the room, we think the following is a fair and accurate account.]

Last Tuesday, as Cameron prepared for his coronation, one of his top aides, Nick Boles, addressed a private meeting of right-wing think tanks and campaign groups at the Adam Smith Institute.

While the hope of many Conservatives has been that Cameron is "really" on the Right but would use better PR to sell a Thatcherite agenda, Boles made clear to the audience that they would be disappointed.

The issues of tax cuts and school choice were raised. Mr Boles said that they would not campaign for vouchers and "choice" was not their priority. In reply to questions about tax, he said that tax pledges and guarantees had been tried before in previous elections, they had failed, and they could not commit themselves to cut taxes beyond the current aspiration.

Mr Boles said to the audience that, just as Blair said that he won as New Labour and would govern as New Labour, so - "Dave has run as a compassionate conservative and will govern as a compassionate conservative". [Mr Boles has confirmed that this quote was accurate as we originally reported it; one participant remembers the phrase as "centrist" instead of "compassionate conservative". Different sources have given an almost but not quite identical form of words for a further comment to the effect - "if you're expecting a right-wing Conservative Government, you will be disappointed".]

As we commented earlier.

Whereas Labour is gearing up to claim that Cameron is secretly a hard core Thatcherite who is using clever spin to shield an extreme agenda, it se that Cameron is as he seems - a traditional conservative who does not think there is much wrong with Britain, and will resemble Macmillan and Major, not Thatcher, albeit with better PR. Gove is useful bait to attract some elements on the Right, but the ideological tone will be set by Edward Llewellyn, his new Chief of Staff and former Chief of Staff to Patten.

Ironically, therefore, the emerging Labour attack on him as "really deep down right wing" will help Cameron for a while because it will reassure the Right, many of whom voted for him nervously and mainly because of Davis' extreme incompetence.

However, the ideological right have been told in no uncertain terms: if the Cameron project works out, then you face another decade plus of political irrelevance, no money, and no influence. This is unwise of the Cameron team. First, even in their own terms (ie. gaining power, not medium-term change, is the real goal), it is foolish to tell the Right this so starkly; it would be more effective to lie (at least until they could then use fear of an election to impose discipline). Second, they will not be able to build a new movement of self-consciously "moderate" activists; if they really have rejected the idea of building outrider organisations to act as "icebreakers of the revolution", they are condemning themselves to medium-term operation within a culture defined by Labour and the BBC which provides only a choice between destruction and cooption. Again ironically, this may actually help organisations on the ideological Right as donors and members realise that pressure from the Right is the only way to influence Cameron.

Lord Garrel-Jones said privately the other day, "Great. An OE with the common touch - and Ed [Llewellyn] in there." For those on the Right not of this disposition, a bleak future looms - unless the initial Cameron plan fails and there is a major rethink.

The Spectator Online Team
Check out our blog on DC's First Hundred Days
http://www.spectator.co.uk/blog/index.thtml#153

[Jaz]

There is a case for SOME redistribution, but I think Letwin, Cameron and the whole crew should stay clear of this... Its an incredibly socialist idea.. And there are other way to redistribute without actually in tax and benifit form, redistribute at all.

Can we stop waving that Spectator blog about in every thread, I'm entirely sure we are all intelligent people who dont need to read the article 10 times.

"I'm getting mildly tired of people telling decent Tories via this website that - quick paraphrase - "I don't agree with you, therefore you're some sort of socialist". It's a non sequitur, of course, nor is it particularly edifying."

I agree.

I'm also against Flat Tax, I don't thinkt he British people will like the idea once labour gets the ball rolling with "helping the rich".. So Flat Tax isn't going to happen.

[mysterious]

Nicholas Boles seems to have gone strangely quiet now that the Spectator has stood up the story.

[Nuala]

I am extremely concerned by Mr Letwin's pronouncements. He seems to be mirroring Blair's drift rightwards with his own drift leftwards. This is not why I joined the Conservative Party. I expect to be able to enjoy the fruits of my labour and pass that on to my children, not have it wasted on the feckless by the State.

[no tax cuts or vouchers]

"Can we stop waving that Spectator blog about in every thread, I'm entirely sure we are all intelligent people who dont need to read the article 10 times."

Good point Jaz. Anyone who wants to see the verified article can do so at this URL:

http://www.spectator.co.uk/blog/index.thtml#153

[Robbo]

"What I would like to see is everyone getting better off and the very poorest in society getting better off quicker than the rich".
This is surely the one sentence expressed by James Cleverly above which truly encapsulates the view expressed by Letwin on the lunch time news on BBC Radio 4. I agree with this wihout reservation. From some of the above I'm begining to question whether I'm really a Conservative.

[i am a conservative]

"What I would like to see is everyone getting better off and the very poorest in society getting better off quicker than the rich".

This is not possible. For an introduction to genuine conservatism see Mrs Thatcher's final speech to parliament as Prime Minister.

[A H Matlock]

Reading Oliver Letwin use the word 'redistribution' in his interview with the Telegraph was rather grating. I have no objection in principle that the government should aim to narrow the gap between the rich and poor, but a good Conservative does that by lifting people at the bottom up, not pushing people at the top down which is what generally ends up happening within the structure of the tax system. Editor is right in that we should be cutting taxes for the poor and helping them to move into the middle class.

Copying New Labour tactics and strategy is one thing, using the language of Old Labour is quite another. I agree with Andrew Milne and Sean Fear that Oliver could have found a better way of expressing these thoughts.

[Graeme Archer]

Robbo, you are a Conservative mate don't doubt it! I think the definition of a Tory, leaving aside "philosophy", is: one who attempts to get Tories elected. OK it's a bit ontological, but I think it beats the grim, revolting parody we were just treated to by Nuala.

[conservative verus liberal policy]

Conservative versus liberal policy:

Lib Dem MP Simon Hughes versus Prime Minister Thatcher, October 1990:

Mr. Hughes

There is no doubt that the Prime Minister, in many ways, has achieved substantial success. There is one statistic, however, that I understand is not challenged, and that is that, during her 11 years as Prime Minister, the gap between the richest 10 per cent. and the poorest 10 per cent. in this country has widened substantially. At the end of her chapter of British politics, how can she say that she can justify the fact that many people in a constituency such as mine are relatively much poorer, much less well housed and much less well provided for than they were in 1979? Surely she accepts that that is not a record that she or any Prime Minister can be proud of.

The Prime Minister

People on all levels of income are better off than they were in 1979. The hon. Gentleman is saying that he would rather that the poor were poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That way one will never create the wealth for better social services, as we have. What a policy. Yes, he would rather have the poor poorer, provided that the rich were less rich. That is the Liberal policy.

[Greg Jones]

Am I the only party member who would like my ballot paper back?

[Cameron and Letwin are Big Government Conservatives]

What happened to Cameron's libertarian friends? What does Guido have to say? Alex Singleton? Do they agree with Letwin?

[Bruce]

One of the catchphrases of modern business is "You get what you measure by". If a society measures "progress" by how little people's incomes vary, inevitably the only way to satisfy that measure is some sort of redistributive, socialist government policy. If on the other hand one measures "progress" by how free people are to achieve economic well-being, then that measure opens the door for pro-freedom, less-government policies. Letwin isn't a socialist--but the way he measures society, and his openness toward "redistribution" of income, undercuts any opposition to socialist policies.

[Chris Palmer]

"Am I the only party member who would like my ballot paper back?"

In a few months, or even a year, you will look back on this comment and think yourself an idiot.

[where are the conservatives?]

This is what Ted Heath and later John Major tried to do. It will end in disaster.

[Sean Fear]

"In a few months, or even a year, you will look back on this comment and think yourself an idiot."

He might not, you know.

[What don't people remember the 25% strategy?]

The 25% strategy

Andrew Pierce authors the following intriguing paragraphs in this morning’s Times:

“[David Cameron] has privately pledged to sacrifice some of the party’s core voters, who loathe the modernisers’ talk of inclusivity and social liberalism, in an attempt to reach out to a new generation of younger voters. He would do so by deliberately alienating the Daily Mail and its sister paper, The Mail on Sunday, whose vitriolic tone he abhors…

One leading supporter, an MP who accepts he could lose his seat because of the strategy, said: “We may, for a while, lose up to 7 per cent of our vote, taking us down to 25 per cent. But it is worth it if we can fundamentally change the party.””

[tory_worker]

Iain Dale has it right. Who does Letwin sound like?

http://www.iaindale.blogspot.com/

[Goldie]

Listen some like Graeme Archer is simply not a Conservative. I don't really need to be lectured by you about how a Tory is someone who gets Tories elected. You're not a Tory and never will be. You may belong in Cameron's new cuddly 'modern compassionate conservatism', but I for one am with Reagan and Thatcher, among other, actually conserative politicans, both of whom, of course, won one landslide victory after another.

If all Cameron has to offer is a more left-wing version of John Major or, indeed, a return to Heath or the High Tories who gave us the welfare state, I'd rather stick with New Labour.

[Editor]

I think you've all gone a bit crazy today and i say that after returning from quite a merry Christmas lunch.

Thatcher redistributed wealth.

Reagan redistributed wealth.

Adam Smith thought relative poverty mattered.

The issue is not whether we should redistribute but how.

Discussing that would make for a more enlightening thread...

[Robbo]

To date this has been a wonderful discussion and above all full of goodwill to all (like minded?) men. Please don't spoil things by agreeing with one another, as it will ruin my Christmas.

[James Hellyer]

"Thatcher redistributed wealth.

"Reagan redistributed wealth."

That's disingeneous. The aims of their policies were not to create or increase equality. They increased opportunity and incentives to take advantage of those opportunities, while scaling back state sponsored transfers of wealth.

The likes of Letwin are the real betrayers of the poor, because their timidity in all policy areas denies an escape route from bad services to those who cannot pay to go private.

I'd like to hear less socialist about redistribution, and more about practical ways to allow individuals to realise their potential. But then voucher schemes and other means of empowering people really seem out of vogue.

[Biodun]

goodwill to all (like minded?) men.
Posted by: Robbo | December 23, 2005 at 03:40 PM

And women surely?
**feels left out**

[Graeme Archer]

Goldir: Cuddly, am I? Well I'll leave that to Keith to decide, rather than an anonymous blogger. I do feel quite decidedly at home in David Cameron's party, thank you, and am happy to leave you with your political heroes from 25 years ago.

[real_tory]

"We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him. . . . But we cannot have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure."

Ronald Reagan

[Robbo]

How foolish of me and justly corrected. Biodun please accept sincere aopologies.

[Jaz]

"

Listen some like Graeme Archer is simply not a Conservative. I don't really need to be lectured by you about how a Tory is someone who gets Tories elected. You're not a Tory and never will be. You may belong in Cameron's new cuddly 'modern compassionate conservatism', but I for one am with Reagan and Thatcher, among other, actually conserative politicans, both of whom, of course, won one landslide victory after another.

If all Cameron has to offer is a more left-wing version of John Major or, indeed, a return to Heath or the High Tories who gave us the welfare state, I'd rather stick with New Labour."

I highly doubt there is a definition to who is and isnt a conservative...

Some conservatives view themselves as open, liberal business but for societies benifit, other free total freedom, others are reformists and some prefer the "safe option".

Letwin is a conservative as are the most people this board. Its dispicable to discredit our own party members..It just shows how narrow the party has become since the thatcher days. Conservativism mean many things for many people. We used to be the party of the economy... We no longer are... Does that mean labour are now conservative and the conservatives are not labour?

"If all Cameron has to offer is a more left-wing version of John Major or, indeed, a return to Heath or the High Tories who gave us the welfare state, I'd rather stick with New Labour."

Really? Wow..All or nothing, a tad extremist and blackmail.

"I for one am with Reagan and Thatcher, among other, actually conserative politicans, both of whom, of course, won one landslide victory after another."

Reagan is american, america is not britain. Thatcher is one of the most hated women around, and some people are probably still praying for her death... It was Thatcher who ruined the conservative brand for those that followed her... It is why we have to reinvent ourselves...Yet again into modern politics.

Thatcher wouldn't win an election today, those days are over. Please accept that the population trends are over. the younger generation are more interesting int he environment and silly things like that... They don't give a crap about their pensions yet... They don't mind be socialists...They don't understand why capitalism is so important, particularly as communism is no opposition.

[Oh dear]

"It was Thatcher who ruined the conservative brand for those that followed her... It is why we have to reinvent ourselves...Yet again into modern politics."

Ignorant, ungrateful and deluded.

[Sean Fear]

"Thatcher is one of the most hated women around, and some people are probably still praying for her death... It was Thatcher who ruined the conservative brand for those that followed her."

I have a feeling that that was definitely *not* written by a Conservative.

[real_tory]

"When you hold back the successful, you penalize those who need help."

Margaret Thatcher

[ordinary party member]

"It was Thatcher who ruined the conservative brand for those that followed her... It is why we have to reinvent ourselves...Yet again into modern politics."

Is it me or do some of our members need a lesson in economics, history and basic conservative philosophy? Perhaps I should add spelling and grammar to that list?

[John Hustings]

I think the other point is that this is not a one-off comment from Letwin. He is a repeat offender, and this comment fits into a wider pattern. The alarm bells should've been ringing long ago. I and others were warning about Cameron well before he was elected leader. Now some are beginning to regret the way they cast their votes. How long before more feel that way?

[no spin zone]

"Now some are beginning to regret the way they cast their votes. How long before more feel that way?"

Cameron was elected under false pretences. The ridiculous spin by Charles Moore and others has been exposed for what it is.

[Biodun]

Now some are beginning to regret the way they cast their votes. How long before more feel that way?
Posted by: John Hustings | December 23, 2005 at 04:18 PM

Probably quite a few, but I'm sure there are many like me who supported Davis to the very end, and yet are pleased with Cameron's work after two weeks in office.

He wouldn't be a "moderniser" if people weren't getting rattled.

[Goldie]

Please....Editor, Editor. REDISTRIBUTION is a SOCIALIST CONCEPT in SOCIALIST LANGUAGE. I mean, this is pure Marxism.

Conservatives are of course OPPOSED to redistribution of wealth.

Creating wealth, (as President Kennedy reminds 'a rising tide lifts all boats') is an entirely different matter. Zero tolerance, tough as nails crime fighting policies, from which the poor benefit more than any other group, is another matter. Supporting the traditional family and traditional moral values, from which the poor benefit more than any other group, is another matter. Dismantling the welfare state, which locks poor people in dependency, is another matter. Shrinking the state of the centralized State, that great Leviathan, in favor of family, local groups and civil society is general is another matter.

*That* is what the Conservative Party has the poor to offer. If we dare to be Conservatives that is.

But taxing the rich to transfer the proceeds through hand-outs to the poor does not nothing for the poor. It's the politics of envy, it's socialism, it's morally repugnant and it goes against everything the Whig and Tory traditions that ought to make up the Conservative Party stand for.

Apparently the Editor, David Cameron, Graeme Archer, Oliver Letwin, Francis Maude and the rest of the bunch have decided instead to go with Socialism under the banner of the Conservative Party.

We've tried it before. It doesn't work.

[we were warned]

"Of course, inequality matters. Of course, it should be an aim to narrow the gap between rich and poor. It is more than a matter of safety nets." Oliver Letwin

Wow. Nick Boles was right.

[A H Matlock]

This ranting and raving is ridiculous. Letwin's choice of words in this interview was ill-advised I agree, but he could not have been speaking in more general terms about a principle (narrowing the gap between rich and poor) that all of us basically agree with anyway. Why don't we wait and see what he proposes to do about it before we all start having hysterical fits?

When Letwin starts talking about nationalising the means of production, then I might regret voting for Cameron. Otherwise it's hard to envisage Davis having gotten anything like as good a start as this.

[Selsdon Man]

Letwin is Cameron's Mandelson. This is the modernisers' promised Clause 4 moment. Two people who attended the Nick Boles presentatation at ASI have confirmed to me that the Spectator blog article above is 100% accurate.

The free marketeers in the Party, including MPs,will not stand for it. There is a real risk that this blatant Blairism will split the party.

[John Hustings]

"but he could not have been speaking in more general terms about a principle (narrowing the gap between rich and poor)that all of us basically agree with anyway."

Who says we all "basically agree" with that principle?