Is this your first day back at work?

If you've tuned out of politics since 23rd December you have missed a great deal but here is a three minute summary...

Oliver Letwin got nearly every 23rd December visitor to this site dizzy with remarks on redistribution.  I was one of very few people to defend his basic position.  Given that every Tory government does redistribute I was reminded of Chris Patten's famous words about Mrs Thatcher's first administration and its rhetoric on public spending: “Why do we talk as if we were Count Dracula when we are actually running a blood transfusion service?”

Labour's Peter Hain attacked the Tories for breaking the consensus on Northern Ireland but, as David Lidington pointed out in an excellent article for the Belfast Telegraph, "bi-partisanship does not mean giving ministers a blank cheque" to give amnesties to the on-the-run murderers of Enniskillen:

"The Bill is horribly flawed. It would allow people who had committed some of the worst atrocities of the Troubles to walk free without serving a day in prison or even appearing in court. A loyalist murderer could benefit without his organisation decommissioning one bullet of its arsenal."

Peter Lilley was appointed to chair the new policy group on globalisation and global poverty but the headlines (and there were lots of them) were all won by Bob Geldof's advisory involvement.  Mr Geldof later texted The Times to say that he only intended to give three hours to his Tory role.

David Cameron's rapid moves to the political centre caused some concern within the right-wing press.  That concern was first voiced by The Spectator and The Sun.  The Daily Mail followed.  None of this amounts to serious opposition but we saw the first signs that some observers thought that David Cameron was neglecting core Tory beliefs.   In today's Sun Irwin Stelzer says the nation deserves an alternative to Blairism; not an echo.  This blog called for 'The And Theory of Conservatism' to act as a discipline on evolving Tory strategy and tactics.

Police reform featured prominently in a New Year's Day advertisement placed by the Conservative Party.  The same day we profiled five alternative definitions of 'Cameronism'.

Gordon Brown (punched rather hard by David Cameron on Sunday) looks set to attempt to pre-empt Tory attacks on him as 'the roadblock to reform' by embracing a LibDem-friendly package of constitutional reforms. 

The Telegraph leader writers went OTT with an editorial that said that David Cameron's "talk of tackling poverty" would hopefully not amount to "more than a few cuddly platitudes designed to win back the middle ground".  IDS responded to that editorial today.

And Chris Patten talked some sense... on Russia.  The former Tory Chairman urged the west to stand up to Russia as Putin backtracked on democracy and bullied its neighbours.

ConservativeHome is also launching a vote on 'Who is the biggest influence on David Cameron?'  We are still in the nominations phase at the moment and you can have your say by clicking here.

If you would like to hear David Cameron speak to the Centre for Social Justice on 18th January click here for more information.

Comments

[James Hellyer]

"Given that every Tory government does redistribute..."

I think this is rather missing the point. Yes, the rich pay more in taxes and are likely to consume fewer services, but this does not equate to the form of redistribution Oliver Letwin was referring to.

Letwin was specifically talking about inequality and the need to narrow the gap between the rich and poor. This is not a reference to allowing all children to access education sources, for example, it's a call to converge living standards. That's the traditional socialist meaning of redistribution.

Conservatives should agree that poverty matters (specifically our duty to help people escape absolute poverty), but that's a very different thing to worrying about inequalities.

[James Hellyer]

And I'd add that the only error in yesterday's Telegraph editorial was to use the word "poverty" instead of "inequality".

[Editor]

Who knows what was in The Telegraph's mind James but that's a big error. There is a huge difference between poverty and inequality.

[James Hellyer]

There is indeed, which is why Oliver Letwin's remarks were som concerning. Similarly David Cameron's comments on poverty have very ambiguous - does he mean absolute poverty or relative poverty, because if it's the latter, then he's talking about inequality.

[Simon C]

Agreed Editor. The current measure for poverty in the UK is an income at 60% or less of the median income. That inextricably links poverty to inequality. It also means that poverty will always be with us.

Whilst there is a difference between poverty and inequality, there is also an overlap. As you pointed out in your post on 23/12 (linked above), Adam Smith recognised this. If you haven't got something that everyone else has got, you feel poor. There's an interesting article on this theme at:
http://www.lse.u-net.com/Poverty%20-%20Ruth%20Lister.htm

But this is where the newly-identified Crunchy Conservatives have something to offer(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,176-1964887,00.html).

We need to concentrate as much on the non-material aspects of poverty as the material. That means challenging the relentless materialistic consmerism of our age. Poverty of values and spiritual poverty are every bit as damaging to the dignity of individuals, families, and society.

[Howard Stevenson]

There is nothing wrong with wanting to narrow the gap between the rich and the poor, as long as the gap is narrowed upwards. I.E the poor get wealthier, not making the rich poorer.

[Editor]

In my summary I should also have mentioned the continuation of low level rumblings against Charles Kennedy...

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2005/12/libdem_leaders_.html

[Sean Fear]

I'd have thought that one's level of income, relative to other members of society, is only one of a number of things that influences how well you think about yourself (otherwise the children of millionaires wouldn't develop drug habits).

I'd have thought that someone who earns even a low income, through their own efforts, is likely to have a higher level of self-esteem than someone who just has that income handed to them by the government.

[wasp]

In order to not redistribute wealth you would have to scrap unemployment benefit, housing benefit etc.

[Editor]

Careful wasp: you'll give some visitors to this site ideas!

[Selsdon Man]

I read that crunchy conservative article - it is typical of the antibig business mentality that we find on the left. The comments on Wal-Mart were very revealing, even patronising.

It is clear that the author has read nothing on free market environmentalism.

Homeschoolers in the states are often libertarians who object to public, i.e. state, schooling. They ensure that their children are active in the community to make friends and develop social skills.

To summarise, crunchy conservatism is the guilt-ridden voice of the wealthy who want to force their lifestyles on others. It is absolute philisophical, ethical and economic rubbish.

[James Hellyer]

"Adam Smith recognised this. If you haven't got something that everyone else has got, you feel poor."

That's somewhat misleading. Smith talked about things like clothes, saying that if people were forced to wear things that made them stand out as poor then they would be ashamed. He was therefore talking about forcing people to have substandard necessities. He was not talking about luxury items like brown goods or holidays.

[Chris Palmer]

"I'd have thought that someone who earns even a low income, through their own efforts, is likely to have a higher level of self-esteem than someone who just has that income handed to them by the government"

Not everyone thinks like us Sean - unfortunately. Some people are just lazy and don't care how they get the money, so long as they get it. Human leaches on society. Perhaps we could start pushing the ideas used in Sweden, where if you want to gain certain types of benefits, you have to work for the Government cleaning and building roads etc.

"He was not talking about luxury items like brown goods or holidays."

A slightly off topic comment: every day when I cycle into work, I go past two rows of Council houses. Every single one of them has a Sky TV dish. Surely "benefits" should provide only a bare minimum of income - therefore working as an incentive for people to go out and work to better themselves. I very much doubt that over 50% of people in this country have Sky, and therefore it is consider a luxury good. Why should my taxes be going towards subsidising someone's luxury goods?

[Derek]

I agree that there is a huge difference between "absolute poverty" and "relative poverty". The latter is really a from of envy rather than need. Is someone poor because they have not got a mobile phone, or a subscription to sky TV? Or taking it one stage further are they poor because they have no TV or even a land-line telephone? What about the child who does not wear designer clothes or trainers? These things are relative, but in my opinion they are nothing to do with poverty. They are simply the less well-off who are losing out in our society which is now based on ever increasing consumption. Of course it's hard to tell a teenager that he cannot have the latest trainers or mobile phone, but we should, because sooner or later he will have to come to terms with the fact that like most of us, he cannot have everything.

When one sees TV programmes about "poverty" in the UK, we are shown people in what look like comfortable homes, complete with TVs furniture etc, often the people are smoking, even running a car, and yet they claim to be in "poverty". The interviewer in such programmes never seems to challenge the assumption that they are are suffering "poverty". No one ever suggests that they might stop smoking or give up the car, for example.

The same word "poverty" is then used to describe people in the third world, living in a makeshift tent with no food, clean water, or sanitation. There is no comparison and we need to use completely different words for the two situations.

[Frank Young]

I'm sure I’m being deliberately provoked here!

I too read the Crunchy Conservatives article and thought it was really interesting. It also reflects the sort of Conservatism that appeals to me and my (non-political) friends.

In these sort of discussions I think it really comes down to a debate about what motivates you, what inspires you and what makes you passionate. It's as much an impression we give of our priorities as a coherence in our thinking.

If Asylum, Immigration, tax cuts and crime are the only things we get roused by then of course we will appear like a narrow pressure group for rural middle England. If however we are truly passionate about fighting poverty, injustice and the lot of those less fortunate than ourselves then we, at least, give the impression of being more generous, open minded and compassionate.

Ultimately that’s the sort of party I want to be in.

[Tristan]

Labour has manipulated the difference between relative and absolute poverty to deceive the public. When most people think about poverty in Britain they think about absolute poverty – families living in unsafe housing, unable to afford life’s basics. Relatively poverty, while undesirable, does not usually fit in with that image (although it depends on the size of the household in question).

Labour has played on the public’s perception of poverty so that it can talk about lifting a million children out of poverty. In fact what Labour has done is hand some of those in relatively poverty tax credits in order to achieve this. This is a failure in two ways. First those in relatively poverty “rescued” by Labour are left dependent on the state. What would help them most is to give them the skills and support to help them get better paid work. Second it leaves those in absolute poverty – the ones who need the most help – languishing. Money that could of helped the poorest ends up being given to those who would be better off with non-financial forms of help. This is a large part of the reason that the gap between rich and poor is widening under Labour.

On another note I have to take issue with Chris Palmer’s comments about council houses with Sky TV where he seems to assume that just because people live in council houses they live off benefits. Has it not occurred to him that the people who live in those council houses might have jobs and therefore pay for their Sky subscriptions themselves?

[Chris Palmer]

"Has it not occurred to him that the people who live in those council houses might have jobs and therefore pay for their Sky subscriptions themselves?"

Quite possibly - but I wasn't concerned with those in work. I was concerned with those out of work and solely with benefits as there only source of income.

[Michael McGowan]

One of the big announcements over the weekend was that Cameron is ditching the Patient's Passport and like all good Butskellites is going to make the NHS better while leaving it fundamentally unchanged.

Cue years of masterly inactivity, if he ever attains office.

In any case, has someone like Theresa Villiers not pointed out to Dave that the European Court of Justice is blithely ignoring him and building its own version of the "Patient's Passport", based on the European Single Market? At the current rate of progress, we will all be able to cross the Channel and book into excellent French, German and Dutch hospitals in order to get better treatment and avoid the waiting lists.....and the NHS will have to pay. I foresee rich pickings for the French, the Germans, the Dutch and Easyjet and a steady outflow of funds from the NHS unless and until it becomes genuinely consumer-responsive like its Euroepan counterparts. Or is Dave going to show his post-Conservative credentials by withdrawing from that extreme right-wing construct, the Single European Market?

[James Hellyer]

"On another note I have to take issue with Chris Palmer’s comments about council houses with Sky TV where he seems to assume that just because people live in council houses they live off benefits."

They live in subsidised housing. Is that not a benefit?

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

Some of those houses will be occupied by those in employment, and I rather suspect that quite a few - if not a majority - will be privately owned anyway. At least half of former council properties in my ward are now privately owned and in discussions with ward councillors in (more deprived) neighbouring wards this is not out of the ordinary.

[James Hellyer]

"...and I rather suspect that quite a few - if not a majority - will be privately owned anyway."

Then they aren't council houses or social housing.

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

My point is that in what looks like "two rows of council housing", many if not most of them, won't be.

[James Hellyer]

Which is irrelevant to the point that in areas where there is social housing, those houses often have satellite dishes. There are areas near where I live where I know it's social housing and that's the case with them.

That's another attempt to muddy the water dismissed!

[Cllr Iain Lindley]

There are plenty of people in my ward in an area you would clearly dismiss as "social housing" who work extremely hard and bought their council properties long ago. Many of those houses are indistinguishable from their neighbours who remain in council-owned or RSL-owned properties. You are very quick to write off entire rows, streets and communities as layabouts. With attitudes like that, no wonder we have struggled in the cities and suburbs!

[James Hellyer]

"There are plenty of people in my ward in an area you would clearly dismiss as "social housing" who work extremely hard and bought their council properties long ago."

Social housing is either council or housing association owned. I made clear that the local properties I referred to fell into those categories and were not privately owned.

But strangely enough you ignored that to deploy your ridiculous straw man argument. At no point did I refer to privately owned property or describe people as layabouts. Clearly your relationship with the truth is tangential at best.

[Simon C]

Iain & James,

We are getting off the point a bit here. Personally, Chris Palmer's comment was too broad a generalisation. But the real issue is this: clearly there is a difference between absolute and relative poverty. There are countless examples of absolute poverty about the globe. We are blessed not to live in a country where absolute poverty is the daily reality. We do have relative poverty. The question is where do we draw the line between relative and absolute poverty, and to what extent do we wish to relieve relative poverty in our own community?

In Britain today, how should we measure relative poverty, and what, if anything, should we do about it?

[Chris]

Focussing on the idea of Labour accepting a package of constitutional rewforms for a minute. I'm hoping that Cameron will sieze this, and make sure he emphasises that promises from Labour coonstitutionally don't ammount to much.

We were promised a reform of the electoral system, following the Jenkins report. When Labour saw the system suggested wouldn't have got them elected they buried the report, abandoning any hope of a fairer system being implemented. In 1997 they also promised a reform of the house of lords making it more democratic, by this they meant that they'd kick out hereditary Tory members and appoint lots of Labour yes-men as life peers instead!

I think Cameron and the Tory party should consider constitutional reform more, and should side with the Lib Dems on this before Labour does, we at the very least carry out our manifesto promises when elected! Its high time we accept the need for electoral reform as demonstrated in the 2005 elections.

[James Hellyer]

Relative poverty is not something we should seek to amoleriate. According to the defintions used by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation indicators of "poverty" include not owning a television set or a dvd player. That is not poverty, that is not owning luxury goods.

What we should be concerned about are the people who fall through society's cracks - the former drug user who leaves prison to no home or job, only to relapse into drug use and crime, or the pensioner with only the basic state pension and no other assets, or the person with mental health problems who cannot take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

Beyond that, we should not seek to reduce inequalities, but rather promote economic growth and pursue policies designed to allow all people to have access to good health and education services, thus equipping people to better themselves.

[Simon C]

I would agree with much of that James. The question is where we draw the line. I have not reached a firm view on this.

A DVD player is certainly not a serious poverty indicator. Your pensioner, living alone on a crime-ridden estate, might disagree that a TV is a luxury item - that might be the only human contact s(he) gets all day. What about a clothes washer? A mother of infants and toddlers living on the 16th floor of a decrepit tower block with the nearest laundrette a long walk away might think a washing machine a necessity not a luxury. Subject to the electricity and water meters of course.

In sub-Saharan Africa poverty runs far deeper - talk of washing machines and TVs would be utterly offensive and frivolous. But we are not talking about a dollar a day subsistence.

We need to find ways of weening our society off its obssession with the status derived from material possessions. Identity and dignity should be founded on values, not possessions. At the same time, we need to decide what are necessities for life in our society and what are not.

Forgive my meandering musing - I am asking questions at present, not coming up with solutions.

[Chris Palmer]

Ian, I know for certain that the houses I cycle by each morning are council houses and not in private ownership. I am sure there are many hard working people in your area with jobs, who have bought their council houses. But that was not what I was refering to. I was refering to those people (on benefits) and living in council accomodation, having Sky TV - not those people who work and have bought the house etc.

"We need to find ways of weening our society off its obssession with the status derived from material possessions. Identity and dignity should be founded on values, not possessions." - Simon C

Values and identity, in the form of religion have been tried before, and have failed. What is wrong with materialism?