Built To Last... Society

"2.  There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state.

The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich. We will stand up for the victims of state failure and ensure that social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities - instead of thinking that only the state can guarantee fairness."

I love this statement.  It's fundamentally conservative.  One of the biggest differences between the Labour and Conservative worldview is that we think the most important caring work is undertaken by the 3D and free institutions of civil society - particularly the family but also local charities, faith communities and networks of friendship.  Labour puts all its eggs in the feed-and-forget welfare state basket.

My only suggestion of an amendment would be some reference to David Cameron's nation of the second chance.  A commitment to help people get back on their feet is another contrast with the "decommissioned Scotland" that David Cameron described in his 'second chance' speech:

"In recent decades, health, education and other public services have also been more generously funded north of the border than in the rest of Britain.  Therefore, if Labour's anti-poverty strategy is working anywhere, it should be working in Scotland.  Earlier this month, however, The Scotsman published research which lays bare Labour's failure.  The hundred most deprived postcode areas were dubbed 'Third Scotland' because of their Third World level of life outcomes.  If this sounds exaggerated, look at life expectancy.  In Third Scotland, average male life expectancy is only 64 years - lower than in Bosnia, the Gaza Strip, Iran or even North Korea.  Shockingly, this trend is actually getting worse.  Worklessness is also endemic in Third Scotland.  In Calton, in the east-end of Glasgow, 57% of adults do not work at all, even though only 8% are classed as unemployed.  Here, two out of every five adults claim incapacity benefit.  In Hamiltonhill, 61 per cent of children live in workless households.  And this is true for 58 per cent in Drumchapel.  Throughout Britain, 2.7 million are claiming incapacity benefit which offers guaranteed payouts for life.  Together with the associated benefits, this can pay more than an uncertain life of work on the minimum wage.  For others, the skull-splitting complexity of the tax credit system and the proliferation of means testing has debased the very principle of work... Labour is creating a new class of decommissioned people.  Individuals who should have been guided on to paths out of poverty have instead been shunted into life's sidings."

Comments

[Ted]

I concur on putting in something about giving people a second chance - change "we will stand up for the victims of state failure" (How? Demonstrate what we mean) to "We will give a second chance to those the state is failing and ensure...."

[Editor]

Excellent wording, Ted. Thanks.

[William Norton]

Once again: no disagreement on the sentiment/principle involved from me, but perhaps the wording could be adjusted to better reflect the underlying intention?

"State" is to much of a politico's word, and I'd change it (even though you lose a snappy piece of alliteration). I like "victims of state failure" - but are we saying that parts of Britain are really like Afghanistan or Somalia?

At the risk of incurring the Editor's wrath this early in the day, I believe there is considerable polling evidence that references to the "disadvantaged" is something of a turn-off. Ironically, this is often the case among the disadvantaged themselves. "Ordinary decent people" risks being just as patronising - but there's a better chance that more people would consider it applies to themselves.

I'm not really happy with this, but what thoughts are there for:

2. There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the government.

The right test for our policies is how they help ordinary decent people overcome their problems, not those who can play the system or can buy their way out of trouble. We will stand up for the people who have been failed by politicians and ensure that social justice and equal opportunity are achieved by empowering people and communities - instead of thinking that only the government can guarantee fairness.

[William Norton]

Sorry, that should be "We will give a second chance to the people who have been failed by politicians and ensure..." (missed out Ted's point).

[Serf]

A very good clause, though as usual, william has improved it, as has Ted.

This is what Conservatism is all about, helping people help themselves.

[Account Deleted]

I think that this is one of the most important parts of the statement - without the idea the Conservatives stand for nothing but sheer self-interest a great deal of people will never vote for us.

[why trash the past?]

My concern with the wording of this clause is that, necessarily, it perpetuates the misrepresentation of Thatcher's origional quote in a deliberate attempt to distance the party from negative views of the 1980. The reality is that Thatcher's comments were actually making the same point - that there was no point looking to abstract concepts of "society" to solve problems but that real institutions such as families and communities were required to take action and responsibility.

Frankly I'm fed up with Cameron trashing the Tory past - he may have been too busy snorting and getting drunk at Bullingdon events in the 1980s to bother with politics but others of us were fighting the good fight. If you were'nt idealistic and politically active as a student in the aftermath of the miner's strike I find it dificult you believ in anything.

Perhaps Cameron's interest in a political career was simply an expedient response to being turned down for a job by the management consultants he applied to in 1988.

[johnC]

I completely agree with WTTP's first paragraph, although his second and third get unnecessarily personal. I am all in favour of Cameron distancing himself from the Tory past, but from the failures of 1990-2005, not the successes of 1975-1990.

Again, I would stress the positive. There is no need to include 'not the rich'. The implication is that we have accepted the caricature which our enemies have drawn of us. Shouldn't we have a more utilitarian benchmark for our policies: the greatest good of the greatest number ?

[Annabel Herriott]

Its difficult to know what to say about Scotland's 3rd worldness without sounding racist! But when we get back into government, we must give them a leg up with their addiction problems, which are at the root of the problems experienced by that minority who drink pints + a dram, Smoke like chimneys, and have a truly dreadful, unbalanced food intake. I do have personal knowledge of one representative of this sub clan and his friends. I dont know how we can help them,they dont listen, and tend to have a see yee Jimmee reaction to any positive suggestion. We have to try however.

[DavidB]

I prefer William Norton's revised version, much better. The "state" term confuses people. You ask what "state" brings to mind and ordinary people say United States of America, state of confusion/mind, look at the state of this place and Head of State. It is much better to insult politicians and government. I also agree, disadvantaged is very patronising, ordinary decent people is slightly less so. Maybe just "ordinary people"? Or even the right test for our policies is how they help "everyone" overcome their problems, not just those who can play the system or can buy their way out of trouble.

[malcolm]

Your posts are priceless Annabel!

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"But when we get back into government, we must give them a leg up with their addiction problems, which are at the root of the problems experienced by that minority who drink pints + a dram, Smoke like chimneys, and have a truly dreadful, unbalanced food intake."

I blame W.H. McSmith for placing discounted chocolate oranges at its checkouts.

[Derek]

Why is there nothing here about individuals taking responsibility for themselves? Surely we believe in the state providing a safety net, but not a feather bed. When unemployed women can rake in £28,000 a year by having 12 children something has gone seriously wrong. So - yes, we will help those who deserve help, but we must bring back the work ethos and encourage people to be more independent.

[michelle]

Good point made regrading people takling responsbility for themselves. Yes it is true that people need to take responsbility for their own lives, but I think it's the role of the state to help to empower them by helping to equip the long term unemployed with the skills to increase employability with basic skills, training and supported work experiece, supporting groups to set up social enterprises to address a localised social problem such as lack of child care, community transport, food co-op which all provide training, employment and volunteering opportunities. Cameron has talked about social enterprise, the voluntary sector and community with such passion and I'd like to see this clause fulfilled with the statements he made then. I believe we must distance ourselves from being a "nanny" state where people rely on long term benefit income, giving little incentive to work to becoming a state where we help those most in need to get back on their personal road to meeting their personal aspirations.

[Rebel]

Please, Editor: "The right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society, not the rich" is fundamentally conservative. Give me break. It's state socialism, nothing more and nothing less.

The slogan--there is such a thing a society it's just not the state *IS* fundamentally conservative, but this nice slogan is completely undermined by the thrust of the rest of his policies. If he would actually propose something in line with this slogan, I would be happy. But like Bush's "compassionate conservatism" I just see a lot of ineffective government spending, this time condoned not just by the nominal socialists but also by the nominal conservatives. Some progress, some justice.

[James Maskell]

What does "There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state" actually mean? Ever since hes said that Ive been trying to get my head round it...I just cant do it. Also looking at the explanation, its rather simplistic and general...when does someone become rich? Most of Britain is neither the most disadvantaged nor the rich. Therefore what happens with them?

I think this part goes too far to the left. I wouldnt say it was socialist, but I still think it needs more balance here so that iut doesnt sound like only the most disadvantaged get help whilst the rest of the country is left languishing.

[Richard]

"There is such a thing as society, it's just not the same thing as the state"

Personally I would like it to mean that the institutions of civil society (schools, voluntary organisations etc) play an important part in the social fabric of the nation. Suffice to say these organisations are at their best when the state is kept well away from them. Note how the decline of the Friendly Societies coincided with the growth of the state. so in short, shrink the state and let "intermediate institutions" step in.