Stronger families = social justice + smaller government

We've already noted some of the themes of David Cameron's Gateshead speech but its main theme was the family.  Here is a key section:

"If we Conservatives are serious when we say we want a smaller state and lower taxes, we have to have a serious plan for making it happen. And the truth is this: you won't end up with sustainably lower taxes unless you cut the real costs of government. And the real costs of government are the social problems that cause public spending, and the state, to grow and grow. And the whole point is that we Conservatives know that government cannot solve these problems on its own. So when, for example, we discuss this with business, here is the argument I will make. You in business - you want the same things I want: less tax, less red tape. I want to help you cut your costs, the costs imposed by government. But to do that, you're going to have to help me cut my costs - the costs on society imposed by some of the things that business does.

That's why this family-friendly stuff is Conservative - seriously Conservative. It's about solving our social problems for the long term. Reducing demands on the state. And showing that the way to do it is through social responsibility, not state control."

Social, economic and compassionate conservatives should all be able to unite in support of this agenda.  Family breakdown is a leading cause - perhaps the leading cause - of failure at school, of criminality and economic underachievement.  If we are successful in building up the family and other components of civil society we will have a real chance of making sustainable reductions in the size of the welfare state.

It's lazy thinking to believe that economic liberals should always be social liberals.  Strong social structures underpin low tax economies.  Weak social structures produce the range of problems that invite increasing government interventions and the tax burden that funds those interventions.  It's not yet clear that David Cameron has the right policies to renew the family but he's right to state its central importance to nearly everything conservatives hold dear.

The need to focus on reducing the demand for government, rather than its supply, was David Willetts' breakthrough contribution during the Tory leadership race of 2005.

Comments

[comstock]

I want to help you cut your costs, the costs imposed by government. But to do that, you're going to have to help me cut my costs - the costs on society imposed by some of the things that business does.

I'll be interested to hear how he plans to turn these fine words into reality. The Thatcher/Major govt was so wedded to the doctrine of the free market it didn't dare intervene. To an extent Blair followed their lead.

Some examples would be good, Mr Cameron. And something more substantive than 'chocolate oranges'!!

[Anne]

I don't have kids. So I'm not going to be voting for the new child centered Tory Party. It's obviously not a party that's interested in me or in the growing numbers of people like me.
I'm fed up of the idea that my subsidising other people to have children is a Good Thing. Because I don't think people should be subsidised for a lifestyle choice which, in all likelihood, is in their interests, though not necessarily in mine. And I especially resent the idea I should be subsidising David Cameron's kids. There are plenty of people who can afford to have children if they want; why should I have to pay them to do so or make life easier for them if they chose to do so? Why should I have to work harder at work, in a less efficient company, so that they can swan off on my time to change nappies?
Which isn't to say I think only the rich should be able to have children. I believe in wealth redistribution and think we tax the poor far too heavily. But the answer isn't to tax them heavily and then give them credits if they reproduce. It's to tax them more lightly and leave them with more of their own money to have children if they wish.
There's no such thing as "child poverty" anyway - it's just a verbal slight of hand by politicians who think no one is going to object to giving children more money. But you can't give children more money without giving their parents more money. So "child poverty" is just a weasily way of saying "poverty" and then giving those living in poverty more money provided they have children. And as I said, I'm all for reducing poverty, just not on condition that people reproduce first.

[Erasmus]

Give him a chance, Comstock

He has at least correctedly identified the challenge -- something we've not heard from any British politician for a very long time

[David]

"I'm fed up of the idea that my subsidising other people to have children is a Good Thing"

From a purely economic standpoint it is; a healthy country needs a balanced demographic profile, otherwise you get too many economically inactive old people dependent on too few economically active youngsters. Anne presumably wants a pension and health infrastructure.

But beyond that, as Cameron says, it's about ensuring the families are capable of looking after their children, reducing the social burden of family breakdown which requires an even greater subsidy.

[Anne]

"From a purely economic standpoint it is; a healthy country needs a balanced demographic profile, otherwise you get too many economically inactive old people dependent on too few economically active youngsters."

David: Not sure why you think it's impossible for people to have children and for the country to have a balanced demographic profile without state subsidy being involved. Or indeed of why people aren't capable of looking after their own children without state intervention.

In any case, your comment begs the question as to what sort of population profile is actually appropriate for any given country. The answer to that has to derived from a complex analysis of the absolute level of population any country can support, age at retirement, education levels, immigration and technological development. But there are too many potential hot potatoes in that mix for politicians to touch, especially those wanting to gain power. Far simpler to bribe people with "free money" and lots of hugs for their children.

[James Maskell]

I see another speech talking about how important the family is and yet forgetting to mention those children in Britain whose parent is the State itself. Looked after children remain to be acknowledged seriously by this Conservative Party and thats a shame.

One line, one mention, thats all...please? Maybe if Michael Gove is reading this and has not yet delivered his speech, perhaps he will bear this in mind.

[David]

"why people aren't capable of looking after their own children without state intervention."

I don't know, but they clearly aren't, given the almost feral behaviour of the young nowadays, and the utter neglect in terms of teaching children the basics at home.

I'd prefer to spend money sorting that out, rather than far more mopping up the fallout of not doing so.

[Margaret Hemmings]

I really do wonder sometimes about the direction of our party under David.

He argues that state intervention in family life will result in a harmonious society and therefore better able to look after itself thus resulting in tax cuts.

What crock!

State intervention early in life will just make more and more people dependant on the state. They will expect the state to be there for them throughout their lives. If the state starts "mothering" everybody, people will just demand more and more.

Message to David.... please don't tell me how to raise my family!

And as for "feral" children referred to earlier, these are the product of state intervention. You tend to find them on monolithic council estates, they go to state schools, they use the NHS, they are given methodone, I could go on. Then people are suprised to find feral children.

You do not find them on private housing estates etc. Thats because when the state doesn't intervene people will take responsibility for their own families.

[TFA Tory]

What ever the "costs" of business, they are nothing compared to the taxes that businesses and shareholders pay. This is yet more socialist tosh. Blue Labour is back!

[Ben Stevenson]

Anne: "Why should I have to work harder at work, in a less efficient company, so that they can swan off on my time to change nappies?"

I expect that when you are old you will want other people's children to be paying tax to fund the social services and nursing care you will likely need.

It is in everyone's interests in the long run for plenty of people to have children.

Traditionally, people's own children would help people when they reached old age. I think it would be good if we went back in this direction.

If people don't have their own children, then they will need other people's children to do this - or be very consciencious about saving money for retirement, and hope they remain fairly independent in old age.

[asquith]

I'm liking this. Cameron isn't going to convince me to stop being a Lib Dem, but this is something good. I remain cynical about the Tory Party, but I welcome their development of some sensible ideas.

Do yourselves a favour, put the Clarkson business in the bin and carry on along this road.

[Nick Gulliford]

What happened to the proposals in "Breakthrough Britain"?

[AJM]

"But to do that, you're going to have to help me cut my costs - the costs on society imposed by some of the things that business does."

C'mon, are you really trying to tell me that familly breakdown is caused by the free market? Where's the party of Mrs Thatcher?

[Philip]

It's lazy thinking to believe that economic liberals should always be social liberals. Absolutely right, Editor!

It seems to me that it is no use saying we want a small State and small government without supporting the one structure that reduces the need for the Big State - the family with married mum and dad. No wonder Labour and the Lib Dems hate support for marriage – they want control and the Big State to bring up children. And of course socialism and the Lib Dems support every other ‘lifestyle choice’ to the detriment of the one that works best for children and society.

Stronger families = social justice + smaller government. And Strong social structures underpin low tax economies. If we’re to be serious about strong families, we must end State meddling in families, including how parents discipline their children, and be clear that “Stronger families” are generally those with married mum and dad – children surely need both the male and female parental role - and objective stats say that married couples are less likely to separate than co-habiting ones.

So it’s good that David Cameron promises to support couples with children who want to live together, scrap the couple penalty in the benefits system which pays couples to live apart, and to reward marriage in the tax system.

But one question I have, couldn’t the proposed “universal health visiting service to all parents” become just another form of state interference?

[Philip]

And an excellent part of Mr Cameron’s speech worth quoting: Labour believe in the state. We believe in society. Their vision is top-down. Ours is bottom-up. And that brings me right back to families. Because if you believe in society, not the state; if you believe that real change comes from the bottom up, not the top down, then strengthening Britain's families is quite simply the most important thing you can do in politics.

[TFA Tory]

Nice quote Philip but it is not consistent with Dave's nannying views on chocolate oranges and Lansley's desire to be the Minister for Public Health, focusing on obesity, rather than the NHS. Quite frankly, I don't a believe a word that Cameron says.