IDS: Voters must see conservatism as good for them and good for their neighbour

Speaking yesterday evening to centre right think tanks and campaigning organisations in Atlanta, Georgia, Iain Duncan Smith has talked about the importance of a conservatism that addresses poverty and social exclusion.  Here are some of his key messages:

Voters want to see a conservatism that is good for them and good for their neighbours: "Because we valued wealth creation, we were seen as indifferent to the poor.  Because we valued stable families, we were seen as hostile to lone parents.  Because we valued independence from the state, we were seen as hostile to the old, sick and disabled who relied on the state to survive.  So whereas many – if not most – voters thought that Conservative policies might be good for them, not enough thought that they would benefit their neighbours."

Fighting poverty can't just be about money: "We have let the left make alleviating poverty just about money. Whilst money is important, it is far from the only factor. I think of the drug addict with a family. If the state gives that person more money and by so doing gets them above the poverty line they and their family will still be in poverty... for unless they reform the way they live their lives and come off drugs, all the money goes on drugs and the family will struggle to find food and clothes.  They nature of your life has a huge bearing on your condition. That is why I have defined the five pathways to poverty as: Family Breakdown, Drug and Alcohol addiction, failed education, debt and the fifth, worklessness and dependency. All of these areas interact. For example we know from the evidence that the children of a broken home are 75% more likely to fail at school, 70% more likely to become drug addicted, 50% more likely to become alcoholics, 40% more likely to be in debt and 35% more likely to become unemployed. But new also know from the report that debt is the biggest cause of family break up."

We need the welfare society and the welfare state to overcome poverty: "The left has also made everyone believe that welfare is about the state and what it does. As a result all the debates have been about reducing the size and scale of the welfare state, (tough action which for the most part has failed) characterised by shriller and shriller rhetoric. Yet conservatives should know that the delivery of welfare is about much more than the welfare state. It is about the welfare society which dwarfs the state and without which the state would not be able to function.  By the welfare society, I mean that which delivers care beyond the state.  At the welfare society’s heart is the vast army of people who, for love of family, neighbour and community, shoulder a massive burden of care.  I think of the daughter caring for a sick mother, the volunteer in a children’s hospice, the ex-addict helping others escape drugs.  Within our welfare society nearly all forms of need are being overcome by somebody, somewhere.  Underpinning the welfare society are shared norms and values including responsibility, obligation and duty.  But these virtues have been undermined in the post-war period.  Our welfare state’s indifference to the norms and values that underpin healthy nations has hollowed out British society from the core.  It’s as if successive governments have been saying to their citizens: ‘Don’t worry too much about fulfilling your responsibilities; whatever you do, the state will pick up the pieces’."

Compassion isn't soft and it doesn't have to be religious: "For too long Conservatives have seen caring as soft and unconservative, they have let the left dominate and we can see the results; rising levels of social breakdown, rising welfare bills and rising dysfunctionality. Caring isn’t soft. Anyone who has worked in a drug rehabilitation unit or a rough sleeper’s home will show you how tough it really is. We must demonstrate that conservatives have answers to the acute social problems that blight the lives of many citizens in our respective nations.  A conservative compassion agenda does not have to be expressed in religious language or by a favouring of faith-based groups. Our vision of social justice should appeal to the values of personal responsibility and concern for others that most of us share, whether we have faith or not."

Compassionate conservatism shouldn't be big government conservatism: "Neither should social justice conservatism be conflated with big government conservatism.  Britain is already taxed to the hilt, and I have no desire to add to that burden.  However for a very modest investment of resources, much could be done to help people help themselves and reduce the demand for government intervention.  Most of our proposals would begin to pay for themselves very soon after being implemented. Just think of the costs of crime. If you look at the prisoners, two thirds come from broken homes, Over two thirds are drug and alcohol addicts, they have a reading age of 11 and a numerate age of 11 and at least a third have been in local authority care. Improving these areas of breakdown would do more to arrest the growth in the number of prisoners than any of our tough rhetoric."

Related link: Yesterday's list of six must-adopt policies to tackle social injustice

Comments

[Chad Noble]

Excellent stuff. As you know, 'good neighbour' was one of the 5 core values of prog con that I set out in my platform piece at the end of 2005.

Really good stuff. Well done.

[Tony Makara]

The only way out of poverty is through work. That is why job-creation must become priority number one for a Conservative government. To create the million plus jobs needed to lift people out of poverty we need to become a nation of producers once again. The service-sector simply cannot produce enough jobs for a population of our size. Senior politicians need to understand that welfare dependency will only be eradicated by the creation of waged work. Gimmicks like the New Deal and Workfare will not create jobs.

[Casper]

It is a very good set of ideas but it did not directly mention equal access to opportunities. What the alchoholic most needs is sufficient skills and decipline to rebuild his life and support his family. If coersion and carrot is needed to get him back on his feet, then so be it. i.e. no benefit if he don't attend counselling /training. Benefit cut if no progress after 3 months. On the other hand, offer a bonus if he goes through the training well.

We will also need a special 'initial employment scheme' where the workers have less right so that employers can try out the reformed addicts etc.

Finally, we need to limit such 'compassion' to, say twice a lifetime for a person.

We all want to be kind, compassion and help everyone BUT unfortunately, resouces is limited (Socialist ideas where no one falls behind assumed the society/state have unlimited resources to help everyone. But sadly, this is never the case).

[Mike T]

It is IDS' work in this field (and I've read just about everything that has been published by CSJ) that makes me so proud to be a Conservative.

The political left has failed and their policies have not worked, cynically they use welfare to keep these people voting Labour.

We need to cast a message hope and provide the support and encourage these people often in desperate circumstances to take the help and support on offer. It is absolutely right that government should be about providing the means and trusting the local providers (often the voluntary and charitable organisation) rather than a centrist top-down which simply isn't working.

Keep going IDS and CSJ, it's awe inspiring stuff.

[Editor]

You almost sound like Gordon Brown, Tony. Just teasing!

Of course work is important but the family is just as vital. Labour have not got any credible policies to reverse family breakdown.

Many people are also so broken by drugs, alcohol or other life experiences that they're just not ready for work. That's where the voluntary groups championed by IDS, David Cameron and Boris are so important.

[Duncan Richardson]

It is enormously to IDS's credit that after being rejected as party leader he has remained a team player and has come up with some excellent policies. What a contrast with the career of Edward Heath (he of the poisoned chalice that is the European Communities Act 1972) who spent his post-leader days in a perpetual sulk!

[Matt Wright]

Superb stuff. This is the core message that strikes at the heart of why caring Conservatism works and Socialism fails.

[bluepatriot]

Well said Duncan. It used to be us who had a problem with ex-leaders. Now it's the Labour Party that is riven with factionalism.

[Tony Makara]

Editor, I agree that the research carried out by IDS has been groundbreaking and the work undertaken by voluntary bodies is vital. I find it quite facinating that the most deprived areas of our country all exist in Labour fiefdoms. The very areas that claim to have spent more money on social problems. I feel not enough is done to link deprivation with Labour monopolies in local government. Why do these Labour heartlands create more and more poverty while Conservative strongholds tend to be prosperous and upwardly mobile places to live? The link between Labour councils and poverty needs to be pointed out.

[Alex Swanson]

Great stuff and well overdue.

And to think that IDS was attacked by the Left of the party as being too right wing and not "caring" enough - why haven't any of the "caring" people ever produced this?

I suspect that in fifty years' time getting rid of him as leader will be seen as the biggest mistake the party made since winning in 1992. And God knows there are plenty to choose from.

[Janis Packman]

As my MP, and someone who has canvassed for him in the last 3 elections, I know what an excellent constituency MP he is, and this marvellous and well thought out speech is of no surprise to me and the others here in Chingford. I'm proud of him and indeed it shows that although perceived as right-wing he is what being a Conservative really means, caring, thoughtful and taking responsiblity and not just knowing "your rights"

[prziloczek]

Allow me to add a teeny word in favour of religious outreach, please.
We are motivated, not by money, but by being inundated.
When one million Poles arrived penniless, homeless and unable to speak English, we dealt with them. Why? they are our fellows, that's why.
When our Church pontificates about birth control, divorce and so on, who picks up the pieces of family breakdown? We do, of course.
We don't bang on about things that don't affect us like Climate Change or the Ozone Layer or which party to support. We roll our sleeves up and get on with it.
The State's response?
Have you got the names, addresses, ages, racial profile, civil status, Nationalities and Passport Numbers of the people you are helping. Have you all got recent CRB checks? Are you inclusive? How many Disabled, Black, Lesbian and Gay people are in your purview? What resources do you use? Did we provide them? If not, who did?
And then loads of promises. More promises.
Then, finally, perhaps, a tiny trickle of money.
And guess who is at the front of the queue when it comes to taking the credit?

[David Sergeant]

"The political left has failed and their policies have not worked, cynically they use welfare to keep these people voting Labour."

Posted by: Mike T | April 25, 2008 at 11:11

IDS uses careful and careing language. It's a nice start but, unfortunately, there is a substantial element to the problem which is not nice and will need to be dealt with both politically and actually. Long before NewLabour it was obvious that Labour exploited the poor for their votes, this was handy because it coincided with the main reasons why Labour people go into politics, viz., to get money off other people (tax payers) for them to spend as it suits. For example a basic thought of Brown over bashing private pensions is to make people more reliant on state benifits. The same for the ex-10p tax payers.

As a reverse example I remember an objection to Conservatives selling Council Houses. The Conservatives saw owner ocupation as an end in itself Labour said at the time it was a ruse to make sure more people supported Tories in the future, it did not cross many Labourites mind that a political party would do such a subtantial thing except to help itself.

When you wonder what Brown is up to think that to Labour old or new, particularly Brown, politics and government is about manipulating the nation and its finances for their political benifit.

(I wonder if IDS is using careful language because he remembers his last speech as party leader where he called Labour the most corrupt, dishonest and incompetent government in living memory - and then he was sacked and that was the end of such robust language. At the time I wondered if one reason for sacking him was that the party didn't have the guts for the fight IDS seemed to be winding them up for. I suggest to deal with Brown's style of politics there is the need for a robust fight and I wonder if the party is up to it.)