Protect the centre right's biggest idea

Tim Montgomerie writes:

In three days' time John McCain will lose the race for the White House.  ConservativeHome readers' favourite conservative - John Howard (in a vote last year) - was ousted a year ago.  C entre right leaders in Europe are a mixed bunch.  Germany has trended left under the grand coalition led by Angela Merkel.   Sarkozy has many excellent qualities but his recent lurches towards protectionism and state intervention are worrying.  Two hopes shine most brightly: Stephen Harper in Canada and David Cameron in Britain.  At the heart of David Cameron's appeal is his agenda for social reform.  He put it front and centre during his Party Conference speech.  It's the biggest idea in centre right politics anywhere in the world.  It matters because...

(1) We should not be resigned to the persistence of poverty in our rich and technologically-sophisticated age.  The Left have run out of steam in the war on poverty.  An alternative - conservative - approach to mending broken societies, rooted in the renewal of the Burkean small platoons of family, charity and strong local institutions, notably the school, is the morally right thing to do for the millions let down by state poverty-fighting efforts.

(2) Only a stronger society will produce a sustainably smaller state. Small state conservatives have long tried to cut the supply for government services but have done little about the demand for them.  You cannot have a small state unless a large majority of citizens have the skills and values to live independently of the taxpayer.  That means a good education, a stable family life, a respect for the law and a concern for neighbours in need.

(3) The old conservative tunes aren't electorally sufficient when centre left parties are also attempting to play them.  Conservatives need to offer a broad prospectus if they are to reach the growing number of 'values voters' who want to vote for a party that isn't just good for them but also good for their neighbour.

On school choice, prisons reform, voluntary sector funding and welfare policy Britain's Conservatives are beginning to devise the policy responses that are equal to the challenge.  Recession must not be used as an excuse to retreat from the task of going still deeper and broader.

Five people in the shadow cabinet give us the most hope that there will be no retreat: David Cameron himself and then Greg Clark, Michael Gove, Oliver Letwin and David Willetts.

> Step 9/10: Show off the top team

Comments

[Tony Makara]

"You cannot have a small state unless a large majority of citizens have the skills and values to live independently of the taxpayer."

This is very true, and a reason why we have to find a way of ending the politically motivated tax-credits without lowering living-standards. The answer can only lie in root and branch reform of the tax system, letting those on a low income keep all of their money. The tax-credit system ties people to the state and empowers the government that pays it. In reality tax-credits are just another form of benefit and trap working people into poverty.

[Matt Wright]

I agree very strongly with this article. We have to build up the big idea even more persistently and strongly. We could in fact do this in tandem with a strong economic argument for the times, not least because as you say, a failed society costs money and reduces peoples contribution to the country. A big opportunity here to focus on 2 key issues.

[Philip]

Absolutely agree, especially that reducing poverty and the size of the state depends on a strong society reducing demand for the state and that this requires stable families, law and order, good education and so on.

But this must involve
- a better sense of right and wrong rather than Big State-imposed political correctness (which ends up forcing people to support wrongdoing against their conscience),
- support for traditional marriage as between one man and one woman as the basis for a strong society, rather than Labour's Big State preference for alternative lifestyle choices,
- freedom for parents and teachers to exercise proper discipline, and
- removal of state interference in families.

Agree too with Tony Makara on ending tax creditys/benefits etc trap people in poverty and state dependency.

[HF]

Greg Clark, Oliver Letwin and David Willetts.

Polly,
Policy mess
Grammar Schools/building on Greenbelt

No, no, no.

[NorthernMonkey]

Philip - you have the deluded cheek to call Labour 'Big State' for not encouraging 'traditional marriage'.

Do you not understand, you're the 'Big State' party because you want the State to tell people how to form their relationships. We believe it should be up to people to decide.

[David (One of many)]

"We believe it should be up to people to decide."

Wrong, you have created a culture whereby people see it as the social norm not to get married because it gets them more money from the state. You haven't left it up to people at all; you've mucked up the system and in doing so gave people one option that was far more financially attractive than the other.

[NorthernMonkey]

Rubbish.

Married couples get tax free inheritance when their partners die. No cohabiting couples get that - and that's the biggest financial gain of all.

Did you know divorce rates were higher under Thatcher than they were under Blair?

Big state conservatives want to set up 'relationships quangos' to ensure we all follow the government's policy of getting married.

[Libertarian]

"Only a stronger society will produce a sustainably smaller state." Wrong way round.

Only a smaller state will produce a stronger society. A large state is captured by the enemy parasite class who need a big government and a sub-servient and dependent class to keep in them in their comfortable ligestyles and fund their gold-plated, recession-proof pensions.

[David (One of many)]

"Married couples get tax free inheritance when their partners die. No cohabiting couples get that - and that's the biggest financial gain of all."

Which is of course at the front of their minds when they're in their 20s with two kids.

[Simon Chapman]

A sixth should give you hope although this is not an obvious theme of his portfolio: the author of the phrase "broken society", Liam Fox.

[NorthernMonkey]

"Which is of course at the front of their minds when they're in their 20s with two kids."

It doesn't matter whether it's at the front of their mind or not, they still get an enormous benefit which no other couple would get.

[Paul D]

Just me who still expects McCain to win then?

[Graeme Archer]

northernmonkey, are you saying - leave the form of words to one side, since they're a bit of a smokescreen - that we'd be better off if government set barriers in the way of lifelong pair-bonding? That children's outcomes improve as the number of single-parent households increases? That the happiest society is one of atomized isolationism, with an amoral culture of sexual nihilism?

[John Moss]

Northern Monkey forgets that the vast majority of married, or unmarried, couples never amass welath to the extent that they pay inheritance tax and the prospect of your children - not you - having the benefit of this, decades hence, is very unlikely to affect your decision to live apart from your partner to garner maximum current income.

Specifically, those who split up often rely on social housing - then sub-let and move back in anyway, defrauding the taxpayer and depriving a home to a person or family in genuine need - so are extremely unlikely to ever have an estate of the value necessary to pay IHT.

and Paul D - no, I remain hopeful that McCain will prevail and have a sneaking suspiscion that Obama's 30 minute advert was his "Sheffield Rally" moment.

[Sean Fear]

"Did you know divorce rates were higher under Thatcher than they were under Blair"

Divorce rates fell after the government largely ended legal aid for matrimonial cases in 2005, which does suggests that fiscal policy may have more of an impact than you imagine.

[Sean Fear]

"It doesn't matter whether it's at the front of their mind or not, they still get an enormous benefit which no other couple would get."

There are swings and roundabouts. An unmarried couple can each claim Capital Gains Tax on two properties, while a married couple can only claim it on one.

[Sean Fear]

But in any case, the number of people affected by either IHT or CGT is a relatively small proportion of the whole.

[Libertarian]

Northern monkey is right. Monogamy is unnatural, forced upon us by a religious cults - Christain, Jewish and Islamic. There is no God, Jesus is dead so get rid of your baggage and enjoy sexual freedom. You have nothing to lose except your emotional hang-ups!

[Pete L]

Marriage is essentially a statement / committment by the couple involved (hetrosexual or homosexual) and therefore I would suggest that whilst monetary incentives are attractive e.g. married couple's allowance, I would be surprised if they are the deciding factor.
More to the point is the fact that stable relationships inside or outside of marriage need to be encouraged because they: -
1. Promote support of each partner by the other.
2. Promote responsible parenting of / responsibility for any children.
3. Save the country a fortune spent on supporting lone parents
4. Develop a committment to society and community (you support what supports you).
&
5. Encourages a stable lifestyle.

All of the above saves the taxpayer millions of pounds, provides good role models to the next generation, and encourages those concerned to support their community, schools etc.
The Conservative Party needs to grasp the fact that although traditional marriage is a cornerstone of Tory dogma, committed partners who work hard, pay tax, support each other, do right by their children and vote want a government that respects their lifestyle choice and doesn't demand a piece of paper to recognise their value to society.

[NorthernMonkey]

Graeme, the happiest society is the one where big government stays out of the bedroom and lets individuals and couples decide how to form their own relationships without pressure from the state.

If I remember rightly, you yourself seem to have benefited from this particular philosophy.

Your party however, wants a nanny state which tells us off if we don't conform to to the government's wishes and say the big "I do".

[Graeme Archer]

Northernmonkey, I'd take Plato as my guide on matters pair-bonding, rather than any of the political parties. As it happens, my personal experience (of what love is) is entirely coherent with the mass of empirical evidence about what happens in its absence. You write (well, as ever) as though a state with policies on tax is somehow neutral when it comes to matters of how to live. What a society that would be! (Where no-one had an opinion on how to be good.) In any case, as John, Sean and others point out, the state is not currently neutral: it signals that atomisation is preferable to committed co-habitation. I believe this is wrong. Since you politely and obliquely make reference to our common sexuality, let me ask you: how many sad men in pubs does a gay man have to meet before he believes that pair-bonding should be encouraged, rather than discriminated against?

[Fred West]

"There is no God, Jesus is dead so get rid of your baggage and enjoy sexual freedom. You have nothing to lose except your emotional hang-ups! "

Bollocks, you Libertarian scarecrow.

[Dontmakemelaugh]

"There is no God, Jesus is dead so get rid of your baggage and enjoy sexual freedom. You have nothing to lose except your emotional hang-ups! "
Posted by Libertarian
(He/She/IT should perhaps rename itself as Libertine)

Much of the Yoof of Britain has already done it (apparently the role model Russell Brand, by his phone calls is seen by some to be at the "cutting edge" of the new order). Did I read that divorce and abortions have increased in number; thereby increasing misery and hang-ups?
Sexual freedoms to do as you wish will probably increase your baggage not decrease it

How lucky the 5 year olds now are to be taught all about sex at such an early age. Hopefully, they will also be taught how to claim all monetary benefits that can go with it.

[Dave B]

"Only a stronger society will produce a sustainably smaller state."

This is I think one of the Conservatives most imaginative goals.

I think Mr Cameron put it as, 'sustainably low taxes'. Reducing the demand on the state, to enable a reduction in it's size/cost. Excellent.

[Kirk]

Yes, all of our hopes depend on this agenda. All our other policies have to be built around it and I'm not sure they this is fully the case yet - or that so-called liberals, whether of the economic or the social variety, would much like it if it was the case.

[David Sergeant]

"Your party however, wants a nanny state which tells us off if we don't conform to to the government's wishes and say the big "I do"."

Posted by: NorthernMonkey | November 01, 2008 at 22:06

The problem Northern Monkey is that you Lefties are unable to grasp the idea that Conservatives don't see government the same as you. You always want to instruct people and assume Conservatives, with different priorities, want to do the same. In fact the Conservative proposals on marriage are merely designed to remove the financial penalties to marriage so there is real freedom of choice.

But you knew what the Conservative proposals are, and that raises another thing about you Lefties. To make out you are the good guys you misrepresent Conservative ideas in order to be able to pretend your policies are better. I suppose I don't blame you, it's been very successful.

[DWL]

For once, I agree with Tony Makara. A flat tax system with a personal allowance starting at 11k (ish) would incentivise people off benefits and back into work.

[Peter]

To the tory party...

What I need to hear from tories is how you will make my life cheaper. Yesterday the telegraph ran with a story that the tories would cut the TV tax by £6. Whoopie do! Try £56.

We are not impressed with your fiddling round the edges and unless the tories can make me several hundred pound better off by deregulating and slashing income tax, there is no way Im going to bother voting.

I'm struggling to fix problems with my house, I have debt problems and I have nothing left over to save. You and you alone have the power to make me better off. Presently, the inland revenue takes £1000 a month from my household income by force under threat of jail.

Are the tories going to slash spending and cut our taxes so that we may keep our wealth? Not impressed by these miserable little numbers you throw about and mealy mouthed mutterings about tax credits and sharing the proceeds of growth. You are offering nothing different to the status quo.

What is worse is your committee and departmental meetings are nothing but chair shuffling and I've watched you all on BBC parliament and you never talk about how we're going to keep the lights on or how you're going to let us keep our wealth. You have no impact on our lives except for making us poorer.

And that is why we hate you and that is why I'm not bothering to vote.

To quote Nicholas Winterton... Political parties have, in addition, contributed to the emasculation of the House through the candidate selection process in seeking only safe, amenable and malleable candidates who will do the Party's bidding on all occasions and frequently without question, whatever their own views might be.

They must all be "on message". Individuals with a mind of their own, strong views, a real experience of life and with independent leaning are not welcome. Party officials and whips describe them as the "awkward squad",

You are all beyond the pale and we have nothing left but contempt for you all. Unless you take the power back from the EU you will remain irrelevant and powerless.

You are are protected in the westminster bubble with privelage and money, guarded by armed police and thats why we cant reach you to do to you that which you deserve.

You will remain in an impenetrable bubble protected from everyday realities and hardships we all face daily, surrounded by your wannabes and yes men while the economy is going to hell, society is breaking down and we no longer have influence on how we are governed.

We face the real possibility of power cuts, public sector strikes and increasing fuel poverty and the political classes are only interested in managing themselves and channelling funds to their cronies to build white elephant windfarms or databases.

You have outlived your usefulness and when the bread runs out and the circus skips town, we will come for you... And ye shall hang.

Stop pandering to the media and come up with some policies that actually matter. Give us our money back and let us be the agent of change in our lives because your "government" is incapable fo doing it for us no matter how much money you force form us, no matter how big it gets or whether the PM wears a red hat or a blue one. How will spivvy Cameron be any different?

Until you can offer us a viable alternative to this miserable sideshow and decay you can take your vote and insert it somewhere dark and moist.

[Robert Eve]

Unless Dave takes us out of the EU he will be a complete failure.

[Steve Tierney]

"Bollocks you libertarian scarecrow?"
ROFL (rolling on the floor laughing)
I wish you wouldn't say things like that!
I almost spat my coffee!!!!

[Steve Tierney]

To Peter:-

If the only thing which is going to get you to vote is the promise of money in your pocket, then "somewhere dark and moist", as you so ably put it, is exactly where your vote belongs. Enjoy!

[Richard Carey]

Peter @ 2251, Nov 02 : To the tory party...You have outlived your usefulness and when the bread runs out and the circus skips town, we will come for you... And ye shall hang.

Apart from your language revealing you as an absolute nutcase, you might do well to remember that the vast majority of the "tory party" you address on here are volunteers like myself, who give their time and effort freely to elect candidates who we believe can make a difference to their local communities. Oh, and when you come for me, you're welcome to try!

To quote Nicholas Winterton...

You're rightly concerned about keeping more of your own money, you hate us all, but one of your heroes is "Sir" Nicholas "let the taxpayer pay me rent for the house I already owned" Winterton? Really, how that pair got themselves re-selected passes my understanding!

I know, sorry Ed, "don't feed the trolls", I know...