Coalitions are nothing new. The main political parties in Britain have always been coalitions of compromise between separate groups, competing to dominate decisions over direction. The Conservatives contain economic libertarians who are social authoritarians, and social liberals who back a certain amount of state intervention. Some of us believe that decisions related to the environment are the most important we will take. Others are convinced that environmentalism is as scientific as astrology. But, while these factions lean in different directions, all our feet are firmly rooted together in the cause of conservatism. The ‘wets’ backed Thatcher in the same way she and the neo-liberals publicly supported the actions of the Heath Government.
Currently there is a tug-of-war going on between economic liberal Thatcherites and the socially orientated Disraelite brigade. Where should Conservatives priorities be, in fostering a Big Society or promoting small government?
Earlier in the week my Platform 10 colleague, David Skelton, blogged about the need to embrace the ‘living wage’ campaign. This led me to have a twitter debate with Conservative Home contributor David Breaker, which highlights the broader debate happening in the Party.
@davidbreaker
Worried by Tories such as @DJSkelton advocating a wages policy under new moniker #livingwage.
@betapolitics
There should be balance. Where business doesn’t get it right, it’s ok to put pressure on. Morality has a place in capitalism.
@davidbreaker
The issue isn’t “morality” or “balance”, the issue is that it’s wrong for Gov to decide what you can/cant offer as a wage.
The “balance” should always be decided by individual people and individual employers. The Gov has no role dictating wages.
@betapolitics
What happens to others affects the society I live in. It’s wrong to remove ‘morality’ from decisions. Especially with cash.
Politicians should deal with what concerns people. Nothing is out of bounds, certainly not the markets.
@davidbreaker
No, lots of things should be out of bounds. Gov must always respect individual freedom over tyranny of majority
Why is a “living wage” moral anyway? Setting higher minimum wage reduces demand 4 labour, meaning more unemployment!
And what happens to others is their business, no one else. Living wage will leave people out of work.
@betapolitics
Tryanny of the majority could be interpreted as tyranny of those who have the majority of resources.
People are free to join together, pool their power, and lobby for what they think is right.
Everyone in an organisation should profit from success. Millionaires paying subsistence wages doesn’t feel right.
@davidbreaker
Not everyone running a business is a “millionaire” and so what if they are, its their company! Don’t like wage? Don’t do the job.
If everyone should profit from success, should everyone pay for failure? And isn’t having a job at all a form of profiting?
Help low income earners with lower taxes & bigger allowance. Tapered benefits. Maybe a negative income tax.
It is obvious that on some things, in particular the role of the state in markets, David and I will always disagree. But I also know that there are many matters where we are strongly united. Having such internal debates, which encompass the spectrum of the party, allow for ideas to be tested and developed, thus strengthening our ability to govern. Sometimes you may lose the argument but through being together we all win by having an inclusive party that is able to make the best decisions for this formidably complicated organism know as society. Political parties are at their strongest when they are broad and inclusive. No single doctrine has an infinite monopoly on the truth.
Being in coalition government with the Liberal Democrats is a new factor in this battle of ideas. It will be interesting to observe how this situation will impact on our internal debates. If the Lib Dems start to join us in these conversations, rather than having their own separate strands, it will be a sure sign that we are moving towards a deeper arrangement.
Related posts:
I’m stuck on this one, and I’ve had the debate with David Skelton quite a few times around minimum wages, and living wages. There is no doubt in my mind that raising the minimum wage causes unemployment, especially among the young and the unskilled (I can dig the stats out for a UK outlook if you’d like.) Ed Milliband seems to have grasped this and his campaign for a living wage is strictly voluntary for businesses – any conservative should grasp the idea that while it’s illiberal to dictate what agreements individuals make it’s important that we apply social pressure to issues surrounding pay and inequality. Change comes from society, not by passing a few laws which as we have seen are bypassed by immoral groups.