This is a space for us to jot down thoughts, observations and what we have heard at the Conservative Party Conference 2011. If you have any thoughts leave a comment below or e-mail me at nckpost@hotmail.com. (ps, The rumours are that Wi-Fi and mobile phone coverage are not particularly great).

9.15am: (Nick) – Conference reminds me of Glastonbury (Dave Skelton vehemently disagrees with this comparison, but stick with me). Thousands of people descend onto what is a foreign land, you have a main stage containing headline performers and lots of smaller stages featuring a wide selection of entertainment, the BBC presence is massive, the venue is surrounded by a cordon of steel manned by fluorescently grumpy security guards, you need to beware of people pushing mind altering policy ideas…

The shirts are ironed and folded, the multiple ties are packed, cuff-links – check, conference pass (including pasty photo) – check. Now I’m off to catch that train which will take me to a better future.

11.30am: (Nick) - Euston Station contained what I suspect was an unusually high percentage of suites, slacks and jackets for a Sunday morning. The queue in WH Smiths snaked out of the shop and everyone had at least two papers under their arm. Some had the whole Sunday spread.

The 10.20 to the better future, via Milton Keynes, is a lively mix of politicos and residents of Greater Manchester. Your intrepid correspondent had to perform a body swerve reminiscent of what we’ve seen in the Rugby World Cup to bag the last seat in carriage B. Apologies to the lady who was charging down the aisle, but on this train Darwinism rules. (I exaggerate. Three Conference goers gave up their table seat for a family with a baby so it’s all good spirits).

The announcement: “We apologize for the technical difficulties at the buffet” brought a collective groan as people struggled to get the coffee they want – nay need. Does everyone remember the cold turkey scene from Trainspotting?

5pm: (Nick) The atmosphere in Conference is positive but curious. Positive because there is feeling that we are in government and governing. The stories in this mornings papers were generally well received.

Curious in the sense that everyone knows that there are some issues that need to be resolved (Europe, how to fix ‘broken Britain’, what the slogan means in practice). There is also a lot of talk on how Boris should tackle Ken, and about boundaries as well.

9pm: (Nick) Conference is a whirlwind of activity, and background noise is constant chatter. You have to plan your schedule carefully and even then you miss out on much that seems good.

In no particular order here are some memories. Francis Maude said you can be a One Nation Tory and a Thatcherite as the party needs to constantly modernise,
Philip Blond wants to strengthen the PMs Big Society backbone,
to fulfill the Governments technological vision it will cost £30 and no-one knows where this money will come from,
Conservatives are completely comfortable with modern world issues such as gay rights,
China is looking for a Western country to be a center point when it floats it’s currency,
Grant Shapps likes Twitter because he can get ideas out before they become ‘civil service-ised’
And the number one priority is deficit reduction, otherwise there is no point in doing anything else.

The big ideas that excite people are tempered by the reality that cash is scarce.

It’s been a dark, drizzly murky day here in Oldham, and today we are witnessing the first by-election since the coalition was formed in May 2010. Yesterday was the last day of campaigning in the area, there was a final surge of leaflet distribution, a last attempt to coax the alleged 25 per cent of voters who are “undecided”. There has been criticism in the area of the sheer volume of literature posted during the last three weeks or so, but for two candidates in particular there is everything to play for, with only 103 votes between Labour and the Liberal Democrats.

Elwyn Watkins, the Liberal Democrat candidate, is a man with a mission in these parts, and it was he, of course, who triggered the by-election in the first place by forcing legal proceedings against the now disgraced MP Phil Woolas.  Mr Watkins is also arguably the candidate with the most to lose in this election, as he attempts to capture a seat he was denied by such a small margin last May.  He realises the need to restore public support for the Liberal Democrats as a party, after recent opinion polls have shown the Lib Dems losing voters due to coalition decisions which have seen them U turn on some high-profile manifesto promises.

The Labour candidate, Debbie Abrahams has run a strong campaign, but she is also under great pressure to restore faith in Ed Milliband’s leadership and in the Labour Party generally.

As a Conservative voter, I was surprised at the slightly more “subtle” campaign they ran here in Oldham and Saddleworth.  The Conservatives have an excellent candidate in Kashif Ali. He is a local man, born here and lives in the area, and he has fought on local issues, including trying to get a cinema/entertainment complex built in the Oldham area (apparently Oldham is the largest town in England without a cinema). My own feeling is that they have run a good campaign, just not on the same scale and not with the same intensity as the two other main parties, who, as I previously mentioned, appear to believe they have more to lose here.  Locally, I feel that people are concerned about the cuts implemented by the coalition, as well as the job losses and increase of student tuition fees (there are lots of public sector workers in this area, and a fairly high rate of unemployment) and are maybe a little less enthusiastic about the Liberal Democrats than they were last year. This could well be reflected in how the Liberal Democrats fare at the polls today.

One of the things that has struck me about the campaign literature distributed by the Liberal Democrats is the references along the lines of “the Conservatives can’t win here” and “Conservative voters are now backing Elwyn”.  I feel that was a little bit disturbing, bearing in mind the reason we are holding a by-election in the first place, but so far I have not seen any animosity from the Conservative candidate regarding that.  The biggest disputes have been between the Lib Dems and Labour, which I guess is to be expected, seeing as they are the front runners.  Another interesting fact about this area is that  Oldham Council is made up almost entirely of Liberal Democrats, with a just a few Labour and Conservative councillors, so if the general feeling around here goes along the lines of  “sticking with what you know” that may tip the balance slightly towards Mr Watkins.

I ventured this morning to my local polling station, getting thoroughly soaked in the process, and now await the results with mild trepidation and a little bit of excitement; it’s not every day that you get a chance to have your say all over again only eight months after a General Election.  With the big changes we have witnessed in British politics over the last few months it will be interesting to get an indicator of how one small part of the populace view those changes.

I was however a little concerned that the lead article might rather duplicate a lot of what I was planning on saying in this blog post – however, to my surprise, the article largely comprised of a repeat of the “two horse race” message our own leaflets have been putting out, with the Lib Dems being endorsed as the party of choice to kick Labour out of the constituency, following Phil Woolas’ rather disgraceful illegal campaign in May 2010.

This is all the more crucial because Labour’s candidate for OES has already been resorting to dubious tactics by pretending she had lived in the area consistently, when only last May she was telling the voters of Colne Valley that she now happily lived in Longwood, Huddersfield – not that this stopped her from crashing Labour from 1st to 3rd place in the General Election!

The Times leader did have one salient point though, which is worth repeating:

“But there is a more positive reason for hoping that Labour is deprived of the victory that it expects in Oldham. It is that courage and public-spirited service deserve their reward. And this motive tempts The Times to offer readers who have a vote in Oldham advice that we have never offered before. They should vote Lib Dem…

It is true that potential Liberal Democrat supporters in Oldham East & Saddleworth are no longer being offered an anti-establishment rebellion against the political system. But they are being offered the candidate of a party with real influence, which has used that influence to advance policies it believes in…

It would be better for Oldham and the country if the Liberal Democrats were to win it.”

It is indeed the goal of the large body of pragmatic realists among the Liberal Democrats – and OES candidate Elwyn Watkins is definitely one of them – that our temporary unpopularity will pay off in the long run. We hope that over time voters will realise that we did what was necessary under the circumstances, and come to appreciate – and, we hope, reward – our actions and our influence on this Parliament.

Which leads us to the reason I am writing this blog post: Elywn Watkins, and why I feel you should consider giving him your vote.

What do you need in an MP?

The fact that Elwyn would be sitting on the government benches is obviously a bonus for the constituency, providing more direct access to relevant ministers when it comes to local issues.

But that aside, what any constituency needs is an MP who is willing to fight for the needs of the area, and for those of the constituents in it.

Elwyn Watkins’ determination to stand up for what he believed was right, by challenging Phil Woolas’ disgusting election campaign, and winning that challenge against all odds, has shown beyond a shadow of a doubt that Elwyn is a man who will stand up and fight for a cause, and fight hard.

Furthermore, Elwyn has a background both as a councillor and in industry. He has actual hands-on experience in creating real jobs for people – something the many career politicians, lawyers, economists etc. in Parliament simply do not have.

In a time where economic growth is crucial for all our futures, we need people with real-life experience in creating jobs and growth representing us, not faceless bureaucrats who lack any relevant experience.

Andrea Gill is Organiser for Holme Valley South ward and Membership Development Officer, Colne Valley Constituency

For further, in-depth coverage of the OES by-election, please see the relevant coverage on Saddleworth News, a hyperlocal website that has been providing interviews and detailed background information on the General Election, the Woolas court case, as well as the current by-election.

Those leading the recent student protests against tuition fee reform have done more than anyone else over the last few months to reduce social mobility in the higher education system.

The government’s proposals for university reform benefit the poorest graduates above all others: a rise in the repayment threshold from £15,000 to £21,000 will reduce all graduates’ bills significantly, while bringing the lowest-earning graduates out of the repayment system altogether.

While most students may have to pay this graduate contribution for longer, the myth of a “burden” of debt is the only thing that will put poorer people off applying. Those against the fees often neglect to mention that all students are going to be given more support through increased maintenance grants, that a new £150m national scholarship scheme will guarantee the brightest students a free first year or foundation year, and that all upfront tuition fees will finally be abolished by allowing part-time students to benefit from the loan repayment scheme. The blame can only lie with those spreading the myths if, despite all these measures, poorer prospective students are dissuaded.

Fortunately, however, this may not happen: people from poorer backgrounds are much less likely to go to university, but research carried out for the Sutton Trust showed there is almost no difference between the participation rates of the poorest students and better-off peers with the same A-level results. If universities are meant to take in the most intelligent students, regardless of background, then this may well remain the case despite all the misinformation. The issue here, then, is not fees, but that poorer students are being let down by a broken school system before even thinking about aspiring to university.

We recognise, of course, that students have concerns about getting value for money from their degree. Why should they attend when their lecturers aren’t willing to give them contact time, and seminar classes become ever larger? This is an old phenomenon, famously noticed by Adam Smith, who complained in the late 18th century that many professors at Oxford had given up even the pretence of teaching. According to Smith, this was because the university was already heavily endowed, so the professor’s salary was derived from a fund altogether independent of their success and reputation. As the professors no longer depended on the tuition fees paid by each student, there was little incentive to satisfy their changing needs and demands.

This is the situation now due to the large block-grant universities receive from the Higher Education Funding Council for England (Hefce). Like endowments, this is money they receive with a minimal link to the quality of teaching or the attention they give to students. By abolishing most Hefce funding and allowing funds to follow the students, universities will be forced to respond to student demands.

The forces arrayed against tuition fee reform are many, but few have come up with their own counterproposals. Some would make university education free again, but this may mean a sharp reduction in university places in order for the system to remain affordable, while certainly perpetuating a system where non-graduate taxpayers subsidise students of all incomes for the luxury of a university education.

Some on the Labour front benches appear to favour the development of the graduate repayment system, while Ed Miliband proposes a graduate tax. There are few details to discuss, but it could mean graduates pay back more than the cost of their education.

The National Union of Students has set out detailed, but flawed,proposals. It suggests an almost identical graduate income-related contribution, albeit one less generous to the poorest in that the repayment threshold would remain at £15,000, as well as totally severing university accountability to students by having all funding centrally directed.

We, and the growing number of students who support tuition fee reform, have bothered to read the Browne report and the government’s proposals, unlike our protesting peers. We find it absurd that students should have been so misled as to protest against a more generous deal than the status quo.

The Liberal Democrats should know that some students stand with them in taking this decision. Especially Vince Cable: the policy he helped to construct ought to have his firm stamp of approval.

This article first appeared on the Guardian’s Comment is Free pages

This is what we look like:

Fiona

Dave

Following the formation of the Coalition Government, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats set out key policy objectives, with the aim of promoting “freedom, fairness and responsibility”.

Achieving that will require radical reform in all sectors, not least in social care. With an ageing population, and at a time of austerity measures, change has to be embraced. Anchor – England’s largest not-for-profit provider of housing and care to older people – has worked with Counsel and Care – the national charity working with older people, their families and carers to get the best care and support – to run fringe events at all three of the main party conferences.

As an apolitical organisation, we’re clear at Anchor that addressing the needs of older people is too important an issue to leave to party politics. There does, at least, appear to be consensus that the current system of funding care in old age is broken. The need to fix it is made more urgent by three key factors:

• Increasing numbers of older people who are living longer and facing increasingly complex care needs, including dementia;
• Declining public sector funding for social care; and
• The personalisation agenda in which individuals are gaining control of how they spend public subsidy

Rather than the political point-scoring that characterised the pre-election debate over care funding, we believe it is imperative that politicians are honest with older people and acknowledge that limited public funds will mean that older people will have a greater responsibility for paying for their own care.  With a million people in the UK predicted to have dementia by 2025, a massive culture change is needed if younger generations are to start planning realistically for their old age.

If individuals and the state are to share responsibility for funding services, urgent reform of public funding for care is also needed. In line with the localism agenda, we believe that funding decisions should be made at a local level, with allocations in proportion to the local cost of care. There are tensions though between a localist approach and the need for a clear and consistent system. A national framework should therefore be developed by April 2012 to calculate local funding allocations and ensure they are in proportion to the local cost of care, which can vary significantly across the country.

It is essential that the nation reduces its deficit. However, this must be done in a way that has the least impact on older people and the services that they require. Local authorities are already making significant cuts which threaten to have a massive impact on older people and unintended consequences for the Big Society.

The Government should look towards implementing more preventative measures to create long-term savings. The success of the Big Society will be built on low-level funding for small community-based work that enables older people to remain part of their community. Funding for wardens in retirement housing, for example, helps ensure people are able to remain independent for longer – without needing to move into more costly residential care.

Most importantly, of course, many older people have seen tough times before, having lived through the austerity years after the war. When struggling with difficult decisions on where cuts should be implemented, politicians would do well to listen to those who helped rebuild the nation once before.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Sara McKee, Chief Operating Officer for Anchor, England’s largest not-for-profit provider of housing and care to older people. For more on Anchor visit www.anchor.org.uk or call 0845 140 2020

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Tim Yeo MP. Tim is MP for South Suffolk, and chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee.

The full pamphlet, Green Gold, can be downloaded from the Tory Reform Group

Yet the United Kingdom and Canada have more in common than Queen Elizabeth II and constitutional monarchy:  the rule of law, parliamentary government, and inter-twined histories are just a few political realities shared by these two Commonwealth members (and countless others).  Both countries are also witness to the successful exploits of One Nation Tory politics – ‘progressive conservatism’ – of which the Victorian prime ministers, Benjamin Disraeli and Sir John A. Macdonald, were master practitioners.

The monarch, serving in Walter Bagehot’s ‘dignified capacity’, is above the hurly-burly of partisan politics, and offers to all parties the benefit of its accumulated wisdom, signified by its prerogatives rights to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn.  ‘The nation is divided into parties, but the crown is of no party.’  Nevertheless, the monarchy represents two ideals that have especial resonance for progressive conservatism:  limited government and the obligatory State.

Limited government, as historians will attest, is predominantly a Whig tenet.  But when the alternative on the political spectrum is the all-encompassing State, setting limits to legitimate government becomes no less a conservative principle, too.  King Louis XIV is rumoured to have boasted, ‘L’état, c’est moi’, setting up visions of material and financial rapacious as the ends of absolute monarchy, though this is not necessarily the case, according to Hans-Hermann Hoppe.

Professor Hoppe is a libertarian economist (or ‘anarcho-capitalist’) and, true, if he had his druthers, there would be no State at all, but simply free people co-operating voluntarily amongst themselves.  That being said, he believes that monarchical government has a valuable lesson to teach democracies:  ‘if one has to choose between two evils, a monarchical state or a democratic state, then monarchies have certain advantages.’

Because everybody knew I cannot become a king, there was resistance against attempts on the part of kings to increase taxes and to increase exploitation of their subjects.  Under democracy, the illusion arises that we all rule ourselves even though it should be perfectly clear, of course, that also under a democracy there exists rulers and people who are ruled.  But because of the fact that everybody can potentially become a public employee, the illusion of “we rule ourselves” arises and this then leads to a reduction of the resistance that existed vis-à-vis kings when it came to the attempt of increasing tax revenue.

A king sits on the throne with only the impediments of old age to curtail the longevity of his reign; he views public lands as personal property, to be passed on to his heirs, and tends it with care and with an eye for its future prosperity.  Likewise, his subjects, knowing that they will never directly partake of the royal bounty, are jealous of their own property rights.  A relationship of mutual (if wary) respect is established, which is reflected in restricted policies of appropriation and aggression:  an overzealous king must always fear the loss of popular support and ensuing revolution.  Monarchy thus inculcates, after its own fashion, the conservative beliefs in personal freedom, property ownership, and the modest State.

In a democracy, however, the tension between rulers and ruled is weakened, since it is widely held that ‘we are the government’.  The limited government that constitutes the relationship of king and people morphs into the unlimited government of citizen legislators. Elected officials, holding office for the short-term—and with no concern for the circumstances of their political successors—more readily spend for immediate public gratification (and sometimes for the benefit of their associates and hangers-on).  Furthermore, according to public choice theory, these leaders are more apt to spend on initiatives that will help them get re-elected.  Citizens, meanwhile, who see themselves as possible office holders themselves one day, are less jealous in defending their rights.  As many public works will benefit them, and with the tax burden spread among many, democratic welfare programmes are welcomed.  Funding concerns are left to another day.  Bagehot, in words that predate Hoppe, believed the Crown could provide a salutary counterweight:

But a wise and great constitutional monarch attempts no such vanities. His career is not in the air; he labours in the world of sober fact; he deals with schemes which can be effected – schemes which are desirable—schemes which are worth the cost.

These are the dangers of atrophied accountability and the evils of expanded government, that centuries of royal rule and experience can teach modern democratic States—but these lessons are wholly of a negative character:  a caution against democratic government encroaching upon our rights.  A more positive libertarian approach to the monarchy is to emphasis our natural rights as individuals, which no authority, royal or democratic, can morally infringe. ‘Governments are instituted among Men,’ in Jefferson’s immortal Declaration, ‘deriving their just Powers from the Consent of the Governed’.  This is the truest sense of equality under the law.  As Seán Cronin argued in ‘A Libertarian Defence of the Monarchy’:

But the most important, if least tangible benefit of a constitutional Monarchy, is that if forces [the First Minister] to refer to himself as ‘Her Majesty’s Prime Minister’.  He is Her Majesty’s servant, and not just him but all politicians.  The constant reminder that there is someone set above them, that they serve someone else, must have a salutary effect on the most arrogant mind.  It is true that these are only symbolic words, and real power lies with the Prime Minister—as is perfectly proper, because we exert some control at least over his excesses.  But anyone who doubts the importance of symbolic words in politics is ignoring the reality of what is, in favour of what they believe should be. [...] Better for my freedom, and yours, that our Head of State be a constitutional Monarch, able to rein in politicians but not to reign politically, than the alternative.

Admittedly, the United Kingdom and Canada are both constitutional monarchies, yet each has seen exploding deficits and crippling debt accumulation—where is the royal reproach when we need it?  Obviously, the virtues of limited government need additional proponents than the example set by the monarchical model.  Still, the relationship between the Crown and the premier is a symbol of the limits of power—whether exercised by the Crown or its ministers—a lesson not to be forgotten by prime ministers in relation to their cabinets and backbenchers, and duplicated by governments toward the people.

This is the conservative element in royalty and politics.

The Crown also serves as a symbol of the obligatory State.  What do I mean by the obligatory State?  Libertarians, as exemplified by Professor Hoppe, view the State as a coercive institution, compelling people through its laws and tax policies to redistribute property from those who generate wealth to those who don’t.  True concern for the least advantaged, they argue, is exemplified by voluntary charity, given freely and without force.

Under the obligatory State, however, our natural relations, arising from time immemorial—‘no man is an island’—are understood as embodying more than the voluntary associations of civil society, as valuable as they are.  As members of society we have obligations that transcend the here-and-now.  ‘As the ends of such a partnership cannot be maintained in many generations,’ insisted Edmund Burke, ‘it becomes a partnership not only between those who are living, but between those who are living, those who are dead, and those who are to be born.’

Classical liberals, for instance, make the case that it is quite legitimate to pool our resources to pay for security services (domestic and foreign) and to establish a legal system.  Yet if it’s permissible to establish government services in these affairs, why not go a step further to support community initiatives, as well?  Why be bound by arbitrary definitions of State action?  Why not progress to a more inclusive, more organic, point of view?

The question of the degree of government support will always arise, and it is important to remain vigilant about the insidious growth of welfare statism—ever mindful to resist majority tyranny over the minority—but that is no reason to spurn using the levers of government altogether to achieve community-approved goals.  Even Simon Heffer, a Gladstonian liberal, advances a template of government activity that hews fairly closely to the One Nation Tory vision:

The state’s functions, in a compassionate and ordered society, can be confined to relatively few things.  It should protect the public with a police force and armed services.  It should provide education and health care, while perhaps finding ways to incentivise people to use non-state provision wherever possible.  It should give the support that the elderly and the disabled require to live with dignity.  It should see that public hygiene and essential infrastructure are maintained; and that’s about it. This requires a revolution in our way of viewing the state’s relationship with us.

The Monarchy, in addition to its own charitable causes, patronises voluntary organisations and honours those selfless volunteers who give of their time and skills for the public welfare.  And as Head of State, the Crown sanctions those government activities that aim to help the young, the aged, and the disadvantaged.  These are obligations we owe to each other as inter-dependent citizens, obligations that are beyond the finite abilities or comprehension of civil society—obligations that are as ageless as civil society itself—which, as the overseers of government, we direct our elected representatives to undertake on our behalf.

This is the progressive element in royalty and politics.

In British political history, the monarchy has deep and long-lasting roots—a tradition that spread throughout the Commonwealth and is nowhere more evident than in Canada.  The Tory tradition, too, is strong in both countries.  Together, the Crown and Conservatism stand for government limited to its proper sphere, in service to the people who are its governors; at the same time, the monarch and the Conservative party are proof that government has a legitimate role in offering progressive legislation that aids and embodies society’s aspirations for the Common Good.

Our Queen’s presence in Canada to celebrate Dominion Day is an opportunity to remember our continuing blessing under the Crown and our glorious progressive conservative legacy.

Vivent la reine et le pays du Canada!

Stephen MacLean’s research website is focussed on Organic Toryism

Attention focussed on the arrival of the new Secretary of State for Health Andrew Lansley, the purveyor of the unwelcome reform and shortly of a controversial strategic White Paper which is to set out the transferral of some £60- 80 billion pounds to GPs control and said by one ‘unnamed’ yet ‘senior’ Department of Health source to herald the end of the age of PCT autonomy. Besides being a surprise to many commentators, who believed that the freedom given to PCTs under the Labour Government would be continued or even extended under the Coalition, the policy raises as many questions as it answers with details of the practicalities and process of reform remaining unclear.  In the absence of clear information, an air of panic prevailed as delegates attending discussions expressed doubt that a cooperative relationship between primary and acute care could be continued and asked whether they would be wise to jump ship from PCTs before it was too late.

The press presence at this year’s conference was unusually high for what was otherwise agreed to be a relatively low key event and it promised to be an intriguing show-down as Andrew Lansley faced a sceptical crowd. Mr Lansley had made an uncertain visit last year shortly after deviating from Conservative Party policy on Departmental spending and someone was heard to remark that he might bring a bodyguard and leave his car running for this year’s speech – given the likely hostility of his audience.

In the end, Mr Lansley’s speech was deemed by many to be underwhelming and uninformative. He was clearly keen to win over the delegates, who refrained from heckling but made their feelings clear by grumbling to themselves and roundly applauding those questioners who expressed their doubt about the direction and feasibility of his plans.

No one left the conference much clearer on the implications for PCTs or the wider NHS although they were soon greeted with the news that the Treasury are reluctant to give Lansley the GP money after all – which did not surprise the assembled health commentators and gifted the Opposition health spokesman, and former darling of the NHS Confederation, Andy Burnham, with a wonderful opportunity to pitch in and help boost his profile ahead of the forthcoming Labour leadership election.

Overall, however, the Treasury’s decision didn’t make the delegates much happier as, whatever the outcome of the White Paper, they know they will face competing demands to cut costs whilst remaining flexible enough to accommodate a new system which may threaten their existence. It is clear that Andrew Lansley already faces a battle to keep the NHS workforce onside, from executive level through to the grass roots, and the success of any reforms depends on their cooperation and agreement. In the end, his more detailed proposals may not meet with as much opposition as he faces now and there are many elements – GP consortia for example – who will view it as an interesting opportunity. But for now, in the shadow of a Budget of heavy cuts, it is the lack of information and the fear of being thrust into ill-thought out and articulated reform that is as much a factor in the anger of NHS managers as any.

Posted by Administrator on behalf of Isabella Sharp

Nick (@Betapolitics) blogged on these pages earlier about his recent Twitter discussion with me (@Davidtbreaker) regarding the “living wage”, and how these internal party discussions show that coalitions are nothing new. On this point I very much whole-heartedly agree; we are the party of Disraeli and Thatcher, Heath and Churchill, but all are held together by the common bond of an over-arching umbrella of conservatism, an impossible to precisely define world view that works remarkably well as a governing philosophy.

I must however disagree that there is “a tug-of-war going on between economic liberal Thatcherites and the socially orientated Disraelite brigade…[over] where Conservative priorities should be, in fostering a Big Society or promoting small government?” I feel particularly strongly on this issue because, generally, I’m part of both so called factions – an economic libertarian cheerleader for the Hilton/Letwin Californian style of thinking, a believer in a small state and a big society. Neither being economically liberal nor being a Disraelite are mutually exclusive; indeed a big society needs a small state, and a small state needs a big society.

The living wage argument is a case in point.

Advocates of the Living Wage assert that there is a moral, social and economic case for a Living Wage set by Government to increase the living standards of the low paid. Unfortunately life isn’t that simple. Increasing minimum wage levels increase the costs of employing staff, reduces demand for labour and leaves more people out of work. That is no way to run a country.

That doesn’t however mean that there isn’t a case for improving the living standards of the low paid – because there is – it just isn’t an arbitrary, flat, labour demand reducing wages policy diktat.

If Conservatives are genuinely keen on improving living standards we must use conservative means rooted in economic reality to achieve our social ends. We may share desired intentions with it, but the Living Wage is a simplistic socialist means to those ends. A simple socialist means best left to simple socialists.

The liberal-conservative way to increase wages is the market – indeed it is the only way to genuinely do so – and comes in a three pronged attack. Increasing the demand for labour, reducing the tax burden on low income earners, and reforming welfare.

Tax reform could boost labour demand by abolishing Employer National Insurance Contributions – reducing real wage bills, making the UK more competitive – whilst manufacturing could be boosted further by shifting the tax burden from production (paid only by firms manufacturing in the UK) to sales (paid fairly by UK and foreign firms). Increasing demand for labour through a thriving economy – facilitated by this kind of low tax, deregulated, pro-enterprise free market – and also reducing the labour supply through controlled immigration, is the genuine way to increase pay. It’s supply and demand. Take home pay could be further boosted by cutting Employee NIC, increasing income tax thresholds and lowering rates.

There are then conservative means to increase the incomes of the low paid beyond the market. Welfare reform to make work pay, perhaps topping up wages of the low paid, or perhaps – more radical yet – a Negative Income Tax.

My point, I guess, is that the conservatives are united in our aims. What we mustn’t let happen is allow issues such as the Living Wage tear us apart by conflating means and ends. And as for those such as myself more rooted in economic liberalism, we need to start promoting economic liberalism as a means to social ends.

David T Breaker blogs at www.davidbreaker.com as well as ConservativeHome, and is @Davidtbreaker on Twitter.