Ticking boxes, putting people in them, and why the state does not mean society
Thursday, August 26th, 2010 | This post was written by Fiona MelvilleThis fuss over the ‘landmine’ of the Equality Act is completely ridiculous. The Act doesn’t require anything beyond a consideration of how government actions impact on people – which frankly is something I would expect any halfway competent politician to do anyway.
I think there is an argument to be had about the way that governments expect to pull a lever and have a wide-spread social effect – but it’s not specifically that Act.
More widely, I think the furore shows us something instructive about how Labour and the Conservatives approach society.
Labour is all about phrasing , not delivering , and just showing that they ‘care’; and requiring; and splitting people up into discrete little groups so politicians can try to target what are effectively bribes at them.
Conservatives are about making sure that overall, people have the opportunity to make of themselves whatever they want. It’s not about putting people in boxes – it’s about making sure that they all have equal opportunity to break out of whatever box they have been abandoned to by Labour.
The Emergency Budget was – let’s face it – tough on everyone. It had to be. The problem is not that our taxes were too low, but that our spending was too high.
There are a few things that strike me as obvious but which clearly aren’t for some – firstly, that to make work pay you have to make sure that living on benefits becomes less attractive: that doesn’t mean punitive, but it does mean, for example, that lavish housing benefits far beyond what people in good jobs can afford have to go. Secondly, that of course when you cut spending, those who use public services the most would be disproportionately affected if you make no other changes to reform those public services in order that they deliver better (this is the great argument that Betapolitics has been advancing in recent weeks). And finally, that when bodies like the IFS have considered fairness and progressiveness, they only look at what the state pays out. Why don’t they look at the opportunities for growth, for better jobs, for more social mobility as well?
It isn’t all about the state. It is all about society.

Posts


