Let me start by offering my congratulations. I was rooting for you, I voted for your candidate (even in Oxford East, that little bastion of red in the midst of deep blue rural England), and I'm pleasantly surprised by the result. I think that given the available options, and the current circumstances, you and your party were the least bad option. And if that sounds a bit like damning with faint praise, Mr Cameron, well, so be it.
Here's the thing. Most of the people I know and respect - not all, but most - think that voting Conservative makes you some sort of amoral monster. I'm not exaggerating, or at least not much. And can I be honest, you haven't helped us. You ran a campaign based on fear; you won an election at least partly by making us afraid of one another. I know the other guys were doing just the same thing, and I know it's easier to sell your opponents' nightmare than your own dream; but I'm sure some of the bitterness I'm seeing springs from that campaign.
Listen, Mr Cameron (I know you prefer 'Dave', but I can't quite bring myself to first-name a sitting Prime Minister): I really believe that a smaller state and a bigger civil society can be the best way forward for society; I think you believe it too, but you didn't exactly sell it, that's all.
But actually that's not the main thing. It's not nice to be considered an amoral monster, but I can hold my own and I'm prepared to make a positive case even if you're not. The main thing is that I need you to prove them wrong, and that's going to need a change in approach from you. I believe you when you say that you want to protect the most vulnerable, but people I know are not seeing that desire translate into action. They don't believe you, because your record and rhetoric don't line up. Mr Cameron, in your second term, will you ensure that necessary cuts don't punish those who are already suffering? Will you take a personal interest across government in protecting those who cannot protect themselves?
Like you, I think it is important that we don't take the approach of many on the left, which seems to be to classify large numbers of people as 'poor' and assume they will always be dependent on the state; but on the other hand, there are people who will always be dependent, because they are chronically ill, or disabled. For them, especially, you need to do better than you have so far. Compassionate conservatism - that's what I want to see.
Mr Cameron, there's a lot more I could say, but frankly if you take this one thing on board I will be happy. As a Christian, I am commanded to respect you and to pray for you as a leader. I'll be doing those things going forward, and God bless you as you make difficult decisions.
I am in the lucky position that the person I know best and love most in the world, my brother, is a staunch Tory-voter - so quite apart from the other Tory voters I know in the world, there is at least one I know is a kind, moral, and Christian man. Which makes me confused (because I genuinely can't see how a party with their apparent attitude to the needy - I would argue in both rhetoric and record - can attract said voters) but at least makes me realise that they aren't all amoral monsters.
ReplyDeleteAnd now we all share the same hope - that the Tories will govern well. And those of us to whom this hope seems less likely will just have a slightly harder struggle to honour and respect our government - but I am definitely going to try to.
Simon, I think the struggle to understand why people don't agree with us is one of the more difficult things life throws up! Sometimes I get it, other times it's like the other person is just completely opaque to me and I have to infer from other things I do know and understand about them that they're not evil or mad. I guess that's just being human.
DeleteYou're right, of course - it's now in all our interests to see the Tories govern well. I guess we'll see how that goes - and we can prod them along the way...
Daniel, I couldn't have put it better myself, except for the whole East Oxford but...West Dorset is hardly a Labour stronghold. But well said, and hear hear. I hope Dave listens! Kate S
ReplyDeleteThanks Kate. Hope all is well down there! I haven't yet worked out how to bring this directly to his attention, but I'll see what I can do...
DeleteThanks for this - I appreciate it. I plan to put some resources together to help people more effectively campaign to protect disabled and sick people. At the moment the Independent Living Fund has been scrapped, and I am concerned about that, since it affects the most severely disabled people. At the moment the government seem to be assuming that the councils will pick up the tab, whilst reducing funds for local councils.
ReplyDeleteWhat are your thoughts on this - would you want the government to be acting, or do you think this is a 'smaller state, Christians should be wiping people's bums' kinda situation? (Slightly frivolous expression to a genuine question - would be helpful to know where you're coming from)
Hi Tanya. I'm not sufficiently clued up on this particular issue (and maybe should be), but I certainly think the state should support those who are unable to support themselves, and that this should be done to a decent level (i.e. not just the 'safety net' level which I think is appropriate for those who are just temporarily out of work). From my very brief bit of research just now, it sounds like this was a bad decision (and saves a fairly small amount of money for gov't to boot, not that that ought to be the main factor).
DeleteLet me know if I can help in any way with campaigning stuff; I think it is sometimes helpful to get a mix of ideological viewpoints involved in this sort of thing so that it can't be so easily written off as 'just a bunch of lefties',,,
But Daniel, your appeal to Mr. Cameron to stop hurting the vulnerable is not an accidental part of what he is doing. It is part of the neo-liberal commitment to removing the protection of the state for all in favor of the free market that will deliver services at profit to those (and only those) with the ability to pay. Mr. Cameron's policies do not simply trim welfare for the workshy and lazy, they aim to privatize the state (Post Office, Probation Service, Education, Health) and turn it into a wealth-generating entity for corporations. The issue is not actually just about the "poor" but about the "public" (of whom the poor and vulnerable are a key part). The "left" (if it ever got its message out there) is not just about encouraging welfare for the poor - it is about protecting a social contract between people and the state that makes services and the common wealth of our nation available for the many not the few.
ReplyDeleteWell, obviously that's a narrative I wouldn't accept, and in particular I'd want to pick at three key assumptions that seem to lie behind it. Firstly, there seems to be an assumption that public=good, private=bad. I don't quite understand where this moral exaltation of the state comes from, nor can I see how it is justified. Secondly, there is the assumption that wealth creation is a morally dubious activity. Of course, one can become rich by dubious means, but I can't see why we should think it is inherently wrong to be rich. Thirdly, there is the assumption that we can talk about 'the people' and 'the public' as if this was one entity with a common set of interests, and therefore that we can also talk about 'the state' as the body representing those interests. I find this historically naive. It ignores both the common historical experience of state repression, and the current of political theory which flows from John Locke and into modern liberalism (which is apparently now a dirty word? Why is that, exactly? Why is freedom such a negative thing?)
DeleteAll that being said, I meant what I said about voting for what I regarded as the 'least bad' option, and there are plenty of particular things about the last five years which I find pretty despicable. I'm just not able to get on your particular ideological band-wagon.