Dear Mr Cameron

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.

Cuts and Motives

So, here comes the budget.  And here come the cuts.  It's going to hurt.

But permit me, for a moment, to delve into something which I think is important: the motives for these cuts in public spending.  A lot of people I know have already started banging the 'evil old Tories' drum - you know the one: the Tories love the rich, the Tories hate the poor, the Tories want to protect the privileged whilst grinding the worker into the dust.  That sort of thing.  I find it painful to listen to, and I want my friends to understand this. I believe in these cuts.  That doesn't mean I think they're going to be great.  Some of them I think are a good idea, like tightening up the welfare system and making sure it pays more to work than it does to claim.  Others I think are an unfortunate necessity in the economic climate, like not building a visitors' centre at Stonehenge, or cutting arts funding.  And I understand that for many people - including people I know and love - these cuts will mean personal hardships and even tragedies.  I get that.  But I think it is necessary for us as a nation to spend less - much less.  There it is.

Now, I wonder whether my friends think I hate the poor?  Maybe they do.  If that were so, that would make me a rubbish Christian, and, let's face it, a pretty awful human being.  But I promise you it isn't the case: I genuinely believe that this is better for all of us in the long run.  Of course, you may think I'm wrong.  But do you also think I'm evil?

I hope not many of my friends think that I am evil.  In which case, I want to ask them to hold off on assuming that Dave, George and co are necessarily evil.  If, just for a moment, we assumed that the people we disagreed with might have good motives, wouldn't that lead to a more constructive debate about the way forward?

To put it another way, it would be very easy for me to write off all my leftish friends as people who hate success, are driven by envy, and desperately want to take away economic freedom.  That would, of course, be facile and frankly idiotic analysis.  I don't think that.  I think my leftish friends are wrong; but I think their motives are good.  It would be nice if the compliment were extended in the opposite direction.

End of rant.  As you were.

Party of privilege?

I've been meaning to write a political post for a little while. So here it is.

A week or so ago I heard Ben Bradshaw MP make a comment contrasting the Labour party - the party of the majority - with the Conservatives - the party of privilege. I imagine we can expect to hear a great deal more along those lines in the next few months. What is being said is pretty clear: the Tories favour the wealthy and the elite, whilst Labour speaks for the 'ordinary' folk. But is it true?

It won't come as much of a surprise to learn that I think not. But I do think this gets at something which lies at the heart of the disagreement between these two parties, and perhaps constitutes the major fault line in British politics. It's all about fairness, and what fairness means. Allow me to attempt a discussion.

To start with, here are two statements which I think most people in the UK would agree with (If they weren't looking at them side by side):

It is only fair that the wealthy pay proportionately more tax than the poor.

Fairness means treating everyone the same.

Since I have put these statements side by side, I trust it's clear that they are quite contradictory. As soon as we have different rates of taxation, we are no longer 'treating everyone the same'. In fact, we are pretty clearly discriminating. For now, please assume that 'discrimination' is a value-neutral term: it may or may not be bad to discriminate. In fact, this lies at the heart of the argument. But what is clear is that either one of these statements is just false, or two different definitions of fairness are in operation here which are not compatible.

I would suggest that what those on the left tend to see as 'favouring the privileged' is in fact simply adherence to a view of fairness which would include the second of my two statements: treating everyone the same. Treating everyone the same means not 'picking on' one section of society and treating them differently. There is a long (and surprisingly radical) tradition in political theory standing behind this view, from Rousseau to Rawls. It does not just extend to taxation. This would also mean, for example, that 'positive discrimination' would be ruled out as unfair (as would what we might call 'negative discrimination'). Fairness means a level playing field, in the sense that the state at least does not apply different rules to different people.

I totally understand why this view could be seen by those on the left as 'unfair'. It leaves some people rich and others poor. But I support it. I support it because of its corollary in civil liberties: nobody is discriminated against, either positively (the government won't push a particular social agenda) or negatively. Laws are not passed which favour some of us over others. I think that's right. I also support it because I think it will generally lead to a state which does less: interferes less in our lives, makes less claims on our resources.

As an important aside, I do not think this view of fairness can be carried through with complete consistency, and that doesn't bother me. I think an instinct to treat everyone the same, coupled with the common sense to occasionally and in a limited way over-ride this instinct, is the ideal for government. So, I believe in limited 'progressive' taxation, I believe in reducing the tax burden on families with children etc. Consistency doesn't hugely bother me: it's unobtainable, and dull to boot.

It is worth noting one other thing. A party holding my view of fairness - everyone treated the same - can realistically claim to be protecting the interests of everyone. This is true even for those who currently would be better off under a left-ish government holding the other view of fairness. After all, why assume you will always be in that position? Poor today doesn't have to mean poor tomorrow. By contrast, the left-ish view of fairness inevitably makes the Labour party a sectional concern. They do not stand for everyone, but avowedly only for a particular section of society. I can't help thinking this is a bad thing in a national government.

You should also read Phil Blue's thoughts on a similar subject.

The problem of front gardens

As I was walking through East Oxford today, I was feeling a little sad about how nice the streets could be and how nasty they actually are. "Something should be done", thought I, "but what?"

We could change all the 'street furniture', as it seems to be called. Smarten up the lamposts. Sort out the signs. But, to be honest, they're not really the problem. And how exciting can a one way sign be, anyway?

The problem is that many - okay, let's be honest, the overwhelming majority - of houses have really shabby frontages with poorly kept gardens. I'm not saying that to criticise the owners. I dare say if I owned a house it would have a shabby frontage with a poorly kept garden.

The point is that this is why the state will never be able to fix local communities. We're not dealing with a public space - the public space is utilitarian but basically fine. The problem is with the collection of private spaces. Only the owners can decide to make them look pleasant, and only they can put in the effort to make it so.

I think the problem of front gardens sets limits to the influence of the state in all sorts of areas of life. I guess that's why I'm a Tory.