David Cameron and his Conservative Party have launched to success in the past year through an apparent re-brand of traditional conservatism and the 'nasty party'. Away with 'there's no such thing as society', in with 'the big society', away with conservative values with a small 'c', in with the party of the 'radicals'. Forget about the Tory belief in 'every man for himself' - now they're the 'progressive' party, upholding the rights of the poor and fighting for a more equal society. So convincing has their change of heart been, that even the formerly progressive think-tank Demos has set up an entire programme dedicated to the quest of 'progressive conservatism'.
There's just one small problem: the Tories are not progressive. Quite aside from the fact that the very notion of progressive conservatism is an oxy-moron akin to 'wealthy poverty', one only has to dig a few milimetres beneath the surface to see that their apparent upholding of progressive values represents a monumental display of double-speak that even Orwell would have been hard-pushed to satirize. That they have been propelled into the lead in the polls on the back of emotive language such as 'the big society', 'progressive' and 'radical' shows that there is a heartening appetite in the population for these genuinely left-wing and social democratic values. But we should be under no illusion that the Tory Party will deliver such a vision - the reality of the Tory party plans is the polar opposite.
The Conservative Party Manifesto seriously challenges anyone's belief that they are a progressive or radical party acting in the interests of society. A reasonable understanding of the word progressive, in political terms, is the development of policies that tend towards fairness, equity and equality, rather than perpetuating cycles of wealth and privilege. A fair understanding of radical is a departure from entrenched policies that do not serve the interests of the wider society. An intelligent interpretation of a 'big society' is one in which the role of the public sector is recognised, protected and upheld. The plans outlined in the Tory Party manifesto are in direct opposition to such lofty claims.
This blog will analyze the Tory manifesto, David Cameron's speeches and the all aspects of Conservative Party policy to highlight that the Tory agenda is predominantly regressive rather than progressive. To highlight but a few examples:
Freeze public sector pay for 1 year in 2011: Though the current deficit is a direct result of bailing out the financial sector, public sector workers are being forced to pay the costs of private sector irresponsibility, whilst there is not a whisper in the Tory manifesto of any kind of taxation or freeze on bankers' bonuses.
Cut the deficit by 6 billion in 2010/11: Quite aside from the lack of any kind of credible research behind this commitment, the identified areas where savings can be made include public sector pay (above), Child Trust Funds, public sector pensions, an increase in the retirement age, a cut in Ministers pay and a 10% reduction in MPs. All these cuts will impact those who have been least responsible for the deficit, including children, the elderly, and public sector workers. The pledge to cut the number of MPs representing citizens' in parliament is laughable alongside the rhetoric about a 'Big Society'. Nowhere in this list of cuts is there any mention of a tax on excessive private sector pay, a cap on bankers' bonuses in banks bailed out by the tax payer, or a commitment to address tax evasion in the UK which costs the country upwards of 70 billion pounds a year.
Cut and simplify business taxes, including moving towards a territorial tax system that only taxes profits generated in the UK: Despite reiterating the urgency of cutting the deficit, the Tories are committed to giving hand-outs to the private sector, whilst punishing the public sector. Rather than committing to redistributing wealth by imposing higher taxes on those more able to pay, they are offering relief to all businesses without any proposal for means-testing. Whilst they are happy to restrict the scope of tax credits to families only earning under 50,000 and limit contributions to Child Trust Funds, businesses across the board are given a tax break. The enthusiasm for a territorial tax system in a world with a globalized business sector also opens the gates to further tax evasion and offshore loopholes whereby tinkering with company registration may lose the country many billions of pounds.
Introduction of regulatory budgets - forcing any government body wanting to introduce a new regulation to reduce regulation elsewhere by a greater amount: This has to be the most absurd of all the policies on the table. Whilst enhancing productivity might be an important ambition of any government, the association of regulation per se with enhanced productivity is a fallacy. Regulation exists for a reason, and any introduction to governance will tell you that functioning regulation and regulatory bodies are integral to a strong and healthy economy. Indeed it was the very lack of regulation that led to the global financial crisis that has necessitated the huge accumulation of public debt. To answer this situation by forcing government departments to effectively de-regulate is one of the most regressive measures in the manifesto. It also creates a system of 'one step forward, two steps back' whereby important regulations have to be undone before new ones can be introduced - it is politically impossible to introduce this as a fixed criteria.
Recognise marriage and civil partnerships in the tax system in the next Parliament: Well done to the gay lobby for managing to get a recognition of civil partnerships in this otherwise deeply regressive policy. The notion that rewarding marriage is the answer to our social problems is the strongest indicator that the Tories still operate under a set of deeply conservative and reactionary assumptions about social cohesion. The Tories on the one hand assume that people can make their own decisions, yet use this policy lever as a way of forcing people to adopt lifestyles that the Conservative Party approves of. Rewarding married couples will not mend our apparently 'broken society' - rather it will encourage people into partnerships prematurely or for the wrong reasons, and will also divert millions of pounds from poor to affluent. Families most in need of financial support and tax breaks are single-parent families, who do not benefit from a combined income and have to spend more money on childcare. It is a fundamentally regressive policy measure that single parents most in need should be punished for not being married, whilst married couples with all the inherent advantages of being in a partnership receive a bonus. More fundamentally, money alone should not be the sole incentive to remain in a dysfunctional relationship - rather the onus should be on the provision of public services that provide marriage counseling and advice, as well as tackling the drivers of divorce and family breakdown, including poverty and inequality.
From just the few examples outlined above it is clear that 'Progressive Conservatism' is better understood as 'Regressive Conservatism'. This post has not yet touched on the Tory plans to hand over our public services to 'little platoons' - a policy with such scope for failure that this alone should be enough make people reconsider their vote. The next post will focus on this exclusively. Hopefully this has gone some way to exposing the misleading nature of the Tory hijacking of the truly progressive agenda - some readers may agree with all the policies above, but please know that this does not make you a progressive, a radical, or indeed an advocate of a functioning 'big society'.
No comments:
Post a Comment