Talk of getting people off benefits has set the mood music at this week’s Conservative party conference; a predictable nod toward a not-so-compassionate Conservatism.
And in fact, the Tories’ plans for squeezing the poorest families go far beyond their attack on incapacity benefit at this week’s conference. Clearly the Tory tactics are not to reveal their developing policy detail; but when we catch occasional glimpses, they show something deeply worrying.
Take for instance the classic Tory noises coming out of Policy Exchange – described by the New Statesman as David Cameron’s ’favourite think tank‘. Its former director, Anthony Browne, wrote an essay for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, in which he complained of the corrosiveness of a benefits system and social housing, which makes people lazy and selfish.
He left Policy Exchange last year – to become director of policy for Boris Johnson. So the chief policy advisor for the most powerful Tory in the land sees the welfare state as the cause of moral decline.
And then, in a speech to the thinktank a few weeks ago, Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary herself, Theresa May, said that ‘solving poverty is about aspiration and skills, rather than extra financial help.’ That’s right Theresa, poverty has nothing to do with finances.
She advocated scrapping benefits including Child Tax Credits, whilst in their welfare policy paper, the Conservatives have re-stated their longstanding obsession with rewarding marriage through tax breaks.
The plan seems to be that in difficult economic times, families with children will have financial support withdrawn – so that wealthy married childless couples can be given it instead.
But there is more. Other quite radical, scary, and well-developed ideas are also starting to surface. What is their take on ‘localism’ for example?
All politicians seem to be in favour of localism these days and David Cameron is no exception. In February he said: ‘I am convinced that if we have more local discretion – more decisions made and money spent at the local level – we’ll get better outcomes.’
Likewise Tim Loughton, shadow children’s secretary, said the Tories were ‘not in favour of ringfencing in principle. We are much more keen to hand powers back to local authorities to make the decisions on their own criteria.’
The problem is that they have not gone much further in explaining what they mean by localism. Do they agree with another member of the Tory frontbench, business spokesperson Lord Hanningfield?
With his other hat on, as leader of Essex County Council, Lord Hanningfield has submitted a proposal to the Local Government Association as part of the Sustainable Communities Act process – a proposal that would allow local councils to determine the levels of, and eligibility criteria for, benefit payments.
He wants councils handed a lump sum from Whitehall to spend as they want on welfare and employment programmes – to spend as they please.
These ideas appear again in ‘The Plan’, written by Tory NHS-hating MEP Daniel Hannan and his pal Douglas Carswell MP.
The last time these ideas were floated they were rejected as too extreme by the Major government in 1995. But Lord Hanningfield now says that ’from David Cameron down, I think everyone believes this sort of thing should be looked at’.
Looking at it is one thing – but the combination of cutting budgets, ending ring-fencing, praising the ‘easyCouncil’ model, and localising payments and eligibility criteria makes a really toxic mix.
We need to be asking, what would Cameron do with ‘The Plan’?
Quite right , Emily. I wonder how many Labour activists are aware of how much ammunition the Tories have given us at their conference. In particular their key phrases picked up by the media can be easily used against them. For example, Osborne’s “We’re all in this together” can be countered with “Yes George, we’re all in this together – but some can come through it easier than others” followed by a picture of a poverty stricken pensioner side by side with one of a bloated Tory toff (if you’ll excuse the expression) and bullet points showing how each would be affected by Tory cuts. Likewise today’s rhetorical flourish from Cameron “There is a steep climb ahead..” can be countered by “Yes, David, there is a steep climb ahead – but the difference is we will give a helping hand to those that need it”. Go to it!
“What is there take on ‘localism’ for example?”
I hope this was careless sub-editing rather than illiteracy from Ms Thornberry!
Localising eligibility criteria (above a minimum national standard) could be a good thing if it means Labour councils are able to protect people from a Tory government.