Polly Toynbee’s column in the Guardian today is a typical rant about uncaring Conservatives cutting local services to the poor. She also took time to restate her support for Gordon Brown, remarkably claiming that he had achieved his economic ‘golden rule’ thoughout his tenure, “with only minor goal-post shunting”!
I try to read Ms Toynbee’s political rants as often as possible, if only to reaffirm my belief that it is the centre right of politics that truly (and honestly) serves the interests of all Britons. Ms Toynbee’s target today was the honourable endeavour of Conservative-run councils to lessen the burden of local taxation, a burden shared by the great majority. I have written on the subject of council tax previously. Ms Toynbee attacked the desire to lower taxes as being indefensible, since in her eyes, any cut in tax would lead to a cut in essential services, citing examples from Hammersmith and Croydon.
According to Polly, the Conservatives do not care for the poor, disabled and elderly. In Polly’s world, caring equates to state spending, even though the last ten years have given us all ample evidence of the ineffectiveness of state intervention, e.g. the NHS, reduced social mobility, etc.. What actually works are policies that encourage and support personal responsibility and local activism. Many Conservative Party members are actively involved in local charities and are members of school boards. It is this community participation that effects real change in communities and provides the service and care that Ms Toynbee so wants for the poor and disadvantaged. Just because the money (and time) comes from individuals, as opposed to the state, does not make it any less worthy.
I could accept Ms Toynbee’s constant rants against Conservatism if she practised what she preached. Like her, I was educated at a selective school. Like her, if I had children, I might choose a private education for them. And what is more, if I had the personal wealth to afford a second home in the Mediterranean like Ms Toynbee, I might very well choose to own one. The difference is that I am member of a political party that encourages that choice. I am a member of a party that truly believes in rewarding merit, and one that honestly accepts that because of the inherent competition between people, that there will always be winners and losers in life. That honesty also explains why we Conservatives believe that lowering the tax burden on the poorest and less successful in society is a moral good. Hence, my support for any council that lowers local taxation.
Ms Toynbee is clearly a hypocrite. She does, however, serve one purpose – to highlight the need for the Conservative Party to be actively seeking policies that will benefit the less well-off in our country. Conservatives have a moral duty to create a society in which these people can live securely, safe in the belief that with hard work and talent, rich rewards will follow. If a future Conservative government sets about improving social mobility levels, it will have gone a long way to proving that the poor in society will always be better off under a Conservative administration. The Labour Party’s raison d’etre will have then been removed. Where will you go then Ms Toynbee? Your villa?
March 20th, 2007 - 4:33 pm
Hi Phil, good to see you’re still at it. I don’t quite understand why you’re so quick to defend Tory councils making social care cuts throughout the country. It’s all very well talking about individual responsibility but if you’re extremely frail and need the support of home care in order to stay in your house or if your day centre is being closed then it’s difficult to see what those individuals are supposed to do to take responsibility for their lives. Tory councils throughout the country are cutting services to those most in need. They are also cutting grants to the voluntary groups you praise. Polly’s point was that surely this did not fit with Cameron’s new vision of caring Conservatism. I think you would be better off getting involved in lobbying Tory councils to turn their backs on Thatcherism and consider the effects of their actions on the most in need. I’m unclear how the frail elderly and disabled are going to be empowered by Tory Councils removing care services. Will this enable their social mobility?
March 20th, 2007 - 4:57 pm
Good afternoon Graeme.
A pun about social mobility hardly hides the fact that it has gone down since Labour came to power. With the dour one in the wings, I have little hope for the future of the poor. I have always had the suspicion that the Labour Party dislikes social mobility as it involves people improving their 'lot in life' and thereby realising that Conservative policies would be more relevant and appropriate to their daily existence.
So glad to have you back commenting. By the way, belated happy returns for your birthday two weeks ago.
March 3rd, 2011 - 9:04 pm
In many ways I have to concur. My thought about the Labour Party (pre-Blair) was that the only social mobility it condoned was to drag the upper echelons down to the middle classes via taxation, and to push the lower classes into the middle layer via wage increases that businesses and industry could not sustain.
I know many look upon the Iron Maiden as the killer of British heavy industry, but to me, the cancer that caused that situation was created by the Labour and union movements under the governments before hers. Her toughness in defeating the unions was the right direction, but unfortunately too late to stop the patient from croaking.
However, three decades later, her successors do need to refocus on the vulnerable in our society. Tory Blair’s (intended spelling) policies appear to have disenfranchised and debilitated those most at risk, and as yet I don’t see David Macaroon redressing that situation.
The poor and vulnerable of this country need a champion in the current government, before it is too late for rectification to occur. They don’t need some lapdog yapping behind the letterbox, they need a full size barker to chase off the pension and benefit pilferers.