STONEWALL, STROUD AND SOCIAL JUSTICE

Right. Got to be quick as I don’t have time for this… but I’ve been bursting to write for a while now. There’s a lot going on to tax my little brain as we enter the final furlong come Thursday.


FIRST, I want to talk about society’s new ‘Worst Thing Ever’. That is to upset the homosexual lobby, and Stonewall in particular. Whoever you are, whatever you’ve done, there’s one thing that can finish your political prospects in a heartbeat – that is to express any doubt, disagreement or distaste regarding any aspect of the homosexual lifestyle or preference. Chris Grayling, whatever Thursday’s result, will probably not be Home Secretary. Philippa Stroud is unlikely to prosper, even if she wins in Sutton. Why? They broke the new golden rule. For Grayling it was the ‘B&B’ comment, hastily withdrawn. In Stroud’s case she didn’t even have to speak! It was enough for her enemies to show that, as an evangelical Christian, she had allegedly been part of a group praying to ‘cure’ homosexuality, albeit many years ago. Never mind that she’s done more overt and selfless good than any number of her critics – years of work with the homeless, alcoholics, drug addicts; a stint in Hong Kong working alongside the needy and abused; and a valuable role at the Centre for Social Justice – all of that is redundant, meaningless, if done whilst harbouring an opinion that homosexuality is in any way less than ideal.

There are so many issues at play here. In an incredibly short space of time we’ve seen a positive (tolerance and a desired end to homophobic bullying) become a fearsome negative (crushing freedom of religious conscience and hounding Christians in the public sphere). It’s just too much. I am in no way disregarding the sensitivity of this issue inside and outside the church – if I, as a Christian, had always experienced overpowering same-sex attraction… well I can fully see how difficult things might have been for me. So let’s talk about it; let’s have the discussion and explain where we’re coming from. But to crush all debate, to render it taboo and to scream fascism at any who venture an opposing view? It’s only going to drive people into resentful isolation. Don’t mistake disagreement for hatred. Don’t make politics out of bounds for any but the fully-PC and liberal (or for the many that pretend to be).

In this day and age, to dispute homosexuality is akin to racism, and is treated just as hysterically. I don’t believe this is valid. To hate someone, to see them as a lesser person, or to deny them human rights due to inbuilt sexual preference would be comparable. But for someone to choose a particular sexual act, relationship, lifestyle or fashion is not equivalent to being black or Asian. The former are choices and the latter is not. And if those choices are questioned or disapproved of, you can tell people to mind their own business, or even punch them on the nose. But don’t make out they are criminals for doing so!

SECOND, I want to share my ongoing thoughts about the Welfare State. I’ve been privy to a lot of recent discussion as to how Christians should vote. Evangelicals have tended to side with Conservatives over family values, pro-life issues and religious freedom. More liberal Christians have tended to see Labour as their home due to the provision of social justice through the welfare state (and not just liberals – remember the role of the Methodists within the early Labour party). If I am to join the former, I don’t want it to be a case of turning by back on the thinking behind the latter. I am certainly uncomfortable with the heavy hand of the state – I don’t trust them with all that money – but I have to be ideologically committed to an alternative that leaves the disadvantaged no less well served.

My thinking has settled upon the following: First, Conservatism was not always seen as heartless. The tradition of One Nation Toryism had a strong compulsion to care for the vulnerable – with strong emphasis on charity, compassion and voluntary service. This is why the first post-war Tory Chancellor Rab Butler was able to endorse and retain the Welfare State. Indeed this is why a devoted long-term anti-poverty campaigner such as Philippa Stroud, above, is able to find a home in the party. It would seem the problem is more Thatcher than the Conservative Party – it was under her rule that heartlessness so came to be part of the blend. One Nation views were overtly ditched as ‘wet’ and people were encouraged to plough their own self-interested furrow in the belief their subsequent wealth would naturally ‘trickle down’ to enrich and inspire the rest. The result was 3.6 million unemployed left largely to their own devices. But Cameron has been named by The Telegraph as the successor to Disraeli. He has listened to the likes of Rifkind or Iain Duncan-Smith. There is hope that ‘compassionate conservatism’ is more than empty rhetoric. In other words, it is perfectly possible that I could vote Conservative without in any way endorsing the neglect of the needy (and if it comes without so stifling an atmosphere of political correctness then all the better!).

Second: But what do I want by way of social provision? The Labour party came to exist, not because the others didn’t care, but because the working classes wanted a voice of their own, rather than a paternal top-hatted figure speaking sympathetically on their behalf. But they also came to exist in order to see the state wheeled into action as a benevolent redistributor of wealth. To a degree it’s worked, but not entirely. I still doubt the wisdom of throwing money at every social ill. It certainly doesn’t promote social mobility. The spectre of dependence perpetuates to the next generation and lessens self-respect. Where there is genuine incapacity there must be a safety net, but work must be incentivised and choosing hand-outs over available work mustn’t be an option (that’s why Lib Dem tax relief on the first earned 10k is better than Labour tax credits). The joy of spending on luxuries should be merited by virtue of wages earned – perhaps the hand-outs of necessity could be in the form of goods or vouchers exchangeable for only the essentials? By all means distribute council houses, offer training and facilities, but again let them be incentivised so there might be reward for hard work and initiative, stigma for the unwilling. And empower the charity and voluntary sector. Or even the private sector – let them compete to help the poor, complete with withheld financial incentives for those businesses that achieve results in lifting families out of poverty or delivering jobs. After all, the more direct the delivery of help, the less expensive the grinding layers of government in place to co-ordinate the whole racket.

And for the tax-payer, who resents giving so much of his/her labour to bureaucrats servicing layabouts? Can THEY take the initiative? Allowed to retain the cash, not all can be trusted to redistribute it. But could there be tax exemption for those who can prove they have done their share – whether by large charitable donation or voluntary service? Can there be an element of empowerment in terms of choosing how these sections of our wages are employed by ranking a list of options? In this I am inspired by the green Waitrose tokens placed in the box corresponding to a charity of the shopper’s choice! How much better to be nudged into philanthropy than to be robbed by the taxman; we are taxed directly for many of the services we receive anyway (road tax, VAT, council tax, National Insurance) and the government should have to pitch harder and more transparently in requesting our cash for the rest.

Small ideas and undeveloped perhaps… but I can’t help but feel they resemble a true ‘Big Society’. Whether Cameron’s version equates to anything of substance we shall perhaps begin to see by next week!