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 For Grayling it was the ‘B&B’ comment, hastily withdrawn.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!

WHY I'M (PROBABLY) VOTING CONSERVATIVE. GULP...

‘Private school teacher from Surrey votes Tory’ is hardly likely to make the front pages. However, it will be enough of a shock to most who know me and it will certainly be the first time it’s happened. It will also make me rather unusual even among those few who have voted for all three main parties in general elections (I was always a Labour supporter but voted tactically for the Lib Dems in Epsom & Ewell as the supposed closest opposition) - ‘floating voters’ are traditionally fairly disinterested, which I am clearly not. So why?

1.      Time for a Change: The phrase may be familiar! But it’s true. First and foremost, Brown must go and Labour need a spell out of power. Even if the two lead parties were exactly the same (and, post-Blair, I think we’ll see this as increasingly untrue), it would be worth ditching the incumbent just purely for a change. Anybody retaining power for too long will become corrupted and bloated by it; that’s the repeating story of humanity. New Labour has lost its early reforming zeal and seems to want power for its own sake, doling out daily half-truths to preserve it – change is sometimes a good thing in itself. This country needs a bit of ‘first 100 days’ excitement.  

Furthermore, Brown really doesn’t deserve another term. This is true on his helmsmanship at the Treasury alone. I get angry when he tries to take credit for handling the recession. Truth is, he was the Chancellor who sold our gold and plundered pensions when times were good. Even in those years he borrowed rather than saved and left nothing for a rainy day. He congratulated risk in the City and, even when later bailing out banks, required no commitment that interest cuts be passed on or mortgages made accessible. He is at least partly responsible for the fact our taxes go primarily towards interest payments on debt increasing by £500 million a day.

National not local: I have always spoken well of my local MP Sadiq Khan. He’s done nothing to spoil that as far as I’m concerned (although there is bad press rearing its head as I write regarding a dodgy expenses claim). I’m not alone – he’s been recognised as a fine and devoted Parliamentarian with awards from the Spectator, Guardian, Channel 4 and New Statesman. One of my first posts on this blog was regarding the dilemma faced when wanting to vote for a good local MP, but wanting to remove his party. Well, I’ve done my homework. Well, when faced with national vs. constituency considerations in voting, national has to win. We have local councillors responsible for local issues – potholes, licensing, parking and refuse collection; those are elected separately at local elections.  An MP however is for Westminster – they are primarily foot soldiers for their respective party – ordered by the Whips to toe the line and to vote as instructed from the top. Therefore, despite all the letterbox propaganda, there is a limit to what they can do for us acting as individuals. The party on the slip is more important than the name – an MP’s primary significance lies in them being part of a majority (or minority) party in the House of Commons.

That’s not to reject the local link altogether- I don’t back PR systems wherein MPs are chosen from a list, abandoning constituency accountability. It is important to have one member of Parliament whom you can approach knowing he’s bound to listen – he has a office here whereas the Prime Minister doesn’t. It’s important to have someone in Westminster lobbying on behalf of your community, and someone with clout flagging up important issues within that community. And that can make a specific difference for an area: I was hearing over lunch yesterday how much Chris Grayling has done to personally lead (and even fund) the campaign to save Epsom Hospital; I mentioned in the last post that Siobhain McDonough used her influence in Westminster to secure two new academy schools for her Mitcham & Morden constituency. Similarly, Sadiq Khan has worked within the Transport Department to expand the Oyster scheme, knowing this is specifically beneficial to those in Tooting. But, his concerns and his work remain primarily national in scope. And, ultimately, his career prospects are dependent on his impressing Brown, not on his representing Tooting residents. A vote for Khan IS a vote for Brown.

Electoral System: I’m not saying there’s anyone offering much better than the Tories in the current mess (there’s a great article on one of the blogs showing ‘Word Clouds’ made of the 3 leaders’ speeches so far – Nick Clegg’s 2 largest words are ‘Labour and ‘Conservative’!), but under a PR system I’d certainly take a look around. However, nationally and locally, Conservatives are the only realistic opposition if I want to be rid of Labour. Therefore it’s them I’ll vote for. I would love it to be the case that my vote counted, whoever I voted for. I’ll love a real debate on Proportional Representation.  People rail about the undesirability of coalition governments, bringing up Italian examples or 1970s scare stories. But it’s worked well in Scotland and Wales. North of the border, where the SNP lead with only 47 of the 129 seats, every policy to pass (and 9 out of 10 do) has found its majority via compromise and tinkering in meetings – an air of consensus results, and even the 2 Green MPs have their day in the sun! (They recently sunk the annual budget due to an unwillingness to drop road expansion schemes!). Meanwhile there has never been a Parliament offering a worse advert for ‘strong’ government than the current UK Labour administration. There’s has been a callous disregard for the wishes of others, the government convinced they know best regardless; be it over human rights, banks or the EU. Bring in PR, and see voter turnout rise through the roof as people are re-enfranchised...

I am becoming more conservative: The truth is this development hasn’t come out of nowhere. I am not a textbook conservative – I’m too keen on multi-culturalism for that - but I have nevertheless become more conservative as I’ve aged. It’s clearly true: I don’t like the nanny state and the desire to regulate anything that moves. I don’t like the idea that wealth is inherently bad and to be penalised with ‘Robin Hood’ economics (although I REALLY don’t like the idea that the wealthy should avoid paying their fair share by lurking in tax havens). I loathe the tide of political correctness that supports affirmative action, penalises Freedom of Speech and calls disagreement hatred. I’m also at a loss as to the destructive behaviour of many unions (and the nonsense my own comes up with) and worried by their growing influence.

Yes I will defend aspects of New Labour – the investment in education has made a difference (although not as much as you’d imagine looking at the staggering spending), waiting lists and crime are genuinely down, Britain has taken a lead in overseas aid, Sure Start is a good idea, as are academies, a good start has been made on constitutional reform... but I’m not sure Labour is any longer my natural home, nor that I’ll return.

So there you go – I’m holding my breath and crossing the Tory box. Unless something happens on the campaign trail and I change my mind again! Either way, you can’t accuse me of failing to think it through! Oh and the picture is of Mark Clarke - a good egg and the actual Tory for whom I will vote in Tooting. I haven't mentioned him yet!