Paul Goodman
Already a subscriber? Log in
It does not follow, however, that because we think the state should shrink that we believe it should all but vanish altogether. There are solid political as well as electoral reasons for rejecting the view that the nightwatchman state is enough, even before delving into the historical differences and linkages between conservatives and liberals. These might be summarised roughly as follows.
First, capitalism is not producing well-paid, secure, blue and white collar jobs in western Europe on the scale that it did even 25 years ago. Voters thus expect the state to step in: to help support lower paid workers through the Living Wage or tax credits; to improve schools, so that younger people are better prepared for work; to help ensure that there are houses in places where workers need them; to provide transport and digital infrastructure.
Second, changes in our lives at work mirror those at home. More people are coping on their own, as families change, with debt, or substance abuse problems, or the inability to read and write, or the lack of the ‘soft skills’ that underpin regular work. The traditional free market nostrums do little to help them. If a man has an alcohol problem, cutting taxes won’t help him. If he can’t read, nor will slashing red tape. If he lacks soft skills, privatisation won’t create a job that he can do.
Third, the state isn’t necessarily the provider who meets all these requirements. For example, there is a need, as people live longer, for new savings vehicles to supplement the state pension. But government must set the overall framework. And that state pension must be there in some form – at least, if a party is to win elections. The manifesto social care fiasco is testimony to what can happen when governments propose sudden change.
May put it baldly when she praised “the good that government can do”. Cameron’s vision of the Big Society, with its enhanced role for the independent sector, charities and voluntary groups, was closer to the mark. But it needs the state to still be there after it has stood back: to act, in that clunking but indispensable word, as an enabler – championing, regulating, setting a tax and legal framework, sometimes funding.
Finally, a plea to see ourselves as others see us. I’ve never heard anyone who wasn’t politically active talk of a small or big state. Most voters want government to be out of their hair yet there when they need it. They respect, even if they don’t always like, politicians who deliver stable economic management and a competitive tax framework – which in turn raises the revenue to fund higher spending on schools, hospitals and other public services. Which is what Margaret Thatcher, free market heroine, delivered in her time.
Paul Goodman is Editor of ConservativeHome. This article originally appeared in Bright Blue’s latest magazine Capitalism in Crisis?
Because you read about conservative party
Also by Paul Goodman
Latest
Comments
Join the debate for just $5 for 3 months
Be part of the conversation with other Spectator readers by getting your first three months for $5.
UNLOCK ACCESS Just $5 for 3 monthsAlready a subscriber? Log in