New Labour and the universal welfare state

This is the sort of thing I've been talking about for a fair amount of time - Labour putting people on to the public payroll, welfare state (i.e. getting tax credits when you earn £50k a year etc) - and there's an admission from one of their side (Sunny Hundal), calling it their 'greatest achievement' (emphasis mine):

And so, expanding the size of the welfare state and making it central to people’s lives, despite Thatcher’s best attempts to destroy it, was one of New Labour’s greatest achievements. And by that I mean expenditure on the NHS, on public transport, on public works, on the arts and of course on unemployment benefits.

The welfare state is key to the success of economic redistribution. And in order to maintain popularity for the welfare state it has to fulfil two criteria: it has to be universal; and it has to improve people’s lives to the point they feel they have a stake in it.

The Tories need to shrink the state for ideological reasons because the less people have contact with it, the less they’ll support it.

Ignoring the anti-Thatcher nonsense, I think this hits the nail on the head about the modern difference of Labour vs. Conservative - both support some form of welfare state, but the conservative welfare state is a safety net (as originally intended by Beveridge) while Labour's is more of a hammock, trying to make everyone feel an allegiance to it, even if it is literally taking money out of one pocket, and putting most of it into the other pocket (minus, of course, the stuff dropped on the floor as government waste).

And there was an essay in the Spectator just after the Budget, saying that Osborne wanted to move people off the welfare state to make them more self-reliant, and therefore more likely to vote Conservative.

And this is probably the key difference. It's all quite political, which isn't great, but the conservative way is to move people off the state payroll (be it direct employment or in the form of tax credits, etc) to make them more self-reliant, make them more likely to want things like corporation tax cuts and lower regulation, etc - i.e. vote Conservative. Labour's way is to move people on to that state payroll, encourage state dependency - and in that create 'client states' (see Glasgow) of people who will not vote to remove this, because it seems comfortable, it seems nice and plush, even though they are actually paying (and, since it discourages work, probably paying even more than without tax credits etc) to subsidise themselves. In short, they want people to vote Labour.

And that is a key ideological divide between the Conservatives and Labour. Modern conservatism, especially IDS, seem to see a role of government in helping people to stand on their own two feet, and not be dependent on government - and though my more libertarian strands question whether this approach is best, it is certainly a noble aim - and more noble than the idea of making people dependent on government - it's hardly helping them, and it's hardly providing any freedom.

And that's probably part of the reason that I'm a conservative - getting people off the state payroll, and to coin a phrase that a fellow canvasser said back in April, encouraging social responsibility not state dependency. It's not rabid individualism, it in fact lets people decide if they want to be self-reliant or if they want to help each other out (the social responsibility part of that phrase I just mentioned) - and I think families and communities, families especially, are incredibly important in this. I just don't think that state dependency is at all responsible, at all fair or at all helpful. The state is faceless, impersonal and doesn't generally have a clue.

A return to the Friendly Societies? No, I'm getting too optimistic.

Could the Lib Dems split?

Over all these deals? It's already a coalition as it is (a merger of the old Liberal-SDP alliance) - so what if the Orange Bookers, the old Liberals (Laws et al) left and went across to the Conservatives, who share some of their Whiggism if we are to go back that far, while the lefties went across to Labour, who they seem to think are their "natural partners"?

And the UK returns to two-party politics, with no need for electoral reform?

Just a thought.

Fail of the day

Douglas Alexander and Ed Miliband on Comment is Free.

The real question facing Britain is not how to nudge people but how to give them power over their own lives. The need for collective action is clear

Make your mind up, power over their lives i.e. less government or collective action i.e. more government (and less power over their own lives).

Labour just don't have a clue.

12, nearly 13 years of more government, it's failed, it's clearly caused problems, and they want to expand government further.

Because that's logical.

What policy?

From the government of policy conflicts comes yet another one.

I know it's meaningless, but having put a bill in the Queen's Speech forcing the next government to cut the deficit, they have been spending willy-nilly and getting us into more debt.

One rule for them, another for the unfortunate government (probably Conservative) who has to sort it out.

Six quarters of negative growth

Labour's recovery policies are really working, aren't they?

This is the longest and worst recession since records began in the 1950s - and the reasons we aren't coming out of it are quite simple.

1. No business confidence. The growing budget deficit is seen as deferred taxation. They also don't like the look of the 50% rate, or the possible EU hedge funds directive. Therefore, businesses don't want to expand supply again.

2. Banks cannot lend. The interest rates are low yes, and the money supply has been expanded through QE, but that extra money is just being stored up in banks' reserves. The problem here is that the regulator is trying to look like it's doing something, and has implemented a measure that should have come at the top of the boom, not in the recession - higher capital ratios. Banks don't actually have enough money to lend (and no one wants to save because of the ultra-low interest rates), so regulation is one reason that we aren't getting out of the slump. Then we have crazy suggestions like the windfall tax on banks' profits, which would surely stop the financial sector's recovery for a bit longer.

Keynesianism has been tried again. Just like in the 1930s, it's failed again. Regulation has been tried again. Just as its hopelessness helped the crash occur, its hopelessness will prevent recovery.

Summing up 12 years of Labour

Illiberal.

The plan is to bar suspected wife-beaters from their homes for 2 weeks while the wife decides the next step. Note suspected. There is no proof of this, no evidence to be presented, there just has to be an accusation, and property rights are overridden.

The move is intended to close a loophole in the current law under which police can only offer immediate protection to a victim if a suspect is charged.

Also know as the presumption of innocence. That's no loophole, that's the entire basis of our judicial system.

ID Cards

Manchester residents can voluntarily sign up for ID cards, according to the BBC.

I've seen "queue up" used on various blogs. Let's be honest, there won't be any queues, there will just be a few nutters, people trying to look cool, and Labour MPs signing up. £60 to hand over my details for them to lose? Give it a break. I'll be renewing my passport asap at the end of the year when my current one expires.

The BBC is obsessed with the cost issue, which is a problem, but far more important is the civil liberties issue. Pilots have been forced to have an ID card for an airside pass - how long until I have to have an ID card for a driving licence, or a gym card, or to buy a chocolate bar in the shop? They aren't voluntary at all. I'd also rather not having a government following me around, a government that inherently gives itself more and more power.

ID cards should be scrapped now, or at least postponed until after the next election (if the Tories win they'll be scrapped, and Labour will have a mandate if they somehow manage to win).

Pupils should not be taught Twitter

The government's new dumbing-down plan? Teach primary school children how to use Twitter.

First of all, I'd be rather insulted at the patronising attitude they are using if they have to be taught how to type text into a box. And that said, do we really need to teach such obvious, common sense logic to children? No.

Even more sickening is that British history is being removed. These children will have no sense of national identity, no patriotism, little idea of what their forefathers did for their nation. But that's what the PC lefties want - they want some multicultural utopia.

In the long run this is going to make our population, and indeed our workforce, deficient. In economic terms it will shift long run aggregate supply inwards. That is a major cause of concern for anyone - Labour only care about short term gain over long term requirements. They've ruined my education, and I don't want them to ruin anyone else's.

Please, please, get rid of this awful government. Bring in free schools that are able to set their own curriculum, and let parents decide where to send their kids. That way this rubbish and any other loony-left nonsense will be obliterated. Funny that the National Curriculum was introduced to stop this sort of rubbish being taught to kids, but it's now infiltrated the system.