Why Socialists don’t understand Conservatives

The Socialist sees politics as being about systems, economic systems to be more specific.  He regards anyone who does not support his agenda for systemic change as a partisan for all that is wrong with this imperfect world. 

The true conservative is not an advocate for usury or capitalism.  He is rather distrustful of systemic and revolutionary change as advocated as an alternative to capitalism.  He does not see life as being all about economic systems.  For him life is about values and he is sceptical of radical change, because in the attempt to create the perfect society much that holds society together is swept away.

Conservatives are at risk of falling into the elephant trap the Left set, once they see themselves as being ideological advocates for an economic system such as capitalism.  Rather the best rebuttal to the Left is to make clear that living morally is not to rant about changing economics, but to do your best in your own society – join the little platoons to make life better for your neighbourhood.

Of course there is greed in our present society, of course there is ambition.  There would be just as much greed and ambition in a society dominated by the state.  The ambitious individual would simply be sycophantic towards the chief bureaucrat in a socialist system instead of the corporate boss. 

Conservatives are strongest when defending a free society based on private property.  This is different from advocating capitalism red in tooth and claw.  When people can own their own property, separate from the state, they gain independence.  They could even pool their property and set up their own communes, opting out of capitalism if they so choose.  It is the tradition of freedom under the rule of law, not so much the market that conservatives should be defending.  Capitalism is a consequence of  a free society, not the be all and end all!

For too long conservatives have allowed the Left to define the parameters of debate.  It is time to start arguing that the solution to many of society’s ills lies at the local and neighbourhood level.  It is about individuals themselves, not political or economic systems being changed.

This is not a philosophy that is about resigning and abdicating one’s responsibility to others, rather it is the very opposite.  It is about taking responsibility as an individual for one’s neighbour.  The true abdication of responsibility is to claim the solution to the problems around me is political and that it is all the system’s fault. 

It is no accident that the famous quotation “For evil to triumph it is necessary only for good men to do nothing” was first uttered by that conservative thinker, Edmund Burke.  It goes to the heart of conservative values.

The Left seems to distrust anything that puts responsibility back onto the individual.  An example of this is the Left’s distrust of religion.  Religious belief identifies the real need for change as lying within the soul of the individual, not within political systems.

It is completely possible to be conservative and dislike the consumerist society, casino banking, the soul-less shopping malls and the greed around us.  Indeed it is consistent with conservative thinking, if by conservative we mean placing emphasis on time-honoured customs and values, such as patriotism and faith, rather than materialism.

As individuals move away from such values towards materialism, the solution is not political, but social and spiritual.  The onus lies on us not the state, to ensure we uphold our Christian values and sustain a more meaningful way of life.

When it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change (originally published on Conservative Home on 31st January 2013)

Conservatism is more of an attitude than a political dogma.  While there are many in the modern Conservative Party who adhere to political creeds such as libertarianism or liberal conservatism, surely a desire to conserve and a scepticism about sudden change is more about values and attachment to the tried-and-tested than ideology or political theory.  And that is a good thing.  I still believe that while the majority of the British public are not necessarily overly enamoured with the concept of the invisible hand of the market or shrinking the state, they do possess an innate conservatism.  It is that commonsense sceptism about political theories that kept the ancient institutions of state, the monarchy, the established church and the House of Lords intact in the turbulence of the Eighteenth and Nineteenth Centuries and saw the Conservative Party flourish in the era of universal suffrage in the last Century.  Lose touch with that conservative attitude and the Party loses the foundations of its support.

That is why it is deeply worrying that the Conservative Party seems to have developed an enthusiasm to be seen to be doing and changing.  My suspicion is that most people would prefer it if politicians did less not more.  The trouble with politics is that it can attract the sort of person who wants to make their name and usually a name is gained by changing something, whether or not the change is good – Edward Heath taking Britain into the Commonmarket or Nick Clegg’s abortive attempt to destroy the House of Lords spring to mind.  The Conservative Party should be the natural foil to this – it represents the attitude so pithily summed up by the second Viscount Falkland:  “When it is not necessary to change it is necessary not to change.”

It seems that many of the areas of policy where the Conservative Party has been perceived as vulnerable in recent times are where they have been more radical.  It is people’s natural conservatism that leads them to resent the growth of the supermarket at the expense of the local high street and it is again conservatism that leads people to resist development in their backyard; indeed the whole urge to protect the environment is a sort of conservatism – the conservation movement.

I believe Mr Cameron got it right when he realised that much of the alleged toxification of the Conservative brand could be cured while remaining true to Conservative values.  It is right that we are now a party of conservation and a party of localism.  Localism, despite its being given a name like a dogma is fundamentally conservative - as Edmund Burke pointed out patriotism springs from people’s membership of the little platoons rather than loyalty to a large, overweening state.  The Big Society is truly conservative – it is about voluntary organisations holding society together rather than that same overweening state the Socialists look to.

Unfortunately, the Coalition I believe obscures the clarity of who the Conservatives are.  What could be more un-conservative than attempting to unravel the constitution by abolishing the House of Lords or attacking marriage by changing its definition to include same-sex partnerships?  It is very worrying to many voters with a conservative outlook to see the Party that should represent them allowing the Liberal Democrats to run away with policies that attack institutions far more important to a conservative outlook than deregulation of the market.

What is also disconcerting is when MPs seem to rush headlong enthusiastically into reform.  Those reforms may well be justified, but if conservatism is more of an attitude of scepticism than political dogma, much as elected police commissioners may fit in with Localism, should we not have approached the policy with more of a sceptical try-it-and- see, piecemeal approach?  Instead there seems to be something almost zealous about the Party’s approach to change.

A case in point is the reform of the laws of succession, being rushed through Parliament in one day.  To a Liberal Democrat such as Nick Clegg the longstanding nature of primogeniture is a reason to overthrow it.  Surely to conservatives the approach is one of not rushing, but thinking through the implications.  Of course, it probably will be better for the survival of the monarchy if primogeniture is abolished, but there will be unforeseen implications and that is exactly why the conservative response should be to carry out this reform in a slower and more considered way.

One is reminded of the Church of England being disconcerted by the enthusiasm of Methodism.  The Anglican Church reacted in a conservative way; it exhibited an attitude of scepticism about the enthusiastic hymn-singing and evangelism.  Now in the long run it was probably a good idea for the congregation to sing hymns, but the conservative attitude is to take these things step-by-step and not to rush people who might be uncomfortable about change.  So please let’s have a little less enthusiasm and a bit more English reserve!

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/platform/2013/01/matthew-groves.html

One Tier or Two (Originally published as part of a Localis pamphlet of the same name)

 Government needs to be closer to residents

All politicians seem to subscribe to the idea of localism. Rather like

“motherhood and apple pie” it is something that by definition is

regarded as good and much lip-service is paid to the concept. Looked

at more closely, however, much of what has been done in the name

of localism, such as attempts to regionalise the United Kingdom, have

actually removed power further away from the individual and rather

increased the tiers of government and bureaucracy.

What then, is the true localist agenda? Our existing system of

local government in this country is in the process of being tinkered

with via the setting up of a number of unitary councils. Much of

the debate about localism on the Right has focussed on the role

of county councils, while the Government has looked to increase

the regional structure on the one hand and devolve power to

parish councils, the smallest forum of local government, on the

other. In this article I intend to concentrate on that more overlooked,

but very much frontline form of local government, the district council.

To be clear, when I am referring to district councils I am talking

about rural district or borough councils within the two-tier local-government

system, as distinguished from unitary borough or district

councils. It is my argument that the two tier system is more democratic,

more accountable and more local.

Coming from a Centre-Right standpoint, I regard localism as a

means of bringing power closer to the individual so that individuals

can have more choice over how they are governed and how public

services are delivered. If Government is more receptive to individual

choices it will by definition be more accountable.

District councils are of a small enough scale to be more responsive

than counties or unitaries and are still able to deliver effectively

because they employ their own bureaucracy. Unfortunately, districts,

like other tiers, have been more and more restricted by central and

European diktat that undermines the concept of local representatives

making local decisions. To address this, the Government should

abandon its plans for more unitary authorities and free local authorities

from central control.

Front-line services

In terms of its localist credentials, the United Kingdom’s system of local

government does not score well. The United Kingdom has one of the

lowest numbers of councillors per 100,000 voters in Europe. Compared

to a country such as France, where one mayor can represent

around 350 voters, the United Kingdom looks less democratic in a

local context.

Where councils are strongest are where their local accountability makes them responsive to local residents needs and wishes in the deliveryof frontline services. A smaller council is less bureaucratic and more democratic, because the councillors are known by their voters and have a smaller officer body to steer. The alternative to more local delivery by delivering services from the centre is likely to be cheaper, but it will be less responsive to the demands of the electors. In the drive for efficiency, centralisation undermines choice. I feel the balance should be on the side of greater choice for residents. If choice is the driver, then local authorities will act more like private companies in their delivery of services. They will be sensitive to the wishes of their consumers.

As any neo-classical economist knows, central planning is less

responsive to local and individual demands and undermines diversity

A smaller council is less bureaucratic and more democratic, because the councillors are known by their voters and have a smaller officer body to steer and competition of different models. A useful real-life example of district councils being innovative and responsive in their delivery of their

services is Tandridge District Council’s waste contract.

Tandridge has negotiated a contract that fulfils the residents’ preference

for a back-door waste collection. It may be that this front-line

service is more expensive, but it is what the users of the service prefer

to pay for. Were the waste collection service delivered county wide

or across a section of the county on a unitary basis, it would be far

more difficult to respond to the preferences of Tandridge residents.

In a predominantly rural district, with an aging population, a backdoor

service works and is preferred by council-tax payers. A service

deliverer that covered a wider area would have to reach for the lowest

common denominator, where different needs had to be addressed,

for example urban versus rural.

Another general argument for services being delivered by smaller

bodies is that it enables alternative methods to be tested. The larger

the organisations, the fewer are the opportunities for experiment. Innovation

is more likely and better methods are more likely to be tried out

if there are more service deliverers.

Another key area of innovation that enables district councils to learn

from one another and adopt best practice is joint-working. This brings

the advantage of economies of scale without the loss of local autonomy

or responsiveness to voters’ preferences.

Are unitary authorities the solution?

To remain true to the spirit of localism it must be right to accept that

unitaries are the right answer in some cases but not others. It all

depends on the local circumstances on the ground. For example, a

city such as Plymouth is naturally a unit with a clear identity, but a

County such as Cornwall is diverse and the unpopularity of the

moves towards a unitary authority demonstrates that a keen sense

of local identity works against single tier authorities that cover a

large area.

The argument for unitaries usually put forward is that service delivery

works better if there is one organisation delivering. It is not

resident-friendly and can be very confusing if one authority is responsible

for one service and another for other services. Waste is a clear

example of this, where districts are responsible for waste collection

and counties for waste disposal.

That may well be the case, but it does not undermine the central

point that the more local the level of service delivery the more responsive

it is. Rather than a definite argument for unitaries, this point could

be employed to argue that more frontline services, such as road maintenance

could be devolved to districts.

Where unitaries undermine localism they are a step in the wrong

direction. For example, prima facie it must be the case that reducing

the number of local councillors reduces democracy and accountability.

This is usually the result when districts and counties are replaced

by unitaries.

Another argument in favour of local-government reorganisation

often put forward is the savings that will be made. The jury really still

is out on this though. As I understand it, too often the creation of

unitary councils has been far more expensive than originally expected.

Local government reorganisation can prove a costly exercise.

As mentioned above, many of the advantages of amalgamating

tiers of local government can be achieved by joint working with other

councils. This can achieve all the advantages of working together,

achieving best practice and making substantial savings without the

cost, both financial and democratic of moving towards one tier.

What’s wrong with the present system?

In short the answer to this is not enough localism and too much topdown

decision making. Much ink has been spent on why powers

should be devolved back to county councils and the arguments are

well rehearsed, but it is also the case that district councils operate

within a straitjacket set up by central government. A culture of topwww.

down targets, ring-fenced grants and negative subsidising has led to

a situation where local councillors are often in a position of simply

implementing central government policy. This undermines local

accountability and means that the local councillor is often viewed as

ineffective.

To take one key example, when voters elect their local councillor onto the local planning authority, they expect that they will be represented.  Instead they find that local councillors must give more weight to  government policy statements than their own local planning policies and if they do defy the thrust of central government policy to meet their

own local needs, they may well find themselves overridden by the planning inspectorate.

The disadvantage of local decisions being overridden in planning

matters is that it allows the local councillors to take decisions while

avoiding consequences. For example it can mean a populist stance

is taken and then the blame laid on the inspector when he overturns

the decision; alternatively, councillors can rely too much on what an

inspector is likely to do when making their decision and thereby overlook

local needs. It is important to emphasise that local councillors

usually work very well within these constraints, but when decisions are

overturned residents understandably ask, “what is the point in a local

planning authority if the centre has the final say?”

If local councillors were given greater responsibility for their decisions

it would actually work against the so-called “NIMBY”

temptation. Councillors would not simply be able to play to the

gallery when they knew for example that an unpopular affordable

housing estate needed to be built. Greater power would mean real

responsibility being taken and would make local councillors more

accountable. Voters would feel that there was far more point to voting

in local elections if the representatives they elected had real power to

make decisions.

A similar example of the present problem of over-centralisation is in

the realm of housing policy. The local housing authority has very

limited autonomy. Most of what it is responsible for is in effect dictated

by central government guidelines. For example, rent increases in

council accommodation rent-increases are now required by government

guidance to converge with the rents of housing associations. A

recent decision to lower the level of increase because of the economic

climate was initiated by central government.

The issue of rent increase was once a matter of genuine debate in

town halls up and down the land. It was an emotive issue on which

local representatives could vote according to their political principles.

Now the level of debate is very limited because, in reality, there is

very little local autonomy.

Although central government only issues guidance, it rewards those

housing authorities that follow the guidance on rents and penalises

those who do not follow the guidelines via the subsidy mechanism.

Central government relies on the subsidy mechanism in a number of

ways to control local housing policy.

The most inimical aspect to localism of the subsidy system is negative

subsidy. This is where local housing authorities that manage their

housing stock well and thereby, according to government calculations

should be in surplus, are required to pay money from their housing

revenue accounts to central government.

A genuinely local policy on transferring or retaining stock is also

very difficult to maintain. Local authorities are required to ballot

tenants on stock transfer. If councils cannot afford to meet the government

requirement of decent homes standard, they are put in a

position where they have little choice but to transfer the stock.

It might be asked why it is a bad thing that local housing authorities

are cajoled into increasing the living standards of their tenants. Of

course no reasonable man or woman would oppose improvements in

living standards on the grounds of a political theory. If local accountability

is taken away however, then it becomes far more difficult for the

local councillor to champion the cause of tenants in his or her ward or

for the tenants to truly hold their social landlord to account. For

example, if the decent homes standard requires one piece of work to

be carried out and the demand from tenants is for another more pressing

piece of work, the local need must fall subject to the central,

uniform perspective. Centrally-imposed solutions mean less opportunity

for local solutions truly applicable to the specific needs of the

specific tenants.

Solutions

The goal of localism must surely be what European treaties refer to as

subsidiarity i.e. allowing decisions to be made at the lowest possible

level. For local authorities to have real autonomy top-down targets

must be drastically curtailed and local authority funding must be

looked at again. Power should be devolved not to new quangos at a

regional level or parish councils with no bureaucracy to implement

local wishes, but to the district level as seen in the two tier system.

There can be no real freedom for local authorities, without reform

of local government funding. The more local councils are responsible

for their own funding, the more they can be held to account, rather

than simply competing to spend more and larger government grants.

For this reason the national non-domestic rates, or business rates,

should be retained at least in part by local authorities. This would

also encourage local authorities to promote economic growth, as their

revenue would increase with the number of businesses.

The argument of this article is that district councils are in the frontline

of democracy and therefore most responsive to local pressures.

Given the greater number of district councillors and the smaller wards

it is easier for voters to recognise and interact with them. The district

councillor is usually in the heart of a small community and is usually

known.

When the district councillor is at work he or she is dealing with a

much smaller officer body and therefore councillor influence over the

direction of council policy can penetrate any officer cadre that might

exist. Larger bodies are far more difficult to penetrate as the elected

member is faced by a large bureaucracy. Ironically this can mean that

councillors on larger councils do not have a strategic overview and find

themselves only able to concentrate on small-scale ward level problems.

The democratic steer of the overall direction is therefore weak.

Districts are of a size with a small enough officer staff for members

to have a truly strategic influence that is responsive to the direction

that their voters feel the community should be heading. Therefore

voters have more of a say about how they are governed.

In terms of participation in democracy, districts because of their

size, if freed from central control, are the right level to increase

engagement. Furthermore, by dint of the fact that there are more councillors

there are inevitably more activists engaged in the political

process, such as delivering literature, canvassing, knocking up on

polling day. 

All these ways of being involved increase engagement

with the voter. The fact that districts provide more volunteers directly

engaged is in itself a way of involving more people in politics.

On this basis, the possibility of devolving more services to the district

council should be looked at. At one time district councils were responsible

for highways, why not return this responsibility? If education were to be the responsibility of district councils rather than the county, councillors accountable to a smaller

number of voters could have a much greater voice over issues affecting the schools in their ward. It would probably be necessary for the building to remain in the ownership of the

county councils, but the delivery of education could become the responsibility

of the less remote, more local district council.

These are but a few suggestions. The main point is that if we truly

believe in localism, those local authorities that have more localist credentials

should be given more responsibilities. Rather than creating

new tiers of government at a higher level and giving them an overall

say on local issues, true devolution is about freeing the existing local

councils that for too long have often only been able to act as rubber

stamps for central government policy.

Please find the full pamphlet at:  http://www.localis.org.uk/images/articles/Localis-One%20Tier%20or%20Two_.pdf