do the tories know what they're for?

In the wake of the IFS's pronouncement on the budget yesterday, Jim Pickard at the FT's excellent Westminster blog makes a simple but rarely heard point: cuts to public spending are, by their very nature, worse for the poor than the rich. This is because the poor rely on public services to a greater extent, overall. He goes on:

One economist points out to me that there is a department which provides a service to everyone across all demographics and socio-economic backgrounds: it is health, ironically. That suggests there could be a case for lifting the ring-fence on health spending on “progressive” grounds, allowing smaller cuts elsewhere. Not that the public would necessarily buy that argument, however.

I wonder if the Tories' decision to ringfence health spending will turn out to be the equivalent of New Labour's pledge to stick to Tory spending plans for their first two years: a necessary political compromise that ends up skewing their whole term in office away from their fundamental goals.

Having said that, I'm not sure what their fundamental goals are, and I'm not sure they are sure, either. I don't put cutting the deficit in this category, vital as it is. I mean fundamental political goals; how do they want to change the country, long term? That sort of thing requires a political philosophy, and Cameron and Osborne, despite a bit of Hilton-inspired think-tanky talk, have never really had one. Yet even Conservatives need a guiding sense of what they're in power to do. Here's the Spectator's James Forsyth on the Coalition's "bad day" yesterday:

Lesson 1: It needs a stronger narrative about what it is doing. Mark Hoban was woeful on the Today programme this morning. He had no come back to Justin Webb’s lines. The coalition needs to say that it is giving everyone a chance to get on, making working pay and restoring fiscal sanity.

The economic crisis and the resultant balooning of the deficit provided an emergency that meant the Tories had a good excuse to postpone any hard thinking about such onerous questions as what a Conservative government is for - after all, there's no point thinking about how to refurbish a house when it's on fire. But now they're in government the thinness of their philosophy - or 'narrative' - is already showing up, and the problem is exacerbated by having to work with an unexpected political partner. It is extremely hard to find a raison d'etre on the hoof, as Mark Hoban will tell you.

Comments

[ashcash]

Tories fundamentalist goals are to stay in power. It's means are to adapt adapt and adapt further.....to secure its aim. and jolly good this is.

The country however is uninterested....and hence (at present) Mr Clegg is the king maker.

perhaps it is time now to think beyond purely the material....happiness contentment fulfilment and all that good stuff. The country's definition of fairness is evolving a bit more slowly than the speed at which we are becoming grounded globally. Shortage of money means that we can now look to other (under-developed) aspects - emotional spiritual - to give us what money on its own has failed to.

Rebalancing continues but most importantly our viewpoints are coming down-to-earth. Perhaps this is where (atleast in London) we will lead the world. Key date is 2012.

[John]

The Conservatives are about reducing the power of the state.

This fairness debate goes nowhere. "Fairness" means pretty much what you want it to mean. Pretty much like "common sense" or "reasonable" of "likeable".

[ejoch]

I think - I hope - that as the last comment said, they're about reducing the power of the state. Promoting individual freedom. But they're getting into a mess every now and then because political reality forces them into daft compromises or fudges (privately run schools that can't make a profit/ring fencing budgets etc).