Tory Rascal interviews Nadine Dorries MP

Tory Rascal has posted the first part of an interview with Nadine Dorries. It makes very interesting reading!

Her thoughts on abortion, sex education, marriage and racial tension are well worth looking at. I find it hard to disagree with the vast majority of what she says. It is clear that Dorries is a very compassionate individual, and the Left’s attacks on her as a British Sarah Palin are completely unwarranted.

While I sometimes disagree with her criticisms of John Bercow – they can get a bit too personal for my liking – I think that overall she is a principled, independent spirited MP. We need more of them!

For richer, for poorer?

There has been a bit of a debate raging recently about the Tories’ plans to reward marriage in the tax system. Harriet Harman was scathing (shock, horror), as was an article in The Daily Mirror. The policy was defended by The Daily Telegraph and, back in July, there was an excellent justification of it by Fraser Nelson on The Spectator’s CoffeeHouse blog.

I’ll be clear where I stand: in theory, I am in favour of supporting marriage through the tax system. I think there should be some system whereby married couples are taxed at a slightly lower rate than individuals. Importantly, while I will refer to ‘marriage’ throughout the rest of my article (for ease more than anything else), I also support the same system for anyone in a civil partnership.

The evidence points to marriage as being the best environment for bringing up children. Fraser Nelson summarises the YouGov findings, but I’ll reprint them here. Children brought up in single parent households are:

• 75% more likely to fail at school
• 70% more likely to be a drug addict
• 50% more likely to have an alcohol problem
• 35% more likely to experience unemployment/welfare dependency

The study also points to cohabiting couples being far more unstable than married ones: almost half of all cohabiting couples separate before their child is one year old. Only one in twelve married couples do the same.

Surely we all want the current generation of children to grow up into educated, responsible, aspirational adults? It is therefore in the national interest to recognise and reward the social institution most likely to lead to that end result: marriage.

We already use the tax system to discourage certain behaviour that is deemed ‘bad’. Taxes on cigarettes, for example, or spirits. The precedent has already been set for using tax to alter behaviour. So why not use it to encourage ‘good’ behaviour like marriage, which brings so many social benefits?

I’m not claiming that it will be the silver bullet. There will still be single parents. Marriages will still break down, and children will still go off the rails. But it would be a start. If applied correctly, tax incentives for marriage could help to ease the financial burden on the least well-off couples, as well as acting as a powerful symbol that marriage is the best institution in which to raise children.

There are two main counter-arguments to this view, of course. One relates to the policy in principle, the other to the Tories’ specific proposals. I will deal first with the more general of the two.

Put simply, this is the argument that any policy in favour of marriage penalises single parents. Who wants to be seen to be criticising a single parent?

I certainly do not. I recognise that a huge number of single parents do an amazing job of raising their children, often in incredibly difficult circumstances. But I’m going to go out there and guess that, either upfront or deep down, most would admit that it isn’t an ideal situation.

In terms of policy, I think we can divide single parents into two groups. There are those who, through no fault of their own, lose their husband or wife through death or divorce. Personally, I would like to see a system where widows and widowers could retain the marriage tax incentives for a while. It seems morally wrong to take it away from someone who has lost their spouse. Perhaps it could be retained for a period of three or four years, to avoid an instant loss of money (and to give time for any young children to be of school age). The same can be said following a divorce. These events are traumatic enough, without suddenly facing an increase in tax also.

Then there are the people who have children without ever considering marriage. Either as a teenager, or through a one night stand, or something else. Whatever the circumstances, it happens. This is what a marriage tax policy should be a symbol against. Bringing a child into the world is an enormous commitment and, in my opinion, is one that should be attempted within a loving, stable marriage. And I don’t think governments should be afraid of saying that.

Then there is the specific criticism of Tory policy, as advocated in the Mirror. Iain Duncan Smith’s proposal for a transferable tax allowance would give couples in which one spouse worked £380 per year, whereas couples in which both worked would get only £30 of benefit. This would be a middle class tax break, giving the most benefit to couples which could afford for one person to stay at home.

I don’t often agree with the Mirror, but I do on this occasion. I’m not a fan of any tax that is regressive, and it looks like this married couples allowance would be – in a big way. So I hope Cameron and Osbourne can come up with a way of rewarding marriage in the tax system, but one that would reward those at the bottom of the income scale the most. The current proposal is unacceptable.

A third main criticism is cost. Ian Duncan Smith’s proposal would cost almost £5 billion, a huge sum. While I think some form of marriage tax allowance is desirable, careful thought must go into how it will be funded. While I think it is an important policy, my gut instinct is that it will too expensive to enact during the current fiscal crisis. It may well have to wait.

Overall, then, I do believe that marriage and civil partnerships should be supported through the tax system. Those on the Left (and libertarians on the Right) may well disagree, but it is what I believe. And it is, I would suggest, where the evidence points us. However, the current proposals are far too regressive for my taste and the Tories should have a careful think about how they want such a policy to work. It may also prove too expensive for the short- to mid-term.

Let’s see what Team Cameron come up with…

What exactly is ‘Cameronism’?

There’s a very interesting piece about political ideology in the latest edition of Total Politics. Apparently 12% of sitting Conservative MPs and 43% of candidates view their political philosophy as ‘Cameronism’. The exact percentages are largely meaningless; only 34 MPs and 69 candidates replied to the ComRes poll. However, the fact that Cameronism featured on the list at all warrants analysis.

I had never heard the phrase before seeing these poll results. We hear about ‘Cameronites’ and ‘Cameroons’, but Cameronism is not a label that the media (either mainstream or new) seem to have adopted. So what exactly is it? I’ll venture a few suggestions.

Firstly, it is concerned with social reform. There is such a thing as society. Families and communities are central to David Cameron’s political philosophy, as is a concern for less advantaged members of society. Recognising marriage in the tax system, allowing parents to come together to found new schools, welfare to work policies and treating the causes of family breakdown are all part of this commitment.

Secondly, it is about decentralisation of power. Or, to use a phrase Cameron likes, the ‘post-bureaucratic age’. Cameron clearly wants to radically shift power downwards to individuals, localities and councils. More directly-elected mayors, for example, and elected police commissioners. The ability to trigger national and local referenda. Housing policy controlled locally. Parents being able to set up state-funded ‘free schools’. More and more open primaries (and open caucuses, if you want to be pedantic) in the selection of Tory candidates.

Thirdly, it is a more encompassing, broader form of conservatism. Support for the NHS, acceptance of gay rights, the proactive promotion of women and ethnic minorities, concern for the poor and the acceptance of the environmental agenda have all allowed Cameron to march onto territory previously occupied by the Left. Meanwhile, the pledge to raise the Inheritance Tax threshold, to cut Corporation Tax and to restrict non-EU migrants as played with the Right, as has the creation of the European Conservatives and Reformists, and the promotion of Chris Grayling as Shadow Home Secretary.

Fourthly, it is not unthinkingly loyal to neoliberalism. Whether it is criticising the corporate culture of banks, advocating charges for supermarket car parks or setting up the Conservative Co-operative Movement, Cameron has shown himself able to see the flaws in free market capitalism. His public break with Thatcherism in 2006 and the Tories’ recent refusal to condemn Labour’s bonus tax are more examples of this.

Of course, we do not know for certain how much of this ideology is sincere, and how much is mere political positioning. For what it’s worth, however, I think Cameron is largely sincere.

Over at The Guardian, Andrew Sparrow has also blogged about the Total Politics results. He notes with some surprise the number of people (38% of MPs and 22% of candidates) who describe themselves as One Nation Tories. He goes on to describe Cameronism as ‘One Nation Toryism for the internet age’. This may also explain why a such a large number of MPs describe themselves as One Nation Tories, when it is an ideology that has not been popular for some time. Maybe they regard themselves as Cameron-esque, but prefer to use the older and more recognisable term to describe it?

Overall, I think Cameronism is a broad ideology, encompassing more progressive messages on the NHS, poverty, equality and the environment with more traditional stances on immigration, Europe, crime and public spending. It is a moderate, centre-ground ideology that seems to appeal to a wide range of people. Should Cameron win the next election, however, its biggest tests will be how successful it is as a philosophy for government, and whether or not it outlives David Cameron’s leadership.

Welcome

Welcome to PBV! I guess I should begin by explaining a little about this blog.

First thing’s first: I’m a moderate conservative. I believe in smaller government, lower taxes, personal responsibility, family values, community spirit. I’m a strong supporter of the Union with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. I’m a critic of the European Union and a defender of the ‘special relationship’ with the USA.

So why the ‘moderate’? I believe strongly in everyone’s right to state-funded education and healthcare. I support partnerships and co-operatives as much as (if not more than) individual or shareholder capitalism. I am against regressive taxation. I think that international development is a moral necessity and should be the cornerstone of UK foreign policy. I believe that prison should be as much about rehabilitation as it should be about punishment. I think that climate change has been significantly caused by man, and that we should take urgent steps to decrease carbon emissions.

But…I haven’t yet joined the Conservative Party. I like most of what David Cameron is saying, but I’m waiting to see the manifesto. We can’t go back to the Thatcher years; reductions in government spending and the elimination of the deficit cannot be done at the expense of the less advantaged. We’ll see if the ‘modern’ Conservative Party agrees.

This blog will give my take on politics and current affairs. I’ll pull no punches when the Labour government messes up (which is most of the time…) but I will try to be as fair-minded as I can. The same is true for the Conservative Party; if I agree, then I’ll say so loudly. If not, then I’ll disagree just as loudly!

Thank you for reading.