Antonia Kaplan has found an interesting article by Ross Clark in The Spectator of 16 January, 2010. This suggests that David Cameron prefers to help the rich and his »romantic » poor but do little for those of the middle class who have already bettered themselves. The new thinking in the draft Conservative manifesto on health is described by Andrew Lansley, the shadow health minister, as »progressive conservatism » and proposes weighting of public health funding »so that extra resources go to the poorest areas with the worst health outcomes through a health premium ». This follows an earlier announcement to fund new independent state schools partly by means of a »pupil premium » i.e. by extra funding for schools taking on more poor children.
Ross Clark sees a future Cameron government for the rich and for the poor but with not much for those in between, if the rich are also offered tax cuts e.g. on inheritance tax and stamp duty on share transactions. David Cameron he considers as having little affinity for the self-made, middle class who were the backbone of the Party during the Thatcher years and harbouring a romantic notion of the poor, not uncommon to those from a comfortable background but alien to self-made individuals from council estates.
He writes that low educational attainment cannot be put right by higher spending on poor pupils; it is a result of low aspiration and a lack of value in education. It is better to reward self-help and not intensify the benefits trap. Meanwhile the wealthy will continue to pay for highly selective private schools but bright pupils in the middle will be left deprived of the leg-up once provided by grammar schools.
Is the Conservative party really turning its back on the middle class, its core vote for the past 30 years, as suggested by Ross Clark? It »s perhaps no surprise that Gordon Brown is now chasing the middle class vote.
Archive for janvier, 2010
Progressive Conservatism
mardi, janvier 26th, 2010Marriage Tax Breaks
samedi, janvier 9th, 2010David Cameron was attacked last week as lacking conviction and equivocating on whether the Conservatives if elected would still be committed to tax breaks for married couples, perhaps given the poor state of the public finances. Certainly the UK seems to be quite unique in Europe in not recognising the civil status of marriage within the tax code. It is recognised within the French tax system and in Germany the Constitution also protects the rights of the family.
The arguments in the UK against a tax favouring married couples include:
– It would discriminate against the poorest 10% of society, where the marriage rate is disproportionately much lower (i.e. Ian Duncan Smith »s »Broken Society ») and favour the better-off (e.g. a net benefit saving of £30 for the former versus £300 for the latter).
– It is not the government »s role in a modern, multi-cultural society to try and coerce the population into marriage via the tax system; it should be a matter for individual choice.
The right to individual choice is of course a basic Conservative tenet as well as a respect for tradition including the institution of marriage in support of the stable family unit for nurturing future generations.
The Labour Party views David Cameron as the modern Conservative Party »s major asset certainly when compared with Gordon Brown and, therefore, will try to paint him as shallow, lacking both depth and conviction at every opportunity in front of the electorate. However, to take a stand on this issue is good for the rank and file but not likely to be a real vote winner for attracting new Conservative voters from the centre ground in the key marginal constituencies.