The ThunderDragon

One of the policies to come of the Conservative conference last week which I particuarly like is this one:

I want to put an end to the situation where welfare is an entitlement. Instead I want our welfare state to become a two-way contract.

Our job is to help people when they are down - their job is to do everything they can to get themselves and their families back on their feet again…

Everyone who could work will be expected to take up the offer of support. They will be expected to get out of the house and to do something every day. If they won’t, then they will automatically lose their benefits until they do.

We’ll introduce mandatory independent medical assessments for people claiming incapacity benefit to see who can and cannot work. Anyone claiming the benefit on a false premise will lose it immediately. We’ll equip those with the potential to return to work with specialist support to do so. But if they refuse that support, they will also lose their benefits…

If people refuse reasonable job offers they’ll lose their benefits and if they refuse an offer three times, then they’ll be excluded from the benefits system for three years.

And for those who don’t manage to find work and claim jobseekers allowance for more than two years, we’ll introduce a year-long community work programme to get them back into the work habit.

No one benefits from sitting at home on benefits doing nothing.

In a nutshell, it is giving putting the opportunity in to the hands of the people. They will get the opportunities, and they have a simple choice: take them or lose their benefits. Which is more than fair enough - taxpayers are not a charity.

This is similar to ideas I have previously proposed. If we make it too comfortable for people to sit at home on benefits, why would they bother going to out to get a job? We must ensure that it isn’t easy for people to do this. They should either be actively looking for a job or taking part in training - or both.

It is very simple, and absolutely no-one with even half a brain can object to this proposal.

Previously published at The People’s Republic of Birmingham.

The tagline of this years Conservative Conference is “Plan For Change”. Change, moving forward, a new start. That is what this conference was meant to show – the Conservative’s setting out their plan for their future government. However, events have rather overtaken them.

They have set out several policies and points of principle, such as:

• Freezing council tax;
• Giving schools budget freedom;
• Scrapping authoritarian child databases;
• Not releasing prisoners early just because;
• Pledging to hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty; and, quite possibly most importantly
• Not matching Labour’s spending plans if the country can’t afford it.

But this has been totally overtaken by world events: the economic crisis caused by Gordon Brown and the Labour Party. And so the mantra of the Conservatives yesterday has been less “plan for change” and more “let’s work together”, by not “playing politics” with the economy.

This is an immeasuably responsible response in this economic climate. Any other response would have been extremely irresponsible. Yet it does rather undermine the “plan for change” motto, and rather allow the Conservatives to be associated with “more of the same”.

Unfortunately for the Conservatives, their conference has been overcome by the crisis, meaning that the plans for change that they have put forward have failed to dominate the headlines like they otherwise would have. However, they are out there, just not anywhere near as highly publicised in the media. What this will do is mean that the impression that the Conservatives are policy-lite will continue, and unfairly.

The Conservatives are planning for change, but able to work with other parties when necessary for the good of the country.

This is a cross-post for one week only. Usually you can see the Think-tank roundup at Cassilis on a Friday, or at the Wardman Wire or Liberal Conspiracy soon afterwards.

A weekly roundup of publications, reports, events & articles from the leading UK think tanks.

Welcome to this week’s Think-tank Roundup – everything from ‘new money’ and supply-side oil crunches to the call for better teachers and yes, Michael Gove’s ‘Nuts’ (there was more to his speech than that storm suggested). Things seem to be quiet on the events front but I guess that’s a function of both parliamentary recess and the impending party conference season (of which more soon). I haven’t highlighted the resignations of Lord Haskel & Wilf Stevenson at the Smith Institute as reported by Guido because as yet there’s nothing on the website to that effect. Must read piece this week is probably Gove’s speech if only because it deserves a better airing than it got because of that unfortunate quote about lads mags - details below.

As ever please use the comments for anything I’ve missed…

Reports & Publications…

• In a report for Chatham House Paul Stevens argues that “unless there is a collapse in oil demand within the next five to ten years, there will be serious oil ’supply crunch’ - not because of below-ground resource constraints but because of inadequate investment by national & international oil companies”. Read the full report here.
• The European Council on Foreign Relations published “Re-energising Europe’s Security and Defence Policy” – a report on “the state of European defence, arguing that “inertia and resistance in the defence machinery” are thwarting the European Union’s declared aim to make a real contribution to global security.”
• Two reports worth highlighting from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation – “The Bradford community guide: a guide to community and development projects” is an online resource, listing community and development projects in the city and featuring ten in-depth case studies and a wide range of projects, from youth development, training and housing, to faith, regeneration and film and media.
• Also from JRF’s Women’s Budget Group a report entitled “Women and poverty: experiences, empowerment and engagement” – ‘While the Government has developed strategies to combat poverty, especially for children and pensioners, there is no strategy to challenge women’s poverty specifically. This project set out to support women living in poverty so that they could go beyond being ‘witnesses’ to poverty to become actively involved in policy development’.
• The Oxford Research Group have a report on the regional role for stabilisation in Iraq – based on a meeting held in Riyadh in April between senior influential US and European observers and senior Saudi officials it looks at “five different scenarios for the future of Iraq and then examines competing images of Iran, Saudi Arabia and the United States, the issues of national identity, sectarianism and federalism, and concludes by exploring a number of possible future paths and processes”.
• Policy Exchange carry a report by Sam Freedman, Briar Lipson and Professor David Hargreaves on the need for “More Good Teachers”.

Articles & Briefings…

• The Chatham House monthly magazine ‘The World Today’ carries an interesting article by Robert Singh on the US Presidential elections – “US Presidential Election: Choice or Echo?”. Singh contends that the oft-quoted contrast offered between McCain and Obama is actually focused on character and personality traits and may not actually reflect substantial policy differences.
• In the latest Fabian Review Danny Dorling argues that where ‘class’ was once about breeding and perhaps latterly occupation, those easy distinctions are no longer possible – nowadays class is all about money. Read the full article here.
• Pavel Miller has a good article for the Foreign Policy Centre – “The need to be open-minded about Russia’s approaches”. Pavel argues that “In order to overcome the disagreements, negotiation must prevail through comprehension of Russia’s perspective, as opposed to the confrontational rhetoric and calls for punitive measures endorsed by Senator John McCain”.
• As you probably know the Institute of Public Policy Research hosted a speech by Michael Gove, Shadow Secretary of State for Children, Schools and Families this week on “Liberty, Equality, Family?”. There was significantly more to Michael’s speech than the small media storm around his remarks about ‘lads mags’ – he argues “that strengthening relationships is the key to building a better, happier and fairer society and [should be] the cornerstone of any effective anti-poverty strategy.” If you haven’t read the full speech it’s worth doing and there’s an audio version available too….
• Also at IPPR Andrew Pendleton has an article on the Global Politics of Climate change post-G8.
• The Policy Network has an article by David Coates on ‘Reclaiming Moderate America’ – “Recapturing the dominant narrative in US politics is the key task facing contemporary American liberals. That dominant narrative has to recapture the potential of the New Deal from its conservative detractors. It lies not in the nonsense of trickle-down economics, but in policies designed to enhance the strength, skills and security of a vibrant middle class—a middle class expanded at the bottom by policy to raise the poor and at the top by policy to curb the rich.”
• The RSA have 5mins of video of Matthew Taylor in conversation with political ‘man of the moment’ and author of Nudge Richard Thaler.
• Corine Wood-Donnelly has an article for the Henry Jackson Society on “British influence in a changing world” – ‘The decline in Britain’s relative economic weight can be compensated by its economic experience and expertise in order to retain a leading place in the globalised market. Britain’s existing strong global integration provides a head start in this regard, and its relationship with the European Union, USA and increasingly the Commonwealth will help extend British influence.’

Events & Meetings…

• The RSA will be hosting a lecture by influential US commentator Robert Kagan at this years Edinburgh International Book Festival on 22nd August in Charlotte Square – click here for more details.

People…

• Ann Rossiter, Director of the Social Market Foundation, has said she is to leave the organisation at the end of August to take up post as Special Advisor to Rt. Hon. John Denham MP, Secretary of State for Innovation, Universities and Skills. Natalie Tarry, Deputy Director of the SMF, will serve as Acting Director

28 policies in just 8 minutes.

You can just think: if they can sum that many up in just eight minutes, they really can’t have really put all that much thought into it!

I just feel sorry for the Queen, having to read out that much drivel. Maybe it was so short because she refused to read out any more than that amount of utter rubbish?

This is quite probably the most liberal thing that Labour has done in more than a decade of government:

But the reasoning has nothing to do with liberalism, but rather populism:

But I suppose the right thing done for the wrong reason is still the right thing.

Maybe they will use this new-found liberalism to cut the absurd number of laws that they have passed? Maybe they will use this new-found consideration of the people to decide to hold a referendum on the EU Constitution “Reform Treaty”? Ok, maybe not - but we can dream!

Source: BBC

Labour have already announced that they have stolen the Tories plans on Inheritance Tax and non-doms - and now they’re at it again.

This policy that Andy Burnham, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, has just announced shows that Labour has no ideas or policies of their own. He claimed in an interview in the Telegraph today that there is a “moral case” for promoting the traditional family through the tax system - despite rejecting the policy in July when it was proposed by IDS, claiming that it would “discriminate” against some families.

So either they have decided that, actually, it doesn’t discriminate or they just don’t care that it does. Neither scenario is good for Labour.

What this shows is that Labour really do have no unique policies of their own. Brown is not leading the country but following the Conservatives. Osborne hit the nail on the head when he said:

Brown is obviously trying to shoot the foxes of Tory policies by claiming that he has the same. But considering that people are already pissed off at the fact that the two main parties are so close together in all but rhetoric, Brown’s attempts to make them even closer again will just disillusion people with him and his so-called “vision” for the country.

Stealing policies is one thing, but at least try and put some time between the policies you steal and longer between when they were first made and when you steal them. Labour just look even more weak, ineffective, and vision-less the more they poach Tory policies. Brown’s trying to win over the middle classes - he won’t this way. They are cleverer than that.

Image: Andy Burnham
Sources: BBC - article 1, article 2, article 3; The Telegraph

Seems like a good idea…

… but I’m wary of it.

If a company is not paying one woman the same wage as her equal male colleagues, it stands to reason that the same discrimination is likely to exist throughout the rest of the company structure. Whilst under the current system, only that one individual benefits from the tribunal’s verdict if the company is deemed to have discriminated based on sex, under the system proposed by the Conservatives every woman in the company is going to be ensured that their pay is not defined by their gender.

In a way, I am a feminist. I believe that women should get treated in precisely the same way as men. If they have the same level of experience, skills, qualifications etc. and doing the same job, then they should the same level of pay, regardless of gender. Being a certain gender in itself should not cause you to get paid more or get paid less. Equality should exist.

I’m just not convinced whether a pay audit if a company lost a wage tribunal would really make that much of a difference to gender pay discrimination. It certainly seems like a logical and intelligent idea, but will it really work?

Image: Theresa May [she actually has a blog as well - but it hasn't been updated since July 6th, despite saying that it "will be updated on a regular basis" on her homepage]
Source: BBC

A Labour policy I agree with!

Excellent. This is what should happen. I blogged about my support for this idea when it was first suggested by the Chief Medical Officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, and even before that, when the issue was raised by the controversial kidney game show in the Netherlands.

Of course this is subject the various caveats, such as that the opt-out system is very easy and openly available and that the family of the deceased have the right to prevent organs being used unless that person has explicitly expressed the wish that their organs be re-used. That way, anyone who explicitly doesn’t want their organs to be used to save another person’s life can ensure that they are not.

The proposal makes complete sense - it will save lives and should reduce the cost to the NHS of supporting those who need organ transplants, and then enable them to be productive members of society again. It’s a win-win situation.

Source: The Telegraph

Why oh why do some members of the party think that it is a good idea to start in-fighting? It doesn’t help anyone except the Labour Party. Michael Ancram is attacking Cameron for “trashing” it’s Thatcherite past, and writes a column in the Telegraph under the title “Tories must not be ashamed of their history“. Of course we shouldn’t. I don’t think anyone has ever said that we are, or should be. But neither does that mean that we should copy it now. Every era has it’s own politics. Thatcher and her policies were right for her time. But that time ended probably about two decades ago. Not along after I was born, in fact. Iain Dale writes:

That they should. Ancram, and other political dinosaurs like him, should exit stage left. They are stuck in the rut of politics of the past. They don’t understand the political realities of modern Britain.

On this topic, I agree completely with Dizzy and Caroline Hunt, who writes:

This sort of in-fighting and semi-defections doesn’t help the Conservative Party at all in actually
doing the job we want them to.

As I wrote before, it is fine - and beneficial - to disagree on bits and pieces, such as on particular policies, over political strategies etc. But by in-fighting we harm no-one but ourselves. We all have the same very basic core beliefs and ideas - that is why we are all members of the Conservative Party. There are always going to be differences of opinion within large political parties. It comes from the nature of having lots of opinionated people together. To win, and to be able to enact them, we have to cast aside, or at least not shout about, our differences but stress the things we do agree on and work together to achieve them.

The political dinosaurs need to be asked some very simple questions, with yes or no answers:

Do you support the Conservative Party? Yes/No

Do you want the Conservative Party to win the next general election? Yes/No

If they answer yes to both of the questions above, then this is what they should do: Put a sock in it. Support David Cameron and the Shadow Cabinet in what they do and say. If you can’t say anything nice, don’t say anything at all.

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC

This isn’t a well thought out idea. There are no cars that are “zero carbon”, and even the so-called “green” cars aren’t as green as is claimed. £2,000 on “gas guzzlers” will not effect the rich who can afford them. People who buy these cars do so because they want to, and are willing to pay any extra for them.

Just having a 4×4/SUV seems to be enough provocation for some people, as shown in this video:

Really, most of their reactions are just disgusting.

This road tax policy of the Lib Dems is not a good one. There is already a graduated vehicle excise duty, introduced back in 1998, depending on emission levels. What they re proposing amounts to a huge increase - from a maximum of £300 to £2,000! A far better way to encourage people to buy “green”, more fuel-efficient, cars would be to abolish road tax entirely and add the tax onto fuel costs.

That way, those who drive more and have less environmentally friendly cars pay more, and those who don’t drive much pay substantially less. That way old Mrs Miggins who only drives to the supermarket once a week for her weekly shop doesn’t have to pay for the right to have her car, but just for the fuel to drive it. Whilst the mother who drives her little darlings to school every morning in her huge “gas guzzling” SUV pays for it. Thus it’s not owning a non-green vehicle that makes you pay, but driving it and thus polluting.

The Liberal Democrats need to drop this bad policy, and that of restricting runway capacity. That would do nothing but hold back, if not actively harm, Britain’s economy. Doing that is just giving in to the idiots at the Heathrow eco-camp.

Source: The Times