Tax less
That’s the question James asks himself and I say, no.
I think we have to be very aware that they’re going to be saying things that may sound alien to Conservatives but which actually mean what we believe!
I happily redistribute my ‘wealth’ by paying taxes that I know will pay for an elderly person’s pension. In fact, I would be happy for a larger proportion of the tax I pay to go to that and less to go to, say, the EU.
I guess what Oliver Letwin is saying is that the poor (by misfortune rather than laziness) in society should be supported, to some extent, while those of us who survive by meritocratic freedom can carry on earning a fair and relative wage. I am comforted, particularly, by Cameron’s espousal of the virtues of charity.
Update (11:43pm 23 December 2005)
And, therefore, I disagree with Devil’s Kitchen for once. (Thanks Allan)
Like this entry? Share it with others:
| 
| 
| 
| 
| 
#1 by Allan Scullion on December 23rd, 2005 - 10:31 pm
Three election failures must have shown the Tories by now that there is no way they can be re-elected without some promise of wealth redistribution. Doing so does not make them socialist in my book (as DK seems to think).
It is just common sense and ties in with the new sell of “Compassionate Conservatism”. I hate the term because it implies (reminds us?) that previous Conservative administrations were not compassionate. The shift to the centre ground is going to be the only way to topple Brown at the next election. I don’t think this policy is at odds with basic conservative values.
#2 by James G on December 24th, 2005 - 11:15 am
Gav,
I suppose you can read into it what you want. No doubt, Letwin comes with a good pedigree as far as libertarian credentials go, but how far has he fallen from the tree?
And I have seen him at work up close at a Professional Contractors Group meeting a few years ago. He certainly chooses every word he says and doesn’t speak off the cuff…(He was able to give the impression that the Conservatives supported the repeal of IR35 [which they didn't, really] without actually saying so!!)
I hope your interpretation is the correct one.
I just wish that wealth redistribution didn’t have to be part of the political debate…But that’s the Utopian in me!
Maybe they really are reframing the debate…Sorry, I have to go lie down…maybe I should lay off the caffeine…
#3 by Gav on December 24th, 2005 - 5:24 pm
James, I want to respond to that more fully than I can here so I’m going to write a post for the 29th (or earlier)…
#4 by mark on December 26th, 2005 - 11:24 pm
“I am comforted, particularly, by Cameron’s espousal of the virtues of charity.”
I also support charity, but not nationalised charity.
Redistributionist statism is not morally superior to advocating small government. Just as we are better able to decide how we want to spend our money on ourselves, we are also better at giving our own money to good causes. Nationalised charity assumes that the state can spot needs in society better than individuals. In my view, that is patently false.
I would like to see the Tories finally say to the electorate that there is a difference between doing the right thing and expecting the state to do it on your behalf.
“No doubt, Letwin comes with a good pedigree as far as libertarian credentials go”
Really?
#5 by Gav on December 27th, 2005 - 11:44 am
Mark, Letwin’s famous for his libertarian credentials. Just before the election he suggested allowing conscientious objectors to redirect their income tax from Defense to a peaceful alternative…
Nationalised charity is, in this respect, indistinguishable from state welfare. I absolutely agree that doing the right thing and the state’s involvement are not necessarily the same…
#6 by James G on December 27th, 2005 - 3:08 pm
Plus, his mother, Shirley Letwin, is a noted British libertarian/conservative academic. No doubt he grew up steeped in libertarian philosophy…And once exposed to it, how many people can blatantly reject, except in an obvious pragmatic power grab situation. And he’s not currently in the running for Party Leader; in fact, didn’t he withdraw from Howard’s Shadow Cabinet to attend to other things?
#7 by Gav on December 27th, 2005 - 3:58 pm
He’s Chairman of the Policy Review which probably makes what he says on redistribution reasonably important…
James, as you say I cannot imagine growing up in a Libertarian household and then rejecting libertarianism. I didn’t, as it happens, so it does work the other way, but how could you reject the idea of freedom within the law once you grew up with that being discussed at the dinner table?
#8 by The Pedant-General on December 27th, 2005 - 6:04 pm
Gav,
We really, really need to see the full transcript of the interview. As it stands DK is right: this appears to be pure redistribution with absolutely no caveat applied. As such this is a pointer to equality of outcome over equality of opportunity.
You have applied your own caveat on top but I don’t see that this is supported in the text.
Toodle Pip!
PG