Family, character and class – the Cameron view
Our Trustees’ AwayDay (which was neither away nor a day, but very useful nevertheless) having finished, I find myself with a rare opening in my diary. How better to fill it than reading David Cameron’s speech on character and parenting delivered yesterday at Demos.
And what a fascinating speech it is. I hope it justifies this long post.
Let me start with some of the things I really liked about it.
It has a strong core narrative. It isn’t just a list of facts or sound bites. It is genuinely interesting. A couple of points made me pause, just to let them sink in. Like this for example:
‘ Commercialisation and the culture of children’s rights means that children are treated like adults while a great knot of rules and regulations and over-the-top bureaucratic nonsense means that increasingly adults are treated like children. With a culture of suspicion and paranoia that is increasingly preventing adults from even interacting with young people. We can’t go on like this. It’s time we gave children back their childhood and got adults to behave like adults’.
There was also a reassuring recognition of past mistakes
‘This is relatively new territory for the Conservative Party. In the past we’ve been guilty of giving the impression that to build a responsible society, all we needed was freedom for the individual plus a strong rule of law from the state. We didn’t talk enough about what happened in between.’
There were also elements which showed that the modern Conservative Party is willing to support policies previous Tories might have ruled out on principle. For example:
• Extra spending commitments: Sure Start, Health Visitors, a National Citizen Service for Young People, and the implicit cost of delivering on the pledge to let head teachers expel pupils unilaterally (Referral Units are very expensive).
• Criticism of the media: ‘The media needs to show some restraint as well. The premature sexualisation of our children has already gone way too far. There is way too much arbitrary violence in the lives of children too young to understand irony or fantasy. Businesses have got to understand that parents don’t like it and want it to stop’
• And a willingness to regulate when it is needed even where this adds burdens to business:
‘we’ll introduce Flexible Parental Leave, meaning both parents can share the responsibilities of caring for a new baby’
‘we’ll extend the right to request flexible working to all parents with a child under eighteen’
The speech also put meat on the bones of the Tory approach to decentralisation. On the one hand, Mr Cameron argues, both for schools and for Sure Start, that there are some practices that clearly work better than others, that services must be held to account for their effectiveness and that there should be more use of payment by results. On the other hand, he argues for more diverse provision (particularly more use of the not for profit sector) in running schools and Sure Start services.
This underlines a model which decentralises governance and ownership (so local services are not part of national or local bureaucracies) but, arguably, increases central prescription over the content of the service provided. Assuming they win power, it will be interesting to see whether the Conservatives can pull off this balancing act.
I was less convinced by the section of the speech on the foundations of good character. Mr Cameron is clearly very excited by the idea that it is parenting not class that matters:
‘I believe that this research produced recently by Demos is truly ground-breaking. It shows that the differences in child outcomes between a child born in poverty and a child born in wealth are no longer statistically significant when both have been raised by “confident and able” parents.
For those who care about fairness and inequality, this is one of the most important findings in a generation. It would be over the top to say that it is to social science what E=MC2 was to physics, but I think it is a real ’sit up and think’ moment. That discovery defined the laws of relativity; this one is the new law for social mobility:
What matters most to a child’s life chances is not the wealth of their upbringing but the warmth of their parenting’.
Wow – Richard Reeves as Einstein (not that I’m jealous, of course!). High praise indeed. The problem, I think, is that the evidence doesn’t quite make the point being argued by the Conservative leader. This is because his final rhetorical flourish conflates two arguments:
- If you have a good upbringing it can largely cancel out the effects of poverty
- You are much more likely to have a good upbringing if your family does not live in poverty.
The policy question is not whether Government should encourage good parenting (of course it should, and, to be fair, the current Labour Government has massively expanded parenting provision) it is, first, whether policy can significantly increase the proportion of poor families who parent successfully, and, second, whether this is a more effective strategy than simply trying to reduce the number of families in poverty.
Mr Cameron appears to acknowledge this when he says a few paragraphs later:
‘Successful parenting style in wealthier families occurs not because these people are intrinsically better, or that they love their children more. It is because with poverty can come a host of other problems that make parenting more difficult. Worse schools, higher crime, bad housing. Unemployment. Problems with alcohol and drugs. Mental health conditions. The wearying grind of worry about debt. Higher crime, bad housing. Unemployment. Problems with alcohol and drugs. Mental health conditions’
But this paragraph is hard to reconcile with the earlier statement (which is worth repeating):
‘What matters most to a child’s life chances is not the wealth of their upbringing but the warmth of their parenting’
This I suspect is the take-out line, the one that shows the core philosophy and reassures the Party activist, rather than the more nuanced elaboration a few paragraphs later.
This impression is underlined by two further points. First, I hear (perhaps someone can confirm) that in questioning Mr Cameron rejected the idea that Government should see reducing statistical inequality as an objective of policy (which directly contradicts something I heard David Willetts say at a Bow Group meeting we both addressed last year). And the fact that Mr Cameron repeatedly praises the Demos work while pointedly ignoring its most uncomfortable finding for the Conservatives, which is that marital status does not seem to be a significant variable in successful parenting.
So this is a powerful, interesting and at times incisive speech (how often can we say that about political offerings?). It also confirms the impression that as more policy clarity is demanded and as the public spending sums get harder, the Cameron blend of progressive and traditional Conservative ideas may be gradually tilting towards the latter.
Discuss …
Progressive Conservatism: some questions
I have been asked by Demos to write a 500 word essay outlining any reservations I might have about the progressive Conservative project of Team Cameron. This is my first draft (the whole thing has to be in by close of play tomorrow). I have decided to take a broad view rather than focussing on specific policy issues. As always I know I can rely on stimulating feedback and advice from my readers…..
“ The essence of the new progressivism lies in reconciling a recognition of the importance of social justice and cohesion to individual human autonomy and well-being (an idea associated with the centre left) with the view that social progress is best pursued through the voluntary actions of individuals and associations rather than the well intentioned, but often counter productive, interventions of the central state (an idea associated with the centre right).
I take this to be what is meant by ‘progressive ends through Conservative means’. But it is a difficult balancing act, especially in Government; aspiring to radical change but being circumspect in the use of the most concrete and immediate instruments of change available to ministers.
This is why the coherence of contemporary Conservative thought is of importance – not only to commentators and policy wonks. Under the pressure of office it would be all too easy for a Conservative administration to abandon its social ambitions and enthusiasm for localism and civic action, instead reverting to a Thatcherite ‘strong state, free market’ model of modernisation.
Passing over the glaring gap in Conservative thinking concerning the UK’s relations with the rest of the world, there are three areas in which we need greater clarity about the Cameron project.
First, Conservatives need to be clearer about the state of society as they see it. The exaggerated talk of ‘broken Britain’ may work with a section of our beleaguered print media but it serves to confuse rather than enlighten. A thoughtful analysis would recognise not only that as many aspects of society are getting better are as getting worse (which is obvious), but would appreciate that the changes we welcome are often linked to those we bemoan. Take these examples: greater home ownership tends to increase the social exclusion of those who cannot afford to buy; rising participation in higher education has been achieved, in part, by making it easier for more students to meet the requirements for entry (a process generally referred to by Conservatives as ‘dumbing down’). It may be possible, partially and over time, to solve these and other conundrums but only if we see them as real and recognise that at some level there will be trade-offs to be made.
Second, we need to understand how the Conservative state will work. While one group of Conservatives talks about the importance of devolving power and building capacity in communities, another group – focussed on the coming public spending challenge – suggests centralised and technocratic solutions to state inefficiency. There is much talk of the state fostering civic initiative, much less convincing is the account of how this is to be done; a particular challenge is those areas (for example suburban social housing estates) which lack a ready supply of talented social entrepreneurs.
Third, how serious are the Conservatives about changing the way we do politics? This isn’t merely about new ways of configuring Whitehall, or new modes of communication (important though those are) it is about fundamental change to the anachronistic and destructive culture of political decision making. Arguably, this is the most important challenge, for how are the public to appreciate difficult trade offs, or to accept the variations in service levels and greater civic responsibilities that come with genuine decentralisation unless they engage constructively with decision makers?
The Tories have a small window of opportunity to change the terms of trade between politicians and citizens. Unless they take that opportunity they will face the same disconnect that has increasingly bedevilled Labour in government.”
Beware quango bashing
Quango bashing is all the rage today. And why not? There are more than 700 of them and they spend between £15 and £60 billion depending how you do the calculations. It is good housekeeping every few years to check that these bodies are serving a purpose and I’m sure they can save money just like any other organisation.
But exactly because quango bashing is such an easy way for politicians to look tough and be popular there are some things to bear in mind as the parties try to outdo each other.
First, the attack on quangos as ’undemocratic’ is not as clear as it seems. Generally, the alternative to a quango performing a function is a Government department doing it. But ministers can be just as easily be held accountable for what goes on in the quangos they oversee as in the departments they run. Indeed, arguably, by having a clearer mandate and definition it is easier to hold a quango to account (they each have their own boards, annual reports etc) than a sub-division of a huge department.
Second, when we discuss how much quangos ‘cost’ or how much would be saved by closing them down, it is vital to distinguish between quango as an entity and what they do. If you close down the quango but want its function to continue then the saving is not the quango budget but in how much less it costs to perform that same function through national or local government (or through another quango). Many quangos were set up precisely because it was thought to be more efficient and effective to conduct state functions at arms length.
Third, quangos are sometimes set up as an alternative to regulation or direct spending. This is why they are so attractive and why the Conservatives are simultaneously promising to reduce their number while also, in other parts of their policy, talking about creating new ones.
Fourth, beware quango bashing based on the argument that they haven’t achieved their objectives. So, for example, RDAs are ridiculed because they haven’t closed the North South divide. Sometimes quangos are set up as an alternatives to action; so RDA s were arguably a sop to the regional agenda which legitimised the Government actually doing very little to intervene in the economy as a whole. And, of course, we can’t test the counter-factual; what would have happened had the quangos not existed. Going back to RDAs, maybe regional imbalances would have been even worse.
The big challenge for Government is to stop doing things or to do things massively more efficiently. Getting rid of quangos may or may not contribute. Still, neither major party is facing up to the scale of the public sector spending cuts and, as the Sunday Times correctly reported yesterday, despairing civil servants are taking matters in to their own hands. ‘Quango bashing’ is clever politics but, too often, lazy policy making.
Life and death issues hidden by the fog of indignation
Filed under: Credit crunch, Politics, Public policy, The RSA
Yesterday I suggested that the big problem with politics is neither MPs’ expenses nor the conventions of the constitution (although I am a reformer), but the content and tone of the conversation between the people and their representatives. There is something febrile and disconcerting about the state of public opinion. A few days ago I described an arc of indignation starting with Ross and Brand travelling through Fred Goodwin and Sharon Shoesmith and landing now on MPs. Daniel Finkelstein is, as always, very sharp on this today.
In this atmosphere what chance is there for enlightening debate about the challenges facing our country and the world? In yesterday’s FT, Gideon Rachman made a powerful point: countries facing severe economic downturn and fiscal crises have to make hard choices. This happened in Latin America around the turn of the century and it is already happening in some Eastern European countries; for example, Estonia has cut public sector pay by 10% while Hungary has raised the retirement age and cut pensions by 8%.
It may be because the people of these countries had a strong memory of harsher times that they were willing to accept tough measures as the price for getting back on track. Can we imagine such resigned fortitude emerging from our own indignant, intolerant and self pitying public discourse?
The big danger here is that by putting off hard decisions today we will make the pain tomorrow longer and deeper, and that our economic and financial problems might then turn into a social and democratic crisis. Our apparent inability to have a grown up discussion (a politics of citizens not clients) also reduces the possibility of creative thinking.
In a fascinating talk here this morning- jointly hosted by Policy Network and the RSA 2020 Public Services Trust - the Director of the Dutch Scientific Council for Government Policy, Professor Anton Hemerijck, laid out the core arguments of his forthcoming book on the welfare state in Europe after the financial crisis. Among a wealth of data and analysis, I was particularly taken by his five dimensions of welfare state recalibration. These are:
• Functional: what should the welfare state do? For example in the UK we have reduced entitlements for HE students but increased them for under fives
• Normative: what are the duties and values underpinning the welfare state? For example, in the last two decades across Europe, there has been a growing emphasis on responsibility, with a shift from supporting people out of work to seeking to get them back to work
• Distributive: who gets what? For example, there has been a general shift in thinking from redistribution being primarily about class to focussing on distribution across the life cycle
• Institutional: how is the welfare state organised? David Cameron (in contrast to Margaret Thatcher) presumably thinks retrenchment will be done better if more responsibility is decentralised
• Referential: who do we compare ourselves with? Over the years there have been various fashions in economic and social policy; enthusiasms for Japan, Germany, the US and Scandinavia have come and gone (it is a rule of comparative policy that just when the world’s experts agree that a country has the perfect system that system promptly starts to collapse). But which national model will be seen as the best for coping with recession and retrenchment?
This is a rich agenda for debate. Call me out of touch but I can’t help thinking it may be just a little more important for us than whether ministers should get tax relief for accountancy services.
Democractic reform: we still aren’t having the right discussion
David Cameron’s lengthy Guardian essay about democratic reform is welcome, even if there isn’t much in it that is both new and a concrete commitment. As a long standing supporter of electoral reform, I also supported Alan Johnson’s call this weekend for a referendum on the day of the next General Election – indeed, I advocated exactly this policy in my blog a few days days earlier.
While it is important to debate the rules and procedures of politics I continue to believe that the bigger issue is the content of democratic discourse. My first RSA annual lecture, back in 2007, was about ‘pro-social strategy’. This is what I said:
“The way we do politics not only reflects but reinforces a loss of confidence among citizens and communities about solving problems ourselves. The most disabling aspect of political discourse is the paradox (exploited by the news media) that Government is seen simultaneously as omnipotent and incompetent….
By creating a vibrant debate about common problems, aims and responsibilities, pro-social strategy seeks to reinstate democratic politics as the process by which citizens give permission to their representatives to act on their behalf.
This shift in thinking is not simply about rolling back the state or taking politicians down a peg or two. The implications for government are not so much about its size but as about its ways of working. The implications for politics are not so much about politicians letting go as about citizens taking hold.’ Pro-social politics’ would not be seen in terms of conflict between us (citizens) and them (politicians). Politics would be about us and us and us.
‘Us’ because it would be about what we as citizens want to achieve and what we need to do to achieve it.
‘Us’ because it would be about recognising the different interests, views and resources of different parts of society and accepting the challenge of reconciling these differences rather than simply asserting our own demands and resenting any attempt by politicians to sort it out.
‘Us’ because this would be a process in which we would need to confront more fully the truth that we each of us have our own conflicting interests, views and aims. The apparent incompatibility of our own individual preferences is a growing characteristic of modern policy problems. For example, we want to fly cheaply and protect the planet, to see our children as home-owners but to protect the green spaces around our towns and cities……”
As Ben Page from Ipsos-MORI often says ‘the British public demand Swedish welfare provision on American tax rates’. The real problem with politics is not the expenses claims of MPs, nor even the power of the Executive, it is that we are unable to have a grown up conversation about the challenges which politicians can only resolve if we work with them: notably, public spending restructuring, population ageing and climate change.
We the citizens are stuck in a bad place; increasingly unwilling to be governed but not yet willing to govern ourselves. Proposals for reform should be judged by whether they are likely to move us towards a more realistic and responsible democratic discourse.
RSA Pamphlets
RSA Vision
RSA Animate
RSA Comment
- Twitter @RSAMatthew
RSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.