What happened to Conservatives who want to conserve?

There is a lot to be said for ‘small c’ conservatism. Roger Scruton, the self-styled ‘right wing philosopher’, summarises the main tenet of his belief as being very easy to destroy something, but incredibly difficult to build it. For Scruton, the Paris riots of 1968 were essential for him in forming this belief. Watching students daub walls with graffiti and overturn cars forced him into the realisation that he wanted to conserve what we had rather than dismantle it. But in less radical times, it is for me a recognition of the preciousness of our landscape and some of this country’s most treasured institutions which push me towards a more conservative outlook than might otherwise be the case.

Since 1949 we have enjoyed our national parks. Places of such beauty and national importance that, following the destruction of war, we designated them with this important status. They are places for us to enjoy but also ours to protect from permanent damage and destruction. We are the caretakers of these precious places, and as we pass through this life we should ensure they remain unsullied for the next generation, who will in turn ensure they exist for generations to come.

Yet despite this significance, despite the undoubted importance they represent, we are about to play a hand in their destruction. Fracking has been seen a possible solution to our energy woes for some time, or rather it has been sold to us as such. The government promised to protect national parks and yet, through incentives for local authorities and a seemingly relentless, crazed desire to dig up what fossil fuels we have left, they have allowed our national parks to be ‘fracked’ through the back door. A decision has been made to do just this outside the village of Kirby Misperton in the North York Moors, one of our fifteen national parks.

And where would we be in our precious countryside without the aid of an Ordnance Survey map? Most probably lost. The Ordnance Survey have been mapping our country since 1791, and it is with a degree of unfashionable imperialistic pride that I say Britain helped map the world. This talent shows itself no better than in the mapping of our own country with a level of detail that allows one to place themselves to within a millimetre of their actual location, and most importantly, their proximity to a public house. Impressively, the organisation brings in a profit of around £35 million a year, and this makes it a prime target for privatisation.

The government’s spending review looks to raise £5 billion from the sale of the Ordnance Survey, the Land Registry, Channel 4, National Air Traffic Services and the BBC. To an individual £5 billion sounds like an awful lot of money, or the holiday of a life time, but to the treasury it is a near insignificant amount of money. Around 0.7% of the government’s annual national budget.

My concern is not the vehemence with which I oppose these policies, strong though it is, but rather that once they have been made, there is little that can be done to reverse them. Budgets for certain services rise and fall with governments, and policies come and go with the daily news cycle. These are different. There is a permanence to their perniciousness. Damage to our environment and countryside is irreversible. It is therefore a decision that should be taken with the full consultation of the public and with a comprehensive and dogged review of the possible consequences before we start drilling holes and flogging our tirelessly built institutions.

The privatisation of some our most valuable national assets is no different. Private property is something that is very much enshrined in our law, selling it to the highest bidder is an easy act for a quick payday. But should we choose to retake ownership of these treasures, the possession by a private party becomes a very difficult obstacle to overcome. Repurchasing is costly and the policy of state confiscation is not one of which I approve, creating difficult moral and legal questions of its own.

Giving and taking money from the poor and the rise and fall of tuition fees will wax and wane with successive governments, but the scarring of our countryside and the selling off of the family silver are irreversible. These are not the actions of those who want to conserve our greatest assets, but the actions of those so hell bent on an uninhibited free market that they have lost sight of what is sacred. These are decisions we will look back on with embarrassment in years to come when all the money has gone and all we are left with is a hole in the ground and no way of finding it.

Maybe... the Right should support economic migration

“I grew up in the 30s with an unemployed father…” said Norman Tebbit in response to the riots that took place in Brixton and Handsworth in 1981, “…he got on his bike and looked for work, and he kept looking till he found it”. Then as now, the British Right have made clear their view that people should be responsible for their own welfare and this involves doing whatever it takes to find work rather than rely on the state to support you. It is seen as noble to up sticks and relocate in order to find work to help pay for your family, and it plays in to the ideal that people should be aspirational, ever searching to better their own situation.

That is provided this takes place within the confines of one’s own country. Should an individual show initiative and travel many miles and across many borders in order to better their lot in life, they are demonised, labelled as part of a swarm. They become a migrant, a word spat with vitriol from acidic mouths. And yet, they are showing exactly the kind of initiative that Tebbit seemed so keen to extoll.

In addition to this, the freedom of an individual to cross borders to earn more money and find better job opportunities follows the ideology of liberal economics to its logical end. Workers have a product to sell, their worth as an employee, and they can get more money selling themselves in this country than they can in their own. Furthermore, in a global economy where capital and produce can cross borders with relative ease, why is it that labour is restricted and cannot enjoy the benefits of a true free market system?

Many on the Left are likely to disagree with the theory underlying this view, and it is certainly unrealistic to expect right wing parties to start calling for open borders. But, it is possible to view this from a more practical and realistic angle. The European Union’s freedom of movement allowed all within the EU to ply their trade wherever they wished but simultaneously created the fear for the British that this would cause an uncontrollable influx of economic migrants initially from Poland and then later from Romania and Bulgaria. It is true that Britain, as one of the wealthiest economies in the EU, did receive a large number of these migrants. They moved as they were free to sell themselves as employees for more money than they were able to in their home countries and work towards greater wealth. In some cases, probably most famously realised in the building industry, residents of the poorer EU member states were able to come to Britain and undercut the existing workforce, or even fill the employment void left by an increasingly educated British workforce.

This is an almost textbook example of the liberal economic system at play but does not fit with the reality of right wing rhetoric. The Conservative party and UKIP are fearful of this economic migration and yet both are unwittingly betraying the economics they purport to support.

The United States provides another example of strong anti-immigrant rhetoric, and even stronger support for the free market but the US is perhaps the world’s foremost example of an economy built on the back of migration. It is a true immigrant culture. It was aspiration and the promise of a better future that led people there, particularly at the turn of the century, and this once again represents an operational market. It also represents that idea loved by the American Right, the idea of bettering oneself, of the cream rising to the top. And yet, the rhetoric from the groups who so fervently support aspiration is currently divisive, demonising and, in some cases, plain racist.

The Right are meant to serve the interests of the free market in part by promoting individuality, aspiration and self motivation. If some one in their own country showed such initiative and were successful, they would be lauded as proof that it can be done, someone can work from the bottom to the top. Yet, if someone has to make a perilous journey through jurisdictions, risking their life in the process, only to gain a better life for themselves and their family, their achievement is diminished and any would be followers are deterred.

Maybe... the rich should receive government handouts

We are on the brink of an unprecedented form of civil unrest. So far, it has been common to see young, radical members of society taking to the streets to oppose tuition fee rises and government cuts. But soon we could be seeing the rise of the protesting pensioner as the government starts coming after their bus passes, TV licenses, and winter fuel payments. An avenue once filled with hooded tops could soon be replaced by a sea of purple rinse hair.

Taking benefits from wealthy pensioners is becoming an increasingly popular policy among the electorate, with many seeing the transfer of much needed government funds to the rich as a ludicrous and illogical policy. This week the Labour party has jumped aboard this accelerating bandwagon and appear to have turned their back on the concept of universalism.

The savings do appear impressive to a lot of people and the reforms to the former universal welfare policy of child benefits will save the government £1.5 billion in 2013-14. However, it is estimated that were the winter fuel allowance to be abolished for those pensioners who would belong to the top bracket of tax payers, it would save a mere £100 million and the reality is that even savings of £2 billion are little more than loose change stuck down the back of the sofa when compared to the scale of the savings that need to made if the deficit is to be reduced.

The idea of turning universal benefits into selective ones is common, especially when savings need to be made, and they are not just taking place in the UK. In the traditional stronghold of the welfare state, Scandinavia, selectivisation and means testing have become the norm where once help was available for all. Whether related or not, in Sweden, where the switch to selectivisation has been most extreme, they have experienced the fastest growing gap between the rich and the poor of any advanced OECD economy, a possible cause of the riots there in recent weeks. Whilst initially these reforms appear as simple budget cuts, they do have profound consequences.

One of the main concerns in scrapping universal benefits is the creation of a two tiered society, those who require government assistance and those who do not. With the loss of child benefit payments, the middle class are already beginning to lose their stake in the welfare system and with further abolition of other benefits, they may begin to lose faith in the system all together. With divisive rhetoric such as "scrounger class" being tossed around by the press and the government, it is not hard to foresee a future where those who have nothing immediately apparent to gain from the welfare state would cease to support it. But these arguments are well publicised and I am very much preaching to the converted. Those who don't support the idea of welfare would be unlikely to change their minds based on this line of argument.

There are plenty of realities to consider for those who don't support universal welfare policies, though. The most significant of these is the reality of what will replace universalism. If benefits are not available for all, then they are only available for a few and a line has to be drawn in order to determine who those few will be. In other words, a system of means testing would have to be introduced, and some of the problems associated with this are worthy of everybody's concern.

First, from a cost benefit perspective, means testing is incredibly expensive to implement. It requires paperwork, paid advisors, and the systematic renewal of information to ensure that the right people are enrolled in the right programmes. The saving of £100 million we can expect to see from excluding rich pensioners from winter fuel payments would be negated by the introduction of constant re-evaluation and review processes.

In addition to this, means testing creates the opportunity for deceit in order for individuals to receive payments they are not entitled too. This would not only increase the number of claimants, and thereby increasing costs, but also the resources that would be required to prevent or punish those who break the law. We have seen this happening with disability benefits, and the response from the government in addressing this abuse has been to the detriment of the genuinely disabled, who are without doubt among the most deserving welfare beneficiaries in the country.

Finally, drawing lines between those who are deserving and those who are not is often an arbitrary process. The barrier has to be placed somewhere and frequently it is determined by financial considerations rather than any criteria based on the reality of people's lives and individual situations. These cut off points can see people in very similar situations falling on different sides of the dictated line and causing resentment and further disillusion towards the welfare system. Furthermore, This separation between recipients and non-recipients would only act as further encouragement for people to be deceptive about their financial situations.

Means testing appears initially to be a logical policy for those who want to make budget cutbacks, or those who are more interested in some warped notion of justice rather than the reality of creating a more positive society (the current government are seemingly motivated by a combination of both). In addition to these arguments, there is some evidence from Sweden to suggest that the introduction of means testing lowers general levels of trust in society and is partially responsible for the breakdown in community spirit.

There are serious logistical and social consequences in abolishing universalism. The slippery slope argument is one that should be used carefully and sparingly, but once the largest and most electorally active group in society lose their stake in a system, what is to stop it being shrunk even further. Ultimately, this could lead to a rethink about education and healthcare funding and an American style vouchers system is not an unforeseeable possibility. Our society could be split in two, and it would be the most disastrous for those who are already in dire need of assistance in a seemingly unending time of economic hardship.