The Government’s latest Welfare Plans Prove That A Fairness Agenda Is No Longer At the Forefront of Government Policy.

When David Cameron was elected leader of the Conservative Party he worked hard to remove the party’s image as the “nasty party”. During this transformation he pushed a more liberal “nicey-nice” image, promoted environmentalism and escaped much of the stigma the party had suffered with since Thatcher who, whether justifiable in her aims or not, did alienate half the country. This agenda seemingly appealed to younger voters, myself included, who might traditionally vote Labour or Libdem, however since then he has meandered through issues, veering to the left and the right with seemingly no logic or overall plan. This began from the off with “huskie hugging Cameron” dropping “vote blue go green” before the grass roots had even sprung. The tree might have remained (much to the disgust of traditional “torch carrying” Conservatives) but Conservative environmental policy has never regained its original primacy and other more liberal policies have subsequently been lost or watered down. However despite this policy pruning Cameron had (mostly) remained true to some devotion to fairness. Welfare cuts were made to “reward taxpayers with value for money”, the international development budget was maintained to ensure international commitments weren’t forgotten. Unfortunately over this weekend this “fairness agenda” has been tarnished by a thoroughly unfair and barefacedly populist policy suggestion – removing housing benefit from the under 25s.

One of the main objectives of Cameron’s plan for the country has been to reduce people’s lifelong reliance on the welfare state. Given the deficit, this was both a pragmatic and ideological mission, but a course which seemed to still hold onto a sentiment of fairness. Policy might have been a medicine which wasn’t very appetising, but it was one that needed to be taken. It was in this spirit that benefits were capped at £26,000, which was both a pragmatic and popular policy to take. It felt fair that people who were working should not be penalised with more tax, in order to fund others who did not work as much as they did. Moreover it was a limit placed on everyone, regardless of circumstance, a notice that the government will support you, but only if you manage not to get yourself into too much of a mess. Of course this policy had problems and would never be 100% fair, but it seemed to chime in with people and convince them that it was something tough, but not too harsh.

Today some people feel the same about the latest idea of capping under 25’s housing benefits. Cameron himself said that young people should be living at home, under the care of the Bank of Mum and Dad, not leeching off other people. “Other people” might find this attractive, however this measure doesn’t just miss sight of the case for fairness, it throws it off a cliff into the flaming abyss below. Cameron has often been derided for being posh and out of touch. How much ammunition does he give to his critics by assuming that everyone between the age of 18 and 25 has somewhere to go to? I am very lucky that between moving jobs or house I can bunk at home in the interim. Of course Cameron could have expected the same but many thousands of young adults in the UK cannot.

Furthermore, the policy itself will save only 2bn, not a meagre sum, but for these people the only thing keeping them off the streets. Since being without a permanent address can have massively damaging implications for people and leaves the vulnerable to exploitation, violence and abuse this measure seems to be extremely short term opportunistic, rather than looking at the bigger picture. How much money will these people cost the government in increased crime, drug use, health problems and unemployment? This measure is far from fair but it simply targets a vulnerable group and tells them they should do better, when in many cases they can’t. How can they with youth unemployment running persistently over 20%. These problems all seems self-evident to me but the government hasn’t seemed to acknowledge that any of this might be a problem.

The dangerous populism inherent in this proposal reflects an innate problem in Cameron’s modernisation agenda. Notice that it is the young who are being penalised here, not the prominently Conservative grey vote. I cannot believe that liberal Cameron can really be in favour of pursuing such an agenda, the same as I can't believe he has ever been that happy dropping "green conservstism". This all feels like a prod from the right who are unhappy with the libdems and feel the need to assert their right wing credentials. However it is Cameron who spoke for it. This is not some tirade from a disgruntled backbencher, this is the PM himself coming out for an inherently unfair, and in my opinion uncharacteristic proposal.

Another explanation which might (but I don't think does) exonerate Cameron, appealing to the grass roots. While the young are told they cannot get help from the state to live, that they must move in with their parents, whether they like it or not, the old are given free TV licenses, free bus travel and free prescriptions, not to mention their pensions.  Why isn’t it them who are being told they must move in with their children, use their tv, get them to drive them about rather than taking the bus and stop drawing a pension? Some people (like the despicable Edwina Currie on Twitter today) might claim the young have made their own bed by being disengaged and refusing to vote (not that this was to be seen anywhere in the manifesto of course) but cynics could, quite fairly say that this is just a vote grabber and ask why should the party care about a group who’d be unlikely to vote for them anyway. 

Regardless of the reason, there is no doubt this proposal is unfair and might spell the end of the Nice Guy act for David Cameron. 

The European Union's Leadership Woes Are A Result Of The Democratic Defecit It Created.

Throughout this crisis people in the UK and abroad have been crying out for strong leadership from their politicians, however it has not been forthcoming. This is no surprise, since a leader needs know which people they are leading in order to properly lead them. However, in the world of the EU, national boundaries have become all but meaningless, because the curse of the bond yield rise affects Eurozone countries regardless of which countries name is written at the top, making it difficult for EU leaders to know whether to represent their own nation or some wider European agenda. The economic crisis dictates that politicians are must work together to come to a mutual solution, but they are bound by their own electoral mandates, meaning that they cannot do what is best for Europe as a whole. Angela Merkel has done her best to work for a solution in the best interests of the entire Eurozone by refusing to issue Eurobonds (though she may be reducing her opposition now) but has been barracked by her own countrymen, and other European leaders for doing so. In private, as intelligent, rational people these leaders might see the logic in a less nationally selfish course of action, but they are at the mercy of their own electorates, precluding them from acting as sense dictates in public.

One might look to the EU parliament to provide leadership in such a situation. Its power and mandate should elevate it above the petty squabbles and confines of national electorates, however it lacks the power to be able to react in such a way, primarily because of the democratic deficit it has created for itself. Since its creation the EU has been in a catch 22 of self-identity. It was created to avoid one country becoming predominant, however through this struggle it became predominant itself, both because its constituent countries were vying for power (thereby increasing its stretch to indirectly boost theirs), and because it took on an ambitious quest of its own with the hope of rivalling rising behemoths in the East. Conversely, while people recognised the benefits of curtailing the conflict in central Europe, and the potential fruits of the single market, they did not specifically ask for a second government to rule their lives (neither in the founding referenda, nor in the more recent Lisbon “treaties”). This can be seen in the reluctance to adopt a European army and opposition to pan-European police powers. Without the necessary existential purpose EU bureaucrats did what bureaucrats do best, legislate. Lacking an overall plan, (which became even more an issue after the demise of Communism) tranches of legislation spewed forth from Brussels (not forgetting Strasbourg) with some hope that this would give legitimacy and purpose to the parliament. As a result, we have a situation where the government isn’t wanted and does little to arouse any democratic feelings among the people it claims to represent. Thus, the parliament has created a pseudo-purpose for itself, but purpose alone does not confer legitimacy. And without legitimacy the parliament can never hope to provide leadership in a time of crisis.

In light of the need for legitimacy the single market did require a democratic mandate, but this regime would always feel remote, unfamiliar and untrustworthy, while it did not fulfil the true intended role of a government – giving a voice to the people. Furthermore, it could never hope to become this voice in an area as diverse as Europe in the time scale it attempted to. Democracy and national identity took hundreds of years to develop among humans but the fathers of the EU thought that because they could understand each other, then there was little reason why shop workers in Burnley and fishermen in the south of Spain couldn’t be friends too.  

And so we come to today. The EU parliament cannot hope to provide the leadership the people ask of it, but because of the way people now perceive Europe, they expect that the national leaders of Europe can speak for both them and the whole EU together. The EU is often criticised in the UK for being a usurper of national power and undercutting UK legislation. In fact the EU does the same to European leaders. It undercuts national power by seemingly providing a platform for cooperation which is toothless, while at the same time what power it does have is meaningless compared to the pressures placed on national leaders by their own electorates.