The Tories are radical again

Cameron means business on welfare: the Tories are the radicals again

3 November 2007

David Cameron is about to take up the issue that Margaret Thatcher didn’t dare touch and that defeated Tony Blair at the height of his powers: welfare reform. Fraser Nelson explains how the Conservative leader intends to bring the American welfare revolution to this country, challenge Labour on its home turf and make poverty history in Britain.

Mr Cameron is much taken by the work of William Galston, a political theorist behind the Clinton-era welfare reforms. Galston identified three steps to escaping poverty: finish school, marry before having children and avoid teenage pregnancy. Among those who did all three, only 8 per cent were poor. Of those who did none, 79 per cent were poor. This, for Mr Cameron, was a rare example of his ‘social responsibility’ slogan come alive: here was strong evidence that what counts is people’s own life choices and behaviour, rather than clumsy government intervention which so often compounds the problem.

Mr Brown’s approach to poverty is purely financial, and is seen through a strikingly narrow prism of average income, determined by rigid thresholds set out on spreadsheets. Mr Cameron’s approach will be more ‘holistic’, and is based on restoring the dignity of work. Less about GDP, as he likes to say, and more about GWB — ‘general wellbeing’. And rather than state control (running the welfare system from Whitehall), he would have separate private agencies competing to run the welfare systems, paid by results according to how many they get back to work.

And just as Mr Cameron’s school reform policy comes from Sweden, the most socialistic country in the free world, his welfare reform hails from Wisconsin, historically one of the most left-wing states in the Union. This is no accident. It was the American Left which grasped that traditional welfare was actually locking people into poverty, and decided to fight it not by raising incomes through benefits but by cutting welfare rolls.

It was a Republican governor, Tommy Thompson, who started the first Wisconsin welfare reform on his election in 1987. The founding principle was that everyone who could work should do so. People were assessed for the type of work they could do, even if menial park-sweeping tasks, and placed in subsidised jobs. If they did not turn up for work, their welfare was docked. The concept of welfare as an entitlement, as something-for-nothing, was ended for good.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 Next page

More articles from: Fraser Nelson | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (4)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

Julio Juncal

November 8th, 2007 8:33pm Report this comment

Mr Nelson says: "This is no accident. It was the American Left which grasped that traditional welfare was actually locking people into poverty, and decided to fight it not by raising incomes through benefits but by cutting welfare rolls." Can you substantiate that statement? The American Left, as we know it, fought tooth and nail against welfare reform under a Republican-dominated Congress and a Democratic President.

Richard Prior

January 8th, 2008 6:53pm Report this comment

David Cameron should go out himself and do some real work for 5 Pounds per hour. Mr Cameron lives far away from reality on cloud Nr.17 Nobody should vote for this stupid and arrogant person

E. Meller

January 8th, 2008 7:04pm Report this comment

So jobseekers should now accept any "suitable" job, OK, but what is a suitable job, you cant put out an IT engineer to clean the streets,or a musician to become an IT enineer. But that is exactly what will happen if private companys get paid to bring people back to work. Mr Cameron wants to rob the jobseekers and give the money to private companys instead. One wonders if Mr. Cameron will have shares in these companys. And regarding "suitable" jobs, I think a suitable job for Mr Cameron would be to clean public toilets.

Jake

June 1st, 2009 8:10pm Report this comment

So if someone is ill will they be forced to work? Many in America have to work whilst still receiving chemo or on dialysis etc. We already have the lowest levels of welfare in Europe and Labour have launched a sustained attack on the system. If Cameron is going to go further God help anyone who loses their job or becomes ill.
Finally if you deny people benefits what do you think will happen? They will resort to crime - or starve. Most wont want to do that so crime it is. Our estates will become a seething mass of drug abuse and crime on a scale like those huge social housing projects in America.
To make people work for their benefits is a disgrace - they should at least get minimum wage if doing a job. This will stop me voting Tory I am afraid.

Post comment