Comments on: David Cameron’s vision of a McSociety

By: David Weber

David Weber — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 10:43:55 +0000

“I wish you were right Dave but whenever I suggest that we should spend more on XXX I get told I am an evil big statist. I have yet to meet a single rightwing libertarian agree with the supposition that more redistribution would actually lead to a “smaller” state.”

Yeah, I guess you’re right — consistency isn’t all that regular a feature among the right on this issue. That said, I have debated with a libertarian who appeared to be supportive of a Negative Income Tax, which I’m almost sure would work out a more expensive benefits system if it were to be the size it needed, so…

“Nonetheless, I certainly agree that by spending more in fewer areas we could end up reducing bureaucracy and have a less niggardly state. I think it goes to the heart of the equality agenda and gets to the heart of what social liberalism is all about.”

Definitely agreed.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:57:37 +0000

I wish you were right Dave but whenever I suggest that we should spend more on XXX I get told I am an evil big statist. I have yet to meet a single rightwing libertarian agree with the supposition that more redistribution would actually lead to a “smaller” state.

To quote Cameron’s speech on Tuesday: “Since 1997 the Government has spent £473 billion on welfare payments alone – that’s as big as our whole economy in 1988.” So yes, he does define the “size” of the state with spending.

Nonetheless, I certainly agree that by spending more in fewer areas we could end up reducing bureaucracy and have a less niggardly state. I think it goes to the heart of the equality agenda and gets to the heart of what social liberalism is all about.

By: David Weber

David Weber — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 15:45:46 +0000

“Most people – including Cameron – measure the size of the state by spend.”

Do they? I wasn’t aware there was an actual way people measure the size of the state — it seems to always be rhetorical, dependent on what the person means at the time.

“And how can you crack down on the bureucracy but not introduce universal benefits?”

You can’t. However, you could argue that by increasing spending through universal benefits whilst reducing bureaucracy, you were slimming down the size of the State, because it would be less active despite spending more.

Not that I think the Tories will do this, of course.

“The real flaw is to question the “size” of the state rather than the quality of what it does.”

I know — and I think it’s also a flaw to equate activity with spending. The State could be very redistributionist whilst being quite small — indeed, one criticism of over-large government from the left is that it tends to be *less* redistributive than more mid-sized government.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:28:57 +0000

How is it flawed? It is just a statement of fact. Most people – including Cameron – measure the size of the state by spend. And how can you crack down on the bureucracy but not introduce universal benefits?

To answer my own question, you could introduce universal benefits but perhaps lower the tax threshold, but is certainly not a Tory proposal.

The real flaw is to question the “size” of the state rather than the quality of what it does.

By: David Weber

David Weber — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:19:48 +0000

I think it’s slightly flawed to equate a more redistributive and bigger spending state with a bigger one — it’s entirely possible Cameron’s referring to the Bureucracy and the dependency created by means-tested benefits as “big statist”, rather than the spending per se.

By: oldnat

oldnat — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 12:06:52 +0000

Thanks for the explanation. I enjoyed the article and the vid was excellent! I simply missed the connection with the franchises. EasyBarnet I didn’t understand either until I googled it just now. The goings on in a London borough got no coverage here, so I’m afraid your references were rather too esoteric.

By: James Graham

James Graham — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:43:30 +0000

oldnat: I do think from the context (specific reference to franchises, “from EasyBarnet to McSociety”) that it was clear this was not some kind of attack on the Scottish people. It certainly was “comprehensible” but I make no apology for forcing you to read the article before you could appreciate it.

By: Oranjepan

Oranjepan — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 09:57:11 +0000

Excellent considered article.

I’m sorry our scots friend was so easily distracted by a reference to the organisational system of a certain burger chain – why would anyone wish to brush over the sustained criticism of the Conservative party in the content, unless…?

By: oldnat

oldnat — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 02:54:38 +0000

I’m puzzled by “McSociety” – some kind of Scots jibe? Something else? A good heading should at least be comprehensible.