Beyond left and right

The first stage of the National Conversation told us that people want to see the debate on welfare lifted out of the tired left-versus-right argument.

William Beveridge, architect of the Britain’s welfare state and the inspiration for the National Conversation on welfare, could perhaps best be described as a man apart.  A life-long old-fashioned Liberal, Beveridge took an independent view on welfare.

More on Beveridge and his political and social roots in Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s article from The Guardian.

It’s all kicking off…

This week, the 2012 National Conversation goes live on the topic: ‘is the welfare state still fit for purpose?’

Tomorrow, we meet the press and our supporters in London to launch the campaign.  In the evening its the first National Conversation Moot (an online conversation, using Google Hangouts video conferencing, hosted by Mick Fealty).

Then we’re off to York for Building the Conversation (tackling political topics with Lego Serious Play) and the York Conversation, hosted by Claire Fox from the Battle of Ideas.

We want these activities to inspire people to start talking about politics, and share their views on the future of welfare.  And we believe a key way to do this is via other blogs.

So we’re delighted to see the National Conversation is getting people talking, even before it officially launches (see The Guardian‘s The Northerner Blog).

There’s more of us, and we’re getting older

The Office for National Statistics has released the first set of numbers from the 2011 Census.  Key facts:

• the population of England and Wales rose 3.7 million over the last decade: the biggest rise since national records began in 1801
  
• the population of Northern Ireland (Northern Ireland Statistics & Research Agency) was up 7%, to reach 1.8 million (numbers for Scotland will be available later in the year)

There are more of us – and we’re getting older:

• 9.2 million people in England and Wales are over the age of 65, up more than 10 per cent in the past decade

Our ageing population will have important implications for how we manage health and social care.  According to Age UK, most people using social care services are over the age of 85.  Along with the Office of Budget Responsibility’s report on the UK’s financial sustainability, the Census data give us useful anchors for the debate on welfare.

Budget watchdog foresees hard times ahead

This month the Office of Budget Responsibility (OBR) issued its annual Fiscal Sustainability Report.

The OBR was set up by the Coalition to provide an independent view on the nation’s finances.  Its latest report makes bleak reading (see here and here for two broadly similar accounts from right and left respectively).  Basically, as Telegraph Economics Editor Philip Aldrick puts it, “in the long run we’re all skint.”

The Fiscal Sustainability Report powerfully frames the questions we face over the future of welfare: for anyone interested in this debate it is worth a look.

Where next for welfare?

Yesterday in his speech at Bluewater, David Cameron offered his latest ideas on how Britain can cut its welfare bill, calling for the country to return to the “first principles” of welfarism.  This morning, the broadsheets returned their verdicts.

In The Daily Telegraph, Philip Johnston wonders what “first principles” the Prime Minister could mean.  Was it the Beveridge Report (seventy years old this December) or something earlier?  Whatever the case, Johnston welcomed Cameron’s ideas if they tackled dependency culture.

In The Guardian, there is anger.  The leader paints a portrait of Cameron as an out-of-touch “gin-soaked colonel in his clubhouse” and talks of the Tories opening up “a new front in the class war”.  Both the leader and Polly Toynbee accuse Cameron of getting his numbers wrong.

Yet, while there is an angry defence of the status quo, The Guardian does not offer ideas for change.  Hugo Rifkind notes in today’s Times (£): “What does the British Left have to say about today’s welfare state? Not much. And sooner or later, it’s going to have to say something.”  But then, according to Rifkind, no one is prepared to stick their neck above the parapet on welfare: “the big problem with the benefits debate is that neither Left nor Right dares to say what it really thinks.”

At the National Conversation we want to give people – across the political spectrum – a chance to say what they really think about welfare.  It’s clear that we are overdue a sane and not a sanitised discussion.

Can universal benefits survive?

Universal benefits – paid to everyone regardless of income – are coming under increasing scrutiny as the government tries to reduce the welfare bill.

Last week The Sun launched a “Ditch Handouts to the Rich”campaign, targeting benefits like the Winter Fuel Allowance that are paid to all pensioners.

Over the weekend, Janet Daley in the Sunday Telegraph weighed in to the debate, writing that “the state can no longer afford blanket cash handouts to whole swaths of the population, based on quite arbitrary criteria (an age which is not even the normal retirement point) and regardless of their individual means.”

In The Guardian, Michael White seems to agree that “free bus passes and winter fuel help for dukes and bankers are hard to justify as “progressive universalism” except in political terms: it locks them in.”  He believes Beveridge would have been “puzzled” by efforts aimed at “defending benefits for high earners solely on principle.”

Is “principle” a strong enough reason for keeping universal benefits or – as benefits and pensions approach one third of the national budget (£202.6 bn, from an overall spend of £701.7bn last year) – do we need to re-think the system?

Westminster more revolting than ever

In The Guardian, Michael White reveals that this is the most revolting parliament in history.

Backbenchers are more rebellious than anyone can remember.  Even if they can be whipped into shape when the division bell rings, dissenters still give vent to their discontents on platforms like Twitter.

This is fun for MPs (if a headache for the whips).  But does it really help give people more of a voice in parliament?

Parties need to engage the grassroots to tackle cynicism

Labour needs to find new ways to connect with voters at the grassroots, according to the party’s general secretary Iain McNichol in an interview with The Guardian.

Key quote from McNichol:  “We need to get people engaged and break down the cynicism that you are all the same. It is one of the most dispiriting things I have come across on the doorstep. People just repeatedly say: what is the point of voting?”

Countering cynicism – and getting people engaged with politics is what the National Conversation is all about.  We believe a frank and open conversation – around topics that touch everyone in the UK – can help all the parties re-build voter trust.

Can Cruddas connect policy with people?

The pundits – from left (The Guardian) to right (Spectator Coffee House) – broadly welcome the appointment of the independently-minded Jon Cruddas to head up Labour’s policy review.

At the National Conversation we’re in favour of anyone who wants to inject new ideas into UK politics.  From time to time, we will highlight some of those ideas here, like Iain Duncan Smith’s plans to reform welfare.

But – to really connect with people and their concerns – the parties need to  open up a free and frank dialogue with the public beyond internal reviews.

The parties may not always like what they hear – but we believe engaging with people outside the Westminster Bubble will bring big rewards. The National Conversation is here to help them.