The Conservative Reader

Issue III: The wrong kinds of foreign investment; taxing families not individuals; 1997 redux; and the conservative case for tackling inequality.

Oct 07, 2022

We think conservatives need to talk more and get better at sharing ideas. So we are starting this newsletter so we can share with you the best newspaper columns, policy reports and books that will stimulate thinking and promote new ways of doing things.

We will send an email out every Friday lunchtime, so please do look out for it. And expect plenty of content about the things we think make conservatism such a compelling body of thought: identity and belonging, community and commitment, market economics, national resilience and good government.

Best wishes, Nick and Will

Towering columns

Ben Marlow on the risks of asset-stripping inward investment for The Telegraph:

Genuine foreign investment is vital but it should not be confused with selling off the crown jewels of British industry and technology. There are plenty of examples of the former: Nissan pledging to build a giant battery factory in Sunderland; Google building its glitzy new European headquarters in Kings Cross; and Lidl’s announcement on Tuesday that it is looking to hire 1,000 new jobs as part of its latest expansion plans.
But to conflate these sorts of concrete pledges with Pfizer’s attempts to swallow a critical UK corporate giant like Astrazeneca, or a private equity consortium’s debt-fuelled purchase of supermarket chain Morrisons is ridiculous. It is like comparing apples and pears.
The former creates jobs, is good for skills, and helps with levelling up. The latter, with its surrender of command and control, often results in job losses, a reduction in R&D, the disappearance of intellectual property, and less investment.

Miriam Cates articulates a conservative plan for young people for PoliticsHome:

If we want to improve the outlook for our children and young people – and the consequences of not doing so will be profound – we must apply the Conservative principle of wise investment to the next generation.
To give children the best start in life, we should roll out family hubs to every community and use them to support new parents and rebuild essential community support networks for families.
We need a complete reform of our individualised taxation model, to end the family penalty that sees some British families paying more than twice as much tax as in comparable countries. Our tax system must recognise the importance of stable families, the cost of raising children, and give parents the financial flexibility they need to undertake the important task of raising the next generation.

Danny Finkelstein on the possibility of a 1997-style rout of the Tories for The Times:

Johnson did at least have an idea of a new Conservative majority, in which he bore the loss of some previous Tory seats with equanimity because he would win some new ones. He lost office due to his personal conduct. The current government seems to have decided to support his personal conduct while opposing his political approach. A quite extraordinary combination.
The new voters the party is seeking do not want the policy of economic liberalism that Truss and Kwasi Kwarteng are advancing. And those old voters still hanging in there are astonished at the idea that money for tax cuts can just be borrowed.

Tim Stanley on the conservative case for tackling inequality for The Spectator:

One downside of the inept way we've managed capitalism, even with constant handouts, is gross inequality – especially in assets such as home ownership – which is ultimately unconservative. It unbalances society, feeding civil unrest. It can promote money for money's sake, which is unpleasantly materialist. And it is just wrong that while the Tories can sign off on a 45p tax cut, they drag their feet over raising benefits.
I am against that infamous tax cut because I think it's bad politics but also because I don't want it. With the choir of Westminster Abbey still ringing in our ears, this might be the time to invest a little more in our people.

Wonky thinking

The New Social Covenant Unit published a paper, Social Capitalism, on the case for community-powered growth:

Conservatives believe that people are driven by more than just their own bank balance or commands from government. We are driven by affections and obligations that transcend the diktats of the market and the state. In a word, we are driven by love - love of family, of community, and of nation. In dryer language, we depend on social capital, and on the sense of identity we derive from the communities - local, national and cultural - that we belong to.
All the evidence suggests that countries which have higher levels of social capital and a strong sense of national identity are more prosperous than those without. Social capital and identity are as important as any economic lever. We cannot have an aspiration nation without having a strong society.

Book of the week

This week’s Book of the Week is Dominic Sandbrook’s Who Dares Wins: Britain, 1979-1982. Rooting the political ruptures of the period in their social and cultural milieu, it remains one of the most vivid accounts of early Thatcherism, and punctures much of the mythology that has grown up around the Iron Lady since. And it has particular resonance now, of course, as strikes and blackouts haunt the British economy and a new Prime Minister assumes the Thatcherite mantle:

Mrs Thatcher was a practical politician, not a political philosopher. As she herself told Michael Cockerell in 1979, she was guided by ‘instincts and feelings’, not doctrines or textbooks. This does not mean, of course, that she was a mere opportunist. Her principles were clear and unchanging: free markets, low taxes, law and order, strong defence, a horror of inflation and so on. But like any successful politician, she was flexible about how she interpreted them. She liked winning elections; if that meant downplaying some elements or compromising on others, she was perfectly happy to do so. She usually hid this pragmatic side from the public, because she was worried it would make her look like Ted Heath in a dress. But her civil servants saw how she really worked. ‘More often than not,’ thought John Coles, ‘her approach to a new problem was hesitant and cautious.’ Her longest-serving Cabinet Secretary, Robert Armstrong, even remarked that he had never met a politician who was more skilful ‘in combining rhetoric which was faithful to her principles with policies that were totally pragmatic’.