Ship of Fools: The Myth of Compassionate Conservatism

Thread: The Myth of Compassionate Conservatism Board: Purgatory / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=020049

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I am not saying an individual cannot be both, but that as a political philolosphy is is functionally impossible.
It is my contention that, if one cares about one's fellow humans' health and welfare, conservatism is a total failure.
The othe component of this is why do people whose own health and welfare, and those of their peers, vote conservative? Talking beyond the racists and xenophobia.

Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on :

I can see why someone might be a compassionate conservative. (In terms of the five factor personality model, traditionalism and agreeability are distinct and orthogonal character traits.) One might very well think that change in society, even with the best of intentions, uproots stable communities and casts out those who can't take advantage of change who relied upon the community for support. I think community support was not nearly as reliable as state provision, but I can see someone might believe it.

What I can't see is a compassionate neoliberalism. You can't simultaneously cheer the winds of competition getting rid of the dead wood and also care for the wood that's being got rid of. One or the other has to take precedence.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

LilBuddha, I totally agree.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

You really need to define conservatism. Where would you put me, for instance? (On the Ship I'm generally feeling like neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Very good point by Dafyd, that compassionate neo-liberalism doesn't really make sense.

But I suppose most conservatives and Conservatives have accepted neo-lib? Actually, so has the Labour party, except Corbs.

As to old-fashioned compassionate conservatism, I find it puzzling. I guess that the circle can be squared, in terms of the wealth needed to help the poor - how is this to be created? By wealth creators, obviously.

But when the chips are down, it's the poor who tend to get hammered, and the rich get their taxes cut. So I suppose there is compassion towards the rich! Hurrah!

That will feel good when I'm dying in a hospital corridor, on a trolley, at least I'm helping someone buy a new yacht, or swell their off-shore account.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Compassionate Conservatism.

I think it best summed by by Bill Clinton

quote:
This 'compassionate conservatism' has a great ring to it, you know? It sounds so good. And I've really worked hard to try to figure out what it means... I made an honest effort, and near as I can tell, here's what it means: It means, 'I like you. I do. And I would like to be for the patients' bill of rights and I'd like to be for closing the gun show loophole, and I'd like not to squander the surplus and, you know, save Social Security and Medicare for the next generation. I'd like to raise the minimum wage. I'd like to do these things. But I just can't, and I feel terrible about it.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:

What I can't see is a compassionate neoliberalism. You can't simultaneously cheer the winds of competition getting rid of the dead wood and also care for the wood that's being got rid of. One or the other has to take precedence.

You don't think neolib with a safety-net exists? I rather think it does, and would seem to come close to "compassionate neoliberalism".

Or what about people who are basically classical or neo-liberals, and support a citizen's basic income?

Maybe they're not true neo-liberals ;-)

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

It isn't about whether ther are individuals who fit the criteria, that is a red herring. It is whether a government will fit.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I think when there is a boom, there is often some support for the poor, and for welfare. Thus, from 2000, there was a boom, and Blair injected money into the NHS, and there were other benefits.

However, after the crash, austerity became the watchword, and the poor and the disabled were hit, and the NHS squeezed.

Somebody has to pay for the tax cuts for the rich, after all.

But then you have the bizarre if not revolting spectacle of Theresa May talking of her care for the poor. Yeah, right.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I certainly think one can be a doctrinaire left- *or* right- wing c*nt. The flavour will be different, but the spirit will be the same. This makes me suspect that if compassionate lefties are a real thing, then compassionate righties are, also.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I certainly think one can be a doctrinaire left- *or* right- wing c*nt. The flavour will be different, but the spirit will be the same. This makes me suspect that if compassionate lefties are a real thing, then compassionate righties are, also.

That is not a logical statement and it is irrelevant. Again, this is not about individuals, but governments.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

I'm with dafyd. It all depends what you mean by conservatism. Most people who call themselves conservatives in the Anglosphere are actually liberals of one kind or another- mostly economic. If you believe in society as an organic whole, bound by ties of affinity across economic status and generation; if you are naturally suspicious of innovation, especially innovation that is touted as being a panacea; if you think that the 'little platoons' are essential to a healthy society; if you prefer 'slow and steady' and believe that what you see as the practical experience of humankind accumulated over generations is to be valued above theory : then I think you can call yourself a conservative. And all of that can be consistent with compassion and fellow-feeling: more so, in fact, than most kinds of liberalism, even (especially?) of the left, which is a more egocentric creed and can easily descend into compassion of a rather generalised and impersonal kind.
But conservatives of this kind do not find it necessary to talk about being compassionate. Most talk of compassionate conservatism seems IME to fall into the 'all the easy speeches/ which comfort cruel men' basket.

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

The compassion bait allowed New Labour to blow out the Tories in 97. The Tories stole the banner back to win in 2010 aided by a remoulded Conservative compassion theme.
With Labour looking decidedly unelectable for the foreseeable, it will soon be a case of to what extent the Tory is pepared to have mercy on the poor as opposed to getting all cuddly in order to win an Election.

With continual negative stuff in the news about the NHS it is no longer a matter of if it will be privatised but when.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I certainly think one can be a doctrinaire left- *or* right- wing c*nt. The flavour will be different, but the spirit will be the same. This makes me suspect that if compassionate lefties are a real thing, then compassionate righties are, also.
That is not a logical statement and it is irrelevant. Again, this is not about individuals, but governments.

I can accept that you disagree with it, but why is it an illogical statement?

And why is it more logical to expect compassion from governments rather than people. After all, governments do not have hearts capable of being compassionate. Only people do.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

His statement is not a logical one because it assume if a thing exists, its opposite must as well.
Governments are people. At least until the Singularity.
My focus on government as a whole is that it is irrelevant if individuals might be conservative and compassionate if, as a group, they legislate differently.

Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on :

If conservatism means that "I've got mine, and I expect you to find your own", then it cannot be compassionate.
If "compassionate conservatism" means "something that will sound good on the campaign trail, but which must not get in the way of the main idea (which is tax cuts and favoritism towards the rich)", then it is a lie, a lie which is known to be a lie by the liar.

Unfortunately, too many of the dupes refuse to believe that this particular thing IS a lie. Sort of like a nominal Christian supporting Trump, who exemplifies every one of the Seven Deadly Sins.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't about whether ther are individuals who fit the criteria, that is a red herring. It is whether a government will fit.

Nonsense. If some individuals fit the criteria, it is possible for lots of individuals to fit the criteria, and it is possible for a government to be made up of a lot of such individuals.

The question "does compassionate conservatism / neoliberalism / whatever exist" is very different from either "is this particular government compassionate" or "is a government formed by this political party likely to be compassionate".

If some people are compassionate neolibs, and are not intellectually incoherent, then compassionate neoliberalism exists as a practical philosophy. Whether it is sufficiently popular to get elected to power is a different question.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

Compassionate conservatism as presented by George W Bush carried the belief that social works of mercy and help should be done at the local level, by ordinary people in the private and voluntary sector and not by handing out handouts of tax payer money (i.e. welfare) and believing that spending other people's money magically eliminates poverty.

The problem is that it assumes a caricature of liberalism and social democracy. No liberal or social democrat opposes people privately giving to charity and volunteering to help people in need. The liberal welfare state was developed because charity was simply insufficient.

Some conservative Christians maintain that helping the poor is the church's duty, not the state. However there are some things that the church cannot do. The church cannot provide health care insurance for everyone, nor can it house everyone. Some things do require the role of government.

Or to sum up "Just because government can't do everything does not mean government can't do some things."

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It isn't about whether ther are individuals who fit the criteria, that is a red herring. It is whether a government will fit.
Nonsense. If some individuals fit the criteria, it is possible for lots of individuals to fit the criteria, and it is possible for a government to be made up of a lot of such individuals.

A lot of things are possible, but not very likely, and this is one.

quote:

The question "does compassionate conservatism / neoliberalism / whatever exist" is very different from either "is this particular government compassionate" or "is a government formed by this political party likely to be compassionate".

Yes, it is government which tears down social support.

quote:

If some people are compassionate neolibs, and are not intellectually incoherent, then compassionate neoliberalism exists as a practical philosophy.

It is a practical philosophy when it returns a real result to the body politic.

quote:

Whether it is sufficiently popular to get elected to power is a different question.

The Tories have invested a lot of rhetoric in the opposite direction, so not much chance.

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
The liberal welfare state was developed because charity was simply insufficient.

This is the heart of it. We have some government assistance programmes and private charity, and it is still not enough. How does anyone think that removing the government would make an already inadequate system better?

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is a practical philosophy when it returns a real result to the body politic.

I don't think I agree with this. Consider a different example. There are a large number of different vote-counting systems for both single-member constituencies and multi-member constituencies. These systems and their advantages and disadvantages are largely understood. They are all practical voting methods, despite the fact that only a small fraction of them are actually used by any political body anywhere. The fact that a system has not been used doesn't make it impractical.

I will concede, though, that if people keep trying to implement some system, but end up doing something different, it's probably a sign that it's not a practical system.

So perhaps compassionate conservatism and their cousins are impractical on these grounds - that they are vulnerable to attack from parasite non-compassionate but we lie about it conservatism.

Posted by simontoad (# 18096) on :

I think you've framed this debate in a way that favors the answer "no", lilBhudda.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

lilBuddha:

Are you unwilling to define what you mean by Conservative or incapable? Because until you do, this is just another "No true Scotsman" debate which is pointless.

So you need to argue along the lines of:

1. To be classed as Conservative, a government must have the following types of guiding principle

2. For reasons x, y, and z these will inevitably cancel out any feeling of compassion that an individual member of said government might feel.

It's easy to argue at the level of political slogans: Conservative are hard-nosed meanies, socialists don't believe in freedom. Much easier than doing the hard work of careful argumentation.

I am a MOTR Tory, and think using any expressions that imply virtue, like "compassionate conservatives", or "ethical foreign policy" is likely to blow up in your face.

And I agree that lack of compassion is the danger faced by right of centre governments, but unlike you I see nothing inevitable

Just like the danger of left of centre governments is lack of prosperity and over-interference in people's lives. Again, not inevitable.

Also Albertus is on the money. If you doubt that, read Quentin Hogg's book: The case for conservatism.

Posted by Enoch (# 14322) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
His statement is not a logical one because it assume if a thing exists, its opposite must as well.

But I don't think that's what he's saying. First, I read him as saying he's encountered doctrinaire people of low personal calibre from both ends of the ideological spectrum. Then he's saying that this makes him suspect that if there can be people on the left who are personally compassionate, then it's just as possible that there should be such on the right. What I suspect he's questioning, is your assumption that if a person has compassion, that must automatically incline them to the left.

If so I agree with him. It has not been my experience that there has been much of a link between a person's being compassionate and the political ideology they follow, or for that matter, whether they believe in political ideologies at all. I'd actually go further, and say that over the years I've tended to encounter a negative correlation between belief in a political ideology, irrespective of which one, and personal compassion. It seems to me that belief in a political ideology, or for that matter an economic or social one, has a disturbing tendency to swamp a person's sense of compassion.

Posted by betjemaniac (# 17618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
If you believe in society as an organic whole, bound by ties of affinity across economic status and generation; if you are naturally suspicious of innovation, especially innovation that is touted as being a panacea; if you think that the 'little platoons' are essential to a healthy society; if you prefer 'slow and steady' and believe that what you see as the practical experience of humankind accumulated over generations is to be valued above theory : then I think you can call yourself a conservative.

*waves from over here* - "England is the country and the country is England" said a very wise man...

[ 16. January 2017, 08:54: Message edited by: betjemaniac ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

If you believe in society as an organic whole, bound by ties of affinity across economic status and generation; if you are naturally suspicious of innovation, especially innovation that is touted as being a panacea; if you think that the 'little platoons' are essential to a healthy society; if you prefer 'slow and steady' and believe that what you see as the practical experience of humankind accumulated over generations is to be valued above theory :

I do not think that these in and of themselves define conservativism necessarily (there are variants of what you call the left that would also have these as values, but would come to radically differing policy solutions).

These positions can also be articulated in both a positive and negative sense (the paragraph only covers the former), which leads to the conclusion that by this measure there are hardly any on the contemporary right who are 'true conservatives'.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

Anglican Brat:

quote:
Compassionate conservatism as presented by George W Bush carried the belief that social works of mercy and help should be done at the local level, by ordinary people in the private and voluntary sector and not by handing out handouts of tax payer money (i.e. welfare) and believing that spending other people's money magically eliminates poverty.

The problem is that it assumes a caricature of liberalism and social democracy. No liberal or social democrat opposes people privately giving to charity and volunteering to help people in need. The liberal welfare state was developed because charity was simply insufficient.

Actually the problem is summed up rather neatly by the late Terry Pratchett, who wrote "There are more poor people than rich people and it's easier to get money out of them."

In other words, welfare that relies exclusively on the generosity of private individuals allows the rich to become richer while the (relatively) poor spend any spare money they have on helping each other. That's even before you get onto the subject of the 'deserving' vs. 'undeserving' poor. Charities for helping small children or cute furry animals find it much easier to raise money than charities for rehabilitating prisoners or saving reptiles from extinction.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Absolutely - rich people are rich because they are so keen to hold on to their money.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

In my neck of the woods, conservatism is defined as lower taxes, reduces government services that go with the taxation, private versus public services, reduced regulation of everything financial and marketplace. All of which is joined to rural farm families ideologically. Yet it seems practically joined to large companies and corporations which do well when gov'ts reduce regulation and taxes.

To further the argument, the large corps do pseudo-compassion by attaching their names to public buildings and programs, such that the MRI scan and hospital are adverts for X and Z companies, which extract resources via mining and oil. Both also aren't really doing anything compassionate because the sponsorship and naming is a pittance compared to total profits, and they also directly deduct the costs from taxes payable. So the average person actually pays for it all.

Compassionate conservatives "give back to the community", and the truly compassionate just give. I think the "give back" is akin to clicking "like" on things like Facebook, which doesn't cost much either.

[ 16. January 2017, 12:42: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

The best measure of compassion is to look individually at how people contribute their time and money freely. You can look at that regionally and by political affiliation. You can also look at how people raise their children. We have compassion for our children by showing them that their goals in life are things like working hard, doing something of value, attending a good school, and so on. To tell our children otherwise would be a profound lack of compassion for their well being.

Government cannot exercise "compassion". It can formulate and enforce policy and it can dispense with services. Most importantly it can and should protect individual rights.

The safety net exists not out of compassion, but out of the interest of maintaining the common good. Our social compact is threatened without it.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
First, I read him as saying he's encountered doctrinaire people of low personal calibre...

Thanks Enoch, not only did you expand my point more clearly than I did; you are a classier poster than me [Smile]

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
That's even before you get onto the subject of the 'deserving' vs. 'undeserving' poor. Charities for helping small children or cute furry animals find it much easier to raise money than charities for rehabilitating prisoners

I've volunteered (in education) with a charity which works towards rehab for ex-prisoners for over 25 years. I incline to the left. But I sure see 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor folks in the course of that work - people who piss away finite charitable resources in personal waste and low-level fraud, and people who don't, for instance.

But that's greed and sloth as they express in a poor person. In a rich person, it just expresses differently.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by simontoad:
I think you've framed this debate in a way that favors the answer "no", lilBhudda.

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
lilBuddha:

Are you unwilling to define what you mean by Conservative

quote:
Compassionate conservatism has been defined as the belief that conservatism and compassion complement each other. A compassionate conservative might see the social problems of the United States, such as health care or immigration, as issues that are better solved through cooperation with private companies, charities and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments. As former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson put it, "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."

quote:
or incapable?

Public service shifted to the privates sector will focus on profit to the exclusion of benefit to the public. Of, course, the only proof I have of this is history.

quote:
Originally posted by Enoch:
First, I read him as saying he's encountered doctrinaire people of low personal calibre from both ends of the ideological spectrum.

I'd agree that intelligence and compassion flow as equally left as right.

quote:

Then he's saying that this makes him suspect that if there can be people on the left who are personally compassionate, then it's just as possible that there should be such on the right.

OF course there are. However, politics is group dynamics, not individual choice. An individual might wish to bolster the NHS, the group will not.

quote:
What I suspect he's questioning, is your assumption that if a person has compassion, that must automatically incline them to the left.

The left's position is that social support is a responsibility ot the government as a representative of the people. So, the default behaviour is to support this, regardless of compassion. The right's position is that social support can be accomplished by the private sector and this will be the focus regardless of individual compassion.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

If the rich are more likely to be right wing, then this may skew the scales.

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If the rich are more likely to be right wing, then this may skew the scales.

Let's keep in mind that if we are going to talk about 'the rich", then we are talking about 'us', not "them".

None of us might be wealthy by Western standards (though even by that criterion, most of us probably have many compatriots who are worse off than we are) but by global standards, anyone born into a developed country during the second half of the twentieth century has won life's lottery.

This is being brought home to me at the moment because I am heading up for some surgery (no rude speculative comments as to its nature, please!), and I cannot believe that I am getting world-class medical care which will not cost me a cent.

Thank God for the welfare state.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

quote:
That's even before you get onto the subject of the 'deserving' vs. 'undeserving' poor. Charities for helping small children or cute furry animals find it much easier to raise money than charities for rehabilitating prisoners
I've volunteered (in education) with a charity which works towards rehab for ex-prisoners for over 25 years. I incline to the left. But I sure see 'deserving' and 'undeserving' poor folks in the course of that work - people who piss away finite charitable resources in personal waste and low-level fraud, and people who don't, for instance.

But that's greed and sloth as they express in a poor person. In a rich person, it just expresses differently.

Perhaps the distinction there, then, is not between deserving and deserving, but between those whom it is a responsible use of limited resources to help, and those whom it is not. And that is a very micro-level decision. But it does seem reasonable (although never comfortable) to me to say 'you are in need, I see your need and do not judge you in connection with it, but from my knowledge of you I believe that if I were to devote resources to you, you would either misuse them, to the detriment of yourself or [more importantly?} other people, or your circumstances would not change and meanwhile those resources would not be available to this person, to whom I believe they would make a real difference'.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

That's a nice statement of a position I think I would normally grope unconsciously towards - thanks.

To be more explicit about what I was thinking and why it is not entirely tangential to this thread:

I know a bunch of men in what was until recently 'supported accommodation'. They owe >£1k in utility bills, which they can't pay. They are seeking charitable help with this situation.

My lefty side thinks about withdrawal of support by the local authority, govt cuts to LA funding, fuel poverty etc.

But knowing the circumstances in some detail, my righty side thinks about personal accountability for major expenditure at the bookies and the off-license, and for blase (ab)use of utilities over last summer that makes my (eco-warrior? tight-wad?) eyes water.

I think a compassionate conservative would come from the second position, but recognise the relevance of issues from the first. A pragmatic socialist would come from the first, but recognise the need to address the second. And doctrinaire...folks... of either persuasion would sit at their respective pole, throw mud at the other, and create perverse outcomes which add further to the mess.

It's for these reasons that my lefty self can't get on with 'righty folks can't be Christians' arguments, and their converse.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

That's a good example, mark_in_manchester. Surely the compassionate conservative and the pragmatic socialist should be able to agree on the following points:

1. The utilities company provided the services and ought to be paid somehow (because if they don't they will have to cover the loss from something else; probably by raising charges for their other customers or cutting operating costs).

2. The charity they have applied to for help should not be expected to help them at the expense (literally) of others who are also in a financial hole.

3. The men in question need to learn how to manage their finances more responsibly.

Can we also agree on:

4. Provided they pay their justly incurred debts and are not struggling with gambling/alcohol addiction, it is not really anybody else's business how they spend the money they have left over, any more than it would be if they were a single mother choosing to spend her money on buying toys and treats for her children.

The compassionate conservative and pragmatic socialist might have different ideas on exactly how to square the circle, but agreement on points 1-3 ought to be fairly easy.

Posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider (# 76) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

This is being brought home to me at the moment because I am heading up for some surgery (no rude speculative comments as to its nature, please!),

I pride myself on having one of the grubbiest minds here and regularly channeling Finbarr Saunders onto the Ship, but that had not occurred to me until you suggested it.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
That's a good example, mark_in_manchester.

It is a great example.....of how to justify ignoring those in need. There are examples in every social strata of people no properly managing resources. It is more noticeable in the poor because they have so few.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

I agree with your last point - the shit doesn't hit the fan quite so quick for Lord Snooty with his head in a bag of coke, and in $$ terms he can of course blow a much, much bigger pile. I'm all for taxing him since the lifestyle he enjoys is predicated on the existence of a multi-layered society which he happens to sit at the top of, and which he has a big stake in paying for however much he likes to think he's a self-made man.

But am I going to use the portion of my income I give away to pay someone's gas bill who would rather spend what they have (sorry, had) at the bookies - well, no, there's no point. I don't much care about the fact of the bookies, I can do nothing about it, but I do dissapprove of someone using essentials money for discretionary spending.

If I didn't, I'd do the same; I'd have nothing to give, and perhaps you could come and bail _me_ out.

I like to think of myself as a pragmatic socialist, but perhaps you'd think of me more as a compassionate conservative... :-)

And Jane - I agree - except that for 3/4 of these guys your point 3) isn't going to happen, which is why paying benefits in whole (including housing benefit) to all recipients and expecting them to budget is not going to work. Some people need a tenner pocket money and all their food, bills and housing paid for them. This institutionalises them; not great, but better than allowing them to fail to budget and starve. That's why they _were_ in supported accomodation - yes, it reduces their dignity (if you're big on dignity = self-determnination) but I restrict my kids' dignity that way all the time.

[ 17. January 2017, 12:08: Message edited by: mark_in_manchester ]

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

lil_buddha:

quote:
It is a great example.....of how to justify ignoring those in need.

And how to divide people into deserving and undeserving poor without ever using the D-word (though writing my point 2 without using it WAS difficult). George Orwell would be proud.

But if you are using public money to help people in need you *do* have to choose between different people in need. That's why many expensive new cancer treatments are not available on the NHS; the National Centre for Clinical Excellence decides whether the medical benefits of a new drug justify the expense. Do you spend all your drugs budget to buy a few cancer patients a couple more months or years of life? What happens then to all the people who need antibiotics, or antidepressants...? Many of these have been on the market for years and are therefore cheaper, so you can help far more people for the same amount of money.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

lilBuddha:

quote:
"Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."

Thanks for that definition, which is clear and frames the discussion. And I assume you accept that especially in Europe, many who would self identify as Conservative would tag GWB as neo-conservation, and far removed from such arch-conservatives as DeGaulle, and in our own day Merkel.

But I accept that your definition is how the term is now understood, as in 'Cameron's Big Society not Big Government' slogan.

I believe you are right in saying ComCon is a myth, in that I don't believe that the motivation in reducing public spending is compassion. It's rather the need to make the economy sound (according to their lights), and that the Big Society idea is the best they can do to plug the gaps.

But I was also thinking along lines well expressed by Art Wally:

quote:
Government cannot exercise "compassion". It can formulate and enforce policy and it can dispense with services. Most importantly it can and should protect individual rights.

I also think people shouldn't get hung up on motives and emotions. Many would think it preferable to found social policy on Justice rather than Compassion, since Justice applies to all, not just to the weak (and sometimes feckless). I also think Compassion works better with people you actually know.

quote:
The safety net exists not out of compassion, but out of the interest of maintaining the common good. Our social compact is threatened without it.

I also agree with this, and would support policies that allow a degree of social parasitism, because once you get draconian, where do you stop? I've had this argument with so many people:

- You should stop all their benefits.
- So they've got no money and are likely to rob.
- So you send them to jail.
- Which is more expensive than the benefits.

Send them to camps, anyone? It's been done. So the safety net works as just hard headed pragmatism. And I agree with those who say that the percentage of abusers of the system is manageable.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The idea with jacking everyone's health care costs (I am speaking of the US's shambolic system here) is to drive down costs. There is a touching belief in conservative circles that one shops for health care, and I suppose you do if you're getting your face lifted or your tummy tucked.

But if you have a stroke and collapse over your keyboard in five minutes, you have not and could not foresee that and shop for the best provider. Moreover, the cheapest doctor may or may not be near you, and you won't have time to travel. To save your life, they'll need to zoom you to the nearest hospital however spendy it is.

But their concept is called 'skin in the game', which is to say it costs you, quite a lot, and if you can't afford it the pain will force prices down.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
Government cannot exercise "compassion". It can formulate and enforce policy and it can dispense with services. Most importantly it can and should protect individual rights.

The safety net exists not out of compassion, but out of the interest of maintaining the common good. Our social compact is threatened without it.

That the government cannot legislate compassion is true. But it can enact policies which amount to a more civil and kinder society. Where needs are met. I think this is where the currently-unfashionable social gospel came from.

The raising of individual rights in this context is about protecting the assets of those who have more isn't it? Individual rights usually translates into property rights and the desire to keep more income via lower tax rates.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:

But am I going to use the portion of my income I give away to pay someone's gas bill who would rather spend what they have (sorry, had) at the bookies - well, no, there's no point. I don't much care about the fact of the bookies, I can do nothing about it, but I do dissapprove of someone using essentials money for discretionary spending.

If I didn't, I'd do the same; I'd have nothing to give, and perhaps you could come and bail _me_ out.

As anteater points out above; any system of safety nets will suffer from a certain amount of parasitism and all indications are that absolute percentage of misuse is low. There is also likely to be a certain selection bias here (as you are involved in an organisation that helps such people AIUI).

It is also ironic that you use the term 'bail out', after all the biggest increase in national debt has come about because of a 'bail out' to the banks, which in turn was a bail out to those with financial and other assets - i.e the richer part of society.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I agree with your last point - the shit doesn't hit the fan quite so quick for Lord Snooty with his head in a bag of coke, and in $$ terms he can of course blow a much, much bigger pile.

Of course, the other major consideration is that Lord Snooty is wasting his own resources, not public ones. His poor choices aren't being funded by the rest of us.

If I give someone money so they can feed their kids, and then five minutes later I see them pissing it away at the bookie or pub, you'd better believe I won't be giving them any more money in future.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
As anteater points out above; any system of safety nets will suffer from a certain amount of parasitism and all indications are that absolute percentage of misuse is low.

I agree. I introduced the example only to illustrate how ISTM folks on L and R might each look at it, and how their resulting actions might fail if they did not take into account the way of thinking more quickly jumped to by the 'other side'. I want to promote that kind of pragmatism, because a hard- -left or -right position looks doomed to make things worse. And therefore I would argue that a thing which might be called 'compassionate conservatism' - or pragmatic socialism - is necessary to actually doing something positive about the problem.

If this thread is about damning right wing positions which are too 'hard' to do this effectively, whilst posing as something softer and more pragmatic - then yes, I agree this approach would fail, as would its left-wing counterpart.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:

The raising of individual rights in this context is about protecting the assets of those who have more isn't it?

Not always: it's also about the ability of individuals to make reasonable choices rather than have the government make the choice for them.

Consider education, for example. The government provides an education system, paid for out of taxation. Most people don't have a choice about using it, as the alternatives all cost lots of money. So the government is effectively taking your money and forcing you to buy a particular kind of education for your children.

So the question is: is the government any good at choosing what kind of education to buy? If you took the money that the government spent on your children's schooling, could you purchase a different style of education that would be better for your specific children?

A lot of people will answer no - they will say that the average person doesn't have the skills or expertise to evaluate different schools, or what kinds of education are most appropriate for their children.

Other people will answer that they want to have democratic control over what people spend tax money on - to them it doesn't matter who is better at evaluating what is best for children - it matters that it is the elected state authority that has the right to make those choices.

You see a similar range of views on display when it comes to state benefit payments. Some people advocate handing out money, and empowering the poor to make their own choices. Others take the view that if they're providing the money, they're going to ensure that it's spent on something that they consider worthwhile (hence in-kind benefits, food stamps etc.)

But that's an individual rights question. To what extent should government experts constrain or overrule someone's choices? Everybody agrees that there are some choices that should be left to the individual. Everybody agrees that there are some choices that should be constrained. Where you place the bar in the middle is partly a question of how you rank individual rights.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the other major consideration is that Lord Snooty is wasting his own resources, not public ones. His poor choices aren't being funded by the rest of us.

If I give someone money so they can feed their kids, and then five minutes later I see them pissing it away at the bookie or pub, you'd better believe I won't be giving them any more money in future.

That's very small potatoes. I don't see that sort of thing as frequently as governments handing out millions and sometimes billions, in ways that seem even worse. For example, how is it that banks around the world pretty much failed because they did stupid and possibly illegal things in speculating with money (it was mortgages they knew were worthless, but it could have been coke, it is all blown either way) and then got welfare payments from governments, and they used some of the payment to take bonuses? Perhaps this is the true compassionate conservatism.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Consider education, for example. The government provides an education system, paid for out of taxation. Most people don't have a choice about using it, as the alternatives all cost lots of money. So the government is effectively taking your money and forcing you to buy a particular kind of education for your children.

So the question is: is the government any good at choosing what kind of education to buy? If you took the money that the government spent on your children's schooling, could you purchase a different style of education that would be better for your specific children?

Funneling public resources into the pockets of the wealthy usually doesn't qualify as "compassion", even if you launder it through the not-wealthy first. The imperatives of the profit motive dictate providing the minimum amount of service you can get away with. And in education there's automatically a disconnect between the community receiving the service (students) and decision-makers (parents), which will exacerbate accountability problems.

At any rate, claims of compassion on the part of those extracting profits from a situation should be treated with heightened skepticism.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:

At any rate, claims of compassion on the part of those extracting profits from a situation should be treated with heightened skepticism.

True. You will note that nowhere in my post did I mention, let alone advocate, for-profit education.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Compassionate conservatism? From Theresa May.

Words fail me. The bunch in power in the UK will rip the country apart and impoverish it beyond the depths of the Depression to save themselves. That is the face of UK conservatism.

[ 17. January 2017, 21:10: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
It's rather the need to make the economy sound (according to their lights), and that the Big Society idea is the best they can do to plug the gaps.

That is what they say, hard to belive them when this appears to be the real why.

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I agree with your last point - the shit doesn't hit the fan quite so quick for Lord Snooty with his head in a bag of coke, and in $$ terms he can of course blow a much, much bigger pile.
Of course, the other major consideration is that Lord Snooty is wasting his own resources, not public ones. His poor choices aren't being funded by the rest of us.

right

Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:

quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:

This is being brought home to me at the moment because I am heading up for some surgery (no rude speculative comments as to its nature, please!),
I pride myself on having one of the grubbiest minds here and regularly channeling Finbarr Saunders onto the Ship, but that had not occurred to me until you suggested it.

Sounds to me as if you're not really trying.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

I see many sides to this state-provision vs individual/group provision, and to only focus on compassion (under-emphasizing freedom - unless compassion means giving freedom) can produce a very paternalistic attitude (poor you - how can you be expected to cope).

Take an example. When I was in Spain working (admittedly many years ago) people were appalled by the extent to which oldies were shunted to state institutions. And a lot of the reason why was simply that the state provided this, so a lot of people used it. Not all but a lot.

In Spain (at that time) it was not a state provision for old people with surviving relatives, as I understand it, and the culture of the country is that this is not something you should delegate to the state.

Now there's always two sides, but I think the system where people did it at family level was more compassionate, and the people I knew in Spain agreed, though they admitted it could be a pain in the arse.

And I think education is another. I don't see it as compassionate to try and force everybody through a state controlled education system, and I agree that here, nobody is forced. But many on the Left would like to force the issue, and again that, to me is not compassionate.

Posted by mark_in_manchester (# 15978) on :

quote:
to only focus on compassion can produce a very paternalistic attitude (poor you...)

You've a sunny view of fatherhood!

I'm OK with paternalism in the sense of 'here's some of my cash, which I intend you to spend like this, because I'm your Dad and I've more experience in keeping you out of the shit than you do at the moment. If you want some cash to spend some other way, then OK, feel free to earn some'.

This goes for folks on benefits as well as bankers, in my book.

But what do I know. I have no influence on the situation with the bankers, and my only influence with folks on benefits is in wiping off some of the shit, before next time.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by mark_in_manchester:
I agree with your last point - the shit doesn't hit the fan quite so quick for Lord Snooty with his head in a bag of coke, and in $$ terms he can of course blow a much, much bigger pile.
Of course, the other major consideration is that Lord Snooty is wasting his own resources, not public ones. His poor choices aren't being funded by the rest of us.
right

We are talking about individual choices here, in the context of the old chestnut that if we don't care about rich people doing drugs/gambling/etc then we shouldn't care about benefits recipients doing the same.

The difference being, of course, that rich people are doing it with their own money and benefits recipients are doing it with ours.

I simply fail to see the link to the global financial crisis, which was caused by a series of group decisions and policies made by economists, governments and companies the world over.

I also find it interesting that you seem to be assuming I was/am in favour of the bank bailouts. My preferred course of action at the time would have been to simply let the banks fold and use the money to compensate those who lost their savings as a result. Not only would it have kept the cash in circulation, it would probably have been cheaper as well.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

I also find it interesting that you seem to be assuming I was/am in favour of the bank bailouts. My preferred course of action at the time would have been to simply let the banks fold and use the money to compensate those who lost their savings as a result.

On that specific point; and adopting your particular mindset - it's hard to see savers should be compensated, after all shouldn't they face the consequences of their actions too? Compensating them - adopting your frame of reference - just increase moral hazard.

Secondly, it wasn't just savers that were compensated - the bailouts amounted to asset price protection for anyone with assets.

Posted by anteater (# 11435) on :

Mark:
In most conversation, paternalism and fatherhood are not synonymous, indeed "being paternalistic" is hardly, if ever used as a compliment.

It normally refers to treating people as children inappropriately, similar to infantilizing, which is ok with infants, but not with adults.

At least that is the sense I was using it. Just to be clear.

But then again I didn't get along with my Dad, so there may be truth in what you say.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
On that specific point; and adopting your particular mindset - it's hard to see savers should be compensated, after all shouldn't they face the consequences of their actions too? Compensating them - adopting your frame of reference - just increase moral hazard.

People who are trying to be responsible with their savings but lose them all through no fault of their own are not morally comparable to companies who take big risks and come out on the losing side.

Compensating the former will incentivise people to be responsible with their savings. Compensating the latter will incentivise companies to take big risks. Only one of these things is an increased moral hazard.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
People who are trying to be responsible with their savings but lose them all through no fault of their own are not morally comparable to companies who take big risks and come out on the losing side.

Compensating the former will incentivise people to be responsible with their savings. Compensating the latter will incentivise companies to take big risks. Only one of these things is an increased moral hazard.

Moral hazard isn't waved away by assertions of opinion. All savings are a form of investment with risk attached to them. The government recognises that there is a common good in promoting a certain amount of saving, which is why there is insurance for bank deposits. Equally it recognizes that any such program should have limits both to limit government exposure and allow proper pricing of risk, so under normal times there is a limit on such insurance. Uninsured savings beyond that limit do bear a risk, as does chasing yield and saving in bonds issued by a bank whose business model is to borrow on the overnight markets to lend out for 30 years. The real effects of such moral hazard can be seen in the distinct lack of any serious political pressure to regulate the banks.

.. and it goes beyond that, it was generalized asset price protection for everyone invested in the stock and housing markets - overinflated by financialization. Everyone who would have had to suffer the consequences of negative equity for the past few years benefited as a result. The real effects of *that* moral hazard will be a reluctance to raise interest rates for the foreseeable future, no matter what the economy looks like.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We are talking about individual choices here,

How many decision making individuals involved in the 2008 crises were held accountable for their actions?

quote:

I simply fail to see the link to the global financial crisis, which was caused by a series of group decisions and policies made by economists, governments and companies the world over.

Then I'm not certain you understand economics well enough to continue this conversation. Those groups were composed of individuals. But your reasoning is daft anyway. One person gambling away 40 quid of taxpayer money is bad, but another gambling away 40 Billion is OK because he had help?

quote:
My preferred course of action at the time would have been to simply let the banks fold and use the money to compensate those who lost their savings as a result. Not only would it have kept the cash in circulation, it would probably have been cheaper as well.

And this sort of supports my conclusion about your understanding.
No one knows what would exactly happen if the banks were not bailed out.
But given the massive, labyrinthine financial system, it would have been a mess for certain.

[ 19. January 2017, 05:09: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

That 8 people own and have as much as half the world's population, according to info from Oxfam, seems relevant. I haven't seen them identified yet. Nor how compassionate they are.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Does it particularly matter, their level of charitableness? That they have amassed such a fantastic proportion of the world's wealth is appalling in itself.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We are talking about individual choices here,
How many decision making individuals involved in the 2008 crises were held accountable for their actions?

Not enough. But it's still of minimal relevance to this thread.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
Does it particularly matter, their level of charitableness? That they have amassed such a fantastic proportion of the world's wealth is appalling in itself.

The only thing about it that bothers me is that I'm not one of them. It must be such a wonderful life...

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

Goodness no. So much to worry about, so much responsibility, so much to lose. Modest affluence much more enjoyable, I suspect.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I think the problem with being very wealthy is that invariably you have to be an asshole to get it, or, if you inherited it, an asshole to keep it. And we mustn't be deceived because of the clear relationship of poverty to unhappiness. The relationship does not hold at the rich end.

We must always be suspicious of wealthy people pointing to their rights and merits, as they give lip service to charity.

This might be of interest Overpaid bosses (Walrus magazine). Tax rules must be changed to rein it it!

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

I once knew a scion of a very rich family; he is now deceased. He was not a happy man, because the dangers of his wealth oppressed him. Friends were to be suspected, because they might be on the make. They would want to borrow money. Women were out to sue for paternity or marry and then clean him out. He had difficulty committing to anything or becoming enthused by any career or cause. In the end his only refuge was the bottle.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
We are talking about individual choices here,
How many decision making individuals involved in the 2008 crises were held accountable for their actions?
Not enough. But it's still of minimal relevance to this thread.

It is very relevant if you lot are going to bang on about the undeserving poor.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think the problem with being very wealthy is that invariably you have to be an asshole to get it, or, if you inherited it, an asshole to keep it. And we mustn't be deceived because of the clear relationship of poverty to unhappiness. The relationship does not hold at the rich end.

Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy protection from certain very specific forms of unhappiness.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Money can't buy happiness, but it can buy protection from certain very specific forms of unhappiness.

I suppose money allows you to sail up along unhappiness in your great big yacht.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

But if you have a lot of it it can also open up the door to other kinds of unhappiness. It can take a lot of care and work to manage it properly.

Posted by Alt Wally (# 3245) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
The raising of individual rights in this context is about protecting the assets of those who have more isn't it?

The foundational principle of our government is to assure individual rights and protections with the intention of allowing for the pursuit of happiness. Everything it does – defend the borders, fill potholes, police the streets, verify our food safety, regulate commerce, etc. all comes back to this in terms of purpose.

I don’t think the government can act compassionately. I think it can act equitability and humanely, though clearly imperfectly so. That doesn’t mean that those with more deserve less, or that those with less deserve more. Pragmatically we realize that some must contribute to the support of others, because it is in the best interest of all if we do. How this this happens is up for debate.

Beyond this “compassion” is really personal morals or convictions about who deserves what. Exercised through the government this is ideology. Something both the left and right feel compelled to impress upon us in their own ways and for their own ends.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is very relevant if you lot are going to bang on about the undeserving poor.

Not really. I may not want public money going to the undeserving poor, but I don't want it going to the undeserving rich either.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alt Wally:
]The foundational principle of our government is to assure individual rights and protections with the intention of allowing for the pursuit of happiness. Everything it does – defend the borders, fill potholes, police the streets, verify our food safety, regulate commerce, etc. all comes back to this in terms of purpose.

Pursuit of happiness is an Americanism. Very individualistic. Hyper about it from my vantage point.

Canada has "peace, order and good government" in place of pursuit of happiness, elabourated with the idea of a "civil society" where people can pursue their interests but not at the expense or to the detriment of others. With the additional values that "we're all in this life together, we need to support each other, restrain exploitation and pursue collective goals".

This is why we need to restrain unbridled capitalism and commercial activity, make rules to disallow profiteering etc. I like to raise the Regina Manifesto (which has been greatly tempered by the CCF/NDP actually governing several provinces for many years, and (former prime minister) Pierre Trudeau's discussion of a "just society". We think we're middle of road, I get that from a USA perspective and possibly UK that we're lefties re social-economy.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is very relevant if you lot are going to bang on about the undeserving poor.
Not really. I may not want public money going to the undeserving poor, but I don't want it going to the undeserving rich either.

The "undeserving" poor is typically an excuse not to give at all, or at least not support public assistance.
As to the undeserving rich, your taxes pay for those, whether or not you wish. Though it would appear by your own admission that your main problem is that you are not one of them.

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Isn't this just another 'How can you condemn X if you don't condemn Y?' argument?

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The "undeserving" poor is typically an excuse not to give at all, or at least not support public assistance.

This discussion would be much more productive if you were responding to what I'm actually saying rather than what you think the stereotypical right-winger/Tory would say.

quote:
As to the undeserving rich, your taxes pay for those, whether or not you wish.

Well duh. Everyone who opposes a particular element of government spending is in a position where their taxes are paying for it anyway.

quote:
Though it would appear by your own admission that your main problem is that you are not one of them.

Mate, if I was one of the eight richest people in the world I would neither need nor want government handouts.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't this just another 'How can you condemn X if you don't condemn Y?' argument?

Yes, but with the added twist that the argument is still being used despite the fact that I am also condemning Y.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
It is very relevant if you lot are going to bang on about the undeserving poor.
Not really. I may not want public money going to the undeserving poor, but I don't want it going to the undeserving rich either.

The undeserving rich have no need for public money. Christ never made a judgment about who deserves sustenance or salvation for that matter.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Isn't this just another 'How can you condemn X if you don't condemn Y?' argument?
Yes, but with the added twist that the argument is still being used despite the fact that I am also condemning Y.

No. You defined a subset of Y as Y (dividing bankers from the ultimate beneficiaries of the bailout), in order to exculpate that subset.

The cost of fraudulent benefit claims is about 1% of the benefit budget (about 1bn pounds, compared to 20bn in tax fraud)

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Of course, the other major consideration is that Lord Snooty is wasting his own resources, not public ones.

There's the historical question of how those resources came to be his in the first place. Lord Snooty's resources could well have been public ones before they were stolen.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The cost of fraudulent benefit claims is about 1% of the benefit budget (about 1bn pounds, compared to 20bn in tax fraud)

Which would be a valid point if I'd said tax fraud wasn't something that should be dealt with.

Also, one billion pounds is a very big number regardless of whether bigger numbers exist or not.

Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which would be a valid point if I'd said tax fraud wasn't something that should be dealt with.

It's a relevant point in terms of what public perception is. Given the above, the media & the public should be kicking up a stink and complaining about tax fraud 20 times more frequently than they do about "benefit scroungers". Instead, it's the other way round. Maybe in part because people are ignorant of the statistic Chris quoted.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

quote:
Originally posted by chris stiles:
The cost of fraudulent benefit claims is about 1% of the benefit budget (about 1bn pounds, compared to 20bn in tax fraud)
Which would be a valid point if I'd said tax fraud wasn't something that should be dealt with.

Also, one billion pounds is a very big number regardless of whether bigger numbers exist or not.

All organizations concentrate on the "low-hanging fruit" when they want to make a gain, but the focus on benefit fraud and welfare cuts has got to the stage where the law of diminishing returns must be kicking in. Then again, maybe it hasn't, but that would be because those who are sailing close to the wind regarding tax can afford comparatively better professional advisors, such as lawyers and accountants, than benefits claimants. .

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Which would be a valid point if I'd said tax fraud wasn't something that should be dealt with.

The tax fraud comparison was an incidental remark. The main point was that you defined a subset of Y as Y (dividing bankers from the ultimate beneficiaries of the bailout), in order to exculpate the rest.

The bank bailout saved the banks, it was also generalised asset price protection for everyone with assets - paid for out of the public purse.

[ 20. January 2017, 13:25: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:

Also, one billion pounds is a very big number regardless of whether bigger numbers exist or not.
All organizations concentrate on the "low-hanging fruit" when they want to make a gain, but the focus on benefit fraud and welfare cuts has got to the stage where the law of diminishing returns must be kicking in.

A good example of this are the DWP health assessments - which currently cost more to the government than they actually recover. These assessments were brought on the back of political noise that there was a huge amount of waste (in percentage terms) in the benefit system.

In reality it has proved hard to eliminate the 1% of actual waste - and the main effect of attempting to do so has been to deny benefits to genuine claimants.

Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on :

Where does the £1bn figure for benefit fraud come from, 'cause I suspect it's very much on the high side, and definitely dwarfed by the £12-15bn of underclaiming on benefits. 'Cause if it comes from government sources, there might be a certain incentive to over-estimate.

Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Where does the £1bn figure for benefit fraud come from, 'cause I suspect it's very much on the high side, and definitely dwarfed by the £12-15bn of underclaiming on benefits. 'Cause if it comes from government sources, there might be a certain incentive to over-estimate.

Yes, it comes from government sources here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/118530/annual-fraud-indicator-2012.pdf

As you say, it's likely to be on the high side, and is lower both than the amount unclaimed and the amount paid out in error. It's dwarfed by things like tax fraud and the bailout. Thus to the extent that people rail about the welfare state rather than any of these other things, they rather undermine the claim that they care about each source of fraud/waste equally.

[ 20. January 2017, 17:05: Message edited by: chris stiles ]

Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
And I agree that lack of compassion is the danger faced by right of centre governments, but unlike you I see nothing inevitable. Just like the danger of left of centre governments is lack of prosperity and over-interference in people's lives. Again, not inevitable

I fully agree with this. But it annoys me that in forums like this, the general consensus is that a Christian must always be a socialist. It's true that Christ told the rich young man to sell everything and follow him. But it doesn't appear that he said that to Nicodemas of Joseph of Arimathea. Condemnation of wealth is much more about stewardship than it is about money. A compassionate rich person could do a lot for the disadvantaged. A wealthy society could eliminate poverty.

That this usually doesn't happen is because of the sickness of human nature. But I would rather be a poor person in a rich country than poor in a poor country because there will always be some trickle down, and poor in poor often has meant starvation. So the ideal would be to create wealth but use it wisely. Most socialist societies in history have stagnated through levelling down. They've also usually been repressive towards religious freedom. I find nothing attractive in them.

Greed makes most humans poor stewards of resources, but the lesson to be learnt is always stewardship rather than oppressive destruction of all wealth creation.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

He hath shewed strength with his arm : he hath scattered the proud in the imagination of their hearts.
He hath put down the mighty from their seat : and hath exalted the humble and meek.
He hath filled the hungry with good things : and the rich he hath sent empty away.

Not the actions of a God comfortable with the concentration of obscene wealth in few hands.

The resources of creation are for everyone, by right, because of their status as beloved creatures. Not to be amassed under the possession of greed.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

Maybe the compassionate people are those who will compromise on their own ideology for the sake of the happiness of other people.

So the compassionate right are those who believe in an ideology of capable independent self-reliant individuals, and yet compromise on that in the way of allowing a certain amount of government help for those who fail to live up to their ideal.

And the compassionate left believe in an ideology of State-enforced equality and yet compromise on that to allow people a certain amount of freedom to earn money and spend it in ways that they choose.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

So the compassionate right are those who believe in an ideology of capable independent self-reliant individuals, and yet compromise on that in the way of allowing a certain amount of government help for those who fail to live up to their ideal.

THe myth isn't that compassionate conservatism can exist in individuals but that it can exist politically.

quote:

And the compassionate left believe in an ideology of State-enforced equality and yet compromise on that to allow people a certain amount of freedom to earn money and spend it in ways that they choose.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0