The front page of the Conservative Party's 2015 manifesto made some pretty bold statements. It promised, in stark colours, a 'clear economic plan', and a 'brighter, more secure future'. Once David Cameron had secured a majority, he stood outside of Number 10 Downing Street and compounded that message by committing his party to running a 'one nation' government (Stone, 2015).
One month into Cameron's second term as Prime Minister, it is still hard to reconcile those statements with the party's intent to dismantle the UK's social security apparatus (Keegan, 2015). Through the Right-to-Buy scheme, the reserve of social housing looks like being further depleted (Helm & Boffey, 2015) and further cuts are expected to be coming for the welfare support and services depended upon by the most vulnerable (Stewart, 2015).
Whatever the, allegedly existing, plan that is supposed to secure this bright, united future will actually involve, it appears to be very much embedded within the Conservative meritocratic attitude (Watt, 2015) - an attitude that has underwritten their strivers & skivers rhetoric (Williams, 2013). That attitude itself already has questions enough to answer in the name of proper scrutiny: what is considered worthy of merit? On what playing field is merit
earned? And, what happens to those considered to be without merit?
However it is the third question in particular that is perhaps the most revealing, exposing a kindness deficit every bit as serious as the fiscal one.
However it is the third question in particular that is perhaps the most revealing, exposing a kindness deficit every bit as serious as the fiscal one.
The last five years have proven tough for the most vulnerable, with visits to food banks growing drastically in number (BBC, 2015). That pressure, a crushing weight upon the poorest, has not been alleviated over the past few months with councils behaving unconscionably towards the homeless - by criminalising sleeping rough (Sparkes, 2015) - and earning the disgust of celebrities in the process (The Guardian, 2015).
While the government might feel able to distance itself from the actions of local councils, it is much harder for the Conservatives to separate themselves from how their welfare policies are being implemented. Government delays in the payment of benefits to people with disabilities have been ruled unlawful (The Guardian, 2015{2}). And news for the most vulnerable doesn't get much better with the Prime Minister not ruling out the possibility of more cuts to disability benefits (Watt, 2015{2}).
This coldness all seems to be part of an attempt at reshaping the British state. Policies like selling off state assets, from social housing to the Post Office (Wintour, 2015; Macalister, 2015) - being as they are only one-off and short term ways of raising funds - are not much use in addressing the deficit. But what they do reflect is a determination to shift social responsibilities away from the state - acting on behalf of a society that contributes its fair share to a collective public service - and onto the individual.
That shift, which comes hand in hand with the mean and cold Conservative meritocratic attitude and its policy of austerity, has taken to treating vulnerable people like errant Victorian children - to be disciplined through a Gladstonian frugality while being pontificated to on the values of the ruling elite. That attitude is exemplified by the Tory anti-liberal attitude on security. The Prime Minister has suggested that Britain has for too long had a 'passively tolerant society', standing 'neutral between different values' (Stone, 2015{2}).
In the face of this Tory calculated coldness, in the pursuit of an ideologically redrawn society, it is important for the opposition to make kindness a big part of their approach. The Left opposition needs to do more than just oust a ruling party. It needs to confront and expose an an unkind vision of society, and to develop an open, compassionate and liberal alternative in the name of the common good.
