Skipper

Reviewing the Righwing Policy Exchange's Compassionate Conservatism, today Polly Toynbee finds its central message- that the voluntary sector should take up a hugely increased share of welfare functions- hard to comprehend. It seems the authors- Jesse Norman and Janan Ganesh, look back nostalgically to the days when the Salvation Army, tended so nobly to alcoholics and prostitutes. If the Tories get in next time standby for the heirs of William and Catherine Booth to be enthroned, presumably as much cheaper replacements for Patricia Hewitt.

The authors will have to forgive Toynbee and many others of us on the left of centre for being highly sceptical. I have always found the idea of rich people being relied upon to be charitable problematic. My reading of Conservative thinking is that it has a somewhat pessimistic view of human nature; hence the need for strong law and order arrangements and networks of socially binding institutions like family, school and the rest. Now if we cannot rely on people to be socially responsible, how can we expect them to take that even more difficult step to become socially altruistic?

I remember too a leader in the Economist shortly after Nigel Lawson slashed the higher rate of income tax to 40p in the £. The economically 'dry' journal welcomed the move but added the rather schoolmasterish proviso that it now expected the rich-as in the USA- to give far more generously to charity. I've yet to see evidence that charitable donations surged forward in the wake of the tax cuts. Rich people, according to my view of them, tend to take increases in their income as deserved, as of right and to spend it on themselves. I'm not sure how these voluntary bodies are going to stand in for welfare agencies- my copy of the book, ordered from Iain Dale's online Politicos bookshop, has still not arrived- but to rely on the dubious largesse of the rich rather than the assured support of the state, seems a poor exchange for the disadvantaged.