Geoff Williams has been a Town Council by-election candidate in Gerrards Cross, and a commercial airline captain, and a former RAF fast jet pilot.
The cut to the winter fuel allowance has been almost universally condemned within Conservative circles, notably from all of our leadership candidates. This a huge missed opportunity for us to debate a Conservative vision for sustainable public finances and to rebuild trust with the public over our management of the economy. To win an election again we must become a party with broad support across all age ranges – our current response simply further entrenches us as a party of the old.
Labour have undoubtedly been clunky and failed to articulate a vision. It’s a poor look, and shows incoherence in their thinking, to remove a modest payment from pensioners whilst awarding significant pay rises to railway workers and public sector staff.
However, opposing the cut by claiming that Labour is taking money off pensioners to fund train drivers’ pay rises is a simplistic argument that mixes two independent issues. Conservatives can rightly challenge the government over choosing to solve wage disputes at great cost but that shouldn’t stop us from supporting government efforts to control public spending in other areas.
I get it. The average age of Conservative voters is at a historic high, the age of party members even higher, and our leadership candidates are looking for votes. But if they buckle at the removal of a small non-means-tested payment to pensioners, what hope is there of ever tackling the big items – such as the ballooning cost of the pension triple-lock, public sector pensions, or taxation reform? What’s not clear is if the candidates are being politically opportunistic or if they genuinely don’t understand the scale of the problem.
During the election, the Institute for Fiscal Studies spoke powerfully about the “conspiracy of silence” within the political debate over the state of the public finances. Last week, the Office for Budget Responsibility published data showing that if we continue as we are, government debt would rise from 100 per cent of GDP today to a staggering 300 per cent of GDP over the next 50 years. This is not new information and all G7 countries are struggling with the same issues: demographic change, lower economic and productivity growth rates combined with outdated infrastructure, and ballooning health and social security costs.
This is the reality we face, and yet there is uproar within our party over means testing a benefit paid to pensioners, many of whom have lived through a golden period of economic circumstances and are very comfortable. We seem to be rather confused. Conservatives have long believed in supporting the most vulnerable in society.
However, that’s not the same as shovelling money into the pockets of those who don’t need it. There may be valid concerns over details of the policy which we should engage with since an effective opposition should improve and influence government policy. By simply opposing the cut we are implying the retired remain entitled to benefits they may not need at a time when there are spending demands in other crucial areas.
When debating what the state should pay for Conservatives should remember that government money doesn’t exist. There’s taxpayers money, and debt the government holds on our behalf. We can choose to borrow money to maintain the status quo, which is effectively a transfer of wealth from younger or unborn generations to the old. The resulting heavy debt burden will limit the future of our population. Nothing could be less Conservative.
Of course, there is a solution – economic growth. Politicians love talking about economic growth because it solves all of the budgetary problems and thus avoids having to make any difficult decisions. But politicians have limited levers to pull and economists are highly sceptical that the required growth rates are achievable. This makes continuing without structural change a highly reckless strategy likely to burden future generations with a real problem – if the bond markets let it get that far.
The winter fuel allowance cut has allowed all of our candidates to start a discussion about a Conservative vision for sustainable 21st-century public finances. Whilst nobody is looking for policy detail at this stage it is really important to understand candidates’ priorities and their assessment of the big issues facing us.
Defence and security are one of those big issues – an uncontroversial topic where Tom Tugendhat has been particularly strong. But on arguably the biggest issue, sustainable public finances, there is nothing. Instead of having the moral courage to engage with a difficult theme, they’ve all taken the easy option (yes – everyone agrees that train drivers are overpaid). Given the vision and courage all the candidates claim to possess whilst campaigning, it’s ironic that none of them are demonstrating these competencies.
For any members of the public watching our contest, they’ll see a Conservative Party that campaigned for the ridiculous triple-lock-plus during the election still fixated on policies favouring older voters. All leadership candidates are touring the country emphasising their leadership skills, honesty, integrity, and bravery to change our party. They often speak standing in front of lecterns plastered with strong verbs. The last parliament saw us shatter our reputation for responsible stewardship of the economy.
If the British people are to trust us again we must engage with reality. Talk is easy. It’s time to walk the walk.
