Press Releases

Today, Bright Blue released its report, Give and take, exploring how conservatives think about welfare and offering policy recommendations to improve the effectiveness of the system and support for it.

Public support for state welfare is at a historic low and amidst an unsupportive public, Conservative voters stand out as particularly unsympathetic to state welfare. In this report, we go back to first principles about how conservatives view the vulnerable and impoverished and think they should be supported. While “welfare” is closely associated with state welfare in public discourse, we conceived of welfare more broadly to include other providers of support such as families, the local community and charitable organisations. We unearth interrelated strands of conservative thinking relating to:

•Benefit claimants

•The purpose of welfare

•Different sources of welfare

We found that conservatives hold a number of positive principles and views about welfare which go beyond the prevailing narrative from the government of reducing the size of the state and reducing public expenditure. Given fiscal constraints, the government has been right to focus upon limiting welfare expenditure, but this policy focus should not be too dominant. It is also important to draw upon a wider range of conservatives principles to reshape our welfare system.

We discuss our policy recommendations here, but this blog piece will focus upon outlining the strands of conservative thinking these recommendations were built upon and explaining how conservatives think about welfare.

Views of benefit claimants

The first conservative principle we identify is a belief in individual control and personal responsibility. Conservatives tend to see individuals as agents who can shape and determine their circumstances, and so are seen to be more responsible for their impoverishment. This principle also lends itself to an opposition to paternalism in the delivery of welfare. On this view, claimants ought to be expected and encouraged, as far as possible, to make their own decisions about how they spend their money.

In polling conducted for the report by Survation, we asked respondents to rank the causes of poverty from 0 to 10, where ‘0’ signifies poverty being caused entirely by circumstances beyond people’s control, ‘10’ signifies poverty being caused entirely by people not doing enough to help themselves, and ‘5’ signifies an even mix of both. Conservatives were significantly more likely to opt for numbers above than 5, while Labour voters preferred numbers less than 5. In response to a further question in our polling, Conservatives were most likely to report “lack of work ethos” or “unwillingness to accept boring/menial jobs” as causes of impoverishment compared to Labour voters who were more likely to cite “lack of available jobs” and “low wages paid by employers”.

The second principle we unearth is that conservatives make a clearer distinction between the deserving and underserving among benefit claimants. Conservatives see groups such as pensioners and disabled people to be especially deserving and contrast these sharply with groups deemed undeserving such as the unemployed and immigrants.

The third conservative principle we identify concerns the rational agency of claimants. Claimants are often understood by conservatives as making a rational choice to rely on the state. On this view, claimants are seen to be responding rationally to the various incentives they have available to them in the same way that non-claimants also seek to maximise their financial position. This view prompts a policy focus on the financial disincentives to work that the welfare system creates.

The fourth conservative principle we explore is that relying upon benefits gives rise to a psychology and culture of dependency. Claimants are seen as suffering from individual shortcomings – attitudes and entrenched behaviours – which set them apart from nonclaimants. In our polling, we found that 65% of Conservative voters see being “dependent on the system” as a typical characteristic of benefit claimants, compared to 36% of Labour voters. Thirty nine percent of Conservative voters judged that welfare cuts have been good for claimants compared to 12% of Labour voters.

The fifth view we unearth concerns the lack of trust conservatives have in benefit claimants. In our polling, we found that Conservative voters are nearly twice as likely as Labour voters to judge that the best description of the welfare system is “full of fraud and abuse” – 44% of Conservatives compared to 22% of Labour supporters. Furthermore, even for legitimate claimants, we found that an overwhelming majority of Conservative voters (68%) do not trust them to spend their benefits sensibly and without government interference. This contrasted starkly with the view taken of individuals in general, who are deemed best placed to know how to spend their money; 69% of Conservatives agreed with this.

Views of the purpose of welfare

The first principle we identify in this area is the importance of reciprocity to conservatives. Reciprocity is the principle that what an individual receives should be related to what they have given or offered: ‘something for something’. Conservatives tend to think that welfare ought to enshrine and deliver reciprocal outcomes.

One way to deliver reciprocity is to allocate welfare resources on the basis of past contributions to the tax system. In our polling, we found that Conservative voters were markedly more likely to prefer allocating benefits on the basis of contribution, as opposed to need, than Labour voters. Fifty percent of Conservatives preferred prioritising those who had contributed compared to 24% of Labour supporters. A second way to deliver reciprocity is by focusing upon claimants’ current reciprocal behavior; specifically, the conditions attached to receiving benefits. Other survey evidence finds that Conservatives support tougher conditions for claiming benefits.

The second conservative principle we identify regarding the purpose of welfare concerns promoting opportunity. Welfare should be a means of enabling people to improve their own situation and providing opportunities to help them do so.

In our polling, we found that a majority of Conservative voters (57%) prioritise a welfare system which enables people to contribute to society in the future over one where less is spent on benefits. We also found that given the choice of making society more equal and ensuring individuals have the same opportunities, Conservative voters opt overwhelmingly for the latter, whereas the former appeals much more to Labour voters. Seventy seven percent of Conservatives opt for a system which “ensures individuals have the same opportunities to flourish” compared to 47% of Labour voters.

Views of different sources of welfare

The first view we explore in this area is that there ought to be a small state. For both economic and social reasons, conservatives believe that the role and the size of the state should be limited. With regards to welfare, this tempers conservative support for extensive state provision of welfare. In our polling, we found that Conservative voters are less likely than Labour voters to see the state as primarily responsible for supporting people in financial difficulty. Given the choice of the state, families, local community, neighbours and friends and charities, 54% of Labour voters agree that the state is most responsible for supporting people in financial difficulty, compared to 41% of Conservative voters.

The second conservative view relating to sources of welfare we identify is the importance of families. Support provided within the family unit differs from state welfare in being more personal and involving mutual obligations. Our polling showed that Conservative voters see families as primarily responsible for supporting those

in financial difficulty; Given the choice of the state, families, local community, neighbours and friends and charities, 54% of Conservative voters agree that families are most responsible for supporting people in financial difficulty, compared to 36% of Labour voters. Our polling also found that a majority of Conservative voters believe that the state has a role in encouraging stable families (69%).

The final conservative view we discuss concerns active communities. Active communities, including volunteering and charitable giving, are integral to how conservatives think about welfare provision. Other survey evidence shows that Conservatives are more likely than Labour voters to want power to be taken away from government and for charities and voluntary groups to be more involved in the delivery of public services. Increasing the support offered by these non-state providers has a particular value in a period of austerity.

Last week, Bright Blue had its first local forum on international affairs. It felt such a privilege to have the chance to discuss really important issues of our time while in a very relaxed atmosphere, surely making new friends at the same time. We exchanged ideas as to what we think the role of the UK should be on the international stage, from the experience of Afghanistan to Libya and Syria.

In particular, we pondered on whether Parliament should vote when the Prime Minister wishes to engage the country in a foreign war. Iraq did set a precedent and there was a great discussion about the consequences of this on the role of the Prime Minister, but also on whether or not that diminishes the strength of the UK as a global power.

I think we all left this delicious dinner with an even stronger desire to contribute to these debates in the future. Learning, connecting, and having fun, is what these forums will be about, so please do join us again at 19:00, 24^th November, at Cote Brasserie, Devonshire Street, and bring along any friends who have a keen interest in foreign affairs.

To reserve a place at the next forum meeting, email: florence.rdv@gmail.com

Florence de Vesvrotte is Coordinator of Bright Blue’s Diplomacy and Wine Forum

As Conservative activists gathered in Birmingham, it was assumed by some that gloom would be the order of the day.

Four days later, with a packed and exuberant Conference drawing to a close and David Cameron speaking again of his optimism about the strength of family and community links, and their role in building a sunny national future, activists left with a spring in their step.

Conservatives are at their very best when positively laying out their plans to help people get on in life and Birmingham 2014 was no exception. An exciting Bright Blue fringe programme furthered the forward-looking mood, with 12 events discussing Conservative approaches to issues that make a real difference to people’s lives. Our packed events saw activists come together to analyse the further work needed to empower both individuals and communities:

·         What housing policies should Conservatives have? with Mark Pawsey MP and Cllr Gary Porter

·         What do Conservatives want from welfare? with Iain Dale (LBC Radio)

·         Immigration: a balanced agenda with the Rt Hon Dr Liam Fox MP

·         Can the Tories go green again? with Neil Carmichael MP

·         Making the UK the HQ for global talent with the Rt Hon David Willetts MP 

·         Getting a better deal for consumers in the energy market with Baroness Sandip Verma,

·         Helping the middle class with Dominic Raab MP

·         Drink Tank with the Rt Hon Ken Clarke QC MP

·         Conservatism unchained: what will the Tories, do alone in government with the Rt Hon David Davis MP

·         A Tory nanny state? Conservative and childcare with Sam Gyimah MP

·        Standing up for the little guy: Conservatives as consumer champions with Baroness Dame Neville-Rolfe and Mark Garnier MP

 Buoyed by Conference, we look forward to a great range of events running up to Christmas, starting with our Energy and Climate Change Think Forum on the 16^th October- see here for details 

Matt Browne is Communications Officer at Bright Blue

Bright Blue runs a number of Think Forums. These are spaces for those on the centre-right to come together to chat about politics and policy. Peter Kirby-Harris, who coordinates the Energy and Climate Change Forum, reports on the forum’s discussions.

Most of what has been presented, mooted and acted on in recent years to address the energy challenges we face have fallen short of what is required. The time has come to reconsider these challenges and to ask what system of energy we want to have over the next century. Targets, mechanisms, incentives and taxes are useful but only if included in a broader strategy that is transformatory by nature.

We have concluded that the following areas need to be addressed:

Firstly, nuclear power needs to be rehabilitated and the new methods of delivery for this energy source need a fair public airing, free from stigma, taboo and its history of association with nuclear weapons. New designs for reactors such as those running on Thorium or from uranium from decommissioned warheads ought to be considered alongside existing designs such as the EPR. For further information about a potential nuclear renaissance, a viewing of Pandora’s Promise is essential.

Secondly, decentralised energy production from local communities and rural areas needs to be given equal access to the grid as the centrally produced energy from power stations. A new smart grid introduced across the length and breadth of the country would do much to resolve this issue while maintaining energy security and competition. The capacity for local market forces in deploying the huge variety of new technology that has been developed over the past decades is critical.

Thirdly, funding needs to be better allocated. Small, medium and large sources of potential production need to be linked more effectively with relevant financing opportunities. Some new electricity and heat producing technologies that have come into being in the past two decades have now reached an impasse. New designs for solar panels, wind turbines, hydro-electric systems, both large and small, cannot come online without better funding mechanisms. Better funding connects R&D to actual deployment. Only once deployed can the economies of scale emerge which will allow this new technology to form part of the UK’s low-carbon energy mix.

Fourthly, prioritisation of social engagement is essential to a coherent, long-term energy and climate policy. If there is no acceptance of a given technology from communities, then the build of new energy infrastructure will be delayed, threatening investment in the market. Private concerns should be equated with public concerns if the government is to gain the public support necessary for pursuing climate and energy solutions.

Developing a scientifically sound policy process, highlighting new energy options, a more ecologically aware political class and the acceptance of a large number of hard truths are all parts of a larger issue: that of how we can be prosperous and productive while living within both our economic and ecological limits. The promotion of an optimistic debate can serve to engage people on these issues. With the UN Conference on Climate Change in Paris less than 18 months away, the time to be talking is now.

To attend the next meeting of the Energy and Climate Change Forum, RSVP here

Bright Blue has recently started a number of Think Forums. These are spaces for those on the centre-right to come together to chat about politics and policy. Tom Sykes, who facilitates the Business Forum, has written a report about the first meeting.

Last month the @bizthinkforum met for the first time in Vauxhall, but a stone’s throw away from Westminster. The subject of our initial discussion was ‘What’s wrong with British business?’ and we were quickly inundated with ideas and thoughts around future topics for discussion.

However, the primary theme from our forum was internships: how they work, how they could be funded and the relevance of this type of work experience to our prospective workforce.

The issues

Internships are a vital way for students and prospective employees to gain commercial experience, enhance their knowledge of industry as well enhance their CVs in view of prospective employment.

It was felt that in the current buyers’ market for employers, there is an increased need for prospective employees to demonstrate commercial skills and relevant experience beyond an academic or general work experience qualifications.

The assertion was made that all prospective employees should have access to an internship. At present, this is not possible due to two primary issues:

1. The vast level of demand for internships and lack of supply
2. The lack of funding available for internships

The impacts

As a result of these issues, there is a risk that students are not able to acquire the necessary experience to prepare them for full time employment or to meet the requirements of prospective employers.

Detailed issues

1. The vast level of demand for internships and lack of supply.

It was felt that there is a limited number of internships available to prospective employees within the industry at large, this, combined with the obvious demand for internships driven by recognition of the appetite of employers of such experience result in an imbalance between the supply and demand of internships.

2. The lack of funding available for internships.

It was felt that there is limited funding available for internships and many internships are unpaid. Therefore students must use savings or seek support from others to fund the costs associated with performing an internship I.e. Hotels, transport, subsistence, opportunity cost.

As a result, this limits social mobility as only those with suitable economic means can accept and perform unpaid internships. This means that many prospective employees across the country cannot gain the experience desired by employers and as a consequence fail to obtain suitable employment.

Solution

Based upon these underlying factors, we propose the following:

• All persons aged 20-23 will be able to claim the equivalent of job seekers allowance (upon a means tested basis) for two weeks to fund an accepted, legitimate internship (internship allowance).
• All businesses with reported gross profit in excess of £50k will be subjected to an internship tax to help fund the internship allowance.
• Businesses subject to the tax are eligible for an exemption if it can be demonstrated a meaningful internship programme is in place at the business. ‘Meaningful’ is based upon the size of the business relative to the number of internships offered and the nature of the programme.
• The development of a recognised ‘approved internship provider accreditation’ to incentivise small and medium sized businesses to develop sustainable and commercially worthwhile internship programmes for candidates.
• Off-set the real cost of the internship allowance against value of up skilling prospective resources, reduced future unemployment volumes, potential to increase business output and drive social mobility.

The @bizthinkforum meets again in mid July – please tweet us or email tomsykes@hotmail.co.uk for more details.

A couple of weeks ago we surveyed our members and supporters. The full results will be published next week, but here are the key headlines from what Conservative Party members said. We found that Tory members believe that the Conservative Party can shape its destiny. Cameron & Co should not be worried by Ukip, with only 19% believing that they are the biggest threat to the Conservative Party’s chances of getting a majority in 2015. They should certainly not be worried by Ed Miliband, as 0% thought Labour’s offer might be the main reason for the Conservatives not winning in 2015! The biggest impediment to the Conservatives winning the next election is that not enough people will believe that that Party has good intentions, and that they understand the fears and dreams of the majority.

Over the next year Conservatives need to talk again and again about how this Government’s actions have helped people – try to inspire and convince the electorate that a Conservative government is the best government. Alistair Campbell used to say that your message wouldn’t even begin to get through until you had bored yourself to tears through repetition. In every public appearance Conservative representatives need talk about economic competence, how they have managed to improve public services despite the financial constraints, that the State burden on those on low income has been reduced, and show that Conservatives are comfortable with Britain as it is and are confident about where we are going.

If the Conservatives are the biggest party, but don’t win a majority, members believe the Coalition should be reformed. Despite the occasional frustrations, 48% said that most can be achieved by making a second agreement with the Lib Dems. 32% wanted to try to govern as a minority party, though of course this will also contain frustrations. Only 10% preferred the idea of a Conservative-Ukip coalition, which isn’t surprising considering Ukip’s bleak view of Britain today.

Members believe that the Party should be more confident in promoting a more balanced message on immigration. 68% of Conservative members surveyed said it is essential for business to be able to recruit the best from anywhere in the world; 51% said that immigration enriches us, economically and culturally, with only 20% saying that immigration has harmed our cultural identity. 48% want international students and highly-skilled workers to be exempt from any immigration cap. This reflects the belief that Britain is stronger if we are open to good people coming here, and a sense of confidence that our culture can handle globalisation.

Nick Denys is Head of Digital at Bright Blue. You can follow him on Twitter @betapolitics.

After years building Bright Blue, today we’re celebrating a new chapter for the organisation: as an established think tank and pressure group. As the journalist Matthew d’Ancona, a member of our Advisory Board, writes about Bright Blue in our new book The modernisers’ manifesto: “Modernising Toryism now has a home and an HQ for the next generation of Conservatives”.

Back in 2010, a group of Conservative activists and advisers came together to create an independent organisation that would champion liberal conservatism and support the modernisation project that David Cameron was promoting. Back then, on a shoestring budget, we organised small gatherings for like-minded people in different pubs who wanted to chat politics and brainstorm policy. Today, these are a common fixture in the Westminster calendar: our monthly Drink Tanks, attracting large audiences and high-profile speakers, and the odd bit of press attention too.

Bright Blue has come a long way over the past four years. Finally, we have two full-time staff members: me and our brilliant researcher, David Kirkby, with plans for expansion over the next year. On top of that, we have a passionate associate executive, an impressive advisory board with three Cabinet Ministers, and 42 parliamentary supporters.

Our analysis – rigorous and independent – is regularly featured in national newspapers, and on TV and radio. We’ve published two books: Tory modernisation 2.0: the future of the Conservative Party and, out today, The modernsiers’ manifesto. A number of policies we’ve campaigned strongly for have been adopted by the current Government: for example, increasing the minimum wage, greater financial support for parents to afford childcare and lifting the cap on the number of undergraduate places at universities.

From day one, we’ve wanted to make Bright Blue a friendly, inviting space where people from all political backgrounds can attend and speak at our events.  Hence the range of politicians and opinion formers on the centre-right contributing to our new book: Dr Liam Fox MP, Ian Birrell, Isabel Hardman, Professor Tim Bale, Andrew Mitchell MP, Laura Sandys MP, Paul Goodman, Zac Goldsmith MP, and many more.

For us, politics is about ideas, not tribes; dialogue, not mudslinging. And we didn’t just want to be a think tank, important as they are to improving policy-making in this country, but a pressure group and membership organisation too: bringing together that growing group of people in our society, especially among younger generations, who identify broadly as economic and social liberals. Later this week, you’ll be hearing from David Kirkby about our new Think Forums, where members and supporters can get together in their local area to meet new people and talk big ideas.

But, we liberal conservatives are guided by eight broad principles. At the heart of it all is an optimism in the potential of individuals and society, a belief that good policy (with government, markets, communities, families and individuals themselves all playing a role) can help create more prosperous, secure and fulfilling lives.

Tonight, we launch our three main research themes for the year with our President, the Rt Hon David Willetts MP, who has been a tremendous adviser and friend to the organisation since its birth.  These are:

1.       Individual power and potential

Thirteen million Britons are in poverty, the majority of which are in low paid work. Especially when fiscal resources are increasingly constrained, Bright Blue will be exploring and devising credible and imaginative approaches to improve our welfare and education to ensure greater individual and national prosperity.

2.       Security and prosperity in the globalised world

The globalised, capitalist economy has increased living standards and opportunities for millions. But the composition of communities has changed, sometimes rapidly, and pressures on our resources and environment have mounted. Bright Blue will be suggesting ways to find a better balance between maximising the benefits and addressing the challenges of globalisation – such as immigration, environmental degradation and resource scarcity – to build stable societies and sustainable economies.

3.       The future of conservatism

Across the western world, societies are becoming more ethnically diverse and socially liberal. Bright Blue will be looking at how conservatism can modernise to remain compelling and inspiring in liberal democracies.

Bright Blue is excited and ambitious about our next stage. Thanks to everyone who has helped us get to where we are today. And please do get involved as we aspire to create influential and fresh policy ideas, and build a strong political identity and community for those on the liberal-right of politics.

Ryan Shorthouse is the Director of Bright Blue

In this podcast preview of our Modernisers’ Manifesto, Nick Denys asks some of the authors:

• Why is the manifesto is need?
• What role does modernisation play in UK Conservatism?
• How can the Conservatives win the next election?

The podcast features Paul Goodman (Conservative Home), Professor Tim Bale (Queen Mary University), Isabel Hardman (Spectator), Rick Nye (Populus) and Ryan Shorthouse (Bright Blue).You can listen to the podcast by scrolling to the bottom of the screen and pressing play. If you want to down load the podcast on ITunes click on the link and click on the ITunes button on the right hand side.