Self-interest and a just society are not in conflict, whatever ‘shy Tories’ think
|
Version 0 of 1. I am sure that Lionel Shriver (Stop this shaming of shy Tories, 12 May) is right that “the issue is self-interest”. But I’m less sure that the issue is bullying by “the left”, or that “doing all right for yourself” has been “demonised”. I’ve done all right for myself, as have many of my friends. But I hold to the view that, just because I have, it behoves me to be concerned about those who, through no fault of their own, have not done as well. Moreover, I’m not sure that this conviction is politically sectional. In fact, prior to Mrs Thatcher, it used to be as much a feature of Conservatism as of Labourism. Related: If you want more accurate polls, stop shaming shy Tories | Lionel Shriver And as for whether voting “contrary to [one’s] own advantage defies human nature” – it is a matter of degree. I’m not going to vote for policies that make me, or my family, markedly poorer; but exactly because I have done well for myself, I reckon I can afford a bit more tax to properly fund the NHS or public education, without bankrupting myself or starving my children. To not think so, far from being “human nature”, seems lacking in generosity of spirit. And one final thing. I take the phrase “for no fault of their own” to incorporate being unlucky in the human lottery of initial genetic endowment. And that – far more than self-interest – is a topic regarded as ultra vires by many on the left. And it shouldn’t be.Emeritus Professor Gavin KitchingBoston, Lincolnshire • Ah, the old “human nature” line. Lionel Shriver suggests “the healthy pursuit of self-interest is what makes the democratic world go round, and to expect any sector of the electorate to vote contrary to their own advantage defies human nature”. Does, therefore, voting against my self-interest, for a more civilised and socially just society, mean I’m both undemocratic and non-human? If so, what am I?Graeme TiffanyLeeds • Lionel Shriver may be right about the “shy Tories”; the question is, why are they shy? There comes a time in any voter’s life when they have to weigh their own benefit against a future government punishing the poor, simply because they are poor. On 7 May those voters either didn’t realise what the future will be, or they didn’t care. This may be democracy, but I consider it to be unfair democracy. Ed Miliband’s “hard-working families” may have been code for those in a particular tax bracket, but it was an overt denial of support for those who aren’t working, most of whom are unemployed because there are no jobs available. He didn’t support them, so they didn’t support him. It is very easy for those with money to exploit those without. Labour is now playing catch-up with a government of ever more extreme rightwing policies. Until Labour regains its socialist principles it will never have enough support to form a government.Joan FriendOldham • As a lifelong Liberal for over 50 years my experience has been somewhat different to that of Lionel Shriver. From an early age, in any discussion, the assumption was that I must be a Tory. If not, why not; I had to give my reasons. When I reversed the roles and asked why they voted Tory I received the bland answer: “My parents vote Tory and so I do as well.” Liz HuhneLondon • Quite why we should commiserate with the “shy Tory” is puzzling, despite Lionel Shriver’s attempts to mount a self-help movement. That said, it makes some sense in the world imagined by Shriver, where the only other political animal is the “British leftist” whose red-in-tooth-and-claw rapacity has intimidated all others from the landscape. It is surely a Looking Glass world that Shriver offers if being sanctimonious, smug and righteous are qualities unknown to Conservatives. But perhaps these distortions are to be expected of those whose political memory conveniently begins only at the point that Margaret Thatcher left office. Only the historically amnesiac can find it mysterious that “privilege … has become the cultural millstone” of the Tories. An informed examination of Shriver’s Smithsonian self-interest, as practised by the Conservatives throughout the last century, might help explain the opprobrium which occasionally comes their way, not least because of the heartless indifference promoted by its granite-hard convictions. Paul McGilchristColchester, Essex • Lionel Shriver may be right to say that “healthy pursuit of self-interest is what makes the democratic world go round”, but it must be what Alexis de Toqueville described as “self-interest properly understood”. This means appreciating that paying attention to everyone else’s self-interest is in fact a prerequisite for one’s own ultimate wellbeing. We need a smarter take on self-interest than Shriver allows, because increasing inequality is the enemy of us all.Rev John Saxbee Haverfordwest, Pembrokeshire • Given that Shriver has only been in the country 28 years, perhaps she can be forgiven for not noticing those centres of Tory shyness, the Mail, Sun, Express, Star, Telegraph and the Times. Read what Miliband had to put up with, then tell me again how all those poor middle-class aspirational people are being scared off getting their opinions across.PA ChalmersSouthwick, West Sussex • Lionel Shriver misses the point. Too many of us do all right for ourselves at someone else’s expense. A good lifestyle bought from companies which operate on the basis of insecure, below-living-wage jobs and low or no corporate tax payments hurts us all when taxation is required to subsidise wages and maintain infrastructure. Casting a “selfish” vote is delusional. Wellbeing increases for all when wealth is more equally shared.Shelagh YoungDunfermline |