Peter Risdon

There was an interesting passage on Radio 4’s Today programme this morning. Evan Davis was interviewing George Osborne, who has been making a point of using the words “progressive” and “fair” to describe Conservative policies. This is a significant trend in the approach of the current Tory leadership and must represent a deliberate tactic. Another arm of this tactic can be seen in the fact that Iain Duncan Smith’s think tank is called the Centre for Social Justice.

Evan Davis suggested to Osborne that he was using the words “progressive” and “fair” in different ways to the Labour Party. And of course, that’s right. That’s the point. The Conservatives are reclaiming these words for general use again and this is a very good thing. It also happens to have been one of the bees in my bonnet.

Words like “fair”, “justice” and “equality” have been used by the socialist left in ways that are deeply dishonest and damaging. They are dishonest because they are deliberate subversions of the real meanings of the words. A fair or just output or outcome is related to, affected by, inputs. If you work hard, it’s fair that you be rewarded. If you don’t, it’s unfair that you should be rewarded. But the socialist use of these words flips this on its back so it becomes “fair” that people who work hard have money taken from them and given to people who don’t work hard. It’s fair that people, all people, should have similar levels of opportunity (they are not going to have the same opportunities) but it’s unfair to penalise success and reward failure or laziness. Equality of opportunity is fair; equality of outcome is unfair, whatever other merits it might have.

The misuse of these words is also damaging. Removing consequences from actions makes it harder to identify and opt for successful strategies. The further down the social and economic scales you go, the greater this distortion. The richer people in society can see very clearly what works and what doesn’t work, and this affects behaviour and tends to increase wealth. Those at the bottom can rationally opt for gaming the system rather than seeking genuine economic advancement, and this acts to entrench them deeper and more permanently in poverty. A humanitarian rather than an egalitarian approach to welfare would avoid some of this problem.

In passing, the fact that Davis put this question to Osborne but hasn’t put it to any socialists who have misused these words in his interviews is yet another reflection of the institutional bias of the BBC. The website Biased BBC aims to highlight and combat this bias. Unfortunately, it sometimes displays an opposite bias of its own. In this post, David Vance expresses his disapproval of the BBC’s attitude to gay marriage:

The BBC relentlessly push the Stonewall approved line that homosexual people must be allowed to “marry” in the interests of fairness and “equality”. There is such an interview on Today at 8.48am. It’s remarkable how the State Broadcaster can blithely dismiss millennia of human experience and instead pursue this radical re-definition of the institute of marriage to accommodate militant gays.

Gay marriage, as an idea, is not the province of “militant gays”. Vance’s objections are rooted, ultimately, in a young-earth creationism that feels humans were designed, fully formed, for specific forms of heterosexual sexual activity and that anything else is a perversion. This is, of course, drivel – we actually evolved to have recreational and non-procreative sex. Mr Vance’s biases undermine the campaign to highlight the biases of the BBC. They make it much easier for those who defend the BBC to suggest that criticism come solely from reactionary political extremists.