Near the top of my long and ever-growing list of pet peeves is articles titled, “The Conservative Case for [Insert Proposal Usually Rejected by Conservatives Here].” It’s almost an iron-clad rule that before you even read the article you can be assured of that the case being made will use words that appeal to conservatives while being based on principles that are contrary to conservatism and/or reality.
Take, for example, a recent op-ed in the New Statesman by British Conservative Party politician Guy Opperman titled, “The Conservative case for a living wage.” In his opening paragraph he writes,
As a Conservative MP, I believe that lower taxes stimulate growth and jobs, that smaller government is invariably better government and that governments must “ensure that work always pays” by making sure those in work are better off than those on benefits. I also believe in hard work. Yet, for too many people in our society, a hard day’s work no longer means a fair day’s pay.
This sounds reasonable enough in theory. But when formulating public policy we have to have to use more precise terms. For instance, what do the phrases “hard work” and a “fair day’s pay” mean when it comes to determining a living wage? Does the difficulty of work automatically mean that the work is deserving of a set level of pay?
Opperman seems to believe that if a person is working a full-time job, that they are thereby entitled – regardless of the work they are doing – to receive a living wage: