Toynbee or Rawls?

Underneath the hilarity, there's a serious question raised by Greg Clark's comment:

It is the social commentator Polly Toynbee who supplies imagery that is more appropriate for Conservative social policy in the twenty first century.

It's: of the countless intelligent egalitarians he could have mentioned, why her? Why not  invoke instead, say, John Rawls. Doing so would have had several advantages, even leaving aside the fact that it would have made Clark look like a serious man.
1. Rawls' difference principle - that "social and economic inequalities are to...be to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged members of society" provides an obvious philosophical foundation for Cameron's claim that "the right test for our policies is how they help the most disadvantaged in society."
2. The liberal egalitarianism championed by Rawls attempts to show how equality can be compatible with a smallish state. Toynbee's egalitarianism, by contrast, often spills over into a busy, nosy managerialist state.
3. Rawls attempted to embed egalitarianism into a constitution, rather than leave it at the mercy of day-to-day politics. There's one big merit in doing this - it would help solve the problem of which Daniel Finkelstein rightly complains, that the very poorest are getting poorer. The thing is, vote-grabbing politicians have little incentive to help the very worst-off, because they are, by definition, not marginal voters. "Help for families" is a vote-winner. "Help for the single unemployed" is not. We can't rely upon mere party competition to maximize the position of the worst off. 
Now, the merits or not of the Rawlsians position are of course debatable. But if the Stupid Party wanted my respect, it would draw more from him, and less from some meeja airhead.

Comments

[Gracchi]

I think the other thing is how historically illiterate the comparison to Churchill is. Yeah I agree it would be great to hear some thinking about Rawls, Nozick or any other philosopher- personally I'd settle for Duns Scotus, might be a little too advanced though for most poltiicians, but it aint going to happen Chris- at least not till England stand a worthwhile chance of winning the Football World Cup and the Ashes in the same year.

[Planeshift]

The reason he didn't refer to Rawls instead of Polly is because half his party haven't heard of Rawls, but just might have heard of Polly - if only as straw women Polly.

Its another one of Cameron's tactics to alienate his own party in a bid to be seen as moving towards the centre ground.

[AntiCitizenOne]

> Its another one of Cameron's tactics to alienate his own party in a bid to be seen as moving towards the centre ground.

Dangerous game with the EUs actions (only reported on the blogosphere) making voting for the UKIP the only way to actually elect a parliament that can make laws for the U.K.

[angry economist]

What I read from it that the tories ar saying they need a pompous flag bearer for social justice whose arguments are based in state-led solutions for all, and don't trust individual enterprise and motivations.

I see it as a step back to the 1980s and 1990s - aspiring to make policy based on half baked, pompous views on 'society' without having a grasp of the real world?

[Alex]

Imagery that is more appropriate - ah, that'll be annoying, vacuous flabble then..