David Goodhart
How many new friends does Cameron need to win?
Here at Prospect we eschew the wearisome political cynicism of our age and look forward to the election with a whistle and a skip. Like all national elections it is a festival of democracy—a chance for the country to talk to itself about how to cut the deficit (and whether a hung parliament would make it harder). We have sneaked in with an early “election special” to help to prepare you for the deluge of commentary. But it is not shaping up to be a historic contest.
Indeed, it may be encapsulated by a poignant exchange between a husband and wife (David and Karen) in Luton’s main shopping mall, reported by Sam Knight. “I ask David if he plans to vote Conservative. ‘It’s got to be better than the Labour lot, isn’t it?’ he says. ‘That’s just the way I see it. Maybe it isn’t…’ He is suddenly filled with doubt, and turns to his wife. ‘Karen, if you was voting, who would you vote for? You think they’re probably all the same don’t you.’ Karen looks down the mall. It is full of families. She speaks quietly. ‘I’d give the other ones a bit of a chance,’ she says.”
Read more »
James Crabtree
If David Cameron wins the next election his mantra of “vote blue, go green” will be quickly tested. Cutting emissions. Taxing pollution. Solving a looming energy crisis, possibly without nuclear power. All will make a Tory first term the most environmentally conscious in British history. And all should provide a platform for the political rise of Cameron’s most recognisable eco-supporter: Zac Goldsmith.
One of only a tiny handful of “green Tories,” Goldsmith is also by far the best-known new Conservative candidate. Few others in politics can match the star power of this handsome, thoughtful multimillionaire, friendly with glitterati and monarchy alike. One might think this alone would assure Goldsmith a position at Cameron’s top table. Yet doubts remain over whether he will accept the compromises of frontline politics—and whether the Tories will green their business-friendly instincts. His first-term progress will test the size of Cameron’s big tent.
Goldsmith has certainly been on an intriguing intellectual journey. In his late teens, after being expelled from Eton, he ignored university and travelled the world. Returning from one trip he remembers picking up a book given to him by his father, the billionaire businessman James Goldsmith. The inscription said it would be the most important he would ever read.
The book, Ancient Futures: Learning from Ladakh, told of the visits of environmentalist Helena Norberg-Hodge to a primitive but beautiful corner of northern India in the 1970s, and her subsequent horror at the province’s economic development. Inspired, Goldsmith met her, worked for her organisation, and also went to work in Ladakh itself.
Norberg-Hodge, along with Zac’s uncle Teddy Goldsmith, had a powerful effect on Zac’s thinking. Both espoused a “deep green” philosophy concerned with the preservation of natural ecology and tribal societies, and a strong scepticism of capitalism and globalisation. Such ideas, in turn, underpinned Goldsmith’s early campaigns—as editor of his uncle’s Ecologist magazine—against everything from international trade and GM food to nuclear energy and climate change.
Now Goldsmith wants to be an MP, and is using an upcoming book, The Constant Economy (Atlantic), to take on some of his previous beliefs about “no pain, no gain” environmentalism. He remains anti-nuclear, anti-GM and the rest. But where once he shared his father and uncle’s mistrust of Britain’s political and business establishment, he now seems to have found faith in market mechanisms and mainstream public policy to avert environmental calamity—a change of heart he partly credits to Cameron’s invitation to co-chair a 2007 Tory green policy review.
For any of this to matter, Goldsmith must of course win his seat in Richmond, southwest London, by no means assured. Lib-Dem Susan Kramer has a defensible 3,000-plus majority. But if he doesn’t win Cameron isn’t likely to form a government —Richmond is the Tories 61st most winnable seat, and they need 125 for a majority.
Given the prominent role he could play outside politics it’s reasonable to assume that Goldsmith aspires to a Cabinet position, at least. But here he has work to do—not least to overturn the after-effects of the media reception to parts of his 2007 review. In what could be a sign of things to come, Cameron swiftly distanced himself from its (basically sensible) proposals for taxes on domestic flights to fund rail investment and penalties for polluting cars, while Goldsmith copped the blame for the bad headlines. Both ideas are resurrected in his book—but their reception at the time led some to conclude that Goldsmith’s youth (he is 34), privileged background and radical heritage denied him the antennae and common touch needed in the political frontline.
This early reputation for naivety wasn’t helped by further bad headlines in 2008. He was found to have spent around £90,000 of his own money to fund his campaign, some £7,000 given to his local party while he was not a resident. Elsewhere his calls for a national boycott of Sainsbury’s, following a spat over planning permission in his constituency, raised eyebrows.
Since the launch of the 2007 review Goldsmith has been less closely involved with Conservative environmental policy than his public profile might suggest. He is not part of Cameron’s inner circle. But this doesn’t mean he will be without influence. Some observers talk of a “Goldsmith veto” that if wielded carefully could be influential; a possibility strengthened by his ability to go to the media on issues he cares about, as he did during 2008 over debates on nuclear power.
In this Goldsmith is lucky: present Conservative policy is in many ways more environmentally-friendly than Labour’s. But coming out of a recession Cameron will face pressure to dash for growth. Even if this isn’t a problem, localism might be. Goldsmith backs radical moves for local direct democracy. Ideas like petitions to prompt local planning referendums are an outgrowth of his environmentalism—the hope being that local votes will stop new power stations, supermarkets, and so on. Yet it is unlikely a Tory government will really go down this road.
The Tory commitment to stop a third runway at Heathrow will matter too, given its proximity to Goldsmith’s constituency. The promise seems firm, but in July 2009 a Tory frontbencher was caught out telling a constituent that it would be “revisited” post-election—a slip senior Tories, and Goldsmith, quickly scrambled to deny.
Energy will be most important of all. Currently Cameron argues for a “market neutral” approach to electricity generations with no subsidies, effectively ruling out new nuclear power stations. But, facing a coming energy crisis, this may also be revisited, a more significant test of loyalty.
Nonetheless, with manifesto commitments in his back pocket and green issues up the agenda, Goldsmith should make his voice heard. But one question remains a mystery: what sort of politician does he want to be? In his twenties he often spoke of his lack of faith in politicians as a class, once claiming that Tony Benn and Clare Short were the only two he admired. The danger is that he comes to be seen more like Frank Field: intelligent, but viewed as a difficult loner and soon in the wilderness.
Anne McElvoy
I was interviewing Michael Gove recently when he delivered one of those deft lines that make him a one-man quote machine. His party, he said, needed to show that it had something better to offer “Billy Elliott” Britain than Labour did. Hark at the latest salvo in the social mobility battle, as the government runs out of time to close the opportunity gap.
“We are the party of social class mobility” said David Cameron in 2006. David Willetts recently endorsed a report by New Labour’s own Billy Elliott, Alan Milburn, on removing barriers to professional advancement for those from poorer backgrounds. And Tory chairman Eric Pickles says mobility can “strengthen society and get rid of dependency.” So in theory, the opportunity ladder stretches upwards under a Conservative government. What is not so obvious is whether it is a serious quest, or just more seductive mood music repositioning the party in the centre ground. For who doesn’t want to be a social mobiliser these days?
Some academic apostates argue that Britain is more mobile than the crude figures suggest, but the consensus is that privilege is now more entrenched—not only across the 12 Labour years, but for a good two decades at a (small c) conservative estimate.
But what to do? Compassionate conservatives want the party to have an interest in the poor, while others like Pickles think mobility can save welfare bills. Of course these are related areas: but most of us think there is more to broadening opportunity than just getting the workless a job, or saving on social security.
I confess to having a bee in my bonnet on this issue—so much so that I suggested to some leading Tories about a year ago that they should launch a commission on the subject, to find ideas beyond the existing hunches and policy initiatives. The responses were fascinating, the outcome (so far) negligible.
Cameron’s chief strategist Steve Hilton is the figure most comfortable in this territory. His own family hosts examples of lives affected by the quirks of education (Christ’s Hospital scholarship then Oxford in his case, poor schooling for close relatives).Yet even he struggles to define a distinctly Conservative approach to the problem. So the mantra is simply, “It’s the schools, innit?”
Obviously more good schools do matter. But that does not remove the access dilemma, since some schools will always be better than others. That’s why the idea of pupil premium, giving more money to schools in poor areas, is a good one. But how big should it be? Too small and it will be ineffectual. Too large and Cameron will be accused of a “war on the middle class.” The group most likely to feel aggrieved are the lower-to-mid-middle classes, who will neither benefit from measures aimed at the poorest, nor have the resources of the upper middle class.
A lottery for places in the best schools to inhibit selection by house price is more equitable. But Cameron doesn’t like the sound of that either. Instead his government would close bad schools, facilitate new ones and take it from there. But even Gove now sounds cautious about how long will be needed to show real results—and all that in the midst of the spending squeeze.
The next problem, and the part senior Conservatives do not wish to dwell on: how far should universities be made responsible for ensuring, to adapt Thomas Jefferson, that a few more geniuses are “raked from the rubble”? Labour used tuition fee rises to pressure universities into helping those from less privileged homes. Tories are more likely to cry “leave the universities alone.” So what is the Cameronian instinct on giving treasured places to state school kids with lower grades than a private competitor? “Not my problem,” is one response: universities should not be accountable for how they run admissions. Alas that sits awkwardly with a view of social mobility as a “social responsibility,” as the socially responsible Cameron once put it.
I wonder if those around him share this view. George Osborne is privately more dubious about how much a party of the right should claim to determine such major trends beyond a decent education system and curing welfare dependency. Gove is focused on the minutiae of schools reform. David Willetts isn’t rocking the boat on universities, though if he stays in his brief he will oversee big rises in fees, raising questions about how to help poorer applicants. Oh, and the eternal renegade David Davis insists grammar schools would do the trick—and most of his party agrees with him.
Today’s Conservatives have got to grips with their reputation for not caring about the poor, with a serious body of policy work to show for it. Social mobility is another progressive crusade they want to make their own, with some justification. But when it comes to working out how to pursue it in any detail, don’t be surprised it they’re strangely busy doing something else.
John Lloyd
BBC: to be shut off under the Tories?
An interview is not a policy (Ed Vaizey in the Sunday Times: a Tory government may make the BBC sell Radio 1) but it’s a straw in the wind. That wind now blows against the BBC: bloated, smug, out of touch, destructive of the private sector. When I wrote for Prospect in July 2009, that this attack came from the right, I was wrong: it now comes from everywhere. But as the likely next government, the Conservatives will inherit this trend.
It’s mistaken. The BBC is an elephant, but it’s a fine elephant. The fact that, by chance, it has grown to strength and maturity in the British public sector rather than the US private one, seems to strike many as contrary to the laws of nature: and inspires more polemics about its bias than ever comes the way of private media.
I think and have often written that the BBC has a liberal-left bias, and often I find it grates. It pays some of its stars and many of its executives very large sums, and that must excite envy –and with it the question: would they be worth that in the private sector?
But the arguments stands. The two large reasons for preserving the BBC as it is, are that at a time when news and analysis and documentary are being failed by the private sector, a public levy through the licence fee which delivers for all tastes is a welcome, even a necessary, antidote. And also: that where private media’s decisions cannot be challenged except by turning off or on, the BBC’s are a matter of public debate and controversy – now more or less permanent.
To start lopping away at a success which is also a provider of a great public good and is firmly within the democratic square is plain daft. My hope is that the kite flown by Ed Vaizey remains just that: and that it is pulled down if and when the Tories have to make governing decisions.
Brian Semple
Cameron and UUP leader Reg Empey: a match made in heaven?
The next few weeks will see the first test of the recently rekindled partnership between the Conservatives and the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP). Reunited after 30 years apart and heralded by David Cameron as a “dynamic political force”, the two parties are finalising plans to field a joint candidate in June’s European election. Yet why get back together now? And how shrewd a move will this prove for the Tories?
Cameron says working with the unionists will help him fight every UK constituency in the next election, making the Conservatives Britain’s biggest party. The idea is that the two parties will field joint candidates in future elections, possible under the banner of “The Conservative and Unionist Party”. Getting into bed with the UUP offers Cameron an Ulster-wide structure to build on, as well as the support of a large number of local government and regional representatives, and could prove useful in the case of a hung parliament in the next election
Yet a cannier move might have been to cosy up to the UUP’s main rivals the Democratic Unionist Party (DUP). Certainly this is the view of veteran Tory trouble-maker Nicholas Winterton, given at a recent dinner in honour of former DUP leader Ian Paisley. Winterton said:
Read more »
Brian Semple
Red Toryism: A gross misreading of liberalism?
The “Red Tory” debate continues today, with David Green, director of Civitas, arguing that Phillip Blond’s call for localism represents an outgrowth, rather than a rejection, of classic liberal ideas. Green also accuses Blond of mistaking liberalism for anarchy, and suggests that Blond should revisit the work of great liberal thinkers such as John Locke and Immanuel Kant.
Green’s contribution to the debate comes hot on the heels of yesterday’s response from Catherine Fieschi, which described “progressive conservatism” as an “ideological con,” while earlier retorts from Rupert Darwell and Kieron O’Hara suggested respectively that Blond lacks an understanding of how markets operate and has misread Adam Smith.
Somehow it seems unlikely that the argument will end here….
Mary Fitzgerald
The Red Tory: an economic vandal?
Today, former Conservative adviser Rupert Darwall takes Phillip Blond’s “reinvention” of British Conservatism to task for failing to understand how markets operate. Darwall takes the baton from Kieron O’Hara, who yesterday sought to rescue liberals like Adam Smith from the naughty step upon which Blond’s cover story had placed them.
For all the eloquence and colour of Blond’s arguments, his proposals would make the oncoming recession worse than it is already doomed to be, argues Darwall. The economy would be smaller, living standards lower and taxes higher. And breaking up Tesco would be a piece of “economic vandalism” sure to create headaches for a future Conservative government.
Darwall’s article is the second in a series that we will be running this week that take issue with Blond’s bold call for a new “Red” direction for Toryism. Later in the week we will have David Green, director of Civitas, and Catherine Fieschi, former director of Demos, weighing in on the debate. All articles will be free to read online, and as always we’d love to hear your views.
Mary Fitzgerald
A Fourth Way for Britain?
David Cameron should break up supermarket giant Tesco and turn the Post Office into a nationalised parallel banking system, argues influential Conservative party advisor Phillip Blond in this month’s cover story, which unveils a new “progressive” agenda for the British right. Blond, the director of Demos’s new Progressive Conservatism project, argues for a break with free-market Thatcherism, to be replaced by a bold new “Red Toryism” that is socially conservative, sceptical of neo-liberal economics and radically localist; the most challenging new political thesis of the post-credit crunch era.
Has he lost the plot, or is this the way forward for the Tories? The whole article is now free to read online here, so wade in with your views.
Post a comment »
