James Crabtree
Will Dave and Phillip's marriage last?
I just got back to Prospect HQ, having spent a chunk of the morning at the launch of Phillip Blond’s new think tank, Respublica. It was an at once impressive and odd occasion. Held in a cavernous basement chamber with high vaulted ceilings in a plush hotel just off Whitehall, the event had something of the air of a wedding about it. David Cameron, the awaited guest, was late. Blond waited nervously by the entrance, elegantly besuited and looking just a touch nervous that his intended might jilt him at the last—a worry perhaps given a small bit of extra edge by a story in yesterday’s Times in which Cameron seemed to distance himself slightly, if only under pressure from business spokesman Ken Clarke. But he need not have worried. A flunky coughed into the microphone (the policy equivalent of “please be upstanding”), Cameron duly arrived, and David and Phillip walked down the aisle in front of around three hundred admirers—publicly sealing the marriage of the Cameroon and the Red Tory projects.
Read more »
James Crabtree
Prog con goes on
With nominations for Prospect’s Think Tank of the Year under way, we’ll be paying ever closer attention to wonky activity at Prospect, and yesterday it was DEMOS (once again) in the headlines. George Osborne spoke there, reframing an increasingly familiar refrain that “the torch of progressive politics has been passed to a new generation of politicians – and those politicians are Conservatives.” Its been written up as being fundamentally about tax, which has already ruffled a few feathers, for instance over at the Spectator. But three things surprised me:
First, there is obviously a sense that this was a cheap summer media hit – a slow day, some free headlines on the grid, and a rehash of previous ideas. But even so its interesting that the Tory high command still thinks their is mileage in the “progressive label”. Having rethought a whole bunch of policies in the aftermath of the crunch, and executed an occasionally unwilling move from sunshine to austerity Cameroonism, one might have thought that the “progressive” label would also have been junked (along with sharing the proceeds of growth) as surplus to requirements. Indeed, one might even have expected it.
Second, its especially surprising, to me at least, that it was Osborne himself who made the speech. I ran into him once in a radio studio, where we was sceptical about the use of the phrase progressive, and especially about the “red Tory” theories, popularised by DEMOS (and also, in a way, by Prospect). The received wisdom is that Osborne is the more orthodox liberal in the Cameron / Osborne pairing. So the fact that he did the speech persuades me that the label progressive (along, for instance with sticking with Andrew Lansley on the NHS despite increasing pressure to shift him) is part of a long term strategy, which hasn’t changed because of the credit crunch. Underneath this must lie a fear that the detoxification process is not yet complete, or could be reversed.
Third, and most importantly, i was surprised by how different this speech was from previous efforts to construct a “progressive conservatism” narrative. Look at Cameron’s speech at the launch of the progressive conservatism project at DEMOS, or for instance this interview Oliver Letwin gave to leftist academic Alan Finlayson—both stress the mantra of conservative means to achieve progressive ends. But the new speech was different: a greater focus on fiscal responsibility, a new argument that fiscal responsibility is the pro-poor option, nothing specifically about “progressive ends”, and very little focus on some of the language on green issues or general well-being which often peppers Cameron’s speeches. Underlying this are two things. First, it is increasingly clear that the old Letwin argument about there being a consensus on “progressive ends”, if understood as being about the scope (if not the precise role) of the state, no longer holds in an era of shrinking budgets and government debt. Second, the more contested the label “progressive”, the more meaningless it becomes.
James Crabtree
No turning back
2009 is the 30th anniversary of Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 election victory—three decades in which the legacy of the Iron Lady has proved enduringly controversial. A few issues ago, Prospect published Phillip Blond’s Red Tory front cover, which charted new territory in its attempt to find an authentically conservative rejection of Thatcher’s legacy; one, indeed, which shares much in common with criticisms more commonly found on the political left. This month we publish a different, and perhaps more nuanced rejection of her from David Willetts, perhaps Britain’s most thoughtful politician. In a striking analysis, Willetts explains his personal rejection of Thatcherism—a journey taking him from his job as a young researcher, and ardent supporter, in Thatcher’s policy unit to his current, subtle take on her legacy.
Going against the popular view of a government driven by a small cadre of ideological Thatcherite insurgents, Willetts locates the early strains of Thatcherism much earlier, in a conservative rejection of post war austerity and central planning which distinguished Tories from social democrats, even in the era of Mr Butskell. His conclusion, in particular, notes changes in the conservative appreciation of social inequality:
There are of course limits to what governments can do, especially about the petty differences between us and people we know, which are often the inequalities people worry about. Nevertheless in dismissing all this as just the politics of envy we showed we did not understand something which does affect wellbeing. Back then we just assumed that there was a robust British society and all that had gone wrong was that statist economic policies had messed up the wealth producing bit, but when that was sorted people would stop being so angry about things. Now, even at the bottom of a recession, the social question looms much larger than we thought then.
Willetts is often cited as one of the most canny advocates for David Cameron’s modernisation project. Occasionally, as in the bust-up over grammar schools a few years back, he has also been instrumental in using original analysis to change previously unmoveable Tory policies. But, in this essay, he has produced not just an insider’s portrait of his old boss, but also a balanced, and thoughtful justification for Cameron’s post-Thatcherite project. Read the article here, and as ever, let us know if you agree with his take, in the comments below.
James Crabtree
Prospect’s James Crabtree discusses our February 2009 Red Tory front cover, and its author, on Radio 4’s profile. (Download MP3)
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
"Progressive Conservatism"—or just a Con?
As promised, today Catherine Fieschi, former director of Demos, hits back at Phillip Blond’s call for “progressive conservatism.” It’s an ideological con, she says; one which creates an illusion of contradiction while in fact “smuggling in a notion of progress that would sit very well with 18th century industrialists.” With the financial crisis and oncoming recession, we are experiencing a time of fear and doubt. But this does not mean we should buy into a distorted fiction—the type of which Rousseau would certainly have disapproved of.
As many Prospect readers will be aware, Phillip Blond’s cover story has provoked argument from all quarters: yesterday, Rupert Darwall accused him of failing to understand how markets operate; on Monday Kieron O’Hara accused him of misreading Adam Smith. Tomorrow, Civitas director David Green will argue that Blond is “grossly mistaken” in some of the characteristics he attributes to liberalism.
So is Red Toryism, as Fieschi suggests, nothing more than “vote-seeking fancy dress”? Or are his critics missing the point? Weigh in here.
James Crabtree
Red Toryism: missing the point?
As avid Prospect followers will be aware, this month’s cover story by Phillip Blond, heralding a the birth of the “Red Tory moment,” has sparked heated debate in many quarters. For instance, in the Guardian this morning, Madeleine Bunting has the best part of a page given to discussing Phillip Blond’s ideas. Bunting doesn’t mention Prospect, which is fair enough. Perhaps more surprisingly, though, she doesn’t even manage to find the space to mention Blond’s employers, the think tank Demos. Indeed, she has to go into quite a contortion not to mention them: talking about Blond’s previous job (but not his current one) and quoting a speech from a (Demos) event without mentioning that either. Far be it for us to speculate, but the reason seems rather too likely to be lingering bad feeling over Bunting’s abortive couple of weeks as the head of the very same think tank a few years back. She arrived at Demos, and—so the rumours have it—quickly engendered a staff revolt, had a set to with the trustees, and promptly walked out herself. The official version—still on the Demos website—is a little more generous towards Bunting than she seemingly wants to be to her former employers.
Such minor tiffs aside, Prospect this month will continue its gavel-to-gavel coverage of the debate about Blond’s intriguing ideas with a week-long symposium of response articles: a different response from leading thinkers every day this week, to which Blond himself will respond to—and readers should weigh in likewise. Today’s article is from academic and Tory watcher Kieron O’Hara, author of After Blair: David Cameron and the Conservative Tradition. O’Hara takes Blond to task for sending Adam Smith to the “naughty step, along with Mill and Gladstone,” and warns of the dangers of ignoring the merits of liberalism. “We want the new communities to turn against banks and faceless business, not gays or those from ethnic minorities,” O’Hara writes says. “Will this vision worry women who feel liberalism has helped advance their independence?” Let us know what you think. Later this week, former Conservative advisor Rupert Darwall, David Green, director of Civitas, and Catherine Fieschi from the British Council will all elbow in on the debate too.
Brian Semple
Edmund Burke: the original Red Tory?
Phillip Blond’s heralding of the “Red Tory Moment” has continued to generate debate, with Geoffrey Wheatcroft suggesting in the Financial Times that Blond’s argument is indicative of a sea change in British political thought, comparable to Thatcherism’s toppling of James Callaghan in 1978: “Will a Tory victory signal something deeper than just throwing the rascals out, one more failed government disposed of by the electorate? Previous cases of “Callaghan’s law” were not just shifts in public mood, they were the outcome of deeper intellectual currents. In the new issue of Prospect magazine, under the slightly irritating headline “The Red Tory Moment,” Phillip Blond suggests that another is now flowing and that the Tories should return to “the tradition of communitarian civic conservatism.” And Mr Cameron himself spoke at Davos about the need for “capitalism with a conscience.” These could be real developments, or opportunistic reaction to circumstances, or perhaps both.”
Of course, at Prospect we would suggest that the “Red Tory” headline was an accurate and pertinent appraisal of Blond’s argument, rather than being irritating. Nonetheless, Wheatcroft went on to echo Blond’s call for a return to Burke’s radical conservatism:
The real prize may go to the party and leader who can defend free markets and free trade in terms of the greatest good of the greatest number while reminding us that there is such a thing as society, that it begins with little platoons, that we are selfish and selfless at once but that self-interest can always be enlightened. Come to think of it, that was what Hume, Smith and Burke were saying a while ago.
Leo Hornak
Natural Blond
Phillip Blond’s provocative demand for a ‘red tory moment’ in the latest edition of Prospect has continued to make waves over the last week.
At the Observer’s Food Monthly blog, Alex Renton applies Blond’s critique of corporate monopolies to the farming sector, and asks “Is Britain running out of food?”
Beliefnet’s ‘Crunchy Conservative’ Rod Dreher also quotes us at length, and recommends that “[i]f you read nothing else today, make it Blond’s essay”.
Over at the Spectator, Alex Massie is more sceptical of Blond’s anti-Thatcherite credentials: “Self-improvement? Check. Small businesses? The grocer’s daughter was all in favour of them”.
The Royal Society’s Matthew Taylor takes a positively anthropological approach, explaining the piece as a product of a “social dialectic…partly rooted in the collective expression of our cognitive predisposition to a limited array of comparative responses to the social world”. Gramsci would be proud. Read more »
James Crabtree
Vanilla Ice: showing Dave the way
Not since David Bowie noticed something oddly familiar about Ice Ice Baby can the influence be seen quite as clearly. It might not be mentioned in the speech. It wasn’t mentioned in the pre-trip episode of Web Cameron. But David Cameron’s remarks to the semi-chastened masters of the universerse at Davos show the unmistakable imprint of Phillip Blond’s “Red Tory Moment”, this month’s Prospect front cover; great news both for Cameron, who is showing a rare ability to pick up interesting ideas—first with his enthusiasm for Nudge, now this—but also for Phillip himself, whose ideas clearly are gaining ground.
Just to point out a few of the places in the speech. The write up in the Guardian came with the headline “recapitalise the poor, not the banks, says Cameron.” Not quite a quote, but the resemblance to Blond’s conclusion isn’t difficult to see, where he says: “the task of recapitalising the poor is, therefore, the task of making the market work for the many, not the few.” Elsewhere Cameron argues: “this is what too many people see when they look at capitalism today: markets without morality; globalisation without competition.” Both sentiments, but especially the latter, seem influenced by mid-section of Phillip’s piece, in which he argues that Thatcherism rarely coped with the market’s tendency towards anti-competitive monopoly. Then, in case there was any room for doubt, on the extract on the Conservative party website, we have:
David stressed the importance of shaping capitalism to suit the needs of society rather than shaping society to suit the needs of capitalism. He explained that that means “standing up to business when the things that people value at risk,” creating vibrant, local economies, and spreading opportunity and wealth and ownership more equally through society.
The final sentence, in particular, echoes Blond’s argument that the right should seek “to empower communities and build new, vibrant local economies that can uphold the party’s civic vision” and build “a new economic and capital base that decentralises power and extends wealth.”
All of this is to the good. Phillip’s article has already sparked debate—from Sunder Katwala’s excellent response on Liberal Conspiracy, to the christian right, the Daily Telegraph, and various more partisan ripostes in other places. And its great to see his ideas also being listened to by the political class, too. At the moment Cameron isn’t crediting Blond directly, which is fair enough. But the same was true with Vanilla Ice. Eventually, that one was settled out of court—with Ice crediting Bowie as co-author. If he keeps reddening, Cameron might eventually have to follow suit.
Read 3 comments »
