Will the red Tories spill blue blood?


by Sunder Katwala    
5:58 pm - January 23rd 2009

      Share on Tumblr

The Conservatives would like to claim to be the “progressive” force in British politics.

Few would take seriously the rather thin pamphlet ‘Who’s progressive now?’ on that theme published a year ago by Greg Clark and Jeremy Hunt, which even its authors would admit was a somewhat tongue-in-cheek smash and grab raid on the centre-left lexicon. But a more concerted attempt to produce some intellectual ballast for this political repositioning was launched yesterday by Demos, an event blessed by the presence of leader David Cameron and party big brain Oliver Letwin alongside several luminaries of the left.

Cameron barely said anything new at all, articulating the progressive ends (fairness, equal opportunity, sustainability, public safety) towards which he hopes to find some conservative means (work in progress, to say the least). But he stayed on for a much more interesting speech by Phillip Blond (read it here), who is heading the Demos progressive conservatism project, before the leader and the thinker took questions together.

Blond has a new book out ‘Red Tory’, previewed in a Prospect cover story, to be published next week, illustrated by Maggie as Che. Can Demos remake the Conservative Party, or at least compete for “thought leadership” within it? It is an audacious bid, and the odds begin stacked heavily against it. What already seemed very clear is that a Red Tory revolution would certainly need much blue blood to be spilt.

Still, the project itself and the leadership’s engagement with it throw up some intriguing questions.

Firstly, I think Blond could well be described as the first serious “outrider” to attempt to seek to provide intellectual space upstream of the Tory leader.

Secondly, that this is taking place at Demos (a think-tank, under Richard Reeves, in transition from the liberal-left to the liberal centre, and perhaps centre-right) also reflects just how little the centre of gravity of the major right-wing Tory think-tanks has shifted since 2005. The intellectual energy on the post-Thatcherite right remains very much animated by the core ‘whoever governs least, governs best’ principle. This is also true of the active Tory blogosphere. Whether ConservativeHome simply reflects how the next generation of emerging Tories (including many of its current and would-be parliamentary candidates) is to the right of its leadership and how far it may help to further reinforce that is difficult to accurately judge. But all of this helps to explain why Cameronism, having begun as an electoral project heavily in thrall to the Philip Gould ‘authorised version of the New Labour “narrative”, has yet to deepen significantly beyond that, and why almost all of the pressure on the leadership has come from its right, which was won some significant shifts whenever a highly politically salient argument has taken place, from grammar schools to taxation and spending plans.

It is fair to note that Labour has struggled to decide between contradictory critiques of Cameron, but this also partly reflects the real ambiguities in the direction of travel. Is he all spin and no substance, so standing for nothing beyond what will get him elected? Or do the smile and warm words conceal a Thatcherite agenda (as Gordon Brown believes has been confirmed by the financial crisis, and which some on the right like Fraser Nelson of The Spectator hope and believe is the case)? Is Cameron a small c conservative, seeking to accommodate the new status quo post-New Labour (an analysis favoured by James Purnell and David Miliband)? It is the fourth possibility, that the civic conservative project could and should amount to something more contentful than a ratification of the new status quo, that the Demos project seeks to flesh out.

So I am for taking the Demos project and the aspiration to a progressive conservatism more seriously than many in the Labour party will be inclined to, with Jon Cruddas among some notable exceptions. One self-interested reason for doing so is that a more nuanced analysis with emerging thinking on the right should help Labour to sharpen its own positive account. If the Tories are simply evil wreckers, what more needs to be said for the alternative? One caveat though. Blond’s ‘Red Tory’ account of a possible conservative future is sophisticated and rich. By the same token, this is weakened, as Will Hutton noted yesterday, by his own account of Labour and centre-left thinking came across as an entirely one dimensional caricature (‘big state’) with barely an ounce more nuance than that which the Tory leadership itself would use on the six o’clock news, and which does nothing to explain the motivations

So let us see what Blond and Demos come up with. There were some intriguing signposts in yesterday’s event, including much that the modern right may indeed find revolutionary. Let me be quite clear that Blond’s is undoubtedly an account rooted in, and resurrected from, conservative ideas and traditions. He spoke about the need to “restore a modern version of medievalism” with a range of different types of property rights, relationships and duties of service and, when this was greeted with laughter, worried that “we have become an ahistorical people”. He reeled off vast numbers of conservative intellectual and political influences – Edmund Burke, Karl Polanyi, Harold Macmillan – rather too quickly for me to recall most of them. I would suggest it has a better claim to be “conservative” than Tim Montgomerie’s revivalist promotion of the Anglosphere New Right on ConservativeHome. But those will have to be very sharp disagreements. In terms of political sociology, Red Toryism begins as very much an insurgent minority: its opponents have been deeply active in constituency selections, and it would probably have a marginal presence in the internal party debate were it not for the leadership’s intriguing patronage of this debate.

After the Cameron session, Demos had put together a brainbox though all male panel including Philip Blond, Oliver Letwin, Jon Cruddas, John Gray, Will Hutton and Richard Reeves. It was interesting to see Blond answer questions alongside Letwin – undoubtedly among the most intellectually engaged politicians on either frontbench but a politician nonetheless. Blond’s strength (if it does not prove a fatal flaw) appeared to be his intellectual agility and honesty, being very much prepared to answer questions directly and take his arguments to their logical conclusion including when they stray into politically treacherous waters.

So Letwin dismissed a question about the need to enable downward as well as upward social mobility as too pessimistic – there could easily be much more room at the top – yet Blond nodded vigorously and said ‘exactly’ as the question was being asked, having earlier launched a sharp attack during the Cameron session on middle-class opportunity hoarding in education.

Blond grew increasingly animated about the need for economic protectionism (and there is certainly a long Tory tradition of tariffs and imperial preference there) – to rebalance the economy from the “fetishisation of big business” and to “shelter the growing economy we want to grow”, criticising the disastrous impact of NAFTA on the Mexican economy. Letwin, by contrast, wanted to be clear that “this is not a protectionist thesis, but is about trying to create diversity of opportunity” (while being very unclear about how he would then achieve the latter). John Gray – a critic of market liberalism – said that he had now absolutist objection to protectionism in principle but he would certainly take the lesson of history and be opposed to it now, in a global slump.

Blond had a very welcome focus on asset and wealth inequality, and the need to “recapitalise the poor” (ie, redistribute asset wealth to them). From 1976 to 2003, the share of national non-housing wealth held by the bottom half of the population had fallen from 12% to 1% and that of the top tenth from 57% to 71%. This was a case where the figures spoke for themselves, he said. Well, they do speak for themselves – but don’t the dates too? This was, for Blond, an indictment of New Labour. Thatcherism wasn’t mentioned in the leader’s presence at least. But those who now see the rise in inequality as an unfortunate unintended consequence might want to go back and re-read her 1975 ‘Let Our People Grow Tall’ speech to the Institute of Economic Affairs to remember that increased inequality was very much a central point of the exercise.

He even managed to follow through with mild criticism of both frontbenches on inheritance tax, saying he would personally prefer a lower threshold and IHT receipts to go to support assets for those who have none making him – along with Ferdinand Mount – among the few to defend the principle of taxing inherited wealth and to ensure having assets or not does not remain a deeply segregating inequality cascading from generation to generation.

Blond mounted a fairly fundamental critique of market liberalism, attacking the “bankrupt right” for its “market fundamentalism”. Blond wanted “the remoralisation of the economy; the relocalisation of the economy; and the recapitalization of the poor”. This was an argument which struck me as having many points of commonality – particularly in its strength of feeling against the large supermarkets and multinationals – with the New Economics Foundation, and indeed some linkages with Neal Lawson’s Compass on the Labour left, and none whatsoever with the Adam Smith Institute. Cameron demonstrated open-mindedness in wanting to be seen to engage with this – “I suppose the challenge to us is to say: you have recognized this in the social sphere. Why don’t you recognize it I the economy too?”. Still, I would be surprised to see that train of thought get too far down the tracks.

This critique of individualism and market liberalism earned a sharp riposte from Daniel Johnson of Standpoint, from the floor, who asked Cameron whether he agreed with Blond’s argument that Toryism must give priority to the community over the individual and, if he did, “what was the point of having a Conservative Party?”. Cameron didn’t duck that one. Johnson was offering him liberal individualism, and his conservatism would put responsibility first.

So there turned out to be much for Jon Cruddas – who declared himself an “enormous fan” of Blond’s – to engage with but Cruddas also supported my rather obvious question about the elephant in the room.

I suggested that, to be connected to its own political tradition, progressive conservatism must do two things.

Firstly, it must deal with the great rupture in conservative thinking caused by Thatcherism, and in particular by Keith Joseph’s famous claim that he discovered that he had not been a Conservative at all before 1974. This enabled Joseph and Thatcher to embrace Hayek (who, of course, had been famously clear that he was not a Conservative). David Marquand’s new book places David Cameron is in the progressive Whig tradition of Harold Macmillan and Ted Heath. But is that apostasy against Thatcherism something that the Tory leader could own? This could be dismissed as political symbolism. But symbolism can matter quite a lot in politics.

Secondly, there is a much more substantive if related question, it seems pretty clear that Blond’s agenda would involve challenging and rejecting the single most important idea in right-of-centre thinking in the last 35 years: that less state equals more freedom. Was the Conservative party ready to see that big idea ditched?

Letwin dived around this noting there were “various parodies of what Mrs Thatcher believed” and arguing that “Are you a Thatcherite now is a meaningless question. Thatcher wasn’t now”. Blond, having earlier dismissed the “market fundamentalism” of the “bankrupt right” as libertarian and anti-Tory, said that he honestly felt Thatcher’s was a “mixed legacy”, noting that she was a Tory distributionist on council house sales. The champion of “sound money” had not understood how financial deregulation and ending exchange controls would violate those principles in a credit fuelled boom but this, intriguingly, meant that she “didn’t understand capitalism”. Would she not have wept for the small shopkeepers of Grantham?

Both Gray and Hutton found this lack of a sensible account of the state the gaping weakness in Cameron’s agenda and the unresolved tension in Blond and Letwin’s. It still looks too much like wishing for nice things to happen out there in society. Gray noted that the progressive conservative project had been shaped on Thatcherite-Blairite terrain before the economic crisis. “The banking system didn’t collapse because the reserve powers of a big state were used” and that “in a world of disorderly globalization, who are people going to look to for shelter and protection? They will look to the state”. This was about “the logic of events” more than ideology, said Gray, who said that while state responses would inevitably be flawed in practice, he doubted whether any political project primarily motivated by diminishing this would have a future.

Letwin’s response was a “what works” scepticism about whether the state had much to offer in protection against globalisation. (But if the national state was flawed, could we really be ‘better protected from the winds of globalisation by the bottom up, not the top down’ by the local community, as Letwin suggested?). Richard Reeves acutely noted that this was to make the scale of the state simply an empirical and not a philosophical question. Letwin agreed: he was not interested in “dogma” on the question of the state. “So what’s left of Thatcherism?”, asked Reeves. Certainly Letwin’s had offered a more Blairite than Thatcherite account of the scope and limits of the state.

And so it is that Demos has spotted the gap in the ideas market because most of this is anathema to the think-tanks of the right. Policy Exchange, regularly written up as the most Cameroonian holds that position mainly by default, because most of the others are still more heavily dominated by either economic liberalism or Euroscepticism, or both, while Civitas has a Cameron-sceptic socially conservative agenda. Policy Exchange does consistently return to the theme of devolving power but, beyond Dean Godson’s neo-conservative approach to Islam and foreign affairs, much of its work seems primarily animated by the desire to shrink the state. It occasionally takes economic liberalism to the absurd lengths of its infamous ‘depopulate the north’ pamphlet, which Cameron described as ‘insane’. Ex-director Anthony Browne was hardly a social liberal, while new Director Neil O’Brien’s background has primarily been as an articulate Eurosceptic campaigner and researcher.

Iain Duncan Smith’s right-of-centre account of social justice, a pre-existing project adopted by the Tory leadership, has shaped a good deal of Cameron’s social discourse and agenda. This began as a rather traditionalist right account to compete on turf which had been left to the left, with the framing drawing very heavily on behavioural accounts of poverty, and on the right’s long-standing (and foundational) critique of the creation of the welfare state as crowding out voluntary and charitable initiative. A little of this may be changing with Duncan Smith more recently discovering and giving particular priority to the ‘early years’ agenda, advocating a cross-party concordat to significantly increase public spending in this area across the next two decades, which is certainly something the centre-left could make common cause on.

Both Attlee and Thatcher realised that entrenching political change depends on converting your opponents. Having aspired to a progressive consensus, Labour should not mock the adoption of progressive language on the right, but scrutinise it seriously. The Fabian tradition of permeation must at least welcome the assertion of ‘progressive ends’ even while the means remain enormously vague.

The contradictions of progressive conservatism will take much working through, to say the least. In all fairness, they are not their contradictions alone.

Thatcherism’s great unleashing of the forces of creative destruction showed how economic liberalism is deeply disruptive of social conservatism. John Major’s government, trapped in those contradictions, suffered a slow death at the hands of a newly ideologised party of the right.

So Tony Blair first rose to public prominence by articulating widely held communitarian instincts about the excesses of market liberalism; yet felt New Labour’s permission to govern depended on accepting much of that same economic settlement from which the unease had risen. Meanwhile Gordon Brown pursued, within this, the Croslandite social democratic strategy whereby it was economic growth which made redistribution and public investment possible. Whither social democracy without growth? We may now have to find that out. If scarcity returns, so does politics.

Blond yesterday, from the right, followed Ed Miliband and James Purnell at the Fabian conference last weekend in arguing that that Autumn 2008 is a profound a political rupture as the winter of discontent thirty years before. It was, said Blond, the end of the “market state” and “market fundamentalism”.

Both left and right now grope towards a deeper rethinking of both market and state. If the left needs to do more than simply reassert the now obvious limits of markets and the relevance of the state, it is the right which risks having an almost complete vacuum where its account of the state should be.

Still, Red Toryism is an intriguing thesis. Phillip Blond may prove to be that important and dangerous thing, an intellectual in politics. To trim his sails to fit current Tory orthodoxy would be a shame, and probably defeat the point. This type of engagement with political ideas is surely one thing which think-tankery should be doing. Politics, though, is something else again. I can’t help feeling that majority opinion in the Conservative Party will very much remain “better dead than red”.

    Share on Tumblr   submit to reddit  


About the author
Sunder Katwala is a regular contributor to Liberal Conspiracy. He is the director of British Future, a think-tank addressing identity and integration, migration and opportunity. He was formerly secretary-general of the Fabian Society.
· Other posts by


Story Filed Under: Blog

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.


Reader comments


1. Alisdair Cameron

A Cruddas/Blond/ axis would be intriguing, but, but, but there’s that whole religion thing going on with Blond…plus it’s so hard for anyone to espouse tradition/small ‘c’ conservatism without attracting unwelcome support from bigots, racists. Can’t see public politicians taking that risk, unless they’re comfortable with such associations, and I’d argue that nobody who’s truly concerned .about the ‘little man/woman’ ought to be so.

When I first heard about this Red Tory thing I suspected this:

“He spoke about the need to “restore a modern version of medievalism” with a range of different types of property rights, relationships and duties of service and, when this was greeted with laughter, worried that “we have become an ahistorical people”.”

I said in a post yesterday (http://e8voice.blogspot.com/2009/01/red-tories-are-coming.html) that there is an awful lot of water under the bridge since then. We’ve had an industrial revolution, globalisation, political reform to the point of revolution, socialism, social democracy….

I’m sure that Labour would love to nudge Cameron in the direction of neo-medievalism. Seems so fitting somehow.

I look forward to the book- perhaps it will become the Tory version of The State we’re In- popular but ultimately rejected politically. Or perhaps it will simply echo around the think tank universe. Whichever, you have to admire the intellectual derring-do.

A quick follow-up point: it’s not so much that we become ‘ahistorical’ as Blond describes- though we may have done- it’s more that history has moved on from the world that he describes- a world that is lost never to be recaptured.

Communitarian -Not sure you are using this word correctly by the way . Not at any rate as Julian Baggini used it as a definition if the philosophy of the English in “ Every town “

Something I notice is the understandable assumption that right wing think tanks are as important to the Conservative Party as left wing think tanks are to the Labour Party. They are not, at least that’s my impression . In the Conservative Party there would be some cynicism about anyone “thinking “ for a living and in general the membership are more central than the blogasphere by a very long way.
Conservatism requires that sufficient numbers have a stake and that morla authority is retained by the goverment so that the country can be run to in a Conservative way. I cannotsee any way to graft actual socilaism onto the tree though .

Is big state /high tax not a fair description of the Labour Parrty then ? I thought that was the point

Very useful Sunder! I came down with the lurgie and couldn’t make it. Blond shows there is high energy intellectual life in the Tory tradition. Somehow I don’t think that either Cameron or Brown are looking as they they will ‘win’ the next election in the sense of gaining a solid majority. In which case the party with the most life in it may gain in the longer run.

6. Quentin van der Vomski

PHILIP BLOND FOR PM…………………….

But where is the liberal democrat/social democrat thinking?

From what I read, and that is a lot, I still see this “Well the Tories are going to get in any way” – that maybe the case – yet I do see a viable alternative with the LibDems – and not on the theory that if you can’t vote Tory vote LibDem, though that, in itself, would be good. I am one of them – I couldn’t vote Labour nor Tory. Both are the same to me – if there is a difference then show me.

I do want to see the ideas behind LibDem thinking – being on their site I see a lot of what I want.

Why don’t others?

As a Thatcherite, I dispute the much-touted idea that Mrs T governed as a free-market ideologue. It took Mrs T a decade to reverse the socialism of Attlee, which reflects a degree of pragmatism rather than ‘shock and awe’. The overall tax burden did not significantly fall under her rule, nor did the welfare state shrink.

Economically she was Whig but socially she was a Tory: a romantic nationalist and Victorian moralist.

Thatcherism was about using the tools of traditional liberalism to restore a conservative society. This project only partly succeeded – its biggest failure was an inability to to restore cultural and social conservatism through welfare reform and state shrinkage.

Cameron is a Thatcherite, but not as we know it. His ambition – and it is a grand one – is to reduce the state over the long term by reducing the demand for the state. This will complete, not replace, the Thatcherite revolution.

The great lady casts a long shadow.

Went down very badly at ConHome, like.

This has the potential to be even more divisive than the green initiatives.

“A Cruddas/Blond/ axis would be intriguing, but, but, but there’s that whole religion thing going on with Blond”

surely faith is a good thing,
hope and optimism is linked to it ?

11. Alisdair Cameron

Faith and religion are not the same thing: you might have faith/a belief in the essential goodness of fellow mankind, but not in any deity (which most religions possess). Also, religions tend to have dogma…

Faith and religion are not the same thing:

i would disagree.
both are about devotion
to a cause.

Thanks for comments

Prospect’s Maggie as Che image can be seen at ConsHome, who have used it with permission from Prospect
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/2009/01/red-toryism.html

Isn’t this just Christian Democracy British style?

15. Quentin Van Der Vomski

As a now retired academic due to mental fatigue and a lust for corporate blood money – I am stressing to you young beautiful brains – the future of Political leadership in our world – begining with the west will be with GREAT MINDS, Academia.The collapse of the current world order will exacerbate a worldwide crisis that ultimately evolves into a creation of a cult status for the best brains……………….Philip Blond for PM.

I took part in a lunchtime roundtable about this at Prospect last Thursday. It was off the record. But it helped me to clarify my thoughts on why Cameron and other leading frontbenchers would be prominently being seen to sponsor the Red Tory approach, when there is very little chance of his pursuing the economic agenda outlined. (Will he break up Tesco? Of course not. Will the Tories pursue a dramatic recapitalisation of the poor and distribution of assets? Well, they are very keen on their inheritance tax policy, which is the opposite). But I think this goes beyond the easy answer of ‘brand decontamination’ to offer some important clues about what Cameron’s conservative governing strategy would be.

I have posted on this at Next Left, but the gist of it is below

http://www.nextleft.org/2009/02/cameronism-politics-of-tory-court.html

“the emerging strategy of Cameron’s Conservatism is to run a Tory court. All will have his ear, and none his full allegiance. He will embrace the many contradictions by stating that Toryism at its best is never doctrinaire ….

… Yet, paradoxically, a leadership which sees merit in having no firmly fixed view about the ideological direction of the party can not take a laissez-faire view about the party’s internal debates. For it is impossible to run a Tory court politics without there being different and competing views in the party. The Tory wets had no successor generation, while the Eurosceptic right has organised effectively at constituency level and in parliamentary selections. To the extent that the party has been thinking, it mainly thinks one thing: that less state equals more freedom. Many on the party’s right see this as a good thing: ideological unity. But it means the leadership is pressured in only one direction, with an echo of ‘no compromise with the electorate’ in it.

… To begin to make a ‘Tory court politics’ in the post-Thatcher Conservative party possible … he has had to take a “top down” approach to creating voices and pressures which would not otherwise exist.

Oliver Letwin writes about the Demos event on the New Statesman website
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2009/02/progressive-conservatism

Strangely, he takes the point which Daniel Johnson of Standpoint made (that there was nothing conservative in an argument which gave the community priority over the individual) and attributes this to the Fabians as the emerging critique from the left. But I didn’t argue it. I have blogged on this curious confusion between his Fabian left and his TradCon/neo-con critics to his right.
http://www.nextleft.org/2009/02/letwins-curious-confusion-between-his.html

have not followed the intricacies of the arguments here but it does seem to me that:

a)a focus on the communities is the BIG idea in Britian. However this will have to work within the boundaries set by

i)))) what is best for the British economy and how the
UK can be effective in foreign policy matters.

On both these fronts, edging away from the US
and working thru Europe seems to the next BIG thing.
In terms of protectionism Europe will have to take the lead from the U.S
(as a precurser to a gradual shift of the special relationship – from UK-U.S to Europe-U.S).

More locally, UK will need to become protectionist to some extent (in relation to Europe) but
only in the sense that
the Brits feel that they are not losing out to their European neighbours.

ii)))) that there are some areas that Brits could play the goody2shoes role in terms of leadership
on a global scale – such as reducing world poverty and nuclear non proliferation.

so the approach which could work, and if it is the right one, will be imposed on us by society and that being Red TORY Plus Plus.
or Pragmatic Communitarinism.


Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. Liberal Conspiracy

    New blog post: Will the red Tories spill blue blood? http://tinyurl.com/ae9oq5

  2. Liberal Conspiracy

    New blog post: Will the red Tories spill blue blood? http://tinyurl.com/ae9oq5

  3. My del.icio.us bookmarks for January 23rd through January 26th | called2account

    [...] Liberal Conspiracy » Will the red Tories spill blue blood? | creating a new liberal-left allia… – I have enjoyed debate with Phillip Blond over the last couple of years [...]

  4. The Bickerstaffe Record » Blog Archive » The ‘socialist strategy’ of Laclau and Mouffe: the hegemonic baby of discursive social antagonsism and the murky bathwaters of post-Marxism

    [...] know it should be Girls Aloud maybe, but I’m quite old). Oh, and the Tories are in, at least the Red Tories, because at least some of their subject position, as discursively set out, puts them in the radical [...]

  5. Cameron at davos: alert on red tories at First Drafts - The Prospect magazine blog

    [...] 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. [...]

  6. Pete B

    @ericjoyce …and to put the idea of "empowering people" explicitly at the heart of what Labour is about. + look at this http://bit.ly/rw5XW

  7. Pete Bowers

    @ericjoyce …and to put the idea of "empowering people" explicitly at the heart of what Labour is about. + look at this http://bit.ly/rw5XW





Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.