The strange case of conservative progressives
One of the most interesting lines in Tony Blair’s revealing book comes in the introduction:
’…I was and remain first and foremost not so much a politician of traditional left and right, but a moderniser. I wanted to modernise the Labour Party so it was capable, not intermittently but continuously, of offering a progressive alternative to Conservative rule. I wanted to modernise Britain so that, while retaining pride in having worn the mantle of the world’s most powerful nation as the twentieth century began, it didn’t feel bereft and in decline as the twenty first century began because that mantle would no longer fit’.
The admission that Blair was not a man of the left – indeed he acknowledges that on economics and law and order he is on the centre right – may appal some in the Labour Party but comes as no surprise to those of us who worked for him.
Everyday it seems a Labour leadership candidate repudiates another aspect of New Labour doctrine and record. But behind this tactical posturing there is a more profound questioning, which is of wider relevance and interest than Labour’s internal manoeuvrings.
In this month’s Prospect, two former Brown advisors Nick Pearce (now back as Director of ippr) and Gavin Kelly write about the need for social democrats to tap into a sense of ‘social patriotism’:
‘Beyond eco-conservativism, the centre-left hasn’t worked out the strands of conservative thinking that should form a core part of its political identity in the 21st century. Only when it finds a sure footing on this territory will it find a way of responding to some of the cultural concerns of the electorate that currently find expression in hostility to immigration.’
And here is Jon Cruddas MP, one of Labour’s most original and respected thinkers, writing in a few weeks ago in the New Statesman:
‘Labour has to win back…terrain with a language that can encompass both cosmopolitan modernity and English conservative culture, linking them together in a sense of national purpose. It would incorporate all the things Blair dismissed as anachronisms: tradition; a respect for settled ways of life; a sense of local place and belonging; a desire for home and rootedness; the continuity of relationships at work and in one’s neighbourhood.
England once had this kind of conservative, common culture; it acted as a counter to the commodification of labour and to social isolation. Ruskin provided its rallying cry, “There is no wealth but life.” At one time Labour gave expression to this kind of conservatism. It need not be reactionary, right-wing, or sentimental, although it has been all these things. Its political character will depend on Labour’s capacity to articulate a progressive and ethical conservatism that embraces difference. It need not be parochial or conformist: England celebrates a rich tradition of volatile, creative cultures. ’
These ideas strike a chord. Here is an extract from an article I wrote last year in Prospect:
‘New ideas about human nature can contribute to a more substantive meeting of minds between left and right. Thoughtful conservatives are once again recognising the importance of social context, inequality and the limits to market rationality. Labour thinkers can use the research to make the case for collective action and social justice, but they may also become more cautious about the capacity of the central state to empower communities, and more interested in the role of social norms and civic institutions”
So as Tony Blair reminds us that he was above all a moderniser, some thinkers from the left are exploring how (small ‘c’) conservative perspectives can be incorporated in the social democratic story.
Call me a sad case, but I find this intriguing. The RSA is a strictly politically non-aligned organisation but that doesn’t mean we aren’t interested in politics. Indeed, over the last few years we have had fascinating events discussing currents in left, right and liberal thinking.
Usually when people talk about moving beyond traditional left and right it is seen as a political ploy – a form of triangulation. But exploring the possibility of philosophy and practical politics which seeks to reconcile the ideals of social justice with the insights of social conservatism is a fascinating intellectual exercise.
I see an RSA event in which social democrats and social conservatives (like Roger Scruton or Ferdinand Mount, for example) are invited to explore common ground. Any takers?
Small country big divide
A journey across England underlines the political and economic division in our small country.
I was a guest last week on Any Questions, hosted by the Workers Education Association in Newcastle . The other guests all tweeted their followers to get them to listen or send in questions, but I’m not that organised and sadly my tweeting is now restricted to an automatic notification of new blog posts.
Judge for yourself but I achieved the three key objectives I set myself:
- Mention the RSA
- Don’t make a fool of yourself
- Be reasonably politically balanced
I was helped in the final task by being sandwiched between Tory blogger Iain Dale and former Gordon Brown pollster and RSA speaker Deborah Mattinson. It may have simply been that her answers were better but Deborah was easily the most popular guest with the audience. The WEA is an organisation with roots and branches in the labour movement but even so the audience reaction underlined that the North East is systematically more left wing than most other parts of England.
It is also – and of course the points are related – the region whose economy is most dependent on public spending. So the future for the region is of deep and painful cuts which will be implemented with little or no public sympathy.
I have long thought that the North East needs to think boldly about how it can boost public service productivity both to improve services but also to exploit the commercial potential of cutting edge public services (after all, education, health care and security are all fast growing global markets). I tried to get something off the ground with ippr North but it turned into a damp squib. A more recent attempt to develop a project with a high tech health company specialising in remote heath care also came to nothing.
I know there is interesting work taking place in the North East, particularly through its universities (notable for the high level of regional collaboration). But the danger is that the region succumbs to a feeling of victimhood and victimisation in the challenging times ahead. I wonder whether the RSA in the North East can do anything to foster a more creative and positive response?
The night watchman state?
I had a visit last week from Government advisors exploring how best to describe the Coalition’s approach to public services. This was, I guess, partly because I was credited with helping to provide a narrative for the Blair reform programme.
The latter comprised four elements: first, strategy, accountability and funding from the top; second, choice and voice from the bottom up; third, diversity and contestability providing dynamism among providers; and, fourth, a general attempt to build capacity and confidence through the system (for example through the proliferation of public service leadership institutes – many of which are already, or soon to be, toast).
The fascinating starting point for last week’s conversation was the statement by one of the advisors that Whitehall civil servants have been cast adrift as a result of the effective abolition of outcome targets. The public service agreements which provided the core rationale for thousands of Whitehall jobs have been swept away, and many other regimes focussed on achieving measurable results – such as the local authority comprehensive performance assessment – have also gone. In time we are likely to see a major downsizing of Whitehall itself but in the meantime, the advisors asked, what are the officials to do?
Their answer was an elegant diagram exploring the different dimensions of Big Society public services. The problem with this, I thought, was it assumed central Government has a major constructive role in society. So, for example, the advisors identified increasing civic capacity as a task. The implication is that civil servants can shift from trying to deliver public service outcomes to trying to build the Big Society. But this misses the point. Labour believed the centre could make good things happen, the Coalition is much more sceptical.
Instead, I suggested the Coalition’s approach might be better captured as a set of radical principles. Here, for discussion with readers, are what seem to me to be the key assumptions/principles:
• Markets are in almost all circumstances better than planning as a way of allocating resources
• Any collaboration between public service institutions and agencies should be voluntary. It is counterproductive to enforce or incentivise collaboration (see, for example, the lack of enthusiasm for Total Place)
• In most cases third and private sector providers are better than public sector providers
• Outcomes should be a function of bottom up deliberation, implementation and scrutiny not top down
• There is a substantial underused resource in civil society, including in deprived communities
• The primary way in which this resource can be accessed is if third sector and community groups take responsibility for delivering services previously provided by the state
• Differences in local service levels and outcomes is the inevitable and justifiable price for innovation, local accountability and civic engagement.
The new, much more circumscribed, task of civil servants is to enact these principles while trying at minimal cost and with minimal regulation to ensure that other public policy imperatives (such as Parliamentary accountability, basic equity, and financial probity) are observed. This is not an easy thing to do, especially in the context of severe austerity. So the task of civil servants is much changed, and much more limited in scale, but in some ways even more important.
What I have called the ‘civic market state’ will need a smaller, tougher, more strategic Whitehall. Who’s to say that isn’t a good thing?
Putting the redundant consultants to work …
In response to my asking yesterday whether the new army of redundant consultants might be willing to do good works, Sarah Grant poses the very reasonable question:
‘What kind of incentives might be used to encourage you to offer your skills freely or very cheaply?’
I also got an e-mail from a friend who is a part time academic and consultant and who has, as it happens, done some work for the soon to be defunct Sustainable Development Commission. It’s not, he tells me, that there isn’t lots to be done – he has a constant flow of pro bono work requests, it’s just that the work doesn’t add up to an adequate income. This is from someone whose green values lead him to live frugally and aspire only to earn the average wage.
‘Perhaps’ he says ‘it is time to revisit Charlie Leadbeater’s Demos booklet of 1997 or so, The Employee Mutual - a mutual network organisation acting as an all-in trainer, retrainer, placement agency, mutual support network, LET scheme and supplier of project staff on contract?’.
Going back to Sarah’s question, I imagine that for many in the older group of professionals the big finance issue is reducing costs. If they are homeowners they will typically have some capital, especially if kids have left home and they no longer need a family house. They may not be extravagant in their consumption desires (this does seem to be something we do get over as we age) but they may worry about meeting bills. On this basis they might be tempted by a local authority or community organisation that made this offer: move out of London/South East into a nice house in an mixed area with lower prices. We will help with relocation costs and – if you agree to do twenty hours a week pro bono consultancy – we will pay your council tax bills. We will also connect you to a variety of networks so that you are over time more able to find paid work alongside the unpaid.
This is a big change of lifestyle and people may be more willing to do it if they feel part of a group. So the host organisation might set up a mutual structure (of the kind it sounds like Charlie was advocating) for people to join when they arrive in their new location.
There are, of course, lots of objections to this idea. Perhaps none of the people I am describing would be attracted to the idea of ‘social down-sizing’ As there are cuts everywhere, won’t there be a national glut of under-employed public service professionals – why would anywhere want to import more? Also, would these people really have the skills necessary to increase capacity and develop initiatives to improve run down areas? I’ll rely on my readers to tell me whether the objections kill the idea.
But if anyone thinks there is something to this I will see if we can explore the idea a bit more. I know I am getting carried away, but imagine a whole network of RSA Social Consultancies working in disadvantaged areas, drawing on the wider RSA Fellowship, swapping skills and insights, applying some of the Society’s own research into civic innovation and social networks. What a brilliant symbol that would be of twenty first century enlightenment.
Inequality, Big Society, professional unemployment and other ‘lite bites’
Yesterday’s full English breakfast of a post on public service reform hasn’t elicited too many responses. I had promised to elaborate on some of its themes but I feel now like an over keen dinner party host trilling from the kitchen that ‘there’s plenty more if anyone wants seconds’ – impervious to the sound of the dog munching away at the firsts it has been surreptitiously fed by desperate guests.
So here instead are a few tasty titbits:
What shall we do with the redundant consultants?
First, a call for ideas: the news that the Sustainable Development Commission is to join the growing list of doomed quangos means that there will be even more intelligent people with skills in the general area of research, evaluation, communication and co-ordination coming into what is already a massively overcrowded market. There are thousands more people wanting to be consultants at just the time when public sector demand for consultants is likely to dive. So what is to become of these people? Is there some kind of link to the problem of who is going to organise the Big Society in disadvantaged communities. What kind of incentives might be used to encourage some of these talented, public spirited, professionals to offer their skills freely or very cheaply?
Can the Big Society get out of the Moral Maze?
Those who are interested in the Big Society debate – and the splendid Tessy Britton has about thirty people involved in an on-line conversation – may want to tune into the Moral Maze tonight (Radio 4 eight o’clock), which is exploring the Prime Minister’s big idea. Given the politics of the other panellists I suspect that for the purposes of the programme I may be press ganged into being a Big Society sceptic. But, however I perform, there are some great witnesses, including the ubiquitous Phillip Blond and Nick Pearce, the deeply wise former head of the Number Ten policy unit.
Agreeing to differ
Tomorrow we are hosting a debate between, on the one hand, Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett authors of ‘The Spirit Level’ with its argument that inequality screws up the whole of society and, on the other, researchers commissioned by the right of centre think tank, Policy Exchange, who say the whole thesis is deeply flawed.
In my role as chair I will be attempting to achieve what I described in last year’s annual lecture as a ‘transcendent’ moment in debate; when it is possible to identity what it is people actually disagree about. This in my experience is very rare as most political and policy debate comprises people making erroneous allegations about what the other side thinks. So I am hoping for more light than heat tomorrow. But given that supporters of both sides have apparently been rallying their troops it’s not going to be easy.



