Progressive Conservatism: some questions
I have been asked by Demos to write a 500 word essay outlining any reservations I might have about the progressive Conservative project of Team Cameron. This is my first draft (the whole thing has to be in by close of play tomorrow). I have decided to take a broad view rather than focussing on specific policy issues. As always I know I can rely on stimulating feedback and advice from my readers…..
“ The essence of the new progressivism lies in reconciling a recognition of the importance of social justice and cohesion to individual human autonomy and well-being (an idea associated with the centre left) with the view that social progress is best pursued through the voluntary actions of individuals and associations rather than the well intentioned, but often counter productive, interventions of the central state (an idea associated with the centre right).
I take this to be what is meant by ‘progressive ends through Conservative means’. But it is a difficult balancing act, especially in Government; aspiring to radical change but being circumspect in the use of the most concrete and immediate instruments of change available to ministers.
This is why the coherence of contemporary Conservative thought is of importance – not only to commentators and policy wonks. Under the pressure of office it would be all too easy for a Conservative administration to abandon its social ambitions and enthusiasm for localism and civic action, instead reverting to a Thatcherite ‘strong state, free market’ model of modernisation.
Passing over the glaring gap in Conservative thinking concerning the UK’s relations with the rest of the world, there are three areas in which we need greater clarity about the Cameron project.
First, Conservatives need to be clearer about the state of society as they see it. The exaggerated talk of ‘broken Britain’ may work with a section of our beleaguered print media but it serves to confuse rather than enlighten. A thoughtful analysis would recognise not only that as many aspects of society are getting better are as getting worse (which is obvious), but would appreciate that the changes we welcome are often linked to those we bemoan. Take these examples: greater home ownership tends to increase the social exclusion of those who cannot afford to buy; rising participation in higher education has been achieved, in part, by making it easier for more students to meet the requirements for entry (a process generally referred to by Conservatives as ‘dumbing down’). It may be possible, partially and over time, to solve these and other conundrums but only if we see them as real and recognise that at some level there will be trade-offs to be made.
Second, we need to understand how the Conservative state will work. While one group of Conservatives talks about the importance of devolving power and building capacity in communities, another group – focussed on the coming public spending challenge – suggests centralised and technocratic solutions to state inefficiency. There is much talk of the state fostering civic initiative, much less convincing is the account of how this is to be done; a particular challenge is those areas (for example suburban social housing estates) which lack a ready supply of talented social entrepreneurs.
Third, how serious are the Conservatives about changing the way we do politics? This isn’t merely about new ways of configuring Whitehall, or new modes of communication (important though those are) it is about fundamental change to the anachronistic and destructive culture of political decision making. Arguably, this is the most important challenge, for how are the public to appreciate difficult trade offs, or to accept the variations in service levels and greater civic responsibilities that come with genuine decentralisation unless they engage constructively with decision makers?
The Tories have a small window of opportunity to change the terms of trade between politicians and citizens. Unless they take that opportunity they will face the same disconnect that has increasingly bedevilled Labour in government.”
Related posts:
- George Osborne: new ideas and new questions Just come away from the Great Room after responding to...
- ‘The progressive consensus’ – and me, me, me …. Back to Number Ten this morning to discuss ‘the progressive...
- Welcome Boris – some questions while you are here The RSA House is hosting London Mayor Boris Johnson today....
- The begining of the end of the party? In our lively debate yesterday about electoral reform, John Keane,...
- Family, character and class – the Cameron view Our Trustees’ AwayDay (which was neither away nor a day,...
Comments
11 Comments on Progressive Conservatism: some questions
-
stephen Layland on
Thu, 3rd Sep 2009 1:26 pm
-
Matthew Kalman on
Thu, 3rd Sep 2009 1:32 pm
-
Simon on
Thu, 3rd Sep 2009 1:34 pm
-
Simon on
Thu, 3rd Sep 2009 1:35 pm
-
Tessy Britton on
Fri, 4th Sep 2009 9:52 am
-
Matthew Kalman on
Fri, 4th Sep 2009 10:53 am
-
Tessy Britton on
Fri, 4th Sep 2009 11:04 am
-
ad on
Fri, 4th Sep 2009 6:03 pm
-
What do the (new) Tories want? | Newpapers Collected on
Sat, 5th Sep 2009 5:43 pm
-
Best of web 07/09/08 | www.the-vibe.co.uk on
Mon, 7th Sep 2009 12:17 pm
-
Tessy Britton on
Fri, 11th Sep 2009 9:43 pm
Simply add the rider – inviting everyone to Listen Again to BBC Radio4′ recent edition of Nature [Wednesday 2rd September 9.00pm - six days left]
Hi Matthew,
You’ve set me off again, and my prognosis won’t surprise you: until there’s a greater understanding of how politics – and society – can go *with* the grain of the natural growth that occurs in our collective mindsets, none of us will get that far with our latest policy suggestions.
The pendulum will continue to swing destructively between Left and Right, and Cameron’s suggestions – or your own – risk being little more than window-dressing.
The Left certainly well sees some parts of this natural grain, the Right sees others, but until we can grok the big picture, we’ll probably just end up inadvertently damaging ‘society’. (When he was based in No. 10, Geoff Mulgan once advised all the chief strategists across Government to embed this kind of ‘integral’ way of thinking in future Government policies – though I’d be the first to admit that such a call is still some years ahead of its time).
Oversimplifying greatly, this natural growth in our collective mindsets shows (according to Spiral Dynamic’s simplistic but memorable colour model) a shift from impulsive/hedonistic (Red) to conventional/conformist (Blue) to success/achievement-oriented (Orange) to communitarian/sensitive (Green).
The Left often has a victim-rescuer mode – ie an alliance of the Green mindset and the Red. The Left also tends to think a major part of the answer is to bash conventional Blue.
But if you break some part of this natural spiral of growth, the whole thing becomes rather dysfunctional – people cease to grow through it.
Blue conventionality is actually the answer to the problems of the destructiveness of unhealthy Red.
Arguably, this is what Cameron has latched on to with the ‘broken society’ idea – he’s noticed that the shift from impulsive Red to conventional Blue is not widely taking place the way it used to, due to…, well, all manner of things: undermining of the family, unemployment, decline in competitive team sport et al. (NB Which is not to say that Red energy itself cannot be channelled in healthy directions; we’ve all seen reports on boxing clubs that draw people away from gangs, and suchlike).
What the Left just doesn’t get is that until this Red to Blue (impulsive to conformist) linkage, or flow, is rejuvenated, the supply of new ‘Progressive’ folks at the Green end of the curve will slowly dry up.
It pains me to see the Left continually shoot itself in both feet like this: it thinks it’s erasing the Right, but it’s actually strangling the future of the Left. (We’ve all spent a fair bit of time doing whatever we can to undermine ‘Blue’ values, traditional identities etc, since the 60s – I’ve done a fair bit. It’s now becoming increasingly clear what effect that has on the overall spiral of human growth).
If policies are explicitly moulded to go with this grain of the growth of adult mindsets, then we at least have a chance at reaching some major prizes.
For instance, this would enable a shift from technocratic and command-and-control organisations to more transformational and innovative ‘Learning Organisations’, based around systems thinking, around mutual learning and so on.
People reading this will probably think I’m just picking all the ‘bad’ words to go in the old column and the ‘good’ words to go in the new – but ‘transformational’ policies and educational interventions that deliberately set out to go with this grain do actually have these outcomes: demonstrably more effective leadership, successfully transformed organisations (rather than the usual 70 per cent failure rate of change programmes).
Sadly, only around 7 per cent of leaders currently have the late-stage mindsets that enable them to truly transform their organisations – we need to increase that percentage greatly (eg not least if we want to have any hope of improving the NHS!).
But we’re definitely not going to achieve any of these changes when these mindsets are currently unknown and invisible to all but a few consultants, educators and coaches etc (including, fortunately, your own executive coach Matthew!). (The Left thinks it doesn’t need to know about these mindsets and shared cultures, as it believes it is sufficient to fix the external, visible ‘system’ – little wonder so little actually changes).
Right now, though, most of us don’t even perceive the difference between the usual ‘informational’ learning and deliberately ‘transformational’ learning, which can actually help people move with this grain of growth.
If we actually learn to work with the grain of growth, then I also strongly suspect also that we’ll end up nourishing positive ‘bridging’ social capital, rather than often-regressive ‘bonding’ social capital.
That’s enough of my Thursday manifesto, you get the gist… 
Matt
PS To give one example, Jake Chapman (author of ‘System failure: why governments must learn to think differently’, published by Demos) is beginning to have some promising results in enabling real up-shifts in people’s overall mindsets, by teaching groups (of public sector leaders, I suspect?) in a creative way about ‘systems thinking’.
Good piece. A couple of comments:
- I wonder if it takes the progressive project excessively at face value. I would argue that more of it than you suggest has been about political positioning.
- Surely the problem isn’t that just that ‘they need to be clearer about the state of society as they see it’ but that they need to commit to some specific outcomes they want to achieve.
I think the second and third point you make are spot-on. The devolving power and
civic initiative dimension is too ill-defined, woolly and vague in the Tory formulation to survive the onslaught of the coming cuts.
PS Why ‘disconnect’? It’s a verb, not a noun. Disconnection is perfectly satisfactory.
This is so interesting Matthew. It always seems to me that politics gets in the way of real progress, especially more recently when left and right have to fight so hard to differentiate from each other. We all surely want things to improve. But often politicians seem to try to use ‘left’ and ‘right’ as quick and easy decision making templates rather than look at issues more deeply.
As you rightly say ‘This is why the coherence of contemporary Conservative thought is of importance’. Two of your policy/impact illustrations i.e increased home ownership and increased participation in higher education are perfect examples where ’systems thinking’ would benefit enormously.
One the system thinkers illustrations is famously the one of insect pest spraying, which in year one works to keep the inspect population at bay, but by year 2 sees a surge in the population of other insects ….
Unless we study the relationship and connection between elements, the effect of changes cannot be fully understood. I am not sure this is political in any form that we would recognise… but it would be exciting to see politicians working in more than one or two dimensions. As Matthew Kalman says above: ‘until we can look at the big picture, we’ll probably just end up inadvertently damaging ‘society’.’
“When we go beyond the linear cause and effect paradigm to study patterns of behavior and then to study the systemic interrelationships among the parts of systems we develop a much deeper understanding of the nature of the way things operate. An operational understanding which can allow us to work with the system rather than against it. An understanding which allows for the development of interventions to create lasting change within the system, if that is the desired intent.” Gene Bellinger
Hi Tessy,
I certainly suspect that real political wisdom – and the most viable policies – lies beyond the usual Left-Right political bun-fight (hopefully Mark Satin is right about his ‘Radical Middle’).
I certainly think you’re right that ’systems thinking’ is part of the deeper political wisdom we need (I added by vote for systems thinking iconoclast John Seddon to be the Public Sector Czar, or whatever it was – on the No. 10 site!).
And the psychologies of lifespan development – that I was talking about in my post – have a major role, if we want to know what’s going on at a deeper level.
As no doubt does all the neuroscience and related stuff that Matthew’s so great and drawing to our attention.
Though I don’t particularly like it when the Left, or the Right, decides it can put the latest interesting developments (eg in cognitive science) to its own ends – it just keeps the blinkers on.
At least we all ought to get beyond the “I can’t consider that view, as it’s ‘Rightwing’”, “I can’t consider that view as it’s ‘Leftwing’” mentalities – that stop most creative thinking before it’s even off the starting blocks.
Matt
Thanks Matt – yes I agree entirely! ‘Wearing’ the latest thinking, rather than understanding it and grappling with it in a honest and practical way, is unlikely to developing long term, sustainable thinking.
Under the pressure of office it would be all too easy for a Conservative administration to abandon its social ambitions and enthusiasm for localism and civic action, instead reverting to a Thatcherite ‘strong state, free market’ model of modernisation.
All reformers are centralisers. Otherwise, how would they be able to drive their refoms through?
[...] Matthew Taylor grapples with the meaning of "progressive [...]
Some more opinions on conservatives and progressivism
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/08/progressive-constitutional-reform-cameron
Liked the comment “Progressivism is so 19th century. I am looking for a government that works on the bleeding edge.”
Tell me what you're thinking...
and oh, if you want a pic to show with your comment, go get a gravatar!
Twitter @RSAMatthewRSA Bookshop
The RSA Bookshop, in partnership with Blackwell's the UK's leading academic bookseller, offers Fellows and friends an opportunity to purchase books and to explore our speakers’ ideas in greater detail. Visit the RSA Bookshop.