Phil Collins has an ambitious article in today’s Times that, sadly, fails to lives up to its own ambitions. His contention is that “progressive Conservatives need to learn their own history”, and then goes on to paint a crude caricature of progressive Conservatism and completely misrepresent Conservative policies. He at least concedes that “there is… a noble Conservative tradition of social reform.”
I do find it surprising that he can talk about 20th Century progressive Conservatism without a single mention of Macmillan or Macleod (who were both a hell of a lot more progressive than any New Labour representative – compare the excellent ‘The Middle Way’ with the comparatively timid declarations of Blairites). The progressive history of Conservatism is a lot prouder than Mr Collins gives it credit for, as I previously blogged here.
I also find it remarkable that Collins has completely glossed over the fact that a Labour Government has comprehensively failed to achieve progressive goals. Social mobility has gone backwards; the gap between rich and poor has widened; and we have a record number of 16-24 year olds not in education, employment or training. Never mind Bevan and Hardie, I’m sure that even Gaitskell and Bevin would be horrified by this grotesque failure of a Labour government to deliver progress and social justice.
The piece also paints a caricature of the role of the state in progressive Conservative thinking. I think we need to be quite clear about this, progressive Conservatives have no instinctive or ideological hostility to the state. This is about pragmatism, not dogmatism. Yes – there is a very important role for the state. Sometimes, history has shown us that the state hasn’t done enough when it should have acted (the horror of unemployment in the 1930s being a good example).
But, under Labour, the state has intruded too far into ancient personal and civil liberties. These are the liberties that a Labour Home Secretary described a “airy, fairy civil liberties” (what would Roy Jenkins – quoted in the Collins article – think about that?) Is the removal of Habeas Corpus progressive? Is empowering privileged, generally upper class judges to over-rule elected politicians progressive? Is the use of Control Orders progressive? Is increasing the number of days that people can be detained without trial progressive? The answer in all these cases is no. The truth is that these are examples where the state has gained to much power over the individual in the past twelve years. Any genuine progressive would, as I do, completely deplore this removal of liberty.
In the column, Phil Collins takes up an excessive tribalism that is unworthy of the progressive centre and the new politics, which this blog represents. He takes up a one eyed world-view when the reality is much more complex. Sometimes the state is the right actor. Sometimes the voluntary sector is the right actor. Sometimes the private sector is the right actor. Sometimes all three (or a combination of the three) should work together. What matters is improving outcomes and life chances. What matters is creating a fairer, more equal society. Lets get away from the kind of dogma displayed in Mr Collins’ article today and start concentrating on what works.
Related posts:
One more point, to quote Bogdanor on Macmillan (who Collins does not feel fit to mention in his piece): “More imaginative and fair-sighted than most of his generation, Macmillan stood for much that is best in British political life – its decency and tolerance, its dislike of puritanism and cant… he nevertheless helped to create a society which provided, for the vast majority of British people, a happier and more secure life than they had ever known.” Could that really be said about Brown? I think not.
No it couldn’t be said about Brown but it is also a caricature, by a Lib Dem academic, of MacMillan, who was an upper class charlatan. His cynical and duplicitous behaviour over Suez was a classic example. He also believed in the death penalty and presided over a society where tax took only 35% of GDP. Doesn’t that make him a “swivel-eyed right wing loon” in your parlance, David?