A Defence Of Red Toryism
November 26th, 2009 | This post was written by David SkeltonRespublica, the think tank set up by the so-called ‘Red Tory’, Philip Blond, launches today. It has, perhaps unsurprisingly ruffled some feathers and caused some open muttering in the press. Some fairly familiar people have been leading the charge against this Red Toryism. I do, however, think that it is a very good thing indeed. Unsurprisingly, I don’t agree with Philip Blond’s social conservatism – I would be surprised if there were many more socially liberal people than me in the Party.
However, in so many areas, Red Toryism is pushing all the right buttons and needs to be seriously listened to:
- A radical, progressive, working class Conservatism – Blond is right to lament the demise of a genuinely radical, genuinely working class Conservatism. He is also right to lament the demise of co-operative, non big state socialism. In all honesty the radical Conservatism that could have prevented the need for a centralised socialism probably disappeared with Joe Chamberlain’s stroke and the death of Lord Randolph Churchill. But for the latter years of the 19th Century, Conservatism – in particular Disraeli’s ‘one nation’ and Lord Randolph Churchill’s ‘Tory Democracy’ offered more to the working class in terms of real, radical social reform than that offered by any other Party. Reimagining this radical, working class Conservatism for the early 21st Century has the potential to shake up the Party system and re-attract voters who have felt alienated from Conservatism for many years. Blond is right that by harnessing Conservative history and specifically aiming our policies towards voters in working class areas, we can bring about a significant extension of the Tory coalition and, ultimately, a realignment of the Party system.
- Empowering Communities – Localism and empowering communities seems to be at the centre of this ‘Red Toryism’ and it is also at the centre of Conservative policy. Emphasising community empowerment and community ownership helps restore a sense of civic pride and a sense of real involvement in society.
- Harnessing capitalism – ‘Red Toryism’ seems to move away from the free market fundamentalism that some in our Party have been so passionate about. I do like the fact that the ideas being floated makes clear that capitalism should be there to serve society, rather than the other way round. The emphasis on breaking up monopolies and maximising competition can only be a good one.
- An adult approach to Thatcherism – When reading some of the Tory blogs about Lady Thatcher’s visit to Downing Street the other day, I thought for a second I had stumbled on a swooning letters page of Smash Hits or the unthinking idolatry of Pravda. There are still too many in the Party who are blind to the fact that the Thatcher Government was hugely divisive and had a bad, as well as a good side. There can be little doubt that the industrial dislocation and mass unemployment of the Thatcher years had a devastating social impact on many areas, and one that we are still recovering from. We need to at least to accept that in losing the pit, steelworks or other source of major employment, a number of towns lost the glue that held their communities together and suffered severe social and economic consequences. Having been brought up in Consett when the steelworks closed, I don’t need any lectures about this. At least Blond is open enough to admit that we need to move beyond Thatcherism and rediscover our progressive roots.
- Restoring the social glue – The social glue has been lost in so many towns around the UK. Old institutions that used to hold communities together have either lost their potency or disappeared completely. He is right that this social glue needs to be re-imagined for a new age. And that means new forms of community ownership, new societal activities and new shared experiences that will pull communities together.
Lets not pretend that Red Toryism is some kind of societal panacea. What it does represent is a brave new way of developing a Conservative future, drawing on our past and widely broadening our coalition.
Posts
November 26th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
I take your point about losing the pits, but that was a fight that was brought to Thatcher, not the other way round. When Scarghill’s ascent began, a lot of the “old guard” at the NUM started resigning – they knew what was coming. A lot of his members were striking for better pay and conditions, but he wanted to kick-start a coup that would end up in regime change.
November 26th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Frugal Dougal: Whose ‘fault’ it is is not really the point – to coin a phrase much-loved by an old boss of mine, we are where we are. And sadly where we are is that many of our communities are falling apart. If we believe that Conservative means achieve the progressive end of bringing back the social glue, then Phillip Blond has some excellent ideas.
Though – as David Cameron said at the launch today – we don’t agree on everything!
November 26th, 2009 at 6:21 pm
Quite right on thatcher – ‘back where she belongs’? What? I have as much respect for what she did as anyone but it was 30 years ago, times have changed.
November 26th, 2009 at 9:37 pm
David, since when have you been “socially liberal”? Your preoccupation with pigeon-holing people by gender, school and class is reminiscent of the authoritarian left, not a liberal. Liberals can cope with all kinds of difference. You clearly have big problems with it, unless the people in question belong to officially-sanctified “minorities”.
There is a lot of myth-making about the empathy of people like Disraeli and MacMillan with the working classes. They talked the talk but were as anti-meritocratic as every other patrician One Nation Tory. That is why my late father refused to switch from Labour to the Tories until Thatcher came along. He didn’t particularly love her but unlike MacMillan, she was a grammar school-educated meritocrat and she wasn’t a condescending and cynical old fraud.
Your wailing about “free market fundamentalism” sounds rather like “stop the world I want to get off.” We live in a very highly-regulated global economy, not some early nineteenth century laissez faire free for all. That global economy has radically improved the life chances of hundreds of millions especially in those former Third World nations which have embraced capitalism. Good luck to them. However, we in the UK will no longer be able to rule the roost as we did in the past; awarding ourselves large amounts of pay and perks for producing substandard goods and services. We will have to sing much better for our supper. Too much political criticism of globalisation is simply a demand for protectionism.
Your constant jibing at the one post-war leader of the UK who actually made a credible effort to put it back on its feet is tedious. I too come from England’s former industrial heartland. Thatcher made major mistakes but what would you have done differently? Are you proposing that we reopen the mines or steelworks? In any case, far more pits were shut under the Butskellite Consensus than were shut between 1979 and 1997.
November 27th, 2009 at 10:16 am
Michael – Thanks, as ever, for your interesting comments, which I will respond to in turn.
On almost every social issue I would describe myself as a social liberal. The fact that my liberalism is a mix between positive (freedom to) and negative (freedom from) liberalism certainly doesn’t make it any less valid than yours. Nor does the fact that I wish to see the professions more representative of society make me a member of the “authoritarian left”. Indeed, my desire for real social mobility and the enhancement of the life chances of people from more deprived backgrounds is why I’m so enthusiastic in support of the wide ranging schools reform and ‘pupil premium’ that we are promising after the next election.
It seems we aren’t going to agree on the merits of Disraeli and Macmillan. Although I do judge them by their actions and their effectiveness as Prime Ministers.
I’m a strong believer in capitalism and the free market. I agree with you that it is the best way in which to achieve prosperity. But lets not pretend it is perfect. Lets not pretend that lack of adequate regulation had nothing to do with the global economic crisis. Lets not pretend that monopoly power isn’t an important issue in some sections of the economy. Regulation is over heavy in some areas, particularly on small business and, in other areas, particularly banking, it has been proven to be way too light. My point was that the free market should serve society and not the other way round.
Regarding the mines and other closures in the Thatcher years (and also, as you rightly say, beforehand as well), my point was that the closure of the industries that dominated towns has had the effect of losing a glue that held certain communities together. Even Norman Tebbitt agrees with me on this. As he said a few months ago, “The scale of the closures went too far…There is no doubt that this led to a breakdown in these communities. Many were completely devastated, with people out of work turning to drugs and no real man’s work because all the jobs had gone.”
It would be going very off topic to discuss energy policy here but I would argue that we haven’t had a coherent energy policy in this country for much too long. An over-reliance on gas and oil (now imported from semi or slightly hostile nations) and a dash away from coal, surely brings with it risks in terms of energy security.
November 27th, 2009 at 3:17 pm
‘lack of adequate regulation had nothing to do with the global economic crisis’
Now let’s not get started on that one.
I thought Alex Massie had the best take on Red Toryism.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/alexmassie/5576011/blond-and-liberty.thtml
November 27th, 2009 at 8:43 pm
Social comments and analytics for this post…
This post was mentioned on Twitter by DJSkelton: New PLATFORM 10 Blog: A Defence Of Red Toryism http://www.platform10.org/2009/11/a-defence-of-red-toryism/…