“Red Tory sounds nonsense, doesn’t it?” Phillip Blond, 1 April 2010.
Last Thursday lunchtime I ignored the canteen’s carb busting offer of lasagne and chips, and wandered up to the RSA. Phillip Blond was on the second leg of his literary tour. In case you’ve missed it he’s promoting his new book ‘Red Tory’, which sets out how the negative parts of the left and right have broken Britain, and how a combination of the good parts is the pill our society needs to make everything better again.
The RSA held the event in their basement. I imagine that before it became a crypt containing ideas it was probably a splendidly stocked wine cellar. The males in the crowd wore the uniform of the socially conscious Tory. Casual jeans, suggesting that they don’t mind getting dirty, open neck shirt, which says the wearer is beyond the need to be smart but could scrub up if needs be, and a suit jacket to remind everyone that it shouldn’t be forgotten that the person is a well-to-do professional.
Blond told us how it began to go wrong when Disraeli failed to offer an economic stake to the poor. You cannot be a capitalist without capital, you cannot be part of a capitalist society without having access to capital, and in our society a significant proportion of the population will never have this access. During the 1960s and 70s the liberal left tried to pursue social justice through the state. In the 1980s and 90s the liberal right tried to encourage the creation of wealth by getting the state to back the financial market. New Labour tried to find the middle ground between the two but failed to foster a true ‘stakeholder society’. This failure was inevitable as Tony Blair et al were addicted to the liberal political settlement of post-war Britain. Politicians always confuse and conflate the term freedom with liberalism. For Blond, freedom cannot exist unless you have continued access to capital. The ‘free market’ is anything but free. It rigidly serves those who have capital to spare.
As the current liberal settlement advances our society becomes more and more static. People only associate with, and do business with, a smaller and smaller pool of people. Meritocracy is a myth as the middle-classes take advantage of the system. For Blond class has become caste. The message from the podium came over loud and clear. None of the current ideologies are working and we need a new political settlement. It is not surprising that many of those who are associated with what Blond views to be a morally and economically inadequate liberal settlement act with hostility to the idea of Red Toryism, and in some cases even towards Blond himself. The politico ideological atmosphere contains many big egos. Whether they are Thatcherite columnists or ex-Blair staffers, none of the previous idealists will enjoy being told they were misguided.
So that is the problem. What about the solution? Phillip Blond would like to see capital dispersed more widely. The poorest groups in society should have an amount of leverage that will allow them to gain control of their lives. One way of doing this is by giving people control over public spending in their local area. The state would still be an important player but it would have the radically different role of creating an infrastructure for enablement. Blond would like to see the poor given investment vouchers, which they can cash in if they form groups. For example, unmarried mothers could take control of their estate. In Blond’s opinion, they will be the most interested in creating a community that can best facilitate the development of their family.
I would summarise the Red Tory agenda as wanting to bring moral logicalism to capitalism. At the moment the rich can ride roughshod without giving a thought to the general good as they are free from accountability. Moral accountability can only happen by capitalising all of us. Competition laws need to be strengthened in order to facilitate local capitalism.
Phillip Blond loves saying the word ‘radicalism’. You can see the sparkle in his eyes every time he utters it. No-one can deny that the Red Tory settlement is radical. The proposal to use the mechanisms of the state to redistribute power in order to create a truly fair capitalist system is a bold one. The optimist inside me is enthused by the vision but the pessimist asks the question is this really all possible? There are few easy choices between right and wrong, and all political decisions have winners and losers. Has Blond thought about who the losers will be? Change and upheaval can lead to discomfort and loss in all parts of society. Will human nature embrace this extra responsibility?
Phillip Blond is a self-confessed romantic. He believes that you can only be a political visionary if you are a romantic; otherwise a politician is nothing more than a state manager. As a philosopher he can afford to be idealistic. It is decision makers who have to be aware of the consequences. In truth, it suits both sides for Blond to be an arm’s length influencer. He is free to promote his ideas and the Conservatives are free to implement them as they see fit. His Red Tory vision fleshes out Cameron’s statement “There is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same thing as the State” while the Conservative leadership’s interest has allowed Blond to set-up his own think-tank.
Blond’s admiration for Cameron is strong. “David has a vision. He is the most innovative and visionary politician we have in this country.”
Phillip Blond’s analysis of why we find ourselves in the current state is compelling. His desire to empower all of us by getting the state to protect and promote community values is exciting. The great unknown is how the journey from now to the future will unfold. To be fair, I think that Blond knows this himself. I am glad that the Red Tory agenda has been given such a high profile. The Conservatives need to create a philosophy for government that reflects 2010. At the moment there are a lot more questions than answers but through the ‘Big Society/PBAge’ debate more and more answers are appearing.
Related posts:
This is a very good “in a nut-shell” summary of all things Phillip Blond. Congratulations. I especially like your summation of Phillip’s current catalyst position as commentator and facilitator. Whether he will judge it appropriate to become a politician, or be unable to resist becoming one out of sheer frustration remains to be seen. Whether he is best as an ideas person, or an implementer, or can combine the two, only he can judge. I like him, not because he is always right, but that he is supremely good at “stirring the pot” and making people think out of the frame. We are very lucky to have him.
Pingback: uberVU - social comments
Thanks Schofield. The event at the RSA was fascinating. I could have easily written four times as much! Phillip Blond made the point that he supports the Tories because they were the first party to embrace the Big Society idea, but he would also be happy if Labour fully embraced it. I cant see him ever buying into the tribalness of party politics. He passionately believes in a big idea and will urge elected politicians, both here and in the US, to do the right thing.