By Derek Draper
In his Guardian column today, Martin Kettle adds credence to David Cameron’s claim to be “progressive”. Well, Martin, at the risk of being “tribal” (something I’m rather proud of actually) can I ask you to respond to the following:
Which party’s flagship inheritance tax policy involves giving £1billion on the richest 3000 estates in the country? Not, note, to Sure Start centres or education or health but, literally, the nation’s millionaires.
Which party says it is against child poverty but has not made the commitment to actually spend money to do anything about it? Indeed which party‘s leader told us, in a rare slip from his script, that we’d “reached the end of the road” of redistribution?
Which party refuses to explain how it will be cutting planned funding for apprenticeships, charities and much else? And finally, which party’s soundbite admonishes Labour for not “mending the roof while the sun shines”?
Well, the money we’ve invested in education mended plenty of roofs in the many constituencies where not a single new school was built under the last Tory government and where many are new today.
In a way we should be pleased. The Tories tactical desperation to be seen as progressive is a tribute to New Labour’s success in changing the terms of political debate. They know they cannot win as the Tory party of yesteryear so they present themselves as something different. But I fear they flatter to deceive.
In his own Demos-supported attempt to paint the Tories as the party of fairness, George Osborne quoted approvingly from what he said was a key text. Was it Polly Toynbee’s excellent book on wealth? No, their wooing of Polly has served its purpose. George had gone back to quoting Freidrich Hayek and lauding free markets and the minimal state.
Yesterday, Cameron talked about “fairness”, “opportunity” being green and feeling safe. Wow! I remember when Mrs. Thatcher said, in 1979, “Tonight we drink champagne, tomorrow we have work to do rebuilding the inner cities”. Take out the environment and she could have uttered yesterday’s platitudes. Can’t you see what they’re trying to do Martin? I tell you, and you tell me if you disagree: Cameron and Osborne would have sat happily in a Thatcher cabinet and no-one, least of all them, would have even labelled them as wet.
That is the key point that should matter to progressives. Not warm words and clever positioning but the underlying, dare I say it, ideology. The Tories hide theirs with appealing talk of social responsibility, charitable action and “nudging”. Behind that mask, though, lurks a hostility to active government that, in office, would result in a “rolling back of the state” just as comprehensive – and damaging – as that undertaken by Mrs. Thatcher, as Liam Byrne outlined here yesterday.
Now, Labour needs to make sure the state is sharper, smarter and more responsive. That is the vision that lies behind our reforms to the welfare system but the key difference is that we are engaged in reforming something we have faith in, not dismantling something we don’t believe in. It isn’t, as the Guardian has put it in the past a question of differing “methods”, accepting that the Tories “motives” are the same as ours. This is a naive, apolitical view of the world, and the Guardian was roundly criticised for that nonsense at the time.
Martin, if Guardian readers fall for your naive line – though I credit them with more sense – and we end up with a Tory government, I have no doubt at all that the result, after the rhetoric and gimmicks had faded, would be a smaller, less active state, money having been redistributed to the richest, with cuts in public services. Luckily you don’t have to take my word for it, the more the Tories are put under pressure on policy the more they revert to type.
It will give me no pleasure if one day I have to say “told you so” to people whose lives, frankly, won’t change that much under the Conservatives. It isn’t them but ordinary people living throughout the country, who will pay the price. People who rely on a strong government to protect them and provide them with chances and opportunities they’d otherwise be without, support that will, progressively, be stripped away under the Tories.
So, Martin, no, we don’t face a Tory party on the side of the “progressive angels” actually. But we do face some deeply cynical and opportunistic opponents. If we really listen – and allow ourselves to hear – the horror story is still there. It is a shame that some are being taken in by the friendly mask that currently hides it.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
this piece is just pathetic. I had originally thought this could be a credible UK counterpart to Think Progress, Kos or whatever, but I'm getting very rapidly disillusioned. This constant, moronic, deeply insecure baiting of the Tories, not on policy or governing philosophy, is absurd, and shows an arrogant tin ear for voters disgusted with the way of things.
Progressive conservatism is credible and attractive to an electorate; it appears to offer a (false) blend of old and new, a Hegelian synthesis, a genuine centre ground (a more credible centre-ground than the original New Labour blend of unfettered markets and public-sector investment.) Instead of attempting to assert a credible, robust social-democratic response to the exceptional circumstances we find ourselves in, the Labour frontbench and, apparently, you, prefer instead to invoke the infantile posturing, banal point-scoring and day-to-day political-survival myopia dooming leftist forces in the next election.
Stop simply stating "progressive" = labour. "Progress", quite apart from being bland as a campaign platform, is always going to be inherently subjective. SHOW how OUR take on "progress" will be infinitely more equitable and beneficial than the Cons or the LDs.
Kettle's article was a well-reasoned analysis of Dave's manoeuvring to the centre, while Brown shamelessly wings it with the economy, demands adoration to placate his messiah complex and drifts ever further back in the polls.
We are LOSING.
Arrogant posturing is NOT WORKING.
This crisis of unfettered capitalism and its intrusion into every aspect of society is OUR BIGGEST CHANCE TO POSITIVELY REFORM THE UK in a generation. There is anger out there - untapped anger at barely perceptible elites. I am, and will be for Labour. But Brown was a cowardly, failed chancellor. He is a morally bankrupt, dangerous PM. He is destroying the party. Please wake up, Derek, and make this place a credible, worthwhile "labour-minded" venture.
Oh, and you never did get back to me on "maybe you can write for labourlist some day yourself etc etc". Cheers. Shafting grassroots interest for...Piers Morgan. My, my.
My piece, while partly tabloid in tone does precisely what you accuse me of not doing: addressing the policy and philosophical contradictions in "progressive" conservatism. I draw your attention to the points in the second paragraph. Do you have an answer to any of those questions? No, prog-Tory fantasists don't. so they attack us for attacking them. As for writing for us, we are behind with e-mails because the site has proven so popular. I will get back to you...
However, to pretend that the current Tory party can be treated with the disdain that the hopeless cases of 1997 and 2001 deserved is naive.
Derek, I appreciate that it is an attractive argument to say they will give £1 billion to the richest people, but there are three real issues with your claim.
1. The Tories would not "give" them the £1 billion. It is already theirs. They would simply allow them to keep it.
2. In any fair society, it must be right that what applied to you and me should also apply to everyone else, including the rich.
3. In my experience, the individual generally spends their money more sensibly than government.
Perhaps I am not envious enough?
"Yes a wet fluffy bunch of nothing, perhaps a better label for Cameron's Conservative party is the Candyfloss party"
" Cameron has delivered us no great Conservative revival, he is more like a bad illusionist who is as surprised as the rest of us when the tricks actually work! "
"Perhaps it's time for a breakaway Party to form to the right of Cameron and his fluffy bunnies."
"Cameron takes delight in offending the right whenever he's ahead in the opinion polls."
"The Cameroons hate the grassroots and picking fights with us is part of their attempts to win over theGuardian class."
These are the grassroots of the party,the people who tramp pavements,the real Conservatives.These are the people who turn up at the conference and cheer Cameron on whilst muttering to each other how much they dislike him and his polices.The real Conservative Party has not changed, they are the same Thatcherite party underneath, with, to quote one of their grassroots an "illusionist" at the helm.
So despite all the spin Cameron and Coulson can muster,below the facade,they are the same party,and proof if there ever was one,as my dear old father used to say, "You cannot polish a turd".
Unfortunately, conservatism is bound up in short-termism. As we have witnessed so painfully in recent months, the short-term nature of markets is fatally flawed.
This applies to governments too. The decisions taken by successive governments, for example, to run down/destroy industry or privatize public utilities has produced both socially and economically undesirable results (for the 60 million people of the UK at least).
Any responsible government's role is to think long-term for the country's future.
It is now obvious that the UK must turn away from the Thatcher/Reagan 'Anglo-Saxon' economic model towards a European social democracy.
Britain is a relatively small nation, with diminishing natural resources, an over-reliance on a now bankrupt financial system, an inadequate manufacturing sector and the largest trade deficit for 300 years. We need to address this.
This means more participation in industry to rebalance our economy away from one based on shopping, debt and house prices.
It could also mean making it harder to spend money we don't have. In France, credit cards are effectively debit cards, meaning that buying a £3000 television and paying it off £5 a month is impossible.
If there is anything the UK doesn't need, it's more conservatism.
A similar thing occurs with importing things. I bought a modestly price bicycle from abroad in 2000; on top of import duty, a second tax was applied(VAT I think), on the full balance(tax on tax). It wasn't a huge sum of money, but the logic is flawed.
Under any government, it's taxed when you earn it, when you spend it, when you save it, when you invest it and when you pass it on to your family.
Which is only right.
Because we have schools, hospitals, national defence, police, roads, bridges and libraries. And we have rights and legal protection, we have a government that cares for our elderly and looks after those who our capitalism leaves behind, with housing and financial support.
Secondly, I make the argument from democracy. I believe that it is the right of the community to decide on what to tax people, and that, accordingly, people should pay as much tax, however it is levied, as has been voted upon; providing that they have the physical capacity to do so.
Secondly, yes. Which is why we're all here. The point is that it may not be Labour's choice in the not too distant future. We are here to debate why it should remain so.
Osborne quoted Hayek, his book "The Constitution of Liberty" is an excellent book, Thatcher famously thumped it onto the Cabinet table and said "This is what we believe." Hayek had to publish an epilogue for future editions titled "Why I am not a Conservative."
So perhaps quoting Hayek shouldn't draw such bile?
Stephen McCrossan also makes a very valid point, if Labour is the true party of equality, why the animosity to Cameron through no fault of his birth? Indeed, for a man that's worth a quite a few million, he could very easily sit back and not get involved in public life.
The fact he does and it would seem has something interesting to offer should be commended.
Instead, it's a litany of "Toff go home". Cameron's had a world class education, he wants to take on what becomes the most unpopular job in the country; eventually he's going to lose after all.
As for Labour's invective about Thatcher, the country had already been bankrupted by Labour in 1976, the fact they did not call an immediate election, hung on to power made the imbalances in the economy much, much worse. Labour might rail against Thatcher but Labour has to be honest that it was completely culpable in her election to power.
Cause and effect.
We are now faced with a similar problem, Labour has again putting this country onto a path of bankruptcy. We are witnessing the dumping of Sterling because the very people Labour settling with for Clause 4 are now making their opinion of Labour's stewardship of the economy very clear.
Labour now, like Labour in 1976 is going to try and print money to inflate the debt away.
The consequences are very simple, Labour will again give the Tories the backing they need from the electorate for another Thatcherite dose of medicine.
Until 1997, political parties operate according the mandate from the British people.
Labour cannot and has never provided the means or language to encourage, develop and get the best from everyone, rich or poor, white or brown.
Most tellingly of all is this quote from David Milliband: "unless government is on your side you end up on your own."
And that is Labour's problem, it doesn't trust the people to make the right choices for them that may fly in the face of government. It doesn't trust the people to adjust their choices if they are in the wrong because Labour deplores that part of civil duty where a judgement of morality is required.
Labour have never and will never offer a moral compass and as such, it speaks of rights given unilaterally without responsibilities. It may speak of values without any moral principle or conviction will never understand the worth of any of them. As such, it will never govern as one nation.
When Brown invited Mrs Thatcher to tea, he was a conviction politician. Really?
To Labour it will always be a 'struggle' pitching "have's" against "have nots", the "rich" against the "poor." No-one else's help, charity or assistence can ever be as good as government. Labour's problem is endless tweaking of our social makeup, creating minorities for the ends to justify the means of Labour's own existence not the needs of the country.
Yet without a moral compass, it is in effect pitching all the ingredients into the blender without the recipe book.
Thatcher was a grocer's shop girl made good who ended up running the country and took us from bankruptcy to prosperity; exposed the post war socialist settlement as the sham it was and put the people back in charge of their lives. I know the vast majority of the British people are grateful to her for that.
So why does Cameron scare Labour so?
I would agree, Cameron like many people is Thatcherite, the idea that people can be trusted to do the right thing and understand their rights come with responsibilities. That makes me a Thatcherite.
Well, that's enough for the die-hards then, whack a Labour rosette on a seaside donkey and I'll vote for it.
What really scares Labour is Cameron seeks to take the social reforms Labour promised to implement and actually implement them, he will break up the government hegemony on social provision. The Centre for Social Justice possess a formidable array of policy ideas based on hard data and endless experience and research.
Just as Thatcher destroyed the socialist economic argument (as Brown as sought to re-invent it and fail), Cameron is going to destroy the left wing social argument.
And where Labour fails in its civic duty, the Conservatives will not, their social reforms will be driven through by a progressive moral compass.
Labour Keynesian economic policy was thought to have died in 1979, only to be arouse from coma in 2008. It won't live long.
Labour social policy is about to go the same way.
Where does that leave the Labour Party?
And do you really think Keynsianism is on the international backburner?
There is no separation between society and the economy. Krugman himself will be the first to admit that a solely Keynesian economic recovery plan would not achieve its aim.
Labour is quick to latch onto Obama's 'fiscal stimulus' but is deaf to serious cuts in government spending (as Obama campaigned on) and also serious tax cuts (as Obama campaigned on).
That is not purely Keynesian economics, I suggest Tom you read Jim Callaghan's comments on a purely Keynesian economic policyto tackle the problems of the late 1970s.
Labour like to use the quote "There is no such thing as society" that Thatcher did say but out of context.
'Society' is not a collective group, you cannot blame society, you cannot rely on society. Thatcher's point was Government is not a synthetic substitute, yet, under Labour administration has sought exactly to be such.
Thatcher alludes to society is made up of people, individuals, NGOs (charities, businesses, religious organisations) then government. Government role is as influencer not controller, not as a stifle to innovation, entrepreneurship and liberty but to encourage, nuture and defend it.
Backed by an economy funded not by excessive credit but sound money.
The economy is not mutually exclusive to 'society' rather it is made up of members of society as millions of micro-economic consumers and producers. Each of these consumer/producers making hundreds of economic decisions a day.
Hayek, Von Mises and Friedman acknowledge this, that from this chaos is real liberty and freedom. Conservative policy was to institute with this that with this economic liberty and rights come responsibilities.
As I said earlier, Labour have struggled to accept that society is beyond their influence, an economy can be guided but onto completely controlled.
For an authoritarian government like Labour and for a micro-manager like Gordon Brown; finally this crashing realisation is all too obvious to see.
Conservative politics understand this. Labour politics does not.
Gary, if the world has changed since the 1970s?
Why does this country find itself with a Labour government in charge, with an appalling level of debt, a severe recession, bankruptcies, higher unemployment?
Is the country facing bankruptcy? I personally reckon the Eurozone will go first (either Portugal, Italy, Greece or Spain or combinations of) but if the Germans can't sell government bonds, what chance has the UK got?
Maybe Labour is going to break its own record and exceed 8% GDP borrowing. Major left office with 4% GDP debts, Labour is heading towards 8% now and 12% when it's finished.
Have you seen the £:$ or Euro. That's what the world thinks of our short-term economic chances.
And if this government has really learned its lessons from the 1970s.. why is printing money a distinct possibility?
Lastly, any government can unleash the taps of credit and boom the economy; like a drunk gambler they can play the high-roller tables.
However, there is always a day of reckoning and this is ours.
And times are tough?
There are more people out of work now than when Labour took office.
We have higher debts now than when Labour took office.
The pain didn't come from America, it is of this governments own making.
As we all love Keynes so much, Keynes said you build up reserves in the good times and spend them in the bad times.
Quite.
The world has changed Mike since the 70’s for Labour and no longer is the arguments that dominated that period reflected in the Labour Party now.
Right or wrong, but to say the country is facing bankruptcy is just not the case. What we are seeing is a reduction of wealth in the economy but not it’s any collapse.
If the banks had gone yes, but the government saved them with bold action, they saw the risks while others buried their heads in the sand panicking about what they could not say:
This country had over a decade of growth; it has lower debts then those it inherited under Major. Yes they gone up now due to the recession but global problems call for big solutions.
Times will be tough for some but it is not the case that in 6 months to a year that the economy could start to pick up again.
Too many commentators add to the problems by talking down the economy, they do so for panic of their friends; Cameron however does it for his own gain.
There will always be difficult times for governments and global recession certainly is one of them. But it is not who shouts the loudest but who takes the actions that matter.
Who is minimising potential pain and who has solutions that keep people afloat that matter to people?
Cameron has shown no ability to think of practical steps to help people directly and that mistake it will be remembered.
The Labour party is strong; it is renewed and up for the fight of pointing out while warm words from Cameron are spoken there is nothing behind them.
Things are tough but that's even more reason why the public need to have a Government on their side instead of one only interested in the top 5% of the country?
If someone decides not to steal my wallet if I'm lying dying in the gutter, that's not quite the same as them giving me my wallet.
The money isn't taken from the dead who have no use for it, but is a tax on money being passed from generation to generation, and as such is unearned income.
If I decide not to steal a bar of chocolate from my newsagents, thats not the same as giving the newsagent a bar of chocolate.
You may have a point that the government has a 'right' to tax unearned income, but then surely the point here is that the Tories still believe in that 'right', but just want the tax to be a little bit less.
I dont buy the basic principle for inheritance tax. I think it should be 0%.
Martin Kettle is rapidly loosing the plot if he really believes Cameron is progressive, he would do better to look at a picture of Margaret Thatcher next to Cameron as if he looks hard he will see there is no difference at all.
Far from being progressive the Tories under Cameron want to take us back to failed Thatcher policies of the 80's...
Mr Kettle really needs to have a closer look at his new found support as it will not win much support from those that know the real Tory agenda.
For him even to write it suggests he's blinded by Tory spin being used to hide substance.
I think one of the things which showed how far things have changed was when the Member for Bolsover stood and launched his tirade at the Tory fat cat bankers during PMQs on Wednesday. Had he been speaking 25 years ago, he would have been spot on the money, but in todays world some of these bankers are much more allied to the Labour benches than Tory, indeed some act as advisers and the recipients of the odd Knighthood or honour from Labour.
Its the relationship of the top tier of labour to the financial, media and broadcast sectors that takes the sting out of attacks at the tories at being the party of the privileged because so many in the labour ranks enjoy similar positions in society, money and lifestyles.
Indeed, Labours position as a party supportive of equality should preclude it from making personal attacks on someone based purely on which school they went to. I'd be no more concerned about half the cabinet being from Eton as I would if half were Scottish, or half came from a comprehensive.
We will only move, however slowly, towards a classless, non-deferential, open and meritocratic society under Labour, with all its imperfections.
President Obama quoted from Tom Paine at the end of his Inauguration speech. I finish with another quote from the same Paine article :
And what is a tory? Every Tory is a coward; for a servile, slavish,self-interested fear is the foundation of toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave.
That was written over 200 years ago. Plus ca change...
Like many on the Left he makes a false choice between spending ever increasing sums of tax-payers money with improvements in public services; I would like to know what is an "appropriate" amount of money to spend on Health, for example? For every extra doctor and nurse employed we have two jobsworth "coordinators" to process data and make sure that all the targets beloved of this administration are met. Ask any medical practitioner in the NHS and they will tell you that political imperatives have precedence over clinical judgements.
Trying to resurrect a class war by labelling Tories as just a bunch of Old Etonians is not only infantile but a turn off for the voters, as the good people of Crewe will testify. After their assault on our civil liberties I would never ever vote Labour. But, never mind, you wrap yourself up in your cosy blanket of prejudices and wait until we reach a classless, non-deferential society; I think that's what Kim Il Sung says about N Korea.
Oh, and by the way, the economy is now in recession thanks to the policies of our PM and erstwhile Chancellor. I must admit to a sense of deja vu: the last time a Labour administration ruined the economy Harold Wilson and Jim Callaghan blamed the "Gnomes of Zurich"; this time it's American bankers.
It is the case - I have worked in education most of my adult life - that the last ten years have seen a dramatic improvement in the fabric of our schools and ever-improving standards. The equation is quite simple. If money isn't spent on school buildings etc. then they decline, and that was the case under 18 years of Tory government. Labour has spent money on schools, and they have improved dramatically. The same applies to the Health Service, transport infrastructure and so on. Any householder knows that the longer you put off doing essential repairs, the more you will have to spend in the long run. That was the position Labour inherited.
Finally, as far as blaming bankers is concerned, President Obama did just that in his inauguration speech, but perhaps you rejected what he said too?
Err! Haven't quite a few of the Labour front bench team, also sent their children to Private Schools?
"Every Tory is a coward; for a servile, slavish,self-interested fear is the foundation of toryism; and a man under such influence, though he may be cruel, never can be brave"
Err! Clearly Peter, your school (whether private or public)has failed to teach you you tolerance and understanding. As a nation, I thought we had progressed beyond stereotyping whole sections of our society. Clearly not.
"We will only move, however slowly, towards a classless, non-deferential, open and meritocratic society under Labour"
I don't think any single party has all the answers, Peter. In what way for example, are the Lib-Dems not progressive? Or the Greens? Or the Nationalists?
of children in this country go to state schools, and my point is that until all our frontbenchers set an example and send their children to state schools - most of which are doing a great job, often in very difficult circumstances, the divide between state and private will remain, and the myth of private being better than state will continue to be promulgated.
As far as your response to the quote from Tom Paine is concerned, I'm not sure what you are disagreeing with.Surely the basis of conservatism is to conserve, to hang on to what you have got, to fear change because it might disadvantage you even whilst improving the condition of others.As the academic Andrew Gamble argued in his book 'The Conservative Nation',we fear change and would rather keep things as they are even if that means retaining inequalities.
As far as your comments regarding my wish to see us move more steadily towards a classless, non-deferential,open, meritocratic society are concerned, you seem to be saying that only societies such as North Korea aspire to such ideals. I would say that most democracies aspire to these ideals. The alternative is social stagnation or worse. Many EU countries are much more socially progressive than we are.
I would welcome an alliance with progressives of all kinds. I don't believe that the principles of conservatism are progressive, and I believe nationalism to be dangerous and backward looking, a force which has invariably led to conflict.
I wouldn't describe the nationalism of Plaid Cymru or the SNP as dangerous. There not the BNP! Both PC & SNP are more pro-european in their outlook than New Labour.
As for Private Health Insurance and Education. I take your point (public Transport would certainly be better if MPs were forced to use and pay for it) but I'm not too sure if it would be legal (EU Law) to abolish Private Health Insurance and Private schools. Although, I suppose you could always remove the tax subsidy, but that would really only hurt the middle classes. The rich and ruling elite would carry on as before; albeit with higher school-fees etc...
As for the Tom Paine quote. In its historical context it is fine, but to translate it to today is a little insulting. I'll wager taht not EVERY Tory voter (or even party member) is a coward. Nor are they necessarilly self-serving. Had it not occured to you that they might actually believe in trickle-down economics! As I said, politics is rarely black and white, good vs evil. That's the problem with tribal political atmosphere as practised in Britain.