Greg Clark MP and Jeremy Hunt MP: Conservatives are today's progressives

Shadow Cabinet Office minister Greg Clark MP and Shadow Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt MP summarise the arguments of their new paper: 'Who's progressive now?'

ConservativeHome warmly welcomes this publication.  Principle one of our manifesto is the idea that the centre right is now the home of progressive politics.  Earlier this year we editorialised in favour of a greater emphasis on the issues that Dr Clark and Mr Hunt now champion so eloquently.

Download a PDF of the paper here.

For too long, Conservatives have allowed our values to be denigrated by our opponents.   Too often we have not challenged the Left's assumption that its motives are more noble than our own.  Nowhere is this more apparent than the use of the word 'progressive', which has become a synonym for left-of-centre values.

Yet throughout the history of British politics, the Conservative Party has regularly been the progressive party – the party of reform, the party that confronted vested interests and championed the disempowered, the party that was oriented towards the future rather than to yearning for the past, the party that was impatient rather than complacent, the party that was ambitious for what it could achieve for the country, rather than defensive in its management of decline.

In our pamphlet we describe six dimensions that, taken together, convey the essence of progressive politics:

• an idealism that the world can be a better place in the future than it is today
• a suspicion of uniformity and a respect for diversity
• an active concern for position of the least fortunate
• an antipathy to unmerited hierarchies
• a concern for non-material as well as financial goals 
• a sense of responsibility for the future, including the notion that we have duties beyond our own lifespan

Far from belonging to the Left, these progressive principles are a virtual statement of the values that are driving the Conservative Party.

Of course, it would be foolish to pretend that these values are not shared by other progressives in British politics. But a party of government should be assessed on its record of delivery. How progressive has Labour actually been?

It had a promising start. Independence for the Bank of England, devolution, reform of the House of Lords, the creation of a Department for International Development, a Freedom of Information Act – all demonstrated an early belief that the institutions that shape Britain could be changed and improved.

We have become a more open country, with much greater tolerance of diverse lifestyles and cultures, whether relating to homosexuality, disability or ethnic minorities.

But in important ways Labour has actually been remarkably intolerant of diversity. No one could describe the Racial and Religious Hatred Act as originally drafted as anything other than illiberal.

A centralised, top-down approach to government imposes uniformity over diversity.   Yet in education, health and local government, the Government has increasingly specified from the centre not only an extensive system of targets which schools, NHS bodies and local councils have been required to achieve, but has typically specified how it expects local institutions to operate.

No progressive expects people to know their place.  On the contrary, the dismantling of economic and social structures that have held people back unfairly has long been one of the most powerful motivations of a progressive temperament.

Yet social mobility in Britain today is lower than it was a generation ago – and lower than in almost all other European countries.   As the health Secretary Alan Johnson said: " It is actually getting harder for people … to leave the income group, professional body or social circle of their parents".

Not all of the blame for the decline in social mobility rests with Labour.   But after ten years of it getting worse, where is Labour's strategy to address the problem?

Labour's poverty-fighting strategy has run into the sand.  Child poverty is rising again and there are 600,000 more people in severe poverty today than when Labour came to power. Labour's central view of poverty – that poverty is earning less than 60% of the national median income – has been narrowly and specifically financial.   It has been the Conservatives, under Iain Duncan Smith, who have been leading the argument for a more humane and holistic view of the causes of poverty, which is essential to finding solutions.

So what is the scorecard on Labour's 10 years as a "progressive government"? Good intentions, countless strategies, huge allocation of resources…but extraordinarily disappointing results.

Tony Blair once predicted that this would be the Progressive Century. He was right, but it's increasingly clear that Labour won't deliver it.   It's time for Conservatives to stop cringing before the slanders of our enemies and instead stand up to claim the progressive banner as our own. 

Comments

[bluepatriot]

Very good piece. The way to reach many younger voters is the language of idealism. Cameron's passion on climate change and Iain Duncan Smith's social justice mission are the most substantial themes of the progressive conservatism.

[Bexie]

The base problem with nuLab is that at its heart is the marxist ideology that "experts" can define our lives, which can then be regulated to conform. This is the nightmare vision as portrayed in Brave New World, Farenheight 451 and Equilibrum.

In their world, the leader is the ultimate arbitrator of the authority, advised by "experts" who can define what is best for us all, and implemented through strict legislation and policing.

These experts frequently turn out to be wrong.

In the 50's Doctors advocated smoking for stress.
Doctors cannot agree on the correct "dangerous" levels of alchohol consumption and admit the published figures were a wild guess. They do not even want to discuss the differences in tolerance between different communities.
There is no real consensus on safe speed limits, after all what makes the Germans so different that they can pile down an autobahn at 150mph whilst the "road saftey partnership" removes our livlihood at 71mph?
The global warming issue may be agreed by the left wing media, that stands to gain so much, in the form of sinecures for their friends, yet even a former labour candidate ruled that Gore's piece was fundamentally flawed, and if you trawl the scientific community you find glaciers in Greenland growing, deep sea water cooling amongst any amount of other counter intuitive evidence (check CLS's Classically Liberal Blog for more.)

c.f
- the endless cameras on our motorways, despite the DTI's own figures showing that speed is attributable as a contributory factor only in as little as 7% of traffic incidents,

- the little Hitlers patrolling our pubs to make sure that despite free association of individuals with similar interest on private property, they are not being naughty and having a fag.

- The inspectors going round our houses to make sure that we comply with a set of legislation that even they dont understand, but with which they are happy to unleash costly order after order against us, and then squeeze us for ever more destructive property taxation.

If there is any clear blue water between the nuLab project and ourselves it is here. Conservatives have a general belief that the bounds should be set wide for people, to let them broadly decide for themselves what is good for them and what is bad. They tend towards localism, with more devolved power than centralised command economy. They lean towards consequence driven crime, not thought crime where someone "might" have been injured either emotionally or physically.

If there is a single theme that I have observed, it is that what was once called the "laissaiz fairre" is an underlying theme in conservatism, with the small c, where individuals are left to themselves until they adversly affect others, whereupon the community in the form of the magistrate arbitrates, and only escalates to the state in the form of open court in the event of irresolvable dispute or serious offense. If there is a cause then it is here, as was once championed in the 1970's as people railed against another failed Labour command economy government

[1AM]

I fundamentally disagree that progressive is good.

The Conservative party is not the party of change it is the party of reform. It opposes abstract nouns and "progressive" is just another one to add to the list, like 'liberty' or 'equality'.

Idealism is a dangerous thing. Wanting to improve the country is not idealistic. Wanting to reform it along a set of pre-arranged ideas is, and generally is a bad thing as often pragmatism and flexibility are thrown out of the window.

Iain Duncan Smith's work is fundamentally Conservative, grounded in 'One Nation' views and popular amongst people who see us as nasty and only for the rich.

The climate change agenda could be Conservative but is often hijacked by anti-capitalist 'idealists' with a deep loathing for modern society and is not popular - and Cameron should not go too far in pursuing it.

[Moral minority]

Greg Clark, as usual, writes perceptively and makes a good argument. I don't know Jeremy Hunt but he has my support in taking on the BBC. This report, sadly, is a typical example of outdated politics.

"Progressive" is a word that is used by the chattering classes, media and Westminster village. However, it means nothing to swing voters in marginal seats. Other words that should be avoided include diversity, cohesion, transparency and mobility.

The challenge for the Conservative Party to articulate its vision in language that is clear and easily understood. That is especially important for those not fluent in English. Conservatives must write and speak in simple and clear terms, e.g. use

clear not transparent
use not utilise
caring rather than compassionate
social not societal

Our target audience are readers of the Sun and Mail rather than the Independent and Guardian. Focus groups may derided by many in the Conservative Party. But they are very useful in testing whether voters understand our language, vision and policies.

Finally, these papers may be of interest to Westminster village but voters do not read them. Wonkish reports are too 20th Century - dead tree politics, even in pdf format. Look at the damage caused by the policy group reports. There were not official policy but the they were launched as such and caused much angst throughout the Party.

This is the century of blogs, Facebook, MySpace and YouTube. Guido Fawkes gets more hits than the parties' main websites! The Conservative Party should concentrate its efforts on campaigning, especially online. The "Tory Tosser" campaign was truly awful but we can do better.

It's time to change how we spread our message. That's the real change that we need to win. How about it Dave?

[CAWP]

I want no progressive nonsense. I am a Tory; we are reactionaries; there is nothing I should like better than to apply the brakes and bring this squalid, grasping, repulsive detour of our country to a shuddering halt.

We are not liberals (or indeed Liberals). We are to conserve - yes, to prune, as part of that, and that is as far as it should go - but above all we ride into the lists to defend and promote the ancient verities and loyalties, to keep back the blaggard of government from the freedom of individuals and families, and as far as possible to maintain righteousness and peace in the land.

Progressivism doesn't really describe what these people are interested in; Clark and Hunt are merely dealing with the problem of the word and its positive connotations by stealing it outright. Fair enough; but do not let us forget that it is the old things, and the good things, which stir us to reform; not reform itself.

[Tony Makara]

Being in opposition usually brings out the best in a political party. It creates a hunger that can often be lost in government. In classic Darwinian style the Conservative party has adapted to the circumstances of opposition and after ten years has returned lean and fit for the fight. Bringing fresh ideas and a progressive outlook to take into office as it did in 1979. Many will remember that around 78/79 James Callaghan said that the Conservative party back then was the most ideological that it had ever been and must be stopped. Of course what Mr Callaghan meant was that the party was at its most progressive, a party with a radical agenda to transform a nation that had lost its way. We have reached that stage again. Our nation has lost its way and need to be rebooted. Labour in office have become lazy, complacent, bloated on success. This has led to the Labour think-tank now being empty. Labour have nothing left to answer, the radical answers are coming from the conservative party. The party that will bring progressive change.

[Aethelbald, King of Wessex]

... throughout the history of British politics, the Conservative Party has regularly been the progressive party ... and championed the disempowered ...

It has also been quite the opposite:

1819: Tories enact repressive legislation after the Peterloo Massacre
1948:
"The Conservatives voted against the National Health Act, not only on the second but on the Third Reading. I do not see why we should forget this." - Aneurin Bevan

History is a long, long time. Perhaps it would be better to stick to the future?

[John Marsh]

John Gray is Professor of European Thought at LSE. In his recent book ‘Straw Dogs’, he wrote of the “unthinking beliefs of thinking people.” He went on, “To-day liberal humanism has the pervasive power that was once possessed by revealed religion. Humanists like to think they have a rational view of the world; but their core belief in progress is a superstition, further from the truth about the human animal than any of the world's religions. Outside of science, progress is a myth. Surely, they ask, no one can question the central article of faith of liberal societies? Without it, will we not despair? Like trembling Victorians terrified of losing their faith, these humanists cling to the moth-eaten brocade of progressive hope. Today’s religious believers are more freethinking, they have had to cultivate a capacity for doubt. In contrast, secular believers - held fast by the conventional wisdom of the time - are in the grip of unexamined dogmas…. The biblical allegory of the Fall of Man contains the forbidden truth. Knowledge does not make us free."

[Alex Swanson]

'much greater tolerance of diverse lifestyles and cultures'

Only respect for the editor prevents me from expressing my true feelings on this twaddle.

Try being a target shooter, you'll soon figure out how 'tolerant' any political party is.

[1AM]

Previously to this I had a lot of respect for both individuals who wrote this. However, to describe as a good thing the following list, "Independence for the Bank of England, devolution, reform of the House of Lords, the creation of a Department for International Development, a Freedom of Information Act", would be almost enough to make me vote for someone else, were I in their constituency.

Only one is good, (BOE independence), two are neither good nor bad (Creation of DFID, which solved some problems but created others, FOInformation, ditto), and finally two are outright disasters (devolution and the mess that is HOLords reform).

Quite frankly, if that is the opinion of our MPs, we might as well merge with the Liberal Democrats and I will happily abstain.

[Michael Rutherford]

... throughout the history of British politics, the Conservative Party has regularly been the progressive party ... and championed the disempowered ...

It has also been quite the opposite:

1819: Tories enact repressive legislation after the Peterloo Massacre
1948:
"The Conservatives voted against the National Health Act, not only on the second but on the Third Reading. I do not see why we should forget this." - Aneurin Bevan

History is a long, long time. Perhaps it would be better to stick to the future?"

An interesting choice of examples. In terms of the party opposing the National Health Act, surely the party soon recognised it was wrong to oppose it? Why else would it have supported the NHS since?

If we're talking about the Conservatives being the party that believes in crushing popular movements, how do you explain the Conservatives being the party that decriminalised the trade unions in 1875?

Would a "reactionary" party be the force behind the Representation of the People Acts of 1918 and 1928, giving the vote to all men and women over 21?

I'm sure you like the idea that the party is full of the type of people that sit in a world of their own thinking that no change can be good. But you're wrong.

[Moral minority]

John Gray represents everything that is wrong with academia. He used to be a classical liberal and free marketeer during the 1980s and early 80s. Then Blairism arrived and Gray suddenly became a believer in communitarianism and the Third Way. He was rewarded with his chair at the LSE, home of Anthony Giddens, Blair's Third Way guru.

Gray, prior to his appointment at the LSE, had written little if anything on "European Thought". He is a classic example of the academic who tailors his views to those of the current establishment. His former friends and colleagues at the IEA and other think tanks have a low opinion of his chameleon ways.

[John Marsh]

John Gray makes some excellent points against liberalism which is why he is disliked by some. He points out that two key liberal beliefs - the belief in human goodness and the belief in progress both require gigantic leaps of faith and ignorance of the abundant evidence of the last 100 years that human nature is not essentially good. Apart from science and technology the belief in progress is a myth. Why conservatives should be jumping on the liberal bandwagon just as the wheels are coming off I have no idea.

[David Sergeant]

I think we might be in danger of missing the point. Clark and Hunt started by pointing out the fact that the left have been able to paint the Conservative party as not "noble" while the left is and "progressive" is a much used word of the left. Their point is that the left has got away with it mainly because the Conservatives havn't fought their corner. Hence, this pamphlet, which demonstrates a pleasant change from the last 15 years when the Tory leadership said nothing while they, and their supporters, were called any old think the left thought damageing.

I would have thought that the problem with NuLab is that they are still socialists. They had to cover their actions with apropriate rightwing soundbites (surely we all remember in 1999 Brown lecturing Europe with Thatchite terms while he steadilly piled socialist type measures on industry)but their main intention is to make a form of socialism they can get away with work. I suspect that is why their spin has been so dishonest since they saw this as a last chance the show a form of socialism would work. Of course the end product is a disaster, socialism never works but it has no chance if the stated intentions are way off the actions.

[Aethelbald, King of Wessex]

Michael Rutherford said:

If we're talking about the Conservatives being the party that believes in crushing popular movements, how do you explain the Conservatives being the party that decriminalised the trade unions in 1875?

Really, I'm not. The Tories have as good a record as anyone, and I will probably vote for them next time. My beef is with the incautious enthusiasm of the piece that invited this curmudgeon to think of counter examples, such as the aforementioned Six Acts, Suez, and giving Israel the Bomb.

[Buckinghamshire Tory]

When one compare the Tories with Labour, it is obvious which party is truly progressive.
Few ideas are more reactionary than the belief that government, centralisation and regulation can be the answer to the challenges of today.

[Terry Clark]

Both Greg Clark (no relation) & Jeremy Hunt are equally as bad as the rest of the elected MPs in the House. They do not mention that corrupt organisation know as the EU. I am only prepared to vote for those who are PREPARED to try and do something and TALK about the EU. This means taking back the powers we want back even if we are thrown out of the EU.

[Duncan]

I agree with Terry Clark. The problem with this paper is that it doesn't mention the elephant in the room. Regardless of its other policies I shall never vote for a party that does no advocate immediate withdrawal from the EU.
PS I suggest that MP's salaries should be proportional to the amount of UK legislation they originate: at present this would give them about 20% of what they are currently paid to impose upon us unecessary laws originating from an undemocratic and corrupt body
Duncan

[John Winlow]

For me a Conservative is someone who believes in conserving the ethics, traditions and values that mark our historical development as a nation.

The dignity and value of the individual
The rights of the individual and their responsibilities to the rest of society.
Fair play. Justice. Honesty. Loyalty. Courage. Sacrifice.
A minimalist State which carries out its obligations to its citizens:-
Ensure the supply of public utilities and services
Defence
Law and Order-
Freedom of Speech.
A State which allows people the freedom to make their own decisions and enjoy the consequences thereof.
A strong (Christian) moral influence on Society, so that values are internalised, not externally enforced.

It may be idealistic, but anything else -including progressivism, leads us down the path to more State control and further erosion of the freedom and dignity of Humankind.
Unfortunately the tendency of Politicians is to look after themselves. They operate through soundbites and moral relativism. They make light of their responsibility to lead and set an example, whilst insisting on so much more from you and me.

[Matt Wright]

John, Lady Thatcher is regarded as archetypally a successful Conservative leader and was progressive in leading on economic reforms. Also politicans should insist that people take on more responsibilities rather than become dependent on the state. Conservatism is not solely about preserving the past. Its much more. If we ever became so backward looking we would deserve to lose elections.

[Revd Dennis Nadin]

Its true that many of our problems like education and health cannot be solved by just throwing money at them. However in the case of Poverty, that is indeed what is needed when wealth and resources are concentrated in the hands of a small percentage of our people. What the poor need is more money so that they can have the same choices as the rich. Today everything has a price - rather than a value. Yet where is the Conservative commitment to a radical redistribution of wealth? When I see this happening I may believe the Conservatives have changed.