Max Wind-Cowie: Boys will be boys

Max Wind-Cowie is Head of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos.  Follow Max on Twitter.

Are men a political issue? Diane Abbott certainly thinks so. In a speech to the think tank Demos (where I work) she claimed yesterday that masculinity is 'in crisis' in modern Britain and that this has implications for politicians and policy makers. Now I'm not given to agreeing with Diane Abbott but, on this, I think she raises an important and interesting set of questions - even if, sometimes, it feels as though she's not so much concerned about men as appalled by them.

It is true that being a modern man is less than straightforward. Why, for instance, are men far more likely to kill themselves, and more likely to die of preventable and treatable cancers, than are their wives, sisters and mothers? Why are boys increasingly outperformed at school and in work by their female peers? Why are modern men so prone to stress, depression and mental health problems, and yet so much less likely than women to seek the help they might need?

Young men in Britain are exposed to a bewildering set of expectations and influences, some ancient and some modern. Sexual norms may be slowly but significantly changed by access to vast, niche and sometimes extreme pornography. The 'provider' role, for so long core to male self-image, has been undermined for many men by the feminisation of the workplace (both in personnel and in character). The 'Superdad' demands placed on the modern, feminist father - caring and chore-sharing but also hard working and earning - makes for a life that is bewildering, full and plagued by contradictions for many men. Having a Y chromosome is no longer the personal and professional advantage that it once, undoubtedly, was.

Much of this is to the good. Who, but the most vehemently reactionary amongst us, would want to kick women out of the workplace? Who, but the most hopelessly optimistic, believes that we will so rapidly and effectively replace our devastated manufacturing base that it will match the more feminised and booming service sector? Who, except for those of us prone to reckless authoritarianism, would argue that we can eliminate online porn and return young men to an age of supposed sexual innocence.

Max Wind-Cowie: Those in favour of gay marriage should show tolerance towards those opposed

Max Wind-Cowie is Head of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos.

I support gay marriage. Not because I think it’s somehow my ‘right’ to get married but because in a society that tolerates the practice of homosexuality and expects people to approve of and accept homosexual relationships, those relationships should have the same burden of responsibility, sanctity and commitment as heterosexual ones. But I don’t want to write about why people like me should be able to get married – I’ve done that before – I want to write about why we should be behaving with considerably more modesty, compassion and understanding than we currently are.

The hatred and scorn poured onto Catholic clergy and congregations on this issue has shaken my support for gay marriage to its core. I want to support it, I believe in it, but the behavior of my peers has almost turned me against it. Why? Because the gay rights lobby – and its vociferous friends in the more militant ranks of Britain’s secularists – has demonstrated the very intolerance, demonisation and bigotry that gay people rightly decry when it’s directed at us.

Terry Sanderson, of the National Secular Society, has accused Catholics of being “responsible for increasing homophobia. They've got permission from the church for bigotry.” Whilst Lynne Featherstone, the Government Minister responsible for equality, termed opponents of same sex marriage “bigots” and claimed that they are “living in the stone ages”. Even nastier – and wholly unjustified – have been those that have used the tragedy of historic child abuse cases within the clergy to justify an attempt to silence the Church on any issue of sexual morality. Kevin Crowe – a man who left the Priesthood to pursue a gay relationship – attacked Cardinal O’Brien’s stance of gay marriage by arguing “It’s a pity our church leaders did not put half as much effort into stopping child abuse as they do in condemning loving, stable and consensual adult relationships.” And that is at the more temperate end of the scale – I can’t bring myself to reproduce some of the most vicious tweets and blogs on the matter.

Max Wind-Cowie: There is such a thing as the deserving and undeserving poor

Max Wind-Cowie is Head of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos.

When the Archbishop of Canterbury waded into the debate on welfare he did so from a Leftwing perspective.  It may or may not be that it was also a Christian perspective – that’s not for me to judge – but it was certainly the language of the old-fashioned Left that he used to denounce the ‘quiet resurgence of the seductive language of "deserving" and "undeserving" poor’.  And it was that self-same language that Iain Duncan Smith used to defend himself in his riposte – ‘With respect to the Archbishop of Canterbury I have never ever spoken about the deserving or undeserving poor. I don’t believe in that concept.’  Despite Tim’s efforts to explain that notions of desert are crucial to reforming welfare, still it seems that the Archbishop and the Secretary of State would both rather pretend that there is no such thing.

The trouble is they’re both very, very wrong.  There is such a thing as the ‘deserving poor’ and we’d be serving them a whole lot better if we had the gumption to admit it.

It’s not just Tory policy wonks like me who believe some people deserve our help more than others – it’s what counts as common sense out there in the real world.  I recently published a report – Of Mutual Benefit – that argued we should be rewarding those who, through insurance, protect themselves from unemployment and lessen their risk to taxpayers.  In researching the report we ran focus groups with medium earners (Ed Miliband’s much maligned ‘squeezed middle’) to try and get a grip on what they thought the benefits system is there for.  And guess what?  They have no problem discerning between those who deserve taxpayer support and those who do not.

Max Wind-Cowie: The dishonesty of AV supporters over how their electoral system encourages candidates to pander to BNP voters

Max Wind-Cowie is Head of the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos.

Sayeeda Warsi’s claim, in a speech yesterday, that a switch to AV would empower the BNP has met with a swift and hysterical response from AV supporters. Chris Huhne - Baroness Warsi's colleague in the Coalition Cabinet – has accused her of 'Goebbels-like propaganda' and the Yes campaign is busy asserting to anyone who’ll listen (an increasingly small number of people) that AV would, in fact, make life harder for the BNP. 

So, what's the truth about the impact of AV on the character of British politics? 

Well I’m no expert – so I can only really go on what the pro-AV campaign told me themselves. I was recently invited, along with a number of progressive conservative writers, policy analysts and think-tankers to a meeting at the official AV campaign HQ to be briefed on why we should support AV.  I made it clear, along with other attendees, at the beginning of the meeting that I was as-yet undecided (a state of limbo I can happily report that I’ve emerged from subsequently). 

Present was a former Parliamentary Candidate who was there to urge us to support change and to explain why AV would be of benefit to us all.  She told us, in no uncertain terms, that she was supporting AV in part because she knew that, had she been able to pick up second preferences from BNP supporters by communicating to them her support for elements of their platform, she would have won her seat. 

Max Wind-Cowie: The EU Budget row demonstrates the need for reform of the Foreign Office and how senior diplomats are appointed

Max Wind-Cowie is a researcher at Demos, where he works on the Progressive Conservatism Project.

David Cameron’s ‘spectacular success’ in negotiating down the proposed EU budget increase – from 6% to 2.9% - exists only in the eye of the beholder.  Certainly Brussels’ bureaucrats will have less pork to barrel than they’d hoped.  But, to even the most Europhile observer, extra funding in this time of austerity smacks of odd priorities and special treatment. So, did we triumph or were we once more outsmarted by the Eurocrats?

The truth is neither. This wasn’t the victory Cameron spun but nor was it the outright defeat many Conservatives are mourning.  It was a diplomatic fudge of the kind that Britain has come to specialise in – a ‘score-draw’ rather than an outright win.

Of course, Cameron ought to be used to this scenario by now.  His trip to the US earlier this year brought success in terms of face-time with the POTUS but also an embarrassing about-face.  He was forced to change his mind on whether or not he would meet with senior US Senators to discuss the tangled web of interests at the heart of the al-Megrahi release.  It was right that he met the Senators – like it is right that he forced downward the proposed EU budget increase – but the way in which Britain acts on the world stage can appear slap-dash and reactive and this limits the ability of the Government to achieve its international objectives.   Our diplomatic endeavours are structured to fail; real and urgent reform could improve our standing in the world and place more global influence in the hands of our politicians.

The fault is not with Cameron or with William Hague – both of whom are genuinely persuasive communicators - nor is it really the fault of the Coalition: Britain’s lack of international diplomatic projection is an issue that has long plagued governments of every stripe.  At the heart of the problem is not politicians who come and go but the institution that stays the same – the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

Max Wind-Cowie: Equality shouldn’t be a dirty word for Conservatives

Max Wind-Cowie is a researcher at Demos, where he works on the Progressive Conservatism Project.

OK, don’t skip to the bottom to denounce me as an unhelpful pinko just yet – hear me out.  I used to believe that inequality was, possibly, the least important issue a government could concern itself with.  Thatcher’s last stand at the Despatch Box, and her swift dismissal of complaints from Simon Hughes and others about the gap between rich and poor, informed my view of this issue – that it simply wasn’t an issue at all.

But I have changed my mind and I now believe that conservatives need to revisit the equality debate.  It’s not that I’ve succumbed to a lefty concern for the fairness of the thing, I haven’t; it’s that it has become clear - in light of a great deal of evidence - that rampant inequality does damage to conservative values.  I am a conservative because I believe in the traditions, institutions and heritage that bind our country together; because I respect the law and favour order; because I believe that while the state is one tool for achieving social justice it is neither the only, nor the best. 

These virtues are actively damaged in our society by the massive and unjustified inequalities that people see around them everyday.  What is more, none of these conservative beliefs mean that we are necessarily predisposed to admiring or desiring an unequal society – they just mean that we have a different view of how entrenched inequality should be combated.

As I discovered whilst writing my recent pamphlet for the Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos, Everyday Equality, there are real community problems that arise when inequalities go utterly unchecked.  Crime and anti-social behaviour occur at a higher rate in communities that are unequal (greater even than in communities that are simply poor or deprived), volunteering is less frequent and less embedded and political and community engagement are muted.  The reality is that very unequal communities are simply less conservative – less community spirited, law abiding and democratically involved – than equal ones.

This has profound affects on the ability of the Conservative Party to deliver its agenda.  A Britain in which communities look after themselves, people engage and are enthused by the localist agenda and empowered neighbourhoods check anti-social behaviour is more difficult to establish in a Britain that ignores the corrosive effect of everyday inequalities on those very communities. 

Jonty Olliff-Cooper & Max Wind-Cowie: There is nothing incompatible about progressive ends and conservative means

Jonty Olliff-Cooper & Max Wind-Cowie of The Progressive Conservatism Project at the think tank Demos argue that conservatives make the best progressives, and vice versa.

Politics is about actions and about ends – not one or the other in isolation.  In his thought-provoking recebt piece for ConservativeHome, Michael Merrick questioned the role for progressivism in the Conservative Party.  He argued that ‘if all parties essentially agree on their vision of the ideal ends for society, then what makes the Conservative Party so different?’ and went on to argue that it is not enough to simply differ on the means for delivering a commonly held goal – that conservatism should defend different goals to the Left entirely.

To some extent we agree with Michael Merrick’s argument.  We do differ on the ends we are pursuing to the Left. It is true that conservatives have a different view of the ‘good life’; that we cling to principles that the Left has abandoned; and decry values that they hold dear.  However, being a progressive does not undermine one’s conservatism – rather, it enhances it.

The Progressive Conservative Project at Demos is committed to developing bold, practical policies that are both strongly progressive and deeply conservative.  Yes, as Merrick suggests, part of what sets us apart from Labour is means – the ‘how’, not ‘what’.  Conservatives understand the limitations of government and trust the vitality of the private and third sector.  We prioritise individual freedom and choice.  We distrust radical change for change’s sake – in doing so we acknowledge the role of civil society in shaping the ‘good life’ for the many.

But more than that, the distinction between how and what is arbitrary. Means often are ends.  Take Michael Gove’s exciting education policies for example.  Certainly, they aim for a progressive outcome: a good and free education for all; and it is an outcome Ed Balls claims to share too. But that does not mean that the policies are vapid, or cannot be uniquely conservative; nor that the means chosen – Swedish schools – are just a bland technocratic lever. In fact, the means chosen will themselves have a positive outcome: getting parents involved in shaping schools will not only drive up standards (the end), but will also create a precious sense of community, activism and power along the way too. So we do not have to fret so much if Labour happens to want to get to the same place by a different route. The argument is not just about efficiency or competence. This policy will deliver progressive ends through conservative means but will change society in a profoundly conservative way as well.