Changing The Debate: The New Ideas Defining Britain - A Review Of ResPublica's Latest Essay Collection

Are the tectonic plates shifting in British politics? Not necessarily, but there are new perspectives and opportunities opening up. By nature I am tribal rather than a plural in my outlook. However, I increasingly appreciate different traditions, as my views mature I feel a re-defining of my political stance. We must not allow ideology or political allegiance to be a straightjacket that limits truth and the articulation of Kingdom values.

In this light, I view with interest the latest collection of essays from Respublica entitled ‘Changing the debate – the new ideas re-defining Britain’. This can be bought as one copy, but rather generously (or astutely) it is being released, essay by essay.

Entitling the essays ‘Changing the debate’ might sound a little strident or presumptuous, yet what are think-tanks in business for but to shape thinking and consensus? It has to be said, we desperately, need fresh thinking and fresh ideas. Furthermore, existing concepts such as ‘The Big Society’ and the ‘Good Society’ need urgent detailed definition. Without clarity and tangible, practical examples they could fall under the deadweight of the knee-jerk critics.

The debate – and terms of the debate - needs to change and it needs policy ideas rooted in political theology. We need to change the debate from a dull as ditch-water, shallow liberalism to a radical understanding of virtue and the common good. This is an enterprise that needs to be enjoined by all people of good faith, across the political spectrum.

In this spirit, I am inclined to welcome this collection of essays designed I presume to be read on the beach, in the Greek taverna, the Peak District, the Cornish fishing village at the height of the summer of 2011. Or in my case waiting in South-East London for baby Geary number two to make her or his entrance into the world.

In ‘A new Political Settlement’ Phillip Blond introduces the essay collection stating:

‘Perhaps for the first time in thirty years politics is changing. The old orthodoxies of left and right are still dominant, but they are no longer hegemonic. Beneath the surface the tectonic plates are shifting; boundaries are blurring, and ideologies are returning to first principles, creating a new terrain that is slowly beginning to emerge.’

To me seeking a radical new ‘centre-ground’ sounds like re-inventing the SDP, which we don’t require. However I am not sure Blond is after that.

Much of what Blond is calling for might chime with a Christian Socialist vision e.g. talking about economics, values and wellbeing. On the subject of power and economic localism he calls for a break up of the banks. I do agree we need to challenge the ‘historic dominance of the City of London’. Yes, this should be part of Labour’s, historic agenda.

Furthermore, Blond affirms Intermediate institutions and associational traditions. I agree this has to mean Trade Unions and much more of course within this space. He proceeds to underline the importance of education, skills and welfare; highlighting the requirement for a new approach to the public sector with reference to co-operative influence, mutualism and social entrepreneurship.

Perhaps reflecting Blond’s civic Toryism he flags up ‘Localism’ and the objective of putting power back in the hands of the people. This is important, for Labour needs to re-visit localism and break with some it its statist traditions.

Importantly and drawing on his training as a Theologian, Blond reminds the reader of the need for cultivation of character and civic virtue. This is a key point to understanding the malaise we now face. What connects the banks debacle, expenses furore, Hackgate and the English riots? I would submit that it might be the collapse of or exposure of a lack of virtue in key areas of public life. Blond is clear on this point we need to move on from the old rigid orthodoxies, framed by the secular centuries.

‘After all, in any project to renew society, the social must come first. In this regard, association and gift exchange is the true foundation of politics and economics; a recognition deepened and extended by ResPublica Fellow Professor John Milbank who leads us beyond the sterile debate between ‘left’ and ‘right’, proffering instead an alternative political language and space for human realisation.’

In signing off his introductory essay Blond advises us that ‘The possibility for serious and transformational debate is now with us; it should be welcomed and continued.’

Hear, Hear.

The collection hosts a plethora of essays that cover the aforementioned themes. I do not want to cover all of them and ruin your fun or bore you into submission but briefly survey a few.

In ‘A turning point’ by CLG Minister Greg Clark MP the case is made for de-centralisation and handing more power to local Government. This question is a real challenge to Labour or elements of the party. It would take a bold Conservative led-coalition to really see through what Clark suggests. Remember the experience of the Thatcher administration and Labour led local authorities? That said, we need to consider this challenge and radically review our long held assumptions about the primacy of state power and legislating all the time. Clark may be right, we possibly are at a turning point and only time will tell.

The question of mutualism in the new political settlement is covered by Ed Mayo in his essay ‘Co-operative or not?’’. He infers that the mutual model is central to forging a new political economy.

‘The economic context has breathed life into debates on the role of the state and on the limits of the state. It has also opened up interest in different models of markets and of capitalism – with an interest in how to marry resilience and sustainability alongside enterprise and innovation. It is in this context that the role of co-operatives and mutuals has emerged as a central theme of economic philosophy and political strategy’

I would ask if the economic context really has presaged these new debates. I am not sure, however it facilitates a space for fresh philosophies or previously discarded perspectives to flourish. Which is why a renewed public theology is needed to speak into these tired debates?

This paper gets a little technocratic, focussing on the nuts and bolts of cop-operatives but he clearly has an important story to tell.

In ‘Character, civic virtue and the Big Society’, Rowan Williams reflects on the ‘Big Society’ debate, indicating that it ‘represents an extraordinary opportunity.’ This suggests that the lack of definition has fed cynicism surrounding the notion, not aided by cuts designed to reduce the deficit.

Yet, re-defining the boundaries of the state, market and civic society are insufficient. Williams infers that there is a growing recognition of the need for a language of character and virtue to find a constructive place in society.

‘….the connection between 'Big Society' language and those institutions that still prize and try to nourish character, above all the communities of faith, and very specifically – I make no apology for foregrounding this – the sometimes fragmented or marginal but still visible communities of the established Church, with its commitment to continue its presence in every locality in the nation.’

The transference of power from state down to the community requires reference to character formation and those ‘institutions that still prize and try to nourish character’, faith communities, and of course the church. He goes on to point to the conceptualisation (Biblical) of the church as a ‘body’, which means that ‘Mutuality is written in’.

The Archbishop suggests that ‘there is some significant intellectual and moral capital to be discovered in the world of theology as we seek for ways forward for a society currently facing the likelihood of pretty high levels of anxiety and disorientation.’

Williams appears to have empathy with the Big Society but his analysis points out that it requires certain pre-conditions and caveats to realise its potential.

Other contributors to ‘Changing the debate, the new ideas re-defining Britain’ include Steve Wyler on the heritage of non-statist socialism , Nat Wei on civic entrepreneurship, Lord Layard on happiness and wellbeing, Diane Coyle on economics and values, Will Hutton on ‘good’ Capitalism and innovation, Toby Blume on economic localism, Margareta Pagano, John Hayes MP on the transformative potential of education, Lord Freud on welfare reform, Roger Scruton calls for a community led environmental agenda as well as other notable contributions.

I do not agree with all this, for example Richard Layard ( a fan of utilitarianism it would appear) seems to discount religion in favour of a progressive view, drawing upon the enlightenment calling for the ‘desperate need for a rational, secular basis for morality – and for a political philosophy consistent with it.’ This is a premise I would not share.

This collection is well worth a read, it is thoughtful, plural in breadth and relevant to many of the issues close to the Christian Socialist agenda. I think Blond is right that the old left and right positions are still ‘players’ but no longer ‘hegemonic’. Public life and political discourse would be enriched if more Theologians worked to establish institutions and policy across the piece. The centre-left urgently requires such an endeavour.


The collection of essays can be viewed at the following link http://respublica.org.uk/blog