I was definitely the junior participant in this discussion of the role of ideology in politics, hosted by Anne McElvoy on the Nightwaves programme on Radio 3.   You can listen to it for the next few weeks here. It starts at 22 minutes or so.   I probably speak the least.  Quite right too … MT and PB were in the studio with me (it’s very civilized; red wine in plastic cups).

I’ve met PB before, and ought to have mentioned this before, because it is relevant: Phillip is a charming fellow, eager to please, outwardly openminded, though passionate about his rather strong beliefs.  I find it hard to equate this with the outright miserabilism that Sundar demolishes on Next Left.  As you know, I am not sure his ideas have the umph and crunchy detail to go far – and since they are illiberal on social and economic matters, I don’t think I will ever approve of them, even if they were practical.  In fact, I am not even sure it fits David Cameron’s vision for Britain very closely.

He espouses a social conservatism that dwells on broad issues, such as the cultural causes of poverty, not on the narrow lifestyle questions such as gay rights (on which he is anyway tolerant) that obsess some on the American right. He is an Atlanticist, though not a passionate one, and a gentle free-marketeer.

Outwardly, they both think Britain is Broken.  But I find it hard to believe that cheery PB really thinks this, and certainly doubt that he has any decent evidence for the claim – see the Economist on this, as well as Sundar’s post.


3 thoughts on “Discussion with Phillip Blond, Jill Kirby and Matthew Taylor

  1. I’m an old-fashioned young man. I look at the economy in terms of the inequality between people as wage-earners and people as investor-owners. Though there’s a great deal of over-lap – many workers have investments, many investors earn a wage – the most important divide is the old one between workers and capitalists. This doesn’t mean my conclusions

    The Labour party leadership post-crisis has tried to form an ideological framework in their approach to the crisis – Brown’s “fair markets” argument in favour of regulation, and Mandelson’s “market-shaping” argument for industrial activism, Tessa Jowell’s “mutualism” as a way of problematising ownership and control. All of these ideas are in no way incompatible with social liberalism or Red Toryism…

  2. Little confused, do you mean the ‘cheery DC’ in the final sentence? To be honest, I don’t think either of them have any evidence that Britain is really broken, and there is certainly zero evidence that any supposed social decline is the result of over-zealous state intervention and not the combination of long-term cultural shifts and the radical reshaping of the British economy/evisceration of industry in the 1980s and 1990s.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s