February 2010 Archives

Today's Tories wear their progressive credentials on their sleeve. Gone are the days in which Thatcher said there was no such thing as society. Now David Cameron emotes about child poverty, Nick Hurd professes love for the voluntary sector and Eric Pickles wants to be a co-operator.

Those of us on the left should resist the temptation to dismiss these statements as merely soothing noises directed at voters concerned they are the nasty party. Instead we must show how the issue may be progressive, but their intent is not. In setting out what progressive administration offers Britain's future, we need to show how and why only Labour has the politics and the policies to make this a reality.

Progressive political movements seek to advance social justice; recognising that whilst talent is evenly distributed across society, the opportunity to get the most out of it is not. The outcomes progressives chase are those that rectify these inequalities. We are passionate about the benefits to all of investment in everyone achieving their potential. We put people and possibility first, not profits and privilege.

These principles also drive our practical agenda, giving purpose and priority to the nitty gritty of service delivery in office. We should acknowledge Tory talk of progressiveness as a reflection of our success in Government. Whether belatedly accepting the minimum wage or championing international development, their damascene conversion speaks to how Labour has changed the terms of debate on the priorities for contemporary British politics.

Yet today's Tories still try to apply yesterday's solutions. As they try to reconcile interest in social mobility or community cohesion with reification of the free market they revert to type. This manifests itself in a mantra that whatever the issue, the "state" gets in the way of progress through clumsy and expensive bureaucracy.

For today's Tories, to be progressive is to "roll back the state" so the voluntary sector and the market can take charge, supposedly able to respond to needs in a way that state based services cannot. Promoting civil society may appear progressive, but as a replacement for the state it is spectacularly socially retrogressive.

We know this not least from the history of progressive movements and reforming Conservative Governments. Whether the Butler education reforms or Disraeli's public sanitation, yesterday's Tories understood public provision was an effective mechanism for social progress. Co-operatives were born out of absence, not as an alternative. The original pioneers didn't work together to act against the state, but because there was so little to protect communities from the cataclysmic impact of nineteenth century industrialisation.

In modern Britain where the society and state are interwoven, the consequences of such an approach would be to cripple progressive action by both entities. Not only does today's voluntary sector receive much of its funding from public sources. It's very nature is a response and development from the actions of Government itself. To shrink one would fundamentally alter the condition of the other and vice versa. Today's state isn't separate to community, citizens or the market but a framework within which each combines. Venn diagrams trying to separate these are simply that- diagrams.

Remove the support collective provision and regulation offers and little guarantees community groups or market forces could respond effectively, let alone do so in a way that advances rather than damages social progress. Depending on civil society to become a surrogate for the state is as callous as leaving communities at the mercy of the market- or their failures. There is nothing progressive about leaving the pursuit of social justice to chance.

In contrast, we understand the benefits to be gained from working with the voluntary sector and the market within a progressive state. In partnership with a thriving public sector it is a mix that can create a society where opportunity is easier to realise for all. Those who gain from going to co-operative run schools also prosper from living in a country that invests in early years education and youth services.

Instead of waiting for the market to act, our progressive principles challenge us to be pro-active across public, private and social spheres for the common good. And as we look to the future, we apply this to addressing the inequalities created by the challenges of globalisation. Whether planning for economic stability, addressing climate change or stubborn social immobility we know we can achieve more together than we do alone.

In the face of Tory attempts to espouse progressive interests, we must stand firm as to the importance of pursuing progressive outcomes. That George Osborne can claim to be progressive because he cares about poverty highlights how we far we have to go to win the debate about what "a concern for inequality" means in practice. It is not enough to tell Tories saying something is progressive doesn't make it so. Labour must do more to show how and why we are the real progressive choice for Britain in tooth and claw.

Stella Creasy is Labour's candidate for Walthamstow at the next election -