Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

New Ideas? No thanks

A thoughtful discussion of liberalism and Labour provokes charges of treachery

I was amazed to return from a short break to the firestorm prompted by the article entitled "Liberalise or Die" in the June issue of Prospect. I advise you to read the whole article before jumping to conclusions, which is what the Prime Minister seems to have done. The essay was jointly penned by Phil Collins, a former speech writer to Tony Blair, and Richard Reeves , a man of many talents, who recently wrote a biography of liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill. But it was Collins who got it in the neck from the PM, who immediately demanded he be sacked by his some time employer, Work and Pensions Secretary James Purnell.

Those looking for conspiracy theories might wish to note that both Reeves and Collins have worked for maverick MP Frank Field. But the essay is a properly argued political intervention, arguing that the Labour Party must move away from its authoritarian intstincts and embrace liberalism.

It has already provoked outrage from Sunder Katwala at the Fabian Society and an odd piece from John Harris in the Guardian, who seems to recognise that Collins and Reeves have some interesting ideas while dismissing the essay as horribly New Labour.

But for further evidence of the mania that possesses certain sections of the left when confronted with challenging ideas, just check out the response to Richard Reeves's reponse to John Harris's piece on Comment is Free.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

2 comments from readers

knave
05 June 2008 at 19:44

What challenging ideas.

Gladstonian liberalism. It has been tried at least twice before. So they are not new ideas.

Also why shouldn't people challenge an idea. It is called democracy.

You don't think that any one should oppose your economically liberal neo conservative view of the world.

You're the one with authoritarian tendencies.

You are as thick as a whale omelette Bright

ravcasleygera
09 July 2008 at 13:36

Surprisingly I rather liked Harris' response piece. In the end, his point is: it's absurd to suggest that the left-right, market-state split in economic relations is over, leaving just concern over people's social lives. It was absurd when it was said in the 1990s and it's absurd now. Poverty, disadvantage, social exclusion and inequality all matter, though I accept not everyone agrees with the last one. Collins seems to want to argue that his "new liberalism" can provide answers to these problems - but he can't, so falls back on high historical rhetoric. You don't have to be patrician to believe that letting people spend their NHS budget on home improvements with possible health benefits is a recipe for fiasco - that the cautious approach to opening up social services provision is the right one. And as for:

"If being a Labour supporter means instinctively liking taxing income then the game really is up. It is hard to see how it can claim to be the party of "labour" at all."

Let's just say Mr. Collins has a larger job on his hands winning people over than he realises...

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

The horror comes home

22 January 2009 09:58

Ken Clarke's return

19 January 2009 16:10

A New Deal of the mind

15 January 2009 09:31

It's a New New Deal

08 January 2009 09:51

A year of ups and downs

18 December 2008 09:44

Mystic Mart

15 December 2008 13:06

The two-man show

11 December 2008 09:44

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Will Baroness Ashton be an effective EU foreign minister?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker