David (aka Britology Watch): There have been several recent threads in OurKingdom that have touched on the questions of whether, and to what extent, ‘progressives’ should espouse the ‘cause’ of English nationalism – whether that cause is defined merely as the goal of an English parliament or is part of a more long-ranging vision for England after what many, including myself, see as the inevitable demise of the present UK (see eg Mark Perryman, Arthur Aughey and Paul Kingsnorth). Hitherto, the left has assumed it had the monopoly on progressive politics.
In addition, it has been de rigueur for nationalism-averse, centre-left progressives and liberals, and not just Britain-obsessed New Labour, to articulate their vision as if it were a vision for Britain as a whole and not what it can only really be, post-devolution, which is an agenda for England.
Now David Cameron is trying to muscle in on the progressive act, defining the Conservative Party as the “champion of progressive ideals in Britain today” in an Independent article earlier this month. But on closer analysis, his prescription emerges as just a new version of the same old Blairite ‘market economics with a social face’: positioning the Tories effectively as the party that will actually realise the market-driven social and economic reforms that New Labour promised but did not deliver. In addition, Cameron’s remedies are similarly articulated as being intended for Britain – whereas, in reality, the policies discussed in the Independent article would all form part of his government’s England-only remit in education, the environment and local communities.
There is little chance that a supposedly progressive agenda for ‘the country’ would gather momentum and carry the assent of a broad cross-society majority of all the people – which is what it would have to do if it were to be a genuine movement of progressive change for that society – unless we can be honest and unashamed about which society and people are the objects of that progressive programme: the society and people of England, not those of Britain ‘as a whole’. The two things are fundamentally interlinked: social reform and national-political re-engagement – politicians have to demonstrate they actually care about England, and seek to be genuinely accountable to the people of England, in order for the people to care about politics and believe once more that it can effect beneficial change in their lives, individually and in their communities. And this suggests the outline of a genuinely radical, progressive agenda for England.
This could comprise two main elements: 1) abandoning the failed assumption that ‘progress’ defined in economic-monetary, material and technological terms is an automatic driver of social progress, in terms of better, safer, happier and more sustainable lives and communities. The dreadful social problems we currently face in England are in many respects the legacy of bankrupt political theories (such as the socialist welfare state and the Thatcherite market economy) that equate economic growth and prosperity with social cohesion and wellbeing. Business must indeed be profitable and competitive, but its purpose should be to promote and support caring communities and the common good; 2) the people of England – all its people, races and cultures – must come first: their needs, rights and priorities must be to the forefront of political thinking and action in a new pragmatism adjusted to economic, environmental and social realities. And the people must no longer be subordinated, as they have been, to the narrow ideologies of right and left; the lust for power on the part of governments not properly accountable to the electorate at either national or local level; and the all-consuming demands and greed of global capital.
A fuller version of this article may be found at Britology Watch.
