Abstract
Political parties have never been averse to appropriating slogans or policies from their adversaries if deemed electorally advantageous. As part of his party’s detoxification campaign prior to the 2010 General Election, David Cameron attempted, for example, to persuade the British electorate that the modern Conservatives, not Labour, were the authentic ‘People’s party’ committed to progressive ideas and social justice. In a similar vein, Ed Miliband subsequently declared Labour to be the true voice of One Nation during his conference speech at Manchester in 2012, thereby stealing a moniker most closely associated with the ‘progressive’ wing of the Conservative Party stretching from Disraeli to Cameron.
As an enthusiastic contemporary advocate of the One Nation tradition, Richard Carr clearly welcomes Ed Miliband’s conversion to the cause. In this informative and lively volume, he explores the historical roots of One Nation both in theory and in practice. He notes, for example, that the term was embraced by neo-liberal as well as paternalistic conservatives in the post-1945 era (the One Nation group contained both strands of thought) before becoming associated in popular discourse, almost exclusively, with those conservatives who believe it possible to govern in ways that protect and embrace the vulnerable, whilst allowing the enterprising to prosper (see Dorey, 2011; Seawright, 2010). Carr contends, however, that ‘New’ Liberals such as Beveridge and Keynes, as well as social democrats such as Labour’s influential post-1945 revisionist Tony Crosland, can equally well be seen as belonging to the One Nation family.
Carr maintains that One Nation should not be regarded as a vacuous political slogan that can be adopted and jettisoned at will by political opportunists. Rather, he makes an impassioned case as to why this strand of thinking should still guide contemporary politicians and policymakers. In support of this hypothesis, he draws attention to the progressive economic and social initiatives that earlier One Nation thinkers such as Lloyd George, Butler and Macmillan promoted. In an informative discussion of the One Nation policy proposals promoted by these luminaries, Carr makes clear that his overarching intention is not to suggest that some of these historic policies should be dusted down and readied for implementation. Rather, he wants contemporary ‘progressives’ to inhale the interventionist One Nation ‘ether’ that motivated these 21st-century politicians and policy experts so that they can, in their turn, devise and develop a set of equally forward-looking economic and social policies for the modern age.
Carr identifies a range of One Nation economic policies which he believes are relevant for modern times. These include a minimum or ‘living’ wage, the creation of a state investment bank, the introduction of a financial transaction tax, the promotion of smaller, more socially responsible banks and a shift from income to wealth taxes. He also echoes calls emanating from ‘Red Tory’ (Phillip Blond) and ‘Blue Labour’ (Maurice Glasman) protagonists for an increased emphasis on localism and community action to counter the malign impacts of both unregulated free markets and deadening forms of central state activity.
Although Carr details a long list of reforms that could form the basis of a contemporary One Nation manifesto including compulsory voting and an increase in the number of MPs to ensure equal gender representation (one male and one female representative in each of his 400 redrawn parliamentary constituencies), he declares himself reluctant to be overly prescriptive. Carr sees his principal task as highlighting the underlying ethos of One Nation, which he characterizes as ‘capturing the best of all -isms under one umbrella’ (p. 159). One is left with the question though as to whether Carr’s One Nation vision will attract widespread political or public support. Sceptics are likely to contend that his unbridled enthusiasm for One Nation governance has led him to overemphasize the points of commonality, rather than the points of difference between those subscribing to the ‘tenets’ of this elastic doctrine. Although there might indeed be a consensus about the value of governing for the whole nation, rather than a particular segment of it, there are likely to be profound differences over questions such as the role of the state, the boundaries of free market activity, the degree of permissible inequalities and the appropriate spheres for individual, community and state action.
Whilst political parties of the centre or the right might gain political traction from embracing a notion like One Nation or related approaches such as the Middle Way or the Third Way, it can be argued that parties on the left, which are seeking to transform an unequal society rather than merely managing it in an orderly way, may be best advised to avoid embracing this mantle. Those of a radical disposition tempted to find common cause of a One Nation kind all too often end up as token reformers and defenders of the status quo rather than radical purveyors of a more enlightened economic and social order.
At the end of the book, Carr concedes that many of his arguments will be ‘refuted by the sceptical’ but hopes that he has at least provided ‘a good start in kicking the One Nation debate into specifics rather than generalities’ (p. 160). He can be assured that he has achieved his goal despite the reservations of this sceptic.