I have continued my thinking about the development of ideas that might underpin a politics of care. In truth, these are now way ahead of the posts that I am publishing here at present, because much of the thinking is still pretty exploratory, including the implications for institutional structures, economics, money, concepts of capital, the nature of income in such a system, and ideas about economic and social objectives.

None of these ideas comes together overnight, nor do they appear without the need for subsequent revision.

However, the following piece builds directly on those that I have already published, as it relates directly to the issue of identifying narratives that lead to a politics of care.

Comments would be welcome.

---

For much of the twentieth century, two great political stories competed with each other.

Labour

Labour, as its best, argued:

• We achieve more together.
• Everyone deserves dignity and security.
• Wealth should serve society.
• Public services express solidarity.
• Progress comes through collective action.

Conservatives

The Conservatives argued for much of their history that:

• Society is fragile.
• Institutions matter.
• Change should be cautious.
• We inherit responsibilities.
• We should conserve what works.

Points of agreement

Notice that these stories disagreed, but that they shared some things that were important. Both assumed:

• Society matters.
• Institutions matter.
• We owe obligations to others.

This commonality laid the foundation for what this blog has called 'the single transferable party' that these traditions gave rise to this century.

Then came neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism

Neoliberalism argues that:

• People compete.
• Markets know best.
• Success is individual.
• Growth solves problems.
• Government should get out of the way.

This story did not merely challenge Labour. It challenged Conservatism as well.

It hollowed out Labour's traditional belief in solidarity.

It hollowed out Conservatism's traditional belief in stewardship.

And that is where much of today's confusion begins.

Labour increasingly accepted the market story. It stopped talking about solidarity and started talking about competence. The result was New Labour.

New Labour

Tony Blair's Labour Party, which we still very largely have, argued that:

• Markets create wealth.
• Government should manage the consequences.
• Growth comes first since it creates value.
• Public services depend on growth as a result.
• Labour should be trusted to run things competently.

The problem is obvious. This is not really a story. Nor is it a set of beliefs. It is, at best, a management strategy.

When Labour once told people what society was for, but when it had morphed into New Labour, it mostly told people that it could administer society more effectively than its opponents.

The Conservatives faced a different problem.

The Conservatives now

After Thatcher and the rise of neoliberalism, the Tories also morphed. They now say:

• We value tradition.
• We support markets.
• We want lower taxes.
• We want stronger communities.
• We want less government.

The difficulty is that these ideas often pull in opposite directions:

• Markets frequently undermine traditions.
• Deregulation often weakens institutions.
• Individualism can erode communities.

The party does, as a result, oscillate between two impulses:

• We must conserve what matters.

and

• We must free the market.

Until Johnson expelled many MPs, it was very rarely clear which story came first. No wonder the party tore itself apart.

And then, into the vacuum these two parties created by their inability to reconcile what their members thought they were with what their leadership demanded they be, stepped the challengers.

Reform

The Reform narrative is simple, which is why it is effective:

• The country no longer works for ordinary people.
• The people in charge do not listen.
• Britain has lost its way.
• Common sense should be restored.
• The people should take back control.

This is a story of loss and restoration. Its power comes from recognising that many people feel ignored. Its weakness is that it says relatively little about the future beyond restoring an imagined past.

The Greens

In essence, the Greens have traditionally argued that:

• We depend upon nature.
• Endless growth is impossible.
• Well-being matters more than consumption.
• Future generations matter.
• We must live within ecological limits.

This is a story of ecological responsibility. Its strength is its coherence. That the message is less obvious now is both a potential strength and a weakness of its current position.

Its challenge is persuading people that limits can be a source of hope rather than fear.

Another story

Running alongside these recognised political stories, though, is something else.  I think another story is now emerging.

It is not really Labour's story.

It is not really Green politics.

It is not traditional Conservatism.

It is certainly not neoliberalism.

Nor is it from the far-right,

It begins somewhere else, and is the politics of care

The politics of care

The politics of care suggests:

• We are social, caring, creative and interdependent creatures.
• We flourish through relationships of care.
• The purpose of society is to help everyone realise their potential.
• The purpose of the economy is to support that task.
• The purpose of the state is to help society achieve it.

This story starts in a different place from all the others.

• Neoliberalism starts with the individual.
• Conservatives start with institutions of power.
• Reform starts with belonging.
• The Greens start with nature.
• Labour started (when they had ideas) with the solidarity of working people.

The politics of care starts with a suggestion about what human beings are, and if that claim is true, then everything else follows:

• The economy exists because people need to flourish.
• The state exists because people cannot meet all their needs alone.
• Markets are tools to assist flourishing, but not objectives.
• Growth may be a means, but not an end.
• The environment matters because human flourishing depends upon it.

The politics of care, then, suggests that politics may no longer be about a supposed split between the left, right, and far-right over how best to facilitate market outcomes. It may instead be about a split between those who believe society exists to facilitate competition, as all neoliberal-inspired parties do, and those who believe society exists to facilitate care.

That feels to me like the argument that is now waiting to be made.

PDF of article

---