Introduction

Despite previous indications that investment in public services would be safe in their hands, the onset of recession in 2008 provided an opportunity for Conservative politicians to advocate austerity in public spending and an intensification of market-led public service reform (Evans, 2010, p 13; HM Treasury, 2010a). It would be wrong, however, not to acknowledge the shift in language and focus of the Conservative Party prior to the 2010 General Election. Keen to develop a framework which permitted a commitment to economic liberalism, the reinvigoration of self-reliance and a concern for social justice, leading modernisers drew on the work of leading civic conservatives (Letwin, 2003; Willetts, 2005b) to self-style themselves and their policies as representing a progressive conservatism. A key idea within this progressive Conservative narrative is its emphasis on reanimating the institutions of civil society to provide an alternative to state services, but also a buttress against market failure. The progressive conservative milieu of David Cameron's project of renewal has also thrown up the complementary, yet arguably more radical interpretation, of what modernisation should entail in the Red Tory agenda of Phillip Blond. Blond (2010) concurs with the civic conservative emphasis on civil society and a reduced role for the state, but is more circumspect as to whether the empowerment of communities and individuals will occur unless the neoliberal orthodoxy is challenged and ownership of assets and wealth among low-income families is improved (Blond, 2008, p 89, 2009b, 2010). What makes Red Toryism of interest is that it implicitly offers an alternative to the vision of progressive conservatism promoted by the Conservative Party leadership. From within the framework of Conservative thinking it attempts to break conservatism from neoliberalism by establishing that the latter is not the champion of free markets, but of monopolistic big business (Coombs, 2010). Similarly Red Toryism draws attention to how social inequality shapes opportunity and poverty, yet remains critical of hierarchical and state-led policy responses (Coombs, 2010, p 3).