Difference between revisions of "David Marquand"
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | Principal of Mansfield College Oxford, Ex-SDP and Labour MP, Board of ''[[Renewal]]'' and ''[[Political Quarterly]]'' (with [[Geoff Mulgan]]), he writes for ''[[Prospect]]'' and was on the Nexus 'debate'. | + | Principal of Mansfield College Oxford, Ex-SDP and Labour MP, Board of ''[[Renewal]]'' and ''[[Political Quarterly]]'' (with [[Geoff Mulgan]]), he writes for ''[[Prospect]]'' and was on the Nexus 'debate'. {{ref|1}} An [[IPPR]] Trustee, he edited 'The Ideas That Shaped Post-War Britain' with [[Arthur Seldon]], on [[Citizens for Europe]] with [[Gerald Holtham]]. He argues 'Why should the rich make sacrifices for the poor? If collective provision is not a means of moral improvement why should those who are not in need pay taxes to pay for it?' Endorsed by [[Frank Field]], this follows [[Charles Murray]] in formulating a 'deserving poor'. He argues in ''Prospect'' that it is wrong to see Blair as the continuation of Thatcherism by other means: 'The government combines economic continuity with radical political discontinuity.' |
Advisor to Green College [[Centre for Environmental Policy]] (board includes [[Charles Filmer]] of the [[Goldsmith Foundation]]) funded by the Reuter and Goldsmith Foundations. The organisation also has connections with [[Royal Institute of International Affairs]] and [[Ditchley Park]].[http://www.green.ox.ac.uk/cepu-info.htm] In the early 60s he wrote for ''[[Encounter]]'' arguing against CND and unilateralism. On the board of the [[Constitution Unit]] with Lords Howe, Hurd, Jenkins, Alexander etc. and [[Graham Mather]]. | Advisor to Green College [[Centre for Environmental Policy]] (board includes [[Charles Filmer]] of the [[Goldsmith Foundation]]) funded by the Reuter and Goldsmith Foundations. The organisation also has connections with [[Royal Institute of International Affairs]] and [[Ditchley Park]].[http://www.green.ox.ac.uk/cepu-info.htm] In the early 60s he wrote for ''[[Encounter]]'' arguing against CND and unilateralism. On the board of the [[Constitution Unit]] with Lords Howe, Hurd, Jenkins, Alexander etc. and [[Graham Mather]]. | ||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
==Notes== | ==Notes== | ||
| − | 1. In 1998 at the direction of the Government, an 'on-line think tank' called [[Nexus]] initiated (within 'on-side' academic circles) a series of debates on the Third Way, involving [[Anthony Giddens]]; [[David Marquand]], [[Julian Le Grand]], Professor of Social Policy at the LSE; and the Directors of the [[Institute for Public Policy Research]] and the [[Fabian Society]]. The whole sad little gang: but no academic backing was given to the practical meaning or legitimacy of the Third Way. [[Nexus]] was held up as providing a 'tested model of how intellectuals, academics, social entrepreneurs and policy experts would assist the development of the public policy of centre-left governments.' It soon deteriorated to extinction. One more confirmation of the vacuum in Third Way thinking, and the inability of its proponents to apply its ideas to concrete social realities. For more details see [http://www.variant.randomstate.org/13texts/William_Clark.html] | + | #{{note|1}}. In 1998 at the direction of the Government, an 'on-line think tank' called [[Nexus]] initiated (within 'on-side' academic circles) a series of debates on the Third Way, involving [[Anthony Giddens]]; [[David Marquand]], [[Julian Le Grand]], Professor of Social Policy at the LSE; and the Directors of the [[Institute for Public Policy Research]] and the [[Fabian Society]]. The whole sad little gang: but no academic backing was given to the practical meaning or legitimacy of the Third Way. [[Nexus]] was held up as providing a 'tested model of how intellectuals, academics, social entrepreneurs and policy experts would assist the development of the public policy of centre-left governments.' It soon deteriorated to extinction. One more confirmation of the vacuum in Third Way thinking, and the inability of its proponents to apply its ideas to concrete social realities. For more details see [http://www.variant.randomstate.org/13texts/William_Clark.html] |
Revision as of 09:09, 23 April 2007
Principal of Mansfield College Oxford, Ex-SDP and Labour MP, Board of Renewal and Political Quarterly (with Geoff Mulgan), he writes for Prospect and was on the Nexus 'debate'. [1] An IPPR Trustee, he edited 'The Ideas That Shaped Post-War Britain' with Arthur Seldon, on Citizens for Europe with Gerald Holtham. He argues 'Why should the rich make sacrifices for the poor? If collective provision is not a means of moral improvement why should those who are not in need pay taxes to pay for it?' Endorsed by Frank Field, this follows Charles Murray in formulating a 'deserving poor'. He argues in Prospect that it is wrong to see Blair as the continuation of Thatcherism by other means: 'The government combines economic continuity with radical political discontinuity.'
Advisor to Green College Centre for Environmental Policy (board includes Charles Filmer of the Goldsmith Foundation) funded by the Reuter and Goldsmith Foundations. The organisation also has connections with Royal Institute of International Affairs and Ditchley Park.[2] In the early 60s he wrote for Encounter arguing against CND and unilateralism. On the board of the Constitution Unit with Lords Howe, Hurd, Jenkins, Alexander etc. and Graham Mather.
Affiliations
- Advisory board of the think tank Catalyst.
- Aspen Institute Berlin, trustee.
Notes
- ^. In 1998 at the direction of the Government, an 'on-line think tank' called Nexus initiated (within 'on-side' academic circles) a series of debates on the Third Way, involving Anthony Giddens; David Marquand, Julian Le Grand, Professor of Social Policy at the LSE; and the Directors of the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Fabian Society. The whole sad little gang: but no academic backing was given to the practical meaning or legitimacy of the Third Way. Nexus was held up as providing a 'tested model of how intellectuals, academics, social entrepreneurs and policy experts would assist the development of the public policy of centre-left governments.' It soon deteriorated to extinction. One more confirmation of the vacuum in Third Way thinking, and the inability of its proponents to apply its ideas to concrete social realities. For more details see [3]
