It is not digging in statistics good or bad

In Britain, were dubbed the "red tory". Utopian to some, reactionary for others, the ideas of Phillip Blond inspired by swathes of the program of David Cameron, the Conservative leader. However, by questioning dogmas thatchériens on society and individualism, the thought of Professor of Theology also interested Labour. Three weeks of the general election, meeting with a compelling character in British political landscape...

Unlike what hammer conservatives, "the economist" view that British society is not "broken" after 13 years of Labour... What do you think

This article misses the reality. It is not digging in statistics, good or bad. There is one thing that everyone feels as evidence: we are less and less a company. Need us an economic policy which re-creates groups, to rebuild social links. The elite of the middle class was correct all the associations of the less privileged classes, believing their good. It is a pity. It may also entrust the management of their neighbourhood to groups of citizens: this is done in Birmingham with success. More generally, must be associations of citizens able to recover public subsidies and take control of public services - schools, crèches, etc. - when they are not satisfied with that provides the central State. By completing certain conditions of quality and representativeness of course. These employees gain more money, more work and control their budget. Most importantly, they play a different role in their business, would be pushed to innovate more.

Are your ideas not utopian

I note that some of my ideas are shared by David Cameron - especially on the idea to give budgetary funds to the citizens who want to create competing schools to public schools-, but also the strategic team of Prime Minister Gordon Brown asked me to lead a seminar on how citizens can take their public services. We are not yet in Britain again social and economic agreement. But the appetite for this is.

How résumeriez you in a few words your political philosophy

Neither the State nor the market function properly in Britain. The first was supposed to create the conditions for success to those who are at the bottom, but did the opposite by trapping poor in dependency. With respect to the second, meant to distribute wealth, he was captured by monopolies and has gradually "décapitalisé" the poorest, as shown in the statistics on the growth of inequality, and them was confined to serfdom of salaried employment. My approach is as follows: I am neither anti-capitalist or anti-globalization, but should "recapitalize" the poorest half of the company by redistributing assets and not just income. We also need to rethink the anti-trust legislation to truly open up the market to all. Today, we live in an ideology of competition without competitors. Finally, while the social links and trust between individuals have been destroyed by the welfare State and the market as they are today, we must give new powers to association - civic and economic - to the citizens at the local level.

How "recapitalize" the poorest

We need a radical approach. They need assets such as a good education, a better culture, networks, more personal discipline, but also money, the "true". Many solutions exist. Some families receive for example of housing benefits to the State thirty or forty years, and a large part of this money went into the pockets of private owners. Why not choose solutions that allow them to take a share of ownership of their house with the State Many buildings in disrepair, public or private, could also be better used by social enterprises, or even local economic organizations. It must facilitate this kind of acquisitions, for example by reducing taxes for companies that benefit to their community. In this spirit, all public assets must be passed to the screen, to optimize their use. Also may be considered to facilitate redemptions, especially difficult business by their employees (and not only by their management) in Britain.

Where to find the money

All of these ideas do not imply direct transfers of money from the rich to the poor. But, in some cases, it is a solution that should be considered. By lowering the aid to families who did not need, for example. But the Government can also promote savings: for a given home, accounts would be open for each child, and matched to an amount equivalent to that parents are able to put aside... Individual carbon accounts would be another way to massively enhance people located at the bottom of the scale, which rarely fly.

From your point of view.

that what does not, or, in the current anti-trust legislation

There is one thing the statist left refuses to see: the current regulation is a huge barrier to the participation of the poorest in the market, because the administrative obligations of the needed pre-qualifying, necessary documentation, etc. This means that only the powerful actors can meet the conditions. In addition, the State allowed too many mergers and acquisitions based on the doctrine of the school of Chicago. The name of freedom, monopolies, was produced in particular in the Bank, where mutual companies have almost disappeared.

Highlighting your religious convictions, some accuse you to have a vision anti-individualiste, dangerous to society. That answer you this

I am a practising Christian, this is true. But I do not live in a world different from that of any one, and sees fundamentalism as an untenable position. If I consider that the individual should not take precedence over the community, I believe that the reverse is also true.

The budgetary constraints of the United Kingdom do not impossible any reform of this kind

On the contrary, they make possible. We live in a time of austerity. It is now that you really think.

Your eyes, how is Labour he wrong

It is an important issue. I believe that they have become managerial and utilitarian. They continued the Thatcherite model, and have tried to use it for social purposes. But the model itself was not walking and social objectives could not be achieved through more and more authoritarian methods.

How have you met David Cameron

He enjoyed some of my articles in newspapers, and we met to discuss ideas and policy. I provided ideas to his team and I have good relations with those developing policy torie.

Has the Conservative Party really changed

Say rather that it is changing. He will reform, and is about to make an honest analysis of what did not market and what must be done.

What David Cameron different from Margaret Thatcher

I think that David does not believe in radical individualism. He believes relations and society. Thatcher was caricatured in this often quoted sentence that "society does not exist" - she actually thought that there was a company, but that was not the State. I think that Thatcherism saw the individual as the engine, while the modern conservatism believes what civic groups. It is a big change.

What is in your opinion the attitude of the conservatives to Europe

The Conservatives have difficulties with Europe, this is no deny. The neglect and abandonment of any research of influence are an error. I think that rapprochement with Europe will gradually climb into the priorities of the conservatives. There is no support for a centralised Europe. But there are other options. The approach of David to the British State could apply to the European State. The parties of centre-right of the continent could more share this vision.

Do you believe in the sincerity of the conservatives for their willingness to reform the City

Yes, they would lose all credibility if they did not place their promises. The measures advocated by the tories really are very good. Banks can no longer speculate with the guarantee of a rescue by the State. Their models must be more varied, and they need to better serve the development of the community. By breaking monopolies, there is not necessarily much less credit in the real economy. At the United Kingdom in 2007, only 2.5 of the loans went to non-financial institutions. A large part of the loans went to the speculation on the real estate market.

The emergence of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg and the risk of a defeat of the Conservatives condemn your ideas

I think that the Lib Dems might easily be interested in my ideas. Indeed, one of the major points of their platform, concerning the abolition of a tax break for the rich, is also prohibited in my book "red Tory". My ideas and those of ResPublica are seen as non-partisan. If Parliament "suspended" (without a party with the majority of the seats, Editor's note), our ideas could be an ideal base of discussions between the various parties.

What role do you play in this campaign

I want our think tank ResPublica inspires political thought, and, to some extent, European. I am not the only one to think in this direction. These ideas have not yet thought overall, but many people are seeking to restore the power at the bottom of society. If proposed me a more political role, should that I reflect. But I am happy at the moment.