Originally published @ 11:38 am, Tue 31st Aug 2010
If big change is needed in the Labour Party, let it to win as a movement, whose values and style resonate with voters and party members, and trade union members and potential trade union members.
-
A Conservative Home blog aimed at local government has recently explained that an “election pledge has had to be ditched to accommodate the Lib Dems, who represent the left of the Coalition Government, and Ken Clarke, who represents the coalition's hard left.”
If ever there was a need to drop the concept of left and right in politics, it has to be exemplified by Ken Clarke being described as hard left. And yet left-right still finds trade in discussions on about triangulation and judgement of politicians’ stances.
So one-dimensional.
So many other dimensions to consider. Above and beyond a baseline of believing in a free society, you could look at –
Individual provision and collective provision;
- Inequality and equality;
- Markets and sustainable development (a better balance between economic development, society and environmental protection);
- Britain acting alone to Britain working with others in the world;
- Ability to win elections.
There are I’m sure many others, including the classic media test – do we believe you.
A quick assessment of the last government’s aims suggests –
- On collective provision, we were high on schools and hospitals; on saving the NHS’s core principle of free at the point of use; less so on housing where we refurbished public housing stock, but couldn’t get to grips with markets pushing the cost of housing out of many people’s reach; many more public services, but provided in often a joyless and top-down way, and seeming to emphasise the importance of a kind of choice that often only made sense in big conurbations);
- On equality, we were radical in social equality, with strong progress on helping the poorest older people and helping many minorities, but perhaps wishing to achieve more than our general aim on economic equality of keeping people in work (we created many more jobs) and equipping our school leavers with higher levels of educational qualifications; big drop in crime (defying what was perceived to be a unstoppable increase); the minimum wage (although failing at the end to protect it from agency workers from Europe being allowed to be employed at a cheaper rate); some of our measures being both progressive and complicated (tax credits) and vulnerable to a perception helping some at the expense of others only just above a threshold (e.g. cold weather payments);
- On markets and sustainable development, doing many green things (climate change levy, dismantling many nuclear weapons) but perhaps putting off some of the measures needed to bring a new understanding to environmental cost (e.g. road pricing) and missing out on things like green product development; an emphasis on the development of the financial sector that helped the south-east in particular and a perception that manufacturing wasn’t valued enough (despite Britain still being the sixth largest manufacturing power); toleration of the growth of big companies at the expense of small ones (e.g. supermarkets vs. centres of local shops);
- On international co-operation, seemingly right to not push on with joining the Euro; intervening with effect in Kosovo and Sierra Leone; perceived to be too close to the USA on Iraq and Afghanistan (although I supported and support both actions); reducing nuclear weapons, helping Africa; bringing the world together to act together against the collapse trigged by the banking collapse, brining Keynesian economics back at the level it can only now work - globally;
- Winning 3 general elections on the trot – a first for the British Labour Party; impressive in the face of an overwhelmingly hostile and cynical media; it did change the consensus for what we perceived to be deliverable through public agencies; however, would have to acknowledge done as registration to vote fell, as turnout fell and as share of the vote fell; as the media’s role in the election became more important (PM debates); as party membership fell; and trade union membership fell, particularly in the private sector; and did finally lose a General Election, but not by as much as many predicted, and as close as 2 points behind on 3 occasions in February and March.
A lot to be proud of overall. And much to reflect on as we seek a way forward for the future.
It does not necessarily require a huge change to win the next general election. We could win by being an effective opposition of Con Dem policies in practice (Ed Balls seemingly winning recognition for this).
And we could win by having a leader who does or will carry authority with the public (as Gordon Brown did initially), and see their core messages through to the end (as Gordon Brown emphatically did not in the last week of the General Election campaign).
But such is the melodrama that develops in any contest as important as a Labour Party leadership election, the need for big change is developed. From Ed Miliband’s list of the things he’d rather hadn’t been done (Iraq, tuitions fees, i.d. cards etc.) to Andy Burnham’s five values behind his “aspirational socialism” (redistributive, collectivist, aspirational, sustainable and internationalist), to David Miliband’s commitment to seeing through the new Clause 4 (which reads - The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many, not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.)
And it’s perhaps here is where we face the biggest challenge, since if triangulation was the preferred method of seeking public support, ( http://lukeakehurst.blogspot.com/2010/08/limits-of-triangulation.html#links ) , we need to come up with a different approach – arguably exercised when delivering more rights for homosexuals (against the prevailing public opinion) and perhaps most needed for making the need for a National Care Service come alive (where not enough people care until something happens to them or a member of their family).
We may also have placed too much emphasis on the idea that we are better managers than politicians from other parties. Now this may be true (e.g. Gove’s efforts on Building Schools for the Future). And a good deal of valuable understanding of improving service was developed. But we may not have conveyed sufficiently why targets delivered anything beyond a skewed set of services (c.f. the removal targets from the NHS will allow the service to prioritise more private patients and the NHS will not be required to care for all neighbourhoods equally). And we were a bit keen on re-organisation (e.g. creating children’s services) rather than improving customer focus and management (including in the private sector, where you sometimes think managers have used I.T. merely to make their managers work longer hours).
So in the end, if big change is needed, let it not be so much in the significance of individual policies, but in the ability of those policies, ideas and campaigns to resonate with values that voters and party members, and trade union members and potential trade union members can readily understand and recognise, even if they can’t always agree. Something about the style that says we want to win, but win as a movement, building up the capacity of those seeking better, more just workplaces, a fairer and more caring society, and a better environment.
Comments