By Olly Deed
Douglas Carswell is the Conseravtive MP for Harwich and Clacton and a blogger at Talk Carswell. He met Olly Deed in February, 2010.
Criticism is part and parcel of being in government. Some of it is superficial, partisan and not worth the time of day. Some, on the other hand, is tactile, resonant and worthy of discussion.
As a party we should be willing to listen and learn from those on the other side. That's why I spent some time with Douglas Carswell, the Tory MP, and Alex Smith has agreed to publish his thoughts on the future of the left.
This interview, then, is designed to cultivate discussion amongst those of us on the left. LabourList is the perfect platform upon which to have this debate. We may not agree with some of the analysis but we should certainly be willing to engage with it.
Douglas Carswell is an unusual Conservative Member of Parliament. Unusual in the sense that he seems to have given as much thought to the plight of the centre-left as he has to that of his own party. Thoughtful, engaging and ready to draw upon a range of intellectual work in his answers, he is like a right wing Jon Cruddas. His critique of leftist politics and the Labour Party in Britain is not artificial, unsubstantiated or puerile, like Cameron's. It is actually worth listening to.
At the Fabian Society New Year conference, Carswell angered some members of the audience and intrigued others by delivering a considered and stinging polemic of the Labour Party. He was as forthcoming when I interviewed him as he was that day in January.
The problems for Labour are clear, pronounced and need to be addressed quickly, Carswell says:
"The party of the levellers and the chartists, for the ordinary individual against hierarchical concentrations of power, is now on the side of quangocrat, the big official, the unelected minister, the European institutions, the human rights lawyer making decisions over and above what politicians want to make."
According to Carswell, the left:
"has retreated to Rosseau...with his idea of a group of technocrats working in the public good...I think if I was on the left, I would be disturbed by this".
"The Labour party has with good intentions tried to empower local people. Whether it's through foundation hospitals, whether it's through giving people a greater say over certain agencies; the problem has been that the mechanisms for doing this have always been corporatist. I think any decent person on the left, if they sit down and think about it, would think corporatism doesn't do anything for personal liberty or individual freedom."
Central to Carswell's analysis is the notion that the left hasn't reacted to the huge and fundamental changes that have taken place in society over the past 15 years, particularly the emergence of the internet. The left needs to realise, he says, that:
"The internet will smash hierarchy and diffuse power in a way that nothing has been able to do since the printing press - and it will be the printing press times ten. And as someone on the centre-right I am bemused to see how the centre-left is missing out on this. If I was on the British left I would be saying, 'how can we have got ourselves in this position?' Then you've got something that no previous leftist has had to contend with, which is the internet. And that will do to the political process what Martin Luther did to religion; it will overturn the hierarchy of princely politicians and the priesthood of commentators and it has already started to do it. You see Guido Fawkes against Polly Toynbee and Michael White - who is more influential? Iain Dale, who is not even yet an elected member of the Commons, probably has as much if not more influence than people who have been paid up pundits of the Westminister establishment. So you've got a convergence of factors that I think would disturb me if I was on the left and make me want to rethink what being on the left should mean."
This level of analysis cannot readily be swept under the carpet, no matter how tempting that may be. It should pose some food for thought for all of us as Labour Party members. We have to look deep down and question ourselves. Have we really reacted to the emergence of the internet in government? Are we articulating a vision of downward accountability, enhanced by the factors Carswell raises? Carswell clearly thinks we aren't.
Carswell admits, though, that all is not ill on the British left. When I ask him about the Co-operative model of running public services, he is full of praise:
"I think the Co-operative model is fantastic. Why co-operatives and the friendly society movement are so successful is because they were non-state solutions; they were local and accountable."
Alan Milburn and Julian Le Grand are two figures Carswell also broadly praises:
"I know what [Le Grand, a senior policy advisor to Tony Blair] is talking about and I have some empathy for it because I think he genuinely recognised in the last two years that you needed some system of downward accountability to the end user and the system, rather than officials, however competent, who lay in Whitehall."
On Milburn, meanwhile, Carswell says:
"I am fascinated that given the journey that Blair and Le Grand have taken, the default setting of the Labour Party would be to be where Milburn is - but Milburn is almost treated as being a crank."
Even with this brief sprinkling of praise, the picture that Carswell paints is not good. So in the final stages of our time together, I ask him for the one piece of advice for the left:
"Don't do what the Tories did for a decade, don't just go and talk to other people who think like you do. After you've lost three elections you'll realise that what makes you feel good in politics isn't what you necessarily need to be thinking about. We turned in on ourselves, we talked to ourselves, we regurgitated the Thatcher script without renewing it. What we should have done much, much faster than we did was go back and say what does it mean to be conservative and how is the world changing; what is it we like or dislike about the changes in the world? We have only started to do that since 2005. If the Labour Party goes into opposition they will remain in opposition if they don't listen to people like Milburn and Le Grand. If they do listen, though, they will return to their real roots - and then politics will get really interesting."
Over to you, Cruddas et al.
Douglas Carswell blogs every day at Talk Carswell.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Thomas, I take your point about the uncritical nature of this piece. I wanted to present Douglas's argument to stimulate the sort of debate that has occurred within the comments section.
'This smacks of the, 'so and so said it, so it must be true', shallowness of thought and analysis we've come to expect from so many these days, as an argument for people to agree with them because they seem incapable of formulating a case themselves.'
Ouch! Although again I take your point. I think Douglas is wrong on many counts. On Europe, he articulates a view which fails to account for the rapid growth of globalisation and the challenge to the Westphalian nation-state model. On quangos, he uses pejorative discourse which fails to account for the significant amount of good work they do. And on human rights he doesn't at any point substantiate his discourse on the subject or provide a convincing critique of the legislation that is in place.
I am however, inclined to agree with his analysis of parliament, the co-operative movement and the localist agenda. I think the localism agenda provides the left with some interesting food for thought and I wanted to trigger some debate on it.
But again, I will take your comments on board for next time!
I'm rather surprised how little comment this article has generated over the last day.
Context is everything. I don't think you're reporting the comments of someone who is providing disinterested advice. Some of this advice is clearly intended to be divisive and self serving and the uncritical reporting of it does you a diservice. Alan 'Another Directorship' Milburn should be where the Labour party is? Great. I think you'll find that's the left wing of the Conservative party.
Dear old Doug Carswell seems to have provided a gem you've mentioned only in passing and then bases his assumptions on the rather big assumption that the current situation was inevitable. It wasn't.
The Tories wouldn't even have a look in at this stage except for the errors made in this parliament by the PLP and executive. Yes, even in the depths of the most severe global recesssion since the second world war, it's GB and co who made the Tories look electable, not the Cameroons.
The thing about the 'Levellers and Chartists' comment is that these were grassroots, bottom up, campaigns. Both of course pre-dating Labour by a quite a time.
I would agree with his general view that those who lead political parties and are then deaf to the aspirations and wishes of those they seek to provide leadership to are going to end up in trouble. But let's think for a moment why he would say that. I can think of some very partisan reasons.
However, nobody forced GB to bottle an election after becoming leader, and nobody forced various MPs to act with complete disdain for the electorate and for what is seen to be morally upright behaviour.
The fact he claims the Tories started to listen to other views is irrelevant. Mr Carswell is, remember, an ideological associate of Dan Hannan. Their 'Plan' has the same lack of depth and selective supporting cases we now expect from our leading politicians.
I don'y really think you needed to speak to him to find an insight into what is wrong currently. Try speaking to your own members, and dare I say, the general public.
This smacks of the, 'so and so said it, so it must be true', shallowness of thought and analysis we've come to expect from so many these days, as an argument for people to agree with them because they seem incapable of formulating a case themselves.
You're clearly not stupid. Make yor own case, not that of someone else with their own agenda.
* Concentrate on enacting the constitutional reform bill with the Wright committee proposals to reduce the power of the executive and AV (as a start)
* Bring together in one visible place all the efforts of 'industrial activism'
* A credible budget on 24 March
That's all you can do in what remains of this Parliament and as a symbolic break with the recent past.
You can't proclaim about a future, fair for all and incorporate Blair and what he represents.
Hear hear. He's Labour's Thatcher, a few old nutters still worship him but he's either loathed or forgotten in the country and a complete liability. I'm sure he's got better things to like polish his gold speed-boat or count all his houses, the old socialist that he is.
And Campbell, Mandelson* and all the other nutters and unelected hangers-on even more so.
* Always good to have a laugh at his 'Keith Vaz' comedy accent though.
If you read Labourlist regularly you will find we are doing all these cool things already. Even before we have either won/lost the GE we are questioning what it is to be Labour and only turning on those aspects of the Party that are unacceptable to the majority of the British Public. In key areas such as Constitutional Reform, increasing electoral representation, reforming the economy, health, education, the environment, distribution of resources or wealth, etc etc many people are commenting from within the Labour Movement.
Introspection is tough and painful sometimes, but when you examine the mistakes made you can build an improved platform for the next step. We members are ready to do that but the vested "interests" to whom politics has become a source of income and who are dependent on it for a living rather than a professional occupation, cannot do that.
So you will always get some conflicts when removed from power as people who desire change challenge the status quo. The real battle will be to find a platform that unites the Party and we have one which does actually create a dignified gradual withdrawel of the old school and the introduction of a new school.
The real question though is no longer about renewal or new ideas. It is about whether the Labour Party can justify it's own existence. Can and should it challenge Neo-Liberal politics or should it fade away as an old socialist ghost?
Should the current leadership retain their vice like grip on the Party, with contempt for democracy and freedom, then the latter will most certainly occur if we win the General Election as the Party continues to show additional (through necessity but in addition to doing so when it was not necessary) ruthlessness towards the weak and vulnerable they were voted in to protect. Admittedly some important but in the grand scheme of things, token things have been done though such as Sure Start.
Should we lose the election various groups and personalities will seek to dominate the situation with their "grand ideas" of where the party should go and eventually the Right and Center of the Party under a shallow cental leftist mantra which will be incredibly open to discretionary interpretation to allow MP's to continue to increase their own wealth and interests, will seek to unite what they can seeking other bodies outside the Labour Party to support them.
As things stand currently, the Party is in steady decline. It no longer has an identity and shockingly has many "senior" and "celebrated" individuals that have no grasp of the basics of poitical polarity, composition or implications of policy cause and effect either on the ground or in strategic effect within the party itself.
In other words we have a big mental vacuum within the Party.
Too many unscientific people trying to use what they believe to be scientific and objective methodology to try and make the party look "professional" with their "evidence" has not helped at all. So many sociological surveys and measures to compensate for a fundamental lack of understanding of life, of causation and consequence.
You cannot scientifically validate idealism and you cannot remove idealism from politics any more than you can remove the clouds from the sky. Of course such research is created to "validate" an already existing political agenda and has no real obejectivity. Anyone remotely familiar with science operates from a hypothesis and sociology or social experiements carried out by people with little understanding of others clumsily attempting to quanitify others in a lab-rat fashion just come across as geeky and strange as they clearly have little understanding of themselves as well as others. I often wonder how the proponents of such techniques would feel if they themselves were on the receiving end.
So "scientology" politics is not the answer.
There are of course many ways we can re-engage people blogs just being one, but I am loathe to contribute further as I have ranted on long enough and as I said, as things stand the biggest question of all needs to be answered as our Government clearly believe corporatism is with us to stay as they recruit more "members" from selected backgrounds of Oxbridge and the banks/FSA for a "fast-track career" in politics.
Should there be a Labour Party and if the answer is "yes" then why?
I know the answer to this, or at least my own answer. But it does not marry with the policies and legislation generated by Parliament. And since "senior" MP's rule our Party the role of them in Parliament is as they have chosen, the defining identity of our Party then the failure to reconcile with them means I am not in concord with the identity of the Labour Party.
In fact the very fact I am helping vulnerable people on the doorstep and trying to/solving their issues and not leaving them to sort themselves out is in complete contrast to what our MP's are saying our Party represents in terms of the values that are the foundation of the legislation they are creating.
So I wonder what everyone's answer is?
That's probably because hardly any of them have a science or engineering background. Parliament aren't just mostly Oxbridge graduates, they're mostly from a very narrow range of disciplines as well.
Spot on.
Millburn "listening to the roots".
When did this begin? If you mean "progress" you are funny.
The reason he is treated as a complete farce was because of his "special interests" that I can assure you dominated this mans attention further than his own constituents or constituent party members ever did.
"Criticism is part and parcel of being in government. Some of it is superficial, partisan and not worth the time of day. Some, on the other hand, is tactile, resonant and worthy of discussion."
This applies to what the government say about the opposition. I look at the comments of Ashcroft with disdain, we have cash for peerages, Lord Paul etc.. Would we have had the save the NHS campaign in the light of the recent revelations?
Both of the above points are not policy. I often struggle to post because there is so much partisan rubbish that you cant get to the reality that will excite people.
Somebody please tell me how we are going to rebuild our economy; where does it fit in the global context and what are we going to do to ensure that we have a sustainable equitable future for our population. This narrative is not coming from the PLP and I (a natural Labour voter) will not be turning out for the PLP in May.
Mr Carswell might thinkor say this - I couldn't possibly comment! :)
there are many of us that think this is exactly the problem, not serving 1 million swing voters but the millions who desire a proper left leaning labour party