The Labour movement column
By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter
One of the oldest adages in British politics is that oppositions don’t win elections, governments lose them. It is verging on banality to even write it. And yet, the closing months of 2009 have seen the government’s strategy seemingly resting on the diametric opposite of this. Its positioning and strategy has been about deflecting attention onto the Tories.
What has been the result? Well, taking an average of the poll score in November and December from UK Polling Report we can see that Labour has gone from an average of 27% in November to 27.7% in December. Hardly earth shattering. And the Conservatives? They’ve gone from 39.2% to 40% from November to December. Does ‘class war’ work? Judge for yourself.
There are five short months, in probability, until the election. There is only one thing that will secure a victory for Labour. That’s the government making a case for why it has the leadership, competence, and vision to guide the UK through what will inevitably be a choppy and challenging four or five years.
This is my fifty-first article for LabourList this year. It is to a piece I wrote in October that I wish to return. It is where I called on the Prime Minister to display humility about Labour’s record but also to challenge the opposition leaders to a series of Douglass-Lincoln style Town Hall debates. I ventured to craft a draft speech for the Prime Minister and after seeing the return of class and dividing line politics over the last few weeks, I would stand by every word in that speech:
These paragraphs seem particularly relevant:
“Those British values of basic decency, mutuality and generosity - shared across these Isles - are why we could not just stand by and watch millions plummet into unemployment, destitution and desperation. Our opponents - the Conservatives - would have taken undue risks that would have led and could still lead to economic calamity."
“I like and respect the Leader of the Opposition: he is a family man; he has faced struggles in life; I don’t doubt his commitment to the NHS; I don’t accept that just because he attended Eton that disqualifies him from having a genuine desire to act in the public interest."
“But on the big calls, he’s got it wrong. And he continues to get it wrong. Because he blames government for all our ills, it blinds him to the possibility that by acting together we can really improve the lives of all."
"Perhaps you don’t accept this. But I ask just one thing: let’s lift our politics up over the coming months. This is a destiny election. Our vision of the future of Britain is radically different to our opponents."
Instead of this approach - provoking an enlightening national conversation - Labour has returned to ‘dividing line’ politics. What’s more, the political divide locks us into somewhere just below 30% of the electorate.
Now, in a very short space of time Labour must return to ‘unifying line’ politics. Failure to do so leaves the party as a sitting duck - a easy sucker punch for the Tories would be to point to a government that was seeking to turn people against one another at a time when national leadership was required. Not good.
Next year’s election will be a change election. That doesn’t mean that Labour doesn’t stand a chance. It absolutely does. But even if the economy recovers strongly, a powerful case will have to be made for another Labour term - and it wont be secured just by recanting past achievements. Rather, a powerful case for a fourth term will have to be articulated - there’s no way of deflecting away from that basic reality.
What might be the elements of this vision?
* Firstly, a new economy built on long-term value, investment and commitment rather than making a quick and reckless buck. That means General Motors, Rolls Royce, Jaguar Land Rover but also green tech, biotech and creative media and communication. It means fusing our research brilliance with commercial dynamism. It means encouraging broader ownership so workers of all types have more of say.
* Secondly, public services have to become locally embedded. They need to respond better to individual needs where patients, parents, residents (in the case of housing or long-term care) and users of all types have a greater say over the services they receive with professionals freed to meet those individual needs. Stakeholders - users, professionals, members of the local community, other service providers - must have a greater say of how local services are delivered. Mutualist models will help with this. Active welfare must become proactive, with skills needs for each individual identified prior to potential unemployment upon which it must be even more active.
* Thirdly, politics must be reformed. House of Lords Reform, and a broader Bill of Rights (which includes obligations alongside rights) and a referendum on electoral reform are all commitments that shoul be made. There needs to be a broader constitutional convention with a simple brief: to recommend on formal changes to the UK constitution to secure a healthy, involved, 21st century British democracy.
* Finally, the importance of an active, influential Britain will be underlined as we face a common terrorist threat, are imperiled by climate change, interlocked in mutual economic dependence, and have profound obligations to the developing world. Without influence in the European Union - which should be reformed and democratised further – we will have no influence anywhere else. We are no longer global leaders. But we can be active and good global citizens and we should not shy away from that.
There. Why should Labour have a fourth term? Because we need new economic opportunity and security, twenty-first century public services, a more democratic politics, and an influential Britain. It’s not about toffs and Tories at all. It’s about Labour, justice, and a fairer Britain.
Finally, I would like to thank the many people who read and comment on my columns. I enjoy reading your comments immensely and it is clear that Alex has succeeded in creating a genuinely political community on-line. Credit to him. Keep coming back in 2010, it is going to be an enormous year for LabourList. Thank you and enjoy the final few days of 2009.
Delicious
Digg
Reddit
Facebook
StumbleUpon
Absoloutely excellent!
Why am I not reading about this in the national Press? It makes so much more sense, and is clear and simple.
I particularly like what you say about "mutualist models" and "active welfare".Seems to tie in with the idea of participatory democracy.
I think it's true Labour need to concentrate on setting out its stalls for further development and radical ideas, rather than being defensive and campaigning negatively.
I think the public are incredibly weary of PMQ's style of politics, and excessive spin.I think a clear cut agenda laid out simply and convincingly is what's needed.
The poor did not complain, because with interest-free loans on goods, and access to a carousel of credit cards, material wealth became more attainable than ever before.
The first-time buyers did not complain, because more relaxed mortgage loans allowed them to get onto the house price conveyor-belt: inexorably heading upwards, and giving the impression of wealth.
The middle-earners did not complain, because the same house price conveyor-belt saw more and more who wholly-owned their houses bought for £30k become worth 10 or 20x as much, and with a strong pound were able to enjoy holidays to match millionaires.
The rich did not complain, as asset prices and shares grew ever higher, producing more and more cash to spend on ever more extravagant items.
The government saw all this, and will have been warned about the (now so obvious) cracks, but even at the time we all "knew" that house prices were rising too fast, too quickly, and were outstripping affordability, and we all "knew" that household debt was growing at an unprecedented rate to record and unsustainable highs, and yet we were all so complacent: partly because we were having so much fun, but partly put at ease by the Chancellor's negligent response: to suggest that we had "put an end to boom and bust" will be Brown's epitaph for historians looking back.
Politicians on both sides of the house must share blame for the poor legislation which could not cope with what followed, but there is nothing Brown can do to change his primary part in that legacy, and with or without him at the helm, the PLP will have to accept that Labour will be punished for it.
I remember acutely Hazel Blears defending the fact the FSA had one of the NatWest/RBS Bosses at the its head. She saw no problem with a vested interest. Poor woman, to be so utterly devoid of an intellect must be it's own punishment.
But she was not alone with this view clearly, as so many alongside her and before her clearly felt the same way as they "led" us all into disaster.
A "Dogs Breakfast" to them is good management Chris, especially when such a breakfast ensures they get the money and jobs they want. If the banks say hop, they hop, if the say white is black then the law changes to suit that mad desire, whatever the banks ask the MP's do without question or thought.
Thinking is for politically minded and creative people not Parliamentarian unelites.
Labour were on watch, so theirs is the blame.
The problem lies less in faulty regulation than in faulty economics and ideology, and there is no difference between the parties here.
If the regulatory structure had been capable of doing its job it would have been dismantled. As it was, most of the capable regulators were poached by the industry. The staff that the regulators needed, they couldn't afford: and the ones they could afford, they didn't need.
A complete Dog's Breakfast.
No, this started when this nation's banks were allowed to trade in these CDO's. Incidentally, UK banks bad debts as a percentage of GDP are many times higher than US exposure.
Spanish, Swedish, Canadian banks didn't trade in these products, neither did some of the UK banks like HSBC.
The mistake was with the UK regulator, nobody put a gun to the bank's head to make them buy these toxic assets.
Peter Lilley, the Shadow Chancellor, is listed in Hansard on the 11.11.97 as warning that the new Bank of England Act weakens its controls on debt management. I can find the quote if needs must.
The very weakness that permitted the BoE getting the full picture of bank debts and allow them to take action at the earliest opportunity.
Where was Brown's warning in 1997 seeing as it was his legislation?
It is funny is it not? Tories warned of this and that...GB himself said he warned people of the dangers back in 1997.
The real fault of course was in the US. What became abundent though was the lack of understanding of hedgefunds displayed by all politicians in the wake of it all lol!
Oh and William Hague was about to discuss further deregulation just before the collapse, so not only did he see this not coming we wanted to suck up to them more than Blair and Major!
The Tories didn't neuter the regulators to the point where not one party in the tripartite arrangement knew what to do in a crisis.
The Tories with a degree of foresight warned Labour on its Bank of England legislation that the regulation was faulty.
Falling back on blaming the Tories is stock in trade for any Labour activist right up to the PM.
This is 12 years of faulty regulation blowing up in our faces; Labour's regulation.
You're a victim of your own misguided propaganda. I think you'll find the Tories are also responsible for the mess we are in because too muvh power in the hands of too few is NEVER a good idea, the banks gained support from both parties to do as they pleased and neither group has been shown to have learnt anything at all.
I suspect that even then the voters will remember what your Party did last time. They will still be paying off the bill
You wish ...................
Agreed that the managers need replacing I guess the medical staff should decide which ones they need/don't need ;).
Yes I do believe reform must involve removal of the managers. If we want a stakeholder NHS then we need the decision-making made by people who deliver the service and receive the service, not some group of blue sky thinkers on 6 figure salaries.
But never mind ........ if if if wont wash. The PM is openly RIDICULED to TV day in and day out by every comedian, commentator and members of the public on phone ins. He is seen as an uncaring incompetent control freak. The Cabinet is dead in the matter with not a decent new idea between them and split into cabals readying the knives for the post defeat bloodletting. Yesterday we even had a Minister openly calling on Brown to stop the divisive class war campaign that will help destroy your vote.
There is no way back from this in the time frame within which Brown must call the election. Labour's only hope now is to ditch him intermediately and go into the election with a new face but the terror of the Brownies means that wont happen.
So reform must involve the removal of Managers and dependents directly?
I had hoped that with incresed power to local trusts such managers could be reduced in number to favour more useful healthcare professionals.
Clearly something I am going to have to look into.
As to the EU, I have yet to see any country put aside it's National interests for the EU ideal, though Blair claimed he was a proponent of the EU ideal.
" Labour’s underlying poll position is disastrous. The UK Polling Report calculates the current average at 40-28-19, which implies a Conservative overall majority of 36 seats. This is significantly worse than a year ago, just before the London G20 summit, when Labour was in the mid-30s and 4/5 point Tory leads were routine. Moreover, many Labour-identifying voters say that they are not prepared to vote Labour at the coming election; a big pool of lost Labour voters now back other parties and Labour supporters are more likely than Tory ones to be considering switching sides or not voting.
All the evidence suggests that Brown’s leadership reduces Labour support, that alternative leaders would improve our ratings, and that an election determined by voters’ answers to the question “Do you want Gordon Brown to be Prime Minister for the next five years?” would further shrink Labour support.
In these circumstances some clutch, bizarrely, at the straw of an occasional poll showing ‘only’ a 9 point lead for the Conservatives (even when intermingled with 17 point leads). Others hope that the Conservatives might not achieve an overall majority but merely be the largest party in a hung parliament."
and
" The net effect of this conspiracy of silence and inaction has been that Gordon Brown has so far been able to see off all challenges to his leadership.
As we reach 2010, rightly described by Ed Balls as ‘the most important General Election for a generation’, the implications of the status quo are crystal clear – a smashing defeat for Labour and poorer lives for the people we seek to serve.
Yet the General Election is eminently winnable for Labour under a new leader. "
Unity anyone? Or just a lemming like rush over the cliff?
And the lemmings are actually a deeper metaphor for Nu Labours position than perhaps you know. For the famous film of lemmings committing suicide by rushing off a cliff was a fake. Lemmings don't do that but the producers throught they did, so they had a man with buckets full of lemmings throwing them over an earth bank to simulate it for the cameras. Nu Labour finds itself in the same position with Gordon's bucket. But unfortunately he's using a real cliff and its a long way down.
I can now recruit all the unskilled staff I need from the "Flexible New Deal" scheme and, in point of fact, am paid out of the government's own coffers to do so. I've found that the people the Jobcentres and numerous private agencies paid handsomely by the DWP to arrange "work experience" for unemployed men and women normally send me people mostly willing to work very hard for no reward from my company, especially if I hint that there may be a job at the end of it for them if they "prove themselves" (even though there no such position exists of course). I can currently get all the freebie graduates and non-graduates and make use of them any way I choose, within reason, since while placed with me they have no rights to speak of at all. Great isn't it?! I can now slash my wages bill and afford to take three luxury holidays a year all thanks to the Flexible New Deal - a policy implemented by a "Labour government" no less. Although actually under Blair and Brown the unemployed have progressively been handed over to employers and landlords to be used as unpaid chattels - slaves really. All we need to do now is to strip the unemployed of their right to Jobseeker's Allowance and force them to take up residence in a workhouse... probably better to use a more continental name for said institution... for example "Foyer" from the French... and only give them food and water if they undertake some kind of useful activity. There's a lot to be said for Gordon Brown and Yvette Cooper's strict Victorian attitudes towards the labour market.
Imagine for a moment that you are a small business man looking to expand your concern and cut down on labour costs and that the government is enlightened enough to supply you with an army of sub-minimum wage slave labour to use as you see fit! Fantastic!
And I always thought the Labour Party were pro "social justice" - whatever that means - and anti business! The only thing that could be better is to have a real Tory government that would turn the unemployed over to me for a full year to do with what I pleased. Oh boy! I really can't wait to start using these unemployed wretches like thralls.
Marvellous.
The problems afflicting the NHS cannot be brought about by pragmatic contributions, the whole system needs a radical and systemic change if we are to save the NHS. Actually, problems unnecessary created by the NHS have been brought about by driving through localism. Foundation Trusts escape the same scrutiny that standard Trusts do, take Mid Staffordshire Foundation Trust for example.
Localism cannot work in the current conditions of public services that are driven in a quasi-private direction. The Internal Market (Labour pledged to remove in 1997) has created that bureaucratic layer of managers and consultants that now outnumber doctors and nurses. As long as we continue to replace proper employment structures with casual labour, wages and morale will continue to drive down. If we want local people in charge of local services, we first need to take them from the profiteers and put them in the hands of local people. I mainly talk about hospitals here, but local transport is also important.
On Point 4, I agree that if we're going to be part of the EU, we need to be fully involved. The problem with Blair and Brown is that they also marched into Treaty debates declaring they were "defending the national interest" or "protecting the red lines", rather than working to make Europe better. I've spoken to a few of my international friends who work for the Commission, they say the reason Britain is such a laughing stock is treaties are pursued for self-interest rather than the European interest. If we're in the EU, this outlook is wrong, in my opinion.
1. Nice response on point one. The government is also planning to cut essential monies into tech research which even before was a measly 3 billion. Wrong priorities, the future sustainable economic growth and needs of the next generation exceed our own.
We must add to the economic diversity and take a lead on research and begin rebuilding manufacturing.
Though Blighty is still, in a global context a good place to do business.
2. I agree with Anthony here. You need to care how your hospital is run as your pragmatic contrinbutions could make a real difference, which is what the NHS desperately needs if it is to survive along with so many other services.
3. Totally agree with you both but we need a Constitutional standards code of conduct/flexible written constitution with public participation and involvement. It is after all their country.
4. Agreed with Anthony to an extent, we need to make the whole thing democratic first or it will remain the farcical joke that it is.
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2010/01/labour-lead-government
As a sample
"If Britain's economy is seen to start growing again, this could help Labour further." This must be one of the party's great hopes. The next few weeks should bring the release of official data showing growth in the fourth quarter of 2009; and unemployment may not now rise as much as was feared. But we should be cautious. The economy did remarkably well between 1993 and 1997, yet this did little to help the reputation of John Major's troubled government, which had been shot to pieces by the events of Black Wednesday, 16 September 1992. Labour, likewise, will be burdened at the coming election by the vast Budget deficit and memories of last winter's sharp recession. I expect economic recovery to help Labour a little, but not much."
It was light-hearted, Trust me i am the last one who should complain about typos .
Danny
Is That Richard Ashcroft the tory bloke Lord Ashcroft? and is it the same Lord ashcroft that just saved Watford fc from going bust?
Danny
Richard Ashcroft should be in the House of Lords!
Hate to be picky but its Baroness ashton not ashcroft.
Danny
Point 1 and Point 2 are just typical New Labour weasel words, I know I used to write local party literature like that. You can say a lot but mean very little.
On Point 1, simply, our Government has failed in the last 12 years to diversify our economic base, and did not regulate effectively. I have no faith that Brown, who let companies like Rover and Vestas go to the wall when Chancellor, has any desire to rebuild manufacturing in this country.
On Point 2, you'll find that most working class people like myself don't actually care how our hospitals are run, whether they are local or national. What we actually want is to be able to go into a clean hospital, with doctors, nurses and surgeons we know and who speak good English and have good manners, and be seen as quickly and effectively as possible. To us, we don't seem to want much. What we need to do is claw back areas that were sold off in the NHS, like cleaning and catering, under this disastrous Internal Market programme, and bring them under hospital control. Less agency workers and more directly employed staff would be nice as well.
On Point 3, you're absolutely correct, but again, you write as if it hasn't been us in power since 1997. Labour chose to leave 93 Hereditary Peers in the House of Lords, and not to bring elections to it. Labour chose to ignore the Jenkins Report, and then went on to in 66% of the seats with 35% of the vote in 2005. Why is electoral reform now on the cards after years in the wilderness? Would it have anything to do with that Conservative Government on the horizon.
Point 4, Labour, as the Conservatives before it, have made the case for Europe unclear. Many people don't see the point of it, it's just a waste of money. Even as a politico, I am yet to be convinced of the case for the European Union that has decimated industry, agriculture and fishing in this country. We need serious democratic reform in the European Union, either in the European Council or the European Commission, but as long as Baroness Ashcroft sits as Foreign Affairs Representative, someone who has never contested an election, the EU will continue to be a stain on democracy.
I would never vote Labour but wasn't horrified by Blair winning in 1997 and 2001 because he didn't threaten middle England.
Brown does threaten middle England and middle England knows it.
He has systematically moved the UK towards a high tax high spend model that people are sick to death off.
Your response to that? To talk of more spending, just at a time where years of spending money we didn't have is near ruining us.
I'm baffled by the seemingly endless lines of lefties who can't grasp a basic fundamental of finance, you can't just go on spending and spending and spending more than you have coming back in.
Every Labour government ends the same way because that basic truth gets ignored.
My Suggestion? Be Honest , Stop trying to out tory the torys and change the leadership , lets have a Labour primeminster for the first time in 30 years .
Danny