With half the newspapers in the land pronouncing the death of New Labour following last week’s crushing defeat in the Crewe and Nantwich by-election, the party desperately needs some new ideas. One suggestion comes in the new issue of Prospect from Philip Collins, a former speechwriter to Tony Blair, and Richard Reeves, author of a recent biography of John Stuart Mill.
The Labour party has two contrasting political traditions, say Collins and Reeves. One, the centralising, Fabian tradition, tends to see a problem and then to assume a policy solution. The other—the “radical liberal” tradition as exemplified by the likes of Leonard Hobhouse and Lloyd George—is closer to Isaiah Berlin’s notion of “positive liberty”: it sees the role of the state as providing not the “absence of restraint, but the presence of opportunity.”
Now that the big division in British politics is between not left and right, but between liberal and authoritarian, it is the latter tradition of liberalism, say Collins and Reeves, that the party must focus on if it is to regain the trust of voters. This implies a number of policy changes in areas like the NHS, taxation and the environment. You can read the full treatment here.
A very good article. The authors seem well on the way to seeing the light. But what they are expounding is much of why I and others are LibDems; and why we gave up on the Labour Party quite a long time ago. If people in the Labour Party want to get liberal, they will be going right against the grain in trying to do it in that party. The way to become and be liberal, both with people who have your values and with the slowly swelling political tide of the last 30 years, is to join the Liberal Democrats.
Up till now, young men and women who want to make a career in politics have seeen little hope of doing so as LibDems. Now, which will offer a better chance over the next six or eight Parliaments, Labour or LibDem, is an open question; one requiring a courageous answer.
Yes, but this territory has already been occupied by Cameron. If Gordon Brown suddenly pretended to be a non-authoritarian small state Liberal no-one would believe him. The conclusion is that the Labour Party will die - an outcome which appears increasingly likely. It happened to the Liberals after all.
Agree with some of this but not all. I am not entirely convinced about global warming or the green agenda which seems to be an excuse to raise taxes to little if any effect. Being old enough to recall the ‘danger’of the Thames freezing, acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer I wonder how long this scare will last. Also disagree about inheritance tax, I want my son to have my house, we worked very hard for it, paying taxes all our working lives, never claiming anything so why should my son and his family lose the chance to bring his children up in a family home he could never afford to buy. It is not our fault house prices have risen so much. I do agree about putting the customer in the driving seat for education and medical treatment, it is ridiculous that that one can’t even pay top up costs without losing the right to NHS treatment you have paid for, that in some places education is so poor that not very wealthy people are giving up a great deal to educate their children privately and many more would if they could afford it. There is no chance of any of this happening under Brown who is a classic ‘The State Knows Best’ exponent. Tony Blair had the most wonderful chance ever in 1997, people believed in him, he had an unbeatable majority and he wasted it, in no small way because of Brown who should have been sacked long ago for blocking any chance of real reform and for his treachery. I hope now the Liberal Democrats replace Labour as the second Party. You have no idea how much Brown is loathed, everyone I know, regardless of their polical allegience, despises him and his weak cabinet - no one to challenge him. So I hope for a new start under Cameron or Cameron and Clegg, no one could be worse than this lot.
I particularly agreed with authors raising concerns about the Government believing that “Britishness” can be legislated for. The current neo-Unionist agenda being promoted by the Prime Minister, is not just misguided, it is a waste of time and effort when more important ideas need to be pursued. On this theme, I recently posted this on my ‘Evidently Chickentown’ blog:
The Spectator is not my favourite magazine (for very obvious reasons), however, their Coffee House blog can sometimes be an interesting read.
This headline in particular, made me smile tonight: ‘Labour Conference abolishes Britishness’
Apparently, journos filling in application forms to attend this year’s Labour Conference, are shocked at their inability to declare their nationality as ‘British’ on the form. They have to choose from English, Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh or a foreign nationality, instead.
This is an interesting administrative ‘oversight’ by the Party, given Gordon Brown’s neo-Unionist crusade of recent years.
In 2006, in an article for the Daily Telegraph (yes, I said the Daily Telegraph), Gordon Brown said, in a completely over-the-top statement: “It is now time for supporters of the Union to speak up, to resist any drift towards a Balkanisation of Britain.” Bold words indeed from the man who rightly and immediately, recognised the new state of Kosovo, earlier this year.
Undeterred by this contradiction, Gordon has ploughed on, reiterating his message via another recent article for the Torygraph.
Two years on from the launch of Gordon’s ‘big-idea’, I think it is safe to assert that Britain - and importantly, England - has responded to his clarion call, with all the enthusiasm of John Terry being appointed Chelsea’s principal penalty taker.
In short, Gordon’s crusade on the Union has failed in message, direction and purpose. In the words of John Cleese in that famous sketch - “I know a dead parrot when I see one, and I’m looking at one right now”.
Like John Major’s ‘Back to Basics’ policy that failed to connect with voters in 1993, Gordon’s neo-Unionism is of no relevance to the punters either.
Whether its Usk, Ullapool or Uttoxeter - neo-Unionism is proving to be an electoral turn-off, at a time when Labour needs turn-out.
Its time to find policies for the moment, not the past.
‘Evidently Chickentown’? They probably won’t get the John Cooper Clarke reference so I feel obliged to provide a link to the original chickentown
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bEWT6pdjON8
Oh, and I don’t want to go to bloody Burnley either
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6kLhZTP4ywY
NuLab has forgotten all this, even Beastly Beasley Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37QUUwp9xIs
Can anybody name a NuLab song…
@C.Scott,
“the ‘danger’of the Thames freezing” was a short-lived scare, based on the opinions of only a few researchers who quickly disavowed it in the light of new data within a couple of years.
“climate change”, while only recently at the top of the political agenda, has been accumulating scientific support for decades
“acid rain and the hole in the ozone layer” were real problems that have only been ameliorated through anti-polution regulations.
The response to Climate Chnange tends to focus on tax because industry tends to oppose the regulations necessary to control greenhouse gases.
Your opposition to inheritance tax seems predicated on a housing boom that is now hopefully over, while you have little faith in education’s ability to secure a prosperous future for your son and his family. But without tax, where is the education to come from? (We still lag behind comparable countries in the EU and OECD for educational spending per student.)
@Evidently Chickentown,
When did stating our nationality (we are all citizens of the UK) become ‘neo-Unionism’? Did I miss that memo?
The current vogue for Britishness-denialism seems largely to stem from the frustrated Right - still, after 30 years, unable to convince the rest of the country that policies that mainly serve the interests of the South-East are beneficial to all, they have resolved to drop the laggards. Once Wales and Scotland are out of the way, they’ll be better placed to lord it over the North - or drop them in the fullness of time too…
@ D Jones - Our nationality? It may be your nationality, however, I suspect there will be a sizeable proportion of the 5 million Scots and 3 million Welsh, who share these islands, who would not necessarily agree with your “our nationality” assertion. Maybe, there’s the problem for Gordon. Political leaders should not pursue policies that seek to impose or dictate identities on voters.
Gordon’s Neo-Unionism (my term) does precisely that. What started off as a ‘big idea’ wheeze for him, has failed to resonate with voters. The only newspaper who praises Gordon on this policy, is the Telegraph. Which speaks volumes in itself. I think Gordon’s priorities and efforts would be better served elsewhere.
D Jones - Time will tell about climate change but you must admit that our little island can make little difference while countries like China are building new coal fired power stations every week. Not that I blame them, they are only trying to do what all the western countries did when they industrialised. From what I read the case for man made climate change is not yet proven but still seen as the excuse for new taxes. I have no objection to paying tax, indeed we paid it all our lives, however I do not think it right that the family home should be part of it. My late husband and I came from solid working class backgrounds, fathers steel worker & mill worker, lived in council houses but from homes where education was highly valued as a way to improve our lives. Thanks to Grammar schools we both made it to free university education. From a tiny flat when we married we slowly and often painfully moved up the housing ladder to a nice family home in a nice area, is it so wrong to want this to go to my son, he has quite a good job but could not afford to buy it now and I want my grandson to grow up here. I actually hope the house prices do fall to help young families move up as we did, if the Government and the banks had done years ago what they are doing now prices would never have gone so high. We had to save, have a deposit and only got three times my husband’s salary even although I was working too. No, I do not think the education available to my grandson will give him anything like the chances we had. My son went to a school that had been changed from grammar to comprehensive, it wasn’t too bad at first but got so bad it is now closed. I still pay tax on my pensions but if I can I will gladly pay to send my grandson to a private school if his parents want it for him. What little the powers that be leave us after tax is our money, at least for the moment! What really makes me angry is that children from our background do not have the chances we had.
Dear Sir -
Liberalism is the best antidote to the troubles of any political machine that has got stuck in the mud of old-guard soviet-style state socialism.
See the mess all round for miles.
We could pull Old Labour out of this Passchendale but the MPs in the party do have the resources to pull themselves out - they just need to think of their old leader’s high regard for Edmund Burke.
Tim Wilkinson
Yes, there are liberal and Fabian traditions within the Labour Party (as well as many others). Yes, Collins and Reeves set forth a series of impeccably liberal policy prescriptions which will most likely meet favour with Prospect’s readership. But their piece is premised on the commentator’s disease of wishful thinking: the way for politicians to be successful in purely partisan terms is for them to act in accordance with my values which just happen to be the values of the British people. There is a self-serving projection or conflation going on here that fails to acknowledge that often our own politics, however fervently we believe in them, will hurt us.
It is a sort of West Wing fallacy - that somehow if one just has the courage of one’s convictions and pursues them boldly and disinterestedly, then the ugly partisan side of politics will take care of itself and the opinion polls will express a sort of admiration for you. With Sorkin it was a liberal wishful-thinking as well. He imagined an America in which a liberal President could somehow pursue a liberal cultural agenda in the face of a culturally conservative press and nation, and yet find itself becoming more popular for doing so. Authenticity was a sort of political alchemy. Collins and Reeves, I think are probably deluding themselves in the same way.
For a lengthier, more involved analysis of the phenomenon, refer to my blog at:
http://adammcnestrie.wordpress.com/