What next for Labour?
Bubble — By Owen Smith MP on May 25, 2010 7:00 am
Labour's insurgent appeal in bygone days. Can the party recapture this spirit again?
SO FAR, Westminster has been a bitter-sweet affair for this new Labour MP. Sweet to have won, and to have an opportunity to champion the hopes and dreams of the people of Pontypridd but, oh, so bitter to do it from the cold, forbidding exile of the Opposition benches.
In the Commons tea room, there’s been a special offer on brews to wash this sour taste from the mouths of Labour men and women. Most popular by far, however, has been a heady draft of scorn at the grasping haste with which the Lib Dems took the Tory shilling: unable to resist its greasy sheen, and seemingly oblivious to the hidden cost they may pay at the ballot box.
“Five years, of this unholy alliance? I’ll give ‘em five months, at best…and then they’ll learn what people think of sell-outs!” is how one Labour veteran put it to me.
Personally, fresh from an election campaign against an opportunist Liberal opponent, whose version of Clegg’s “new politics” was a low-blow attack on me for not being “local enough” (though as boys we went to the same school in Ponty, and as adults he once came to my house to fix the plumbing; I moved away five years ago, whereas he no doubt thinks it an act of betrayal to go shopping down Cardiff’s Queen Street), it’s been tempting to drink from this comforting cup of contempt. Certainly, a lot of older heads than mine seem assured that it’s safe to do so: convinced that a Gretna-style tryst can’t last, and that the Lib Dem dowry of a maybe-referendum on AV will neither seem adequate reward nor sufficient defence when the Tories start savaging domestic spending on schools, hospitals and welfare provision.
But I’m not so sure. In fact, I think this warming infusion risks a fuzzy feeling of false security, and at time when we need our senses, our acuity at their sharpest. Because I fear that this coalition may be both more stable and less unpopular than we hope and, far more importantly, I fear, too, that we may underestimate the scale of the task we face in rebuilding faith in our Labour Party as the true Progressive force in British politics. This is not, after all, a mantle we can claim by default, a happy by-product of the Liberal lurch to the right, it is a title we need to earn anew.
The stability of the coalition will be born of more than Lib Dems’ frontbench desire to keep their trouserseats polishing the ministerial car-leather. No, this is both a marriage of mutual convenience and a meeting of minds. Of course, for Clegg, the coalition offers a rare chance to exercise power, albeit limited to the confines of his Liberal Individualist instincts. There will be little room for his colleagues’ shallow-rooted Social Democracy, even in Cameron’s Conservative Party. For Cameron, however, the deal may offer even better value: affording him a counterbalancing “Tory” left-wing, allowing excision of some of their uglier policy carbuncles (the Inheritance Tax cut or repealing Human Rights, for example) and, ultimately, helping complete the sanitization of the Conservative brand. The only risk to this happy state for Cameron was his own ‘enemy within’, the swivel-eyed right, and the pitiless neutering of the 1922 Committee put paid to that – a cold-hearted demonstration that Cameron will cut the rope on deadweight with ruthless efficiency. Lib Dems should take note, and worry when they too will become expendable.
For the moment, however, they are useful. Not just for the reasons noted above, but also because they will provide vital cover for the bone-deep public sector cuts that Cameron and Osborne are so eager to inflict. Why was anyone surprised to see David Laws front and centre when the new Chancellor first appeared with the Treasury scalpel? They want the Liberals tied–in – first with the baubles of office, then later through their complicity in the carnage. They’ll have Laws and Clegg reeking of gore, defending every amputation as ‘unfortunate but necessary’, and quite unable to ever wash the stains from their hands.
But where does this leave Labour? Well, as already said, one option is to stand by in anticipation of an early, and acrimonious annulment, and make ready to catch the Lib Dems (or, in our most optimistic moments, our own popular mandate) on the rebound. But this assumes as inevitable the instability questioned above. And it also forgets the warning that this coalition may – at least until the blade bites – be more popular than we’d like. In fact, the initial popularity, of itself, tells us something about the state we’re in, because even ex-Labour voters who’ve “Voted Liberal and Got Tory” seem sanguine about the coalition. Not all of them, but enough to make us stop and think.
Why are they not more angry? In part, the answer is that the Expensegate-fuelled fury they had with politics at large – and Labour as politics’ incumbent party – was even greater. And the frustration they felt at all politicians’ timidity in the face of mighty market forces and bankers’ bonuses was greater still. ‘If they’re all the same, we might as well force them to manage things together’, goes the logic, ‘you never know, it might be better.’
More disturbing is the part of the answer that relates specifically to Labour – because the shoulder-shrugging attitude of some of our former voters in the face of an incoming Tory administration speaks volumes about the softening of our support. Too many of the thousands of doors I knocked on were answered by men and women who’d voted Labour all their lives but, with heavy heart, said they wouldn’t this time. Probe deeper and I found, time after time, people who felt let down by Labour, who felt that under the party of fairness and economic justice and equality, things were not always fair and that the disparities in wealth and opportunities, that persisted despite our efforts, were neither just, nor equitable – nor, perhaps, moral.
How did this happen? In short, because we were neither bold enough, nor Labour enough. Either side of 1997, New Labour succeeded in burying our reputation for being soft on the economy and soft on crime. Beneath a new aura of financial competence and domestic command, we created a coalition of support broader than we had hitherto imagined possible. However, we became trapped by this success. Crucially, though we redistributed by stealth, we became unable to openly articulate our traditional belief in increasing both social and economic equality through greater redistribution of means – lest we reignite doubts about our economic prudence (the same old Tax and Spend party was the charge we feared most).
Some of us also started to believe the Hayek-type hype: that markets can’t be bucked; that in industrial policy you can’t pick winners; that the private sector is innately more efficient; that it doesn’t matter how you deliver previously public services, as long as “consumers” have “choice”, the “products” are “personalised”, and the “incentives aligned”. None of these nostrums were true then and, after the global financial crisis that, ironically, put paid to our reputation for sound stewardship of the economy, they are even less true today. The combined effect of these impacts was to blur – certainly in popular perception – the ideological perimeters of Labour, soft-focussing what we stand for, and giving oxygen to the false accusation: ‘you’re all the same now’.
Our other mistake was to allow our politics to become infected with fashionable, McKinsey-style management metrics and niche marketing solutions – generating a fevered belief that the answer to every problem was just one more tweak of the policy knob: better targeting the benefit or measuring the impact, or incentivising the action. What we lost sight of in the thicket of this new technocracy, were the signal trunks of our traditional political philosophy. The progression of our blindness can be traced from the complexity of tax credits – targeted with pinpoint accuracy at society’s most needy, but breeding resentment and hostility in those only marginally better off (too often the couple living next-door) – through to our apparent impotence in the face of unscrupulous corporates exploiting immigrant labour, depressing wages and conditions for all.
Thus, as in a badly written novel, our central narrative became ever more diffuse, as new policies and initiatives – the political equivalents of dead end plot lines and poorly drawn characters – entered the story with obscuring effect. The result? Diminished understanding of what set Labour apart from our political opponents and retreat from engagement with party voters and party members into a turret of managerialist technocracy.
That’s the real explanation of why we were so surprised at the volume of anger aimed at immigration or welfare claimants – or, worse, misunderstood it as base racism – because we had lost touch with voters’ concerns about jobs and wages and living standards and the differentials in people’s opportunities. These concerns are about class and the ownership of capital and the health of the collective and the community: Labour concerns. They are the issues that gave rise to Labour and which are ours to address by right and responsibility. Immigration is largely a proxy for this deeper, economic malaise and though the solution may entail some tightening of borders and better management of migration processes, the real answer lies in delivering equitable economic growth, in rewarding jobs and living wages. Nothing integrates like success, as communities from today’s New York to nineteenth century Pontypridd bear testament.
But that is past now. We are in Opposition. And though I accept the “opportunity” for renewal might have been justly foregone to create a progressive alliance with the Liberals, and protect our country from the ravages of the state-shrinking Tories, it is an opportunity we now must grasp with both hands.
Already, challengers for the crown are starting to sketch the route to the future – and articulating versions of the analysis above. All of the candidates acknowledge that we need to reconnect with Labour grassroots, we need to become more plural and transparent, more open and inclusive. Evidence of remarkable wins against the odds, in constituencies where we have already succeeded in knitting Labour back into the fabric of communities, point the way in these respects. But we need, too, to address fundamental questions that reach far beyond how we organise, communicate and connect with citizens. Ed Miliband has rightly stated that “Immigration is a class issue”; Andy Burnham correctly asserts that “It should never be the case that labour has no views about wages at the top end of the scale”. And, as a new Labour MP, I want this debate to grow richer and to enfold people within it far beyond immediate Labour family.
Of course, we must not return to civil war-style discussion of earlier eras, but nor should we run scared of honest, even painful debate. We are in Opposition for the moment and can afford to repair not in haste, but for the long term. If we do so, we will come back stronger, more certain both of the many elements of the New Labour Past we must proudly cherish, but also of the traditional touchstones that must guide the Labour Party Future. When we do this we will build a platform and a politics that can inspire people once more: a Labour platform of fairness and equality, mutual support and collective interest, personal aspiration with public, plural success. Our debate must revolve around this, our true political centre: the individual is not separate from the society we strive to improve but empowered in individual aspiration and inspired to achievement by its collective root and flowering.
I know that all of the potential Labour leaders understand the need to articulate that mission anew, to build a new coalition of support and a Labour party hardwired into the current cultures and communities of Britain. I know, too, that any one of them would make leaders of our country more capable and connected with the British people than the Etonian elite we presently bear. However, I believe that Ed Miliband has demonstrated the greatest capacity to identify that route forward, uniting the generations and the tribes of Labour support, and focussing on a future informed only by the best of our past, and that is why I, and many other Welsh MPs, will be supporting him in the forthcoming leadership contest.
Tags: 2010 General Election, Owen Smith MP, public spending, Welsh Labour
Tweet This
Share on Facebook
Digg This
Bookmark
Stumble
22 Comments
I joined labour in 1966 but was a member from 1963 when i was given membership for the work I did within the Party, as a twelve year old.
I left labour when Brown took over , even before he became leader I could not stand the bloke, going back to the 1980′s he was one of those people who knew what he wanted and killing and back stabbing was a way of life for this bloke.
But the fact is I sat looking at my ballot paper, my heart said labour, but my head said Tory, in the end I voted Plaid, my wife who has been in the Labour party even longer voter Tory, we knew the Tories or Plaid would not win, but we just could not vote labour. Mind you we are both disabled we have been expecting to be boiled in Oil whom ever wins.
Do I think I’ll return to labour after the election of a new leader, nope because Labours dead Long live new Liebour.
“Too many of the thousands of doors I knocked on were answered by men and women who’d voted Labour all their lives but, with heavy heart, said they wouldn’t this time. Probe deeper and I found, time after time, people who felt let down by Labour, who felt that under the party of fairness and economic justice and equality, things were not always fair and that the disparities in wealth and opportunities, that persisted despite our efforts, were neither just, nor equitable – nor, perhaps, moral.”
Owen, I hope you will remember the message you received while out canvassing.
Why did the Labour government give the financial sector free rein? For example the average credit card interest rate is 33 times the Bank of England base rate.
The most affluent 20% of the population in Wales possess an average of £1.1m each in personal wealth while the poorest 20% have £9000.
Tax Havens rob the Treasury of £33bn a year – but Labour’s priority was tackling those on incapacity benefit getting around £90 a week.
During the coldest winter for 30 years British Gas was able to post a 58% increase in profits, while Labour gave £250 fuel payments to millionaires – if they were 60.
What was that about being “On the side of the many…”?
Congratulations on your election victory in Pontypridd, good luck for the future. I shall continue to support Labour.
A welcome contribution. I think this paragraph in particular will have a resonance for many Labour Party members:
“we were so surprised at the volume of anger aimed at immigration or welfare claimants – or, worse, misunderstood it as base racism – because we had lost touch with voters’ concerns about jobs and wages and living standards and the differentials in people’s opportunities. These concerns are about class and the ownership of capital and the health of the collective and the community: Labour concerns. They are the issues that gave rise to Labour and which are ours to address by right and responsibility. Immigration is largely a proxy for this deeper, economic malaise and though the solution may entail some tightening of borders and better management of migration processes, the real answer lies in delivering equitable economic growth, in rewarding jobs and living wages. Nothing integrates like success, as communities from today’s New York to nineteenth century Pontypridd bear testament.”
I’d add ‘social housing’ to Owen’s list of “equitable economic growth, in rewarding jobs and living wages”.
Given Owen’s refreshing references to class and to capital, it’s disappointing that while he refers to Labour, rightly, as the “party of fairness and economic justice and equality”, he omits explicit reference to one key word – “socialism”. This is especially frustrating given Owen’s avowed antipathy to “blur[ring] … the ideological perimeters of Labour, soft-focusing what we stand for”.
“party of fairness and economic justice and equality
… Which planet have you been on the few years
Labour are the party of bankers, yuppies, big corporations and US imperialst wars
Blair and Brown carried on where Thatcher left off and looked after bankers.
Didn’t Labour just get its lowest vote in Wales ever? Good! Wales votes Labour and gets sold out every time
At least with the Tories you know they have got it in for us.
I hope Labour goes away and dies quietly in a corner somewhere
There’s a bit of honesty here, but no reference to the Iraq and Afghanistan wars which were kept out of the election coverage but played a major role in Labour’s decline.
On the general theme of the piece, the author’s statement below is true enough-
“Some of us also started to believe the Hayek-type hype: that markets can’t be bucked; that in industrial policy you can’t pick winners; that the private sector is innately more efficient; that it doesn’t matter how you deliver previously public services, as long as “consumers” have “choice”, the “products” are “personalised”, and the “incentives aligned”. None of these nostrums were true then and, after the global financial crisis that, ironically, put paid to our reputation for sound stewardship of the economy, they are even less true today.”
But if Brown had won the election, all of the Hayek-hype would have remained. And the author would have had to support it in Parliament.
Peter Mandelson described the ‘Future Fair For All’ manifesto as ‘Blair Plus’.
Believing in the free market during the boom period might have been foolish, but sticking with it after the crash is unforgiveable.
Let’s not forget that the attacks on welfare that will now be orchestrated by the Tories and Lib Dems were trialled first by Labour,
And the troops dying in Afghanistan who will now be a blot on the conscience of the Tories and Lib Dems were first sent there by Labour.
A refreshingly honest account of where we are and where we need to get to, avoiding the usual cliches and factional stereotyping that oversimplifies and debases the debate about the direction of our party.
Probably not a good idea to intrude on private grief, but the lack of policies being cited as failures is nearly comical, given this is obviously a well written, thoughtful piece.
It has taken an apparent ‘lurch to the right’ to get rid of some of the most authoritarian policies ever.
New Labour refused to budge on raising the income tax threshold for poor people, raising a pension and minimum wage to living ones and supported to of the biggest mistakes in recent foreign policy history.
I don’t purport to say it was always a disaster, but window dressing honesty about markets etc does not hide the absolute failure of New Labour on a wide range of issues.
A great article setting out nicely the debates that should frame the forthcoming leadership election and a timely reminder of the importance of ideology in politics.
For two reasons: one, that the previous Labour government, while having many excellent policies, failed on occasions to connect with the electorate on an emotional level as to how these policies will affect them.
Two, that the coalition can only play the pragmatist card for so long. There will come a time, or at least, there should come a time, when ideological, rather than opportunistic, politicians in either or both parties will have no alternative other than to rebel.
Finally, it’s very refreshing to see a politician that isn’t afraid to say where their party has not always been right in the past – I look forward to further articles.
“Finally, it’s very refreshing to see a politician that isn’t afraid to say where their party has not always been right in the past – I look forward to further articles.”
Really? How can any New Labour politician look back at what went wrong and not mention the two wars? The 10p tax debacle? Civil Liberties? More inequality?
Marcus… just quickly… abolishing the 10p tax rate that they’d introduced only a few years ago was a PR disaster but in terms of being redistributive, when combined with the introduction of tax credits etc, it can be defended; I understand that the writer has said he would have voted against Iraq previously; I think the issue with the more inequality argument is a causality/correlation one-if you can think of a policy that Labour introduced that directly led to greater inequality I’d be surprised, but there are plenty of policies, I’m sure you know, that aim at equalising opportunity, especially massive investment in education, more people going to university etc. Personally, and I think international data reaffirms this, globalisation drove inequality within countries but decreased inequality across countries. In the same way that the markets dropped on the opening of the Coalition government, I’m not sure how much causality there is… but i’d love to do a PhD on it! As for civil liberties, CCTV is very popular and there may be room for debate on that one. But Labour previously got rid of their commitment to ID cards anyway. Point being that the criticisms the writer made in his article are, in my opinion, more significant, ideologically speaking, than the headline ones that you raised.
Rowan
I wouldn’t worry too much about Marcus’s objections. If the article had listed all the supposed policy failures, I suspect he would have just criticised it for lacking an ideological understanding of what went wrong. The fact is that Owen’s piece was addressed very clearly at identifying the failures in Labour’s broader thinking. We can all see that, and it’s a powerful piece for that analysis as you suggest. Criticising it for what’s not in it is just a not-too-subtle way of dodging the argument.
Ah yes, the cloying sense of Adam H looking down on me from his ivory keyboard, I know it well. Sorry, how dare I not have my own view on the matters, I am merely dodging the brilliance of Adam and Owen’s superior arguments.
My step father spent 10 months in Iraq, missed Christmas with his kids, we all worried every single day. He was called up from the TAs at the age of 48. Dodged? My family dodged nothing from New Labour’s illegal war. Any New Labour politician or supporter cannot get away without apologising for Iraq.
Come on Adam, you sound bitter, old boy. You are way off to accuse me of politicking on calling for New Labour to face up to Iraq.
Marcus – you obviously feel very strongly about the Iraq war. This is quite understandable, given your family’s direct involvement in it (though I’m not clear of the relevance of your step-father’s age? As a member of the TA, he presumably had chosen to sign up to the responsibilities of serving, and was aware that he may be called upon to undertake active service by the Government?) Millions of Britons opposed the UK’s involvement in the Iraq war, which was widely believed to be a grievous error on the Blair government’s part.
But that doesn’t invalidate rowan34′s point that “the criticisms the writer made in his article are, in my opinion, more significant, ideologically speaking, than the headline ones that you raised”.
And I’m afraid that from my point of view, your patronising response to Adam Higgitt’s post – “Ah yes, the cloying sense of Adam H looking down on me from his ivory keyboard” – is a sure sign of defensiveness. I don’t think you’ve refuted either of these contributors’ arguments.
Oh, and the constant reference to “New Labour”? That’s as tired as Plaid people’s “the London-based parties”, and says more to me about the people deploying the term than it does about the parties so described.
Gez.
Me and Adam are butties, we both clash, we both shake hands afterwards. It is hardly a secret that Adam is someone I respect immensely and indeed looked up to for a long time. But thanks for your concern.
Your comments on my stepfather are your own, I have no comment to make on them.
To argue that the Iraq War is not part of the ideological folly of New Labour is not really a credible position in my view. One of the ideological problems with the Blairite project (and you see shades of this with Cameron now) is that it often defined themselves as if the left of the Labour Party were opposed to it, then they were on the right lines. Same with Cameron, who I sense uses the right of his party as a barometer to warn what NOT to do.
If New Labour is an insult now, than I don’t think it is me being defensive.
“If New Labour is an insult now, than I don’t think it is me being defensive.”
Strange it wasn’t an insult when Gordon Brown used it on the election trail recently. Obviously some Labourites are getting touchy.
Marcus – I didn’t argue that “the Iraq War is not part of the ideological folly of New Labour”: but I DID support rowan35′s argument that “the criticisms the writer made in his article are … MORE significant, ideologically speaking, than the headline ones that you raised” [emphasis added for clarity].
And I didn’t say that “‘New Labour’ is an insult now”: I DID say its use is tired and discloses more about those who continue to use the term than it does about the Labour Party. (Oh, and to David Raybould: Just because Gordon Brown deployed the phrase recently doesn’t make it any more meaningful in 2010. Count how many of the Labour leadership candidates – that is, those thinking about Labour in the present and the future – use the term.)
“Oh, and to David Raybould: Just because Gordon Brown deployed the phrase recently doesn’t make it any more meaningful in 2010.”
Ummm, the fact that he was leader at the time, it was at the election campaign launch, nobody in the Labour party objected and it was in 2010 suggests otherwise.
Until the new leader of Labour rebrands the party and disowns New Labour the term is still valid.
Who will be Kruschev to Blair’s Stalin?
Gez it was a matter of weeks ago…it doesn’t matter whether any of the candidates will use the term ‘New Labour’ or not. The test is will they advocate New Labour policies?
It’d bet my bottom dollar that Ed Miliband, Ed Balls and Andy Burnham all support PFI, elite academy schools and choice in public services. New Labour policies. All of the candidates except for Diane Abbott and John McDonnell who cannot win, represent a continuation of New Labour policies.
Illtyd – let’s see what ALL the candidates have to say in the coming weeks.
David – do you really think that because “nobody in the Labour party objected” when Gordon Brown used the term ‘New Labour’ at the general election campaign launch, that therefore the term was formally sanctioned by every Party member? Do you REALLY think that any Labour Party member would give the media and their political opponents ammunition to claim “splits in Labour!” by criticising Brown’s poor judgement??
“do you really think that because “nobody in the Labour party objected” when Gordon Brown used the term ‘New Labour’ at the general election campaign launch, that therefore the term was formally sanctioned by every Party member?”
No, but it does suggest that the upper echelons of the Party, ie the leader and his spin doctors were quite happy with the term as an election tool. Therefore your contention that ‘New Labour’ is ‘tired’ and ‘says more about the people deploying the term’ is indicative of the confusion at the heart of the Labour party.
This article has perhaps predictably polarised contributors more than many others; in short Labour supporters think its good, non Labourites think he’s in denial.
I’ve read it several times (not sure why) and I’m, to my surprise more with the Labourites. it is really well written and makes a cogent case although whether the author has credibility in saying any of this given his peronal history I’ll have to leave to those with better knowledge of his role as a special advisor.
I think however there are two areas where the article is sadly lacking in vision; one is in saying all the leadership candidates are well equipped to take the party forward which simply doesn’t add up. The other rather obvious point, one which none of the Labour commentators seem to notice or mind is the absence of the word Wales from the article; it’s inconceivable that a newly elected Scottish Labour MP would have omitted Scotland from the article. Surely it’s time to move on from the average Welsh MPs’ pinnacale of ambition being a deputy shadow spokesman for something? The consitutional machinery of the UK is going to continue to evolve and Welsh Labour MPs lack of anything to say about it will not serve any of us well.
Finally as a point to the editors, by comparison with Daran’s excellent articles on the Tories and Lib Dems this does suffer a bit from being necessarily partisan & offering less objective analysis & I’m not sure why the parties have been treated differently.
Ben
I’ll answer the point addressed to editors first, and then I’d like to respond to another point you make without that hat on.
The pieces are different from one another, so in that sense the parties have received different treatment. But I don’t believe any have received beneficial or preferential treatment. Part of the attraction of Owen’s piece was, if you like, the status of the author. We publish a biography of each and every contributor alongside each piece, so readers know exactly what to expect and can adjust their expectations and critical disposition accordingly. Perhaps, on reflection, the collective “branding” (“What’s next for…”) may have given readers a reasonable expectation of similar or uniform treatment. We’re learning all the time, so your feedback is appreciated.
It’s important to say, as I always do at this point, that WalesHome is not impartial – but we are non-aligned. We feature partial and partisan comment all the time, but we do so from representatives of all parties.
***
[Editor hat off]
I do worry when I hear even well-reasoned criticism that an article from a newly elected MP ought mention the word (and by extension, the constitutional debate about) Wales or else be judged deficient. The thesis of Owen’s piece – how does Labour respond to the challenges of opposition and the coalition government – is clearly outlined, and surely applies to the Labour party in Wales as it does to the rest of Britain.
I think it’s legitimate to ask whether there is a specifically Welsh dimension to that challenge, but to suggest that the absence of an explicit “tick box” mention is somehow (yet again) an act of implicit national disloyalty is ill-founded. There is a British dimension to this debate also, and it is legitimate – and inclusive of Wales – to focus on that.