What Next for Labour

8/3/2019 What Next for Labour

1/109

what next forLabour?ideas for theprogressive left

A COLLECTION OF ESSAYS


2/109


3/109


4/109


5/109

what next for Labou

EDITED BY PETER HARRINGTONAND BEATRICE KAROL BURKS


6/109

Open access. Some rights reserved.

As the publisher of this work, Demos wants to encourage the

of our work as widely as possible while retaining the copyrigh

therefore have an open access policy which enables anyone to

content online without charge.

Anyone can download, save, perform or distribute this

any format, including translation, without written permission.

subject to the terms of the Demos licence found at the back

publication. Its main conditions are:

Demos and the author(s) are credited

This summary and the address www.demos.co.uk are displayed

The text is not altered and is used in full

The work is not resold

A copy of the work or link to its use online is sent to Demos

You are welcome to ask for permission to use this wo

purposes other than those covered by the licence. Demos gra

acknowledges the work of Creative Commons in inspiring ou

to copyright. To find out more go to www.creativecommons.


7/109

contents

Introduction

Richard Reeves

Staring into the abyss

Kevin Jefferys

Return to societyJon Cruddas and Jonathan Rutherford

Choose Social-ism

Neal Lawson

Rebuild the middle

Phillip Blond

Think tradition

Alan Finlayson

The common good

Maurice Glasman

Look to the town hall, not Whitehall

Tristram Hunt

Double revolution


8/109

contents

A tale of two campaigns

Martin Bright

The fight against fateSunder Katwala

An end to Labourism

Stuart White

Politics as if people mattered

Jenni Russell

Build a liberal republic

Philip Collins

Wait for the next St Paul

David Marquand

A society of powerful people

Tessa Jowell

Biographies


9/109

introductionRichard Reeves

The contributors to this volume disagree on a num

important issues: the role of the market, the animat

purpose of the state, the relationship between indiv

social needs, to pick just a few. But they are unanim

their assessment that Labour is in a very deep hole

three election victories, and an unprecedented twe

in office, the party is falling, broken, to its knees.

Labour is deeply unpopular, stale, directionle

tired, according to Lisa Harker and Carey Oppenhe

directors of the Institute for Public Policy Research

out in Wales and Scotland, it is already in tatters. C

chair Neal Lawson writes that Labour is in the eye

biggest storm that has ever engulfed it. The party

humiliated in the recent local and European polls,

the prospect of a similar rout at the forthcoming gelection, according to historian Kevin Jefferys. The

secretary of the Fabian Society, Sunder Katwala wr

New Labour has delivered the most successful era

progressive advance for half a century and that i

now over. And Jon Cruddas MP and Jonathan Ruth

issue the stark warning that the Labour governmen

the abyss.The image of an abyss is a popular one amon

essayists assembled here and it does not feel like

hyperbole. Labours performance in last weeks ele

truly appalling. Pushed by the Liberal Democrats in


10/109

In this volume, which collects the views of a w

range of thinkers on Labour and the progressive lef

are few who think Labour can win the next election

agree that the task is the longer-term intellectual apolitical renewal of the progressive left.

The Labour Party is currently mired in a leade

crisis. Jefferys points out that Labour has no histor

form when it comes to dragging leaders out of offi

the Conservatives have done so three times to E

Macmillan and Thatcher and won two of the follo

general elections: There is therefore some historica

evidence to suggest a change of guard at No. 10 Do

Street between elections can improve a partys fort

in the short term, especially if the new premier appe

mark a fresh start and presents a different persona

the outgoing leader. But Jefferys also points out th

party unity is necessary, if not sufficient, for politica

renewal.

Whether Labour is more likely to unify behind

leader than behind Brown is of course a very big qu

But having lost six cabinet ministers in two days, B

claim to be the person to rally the Labours troops

weak, to say the least. Political writer Martin Bright

is time for the torch to pass to a new generation: Wcertain is that until someone grasps the nettle and

control of the party from the dead hand of the New

old guard, the party will continue its drift into obliv

Bright fears that the failure of other members of th

to follow James Purnells lead out of the governme

demonstrates that he may be the exception that p

rule that his generation lacks the political boldness around Labours fortunes.

David Marquand insists that New Labour was

electorally reliant on Blairs charismatic populism,

Brown is simply unable to repeat the trick: charism

introduction


11/109

fairness; and relied too heavily on a centralist, top-d

model of state action. Jenni Russell summarises thi

challenge:

introduction

All too often Labour, with its harsh emphasis on targets, c

controls, efficiency, and the unchallenged primacy of ma

left people feeling impotent, unimportant and alarmingly

Specifically, Labour was too overawed by the

finance capital, and too tempted by a debt-fuelled

economic growth. Michael Meacher MP urges his pa

mark out a clean break from the neoliberal finance

New Labour has worshipped for the last decade. L

warns against Blairite commitment to what he call

market state characterised by the sugar-coated

turbo-consumption leading to a golden age of indivi

Maurice Glasman suggests that Labours intense co

ment to the free market contributed to the credit c

and bank bailout: the biggest transfer of wealth fro

to rich since the Norman Conquest.

The second critique relates to Labours recor

equality and fairness. A number of contributors poi

mixed record on poverty reduction and inequality s

There has been no lasting change to the inequalitysociety, argue Harker and Oppenheim, despite it c

long shadow over so many aspects of our lives. Me

calls for a minimum wage of 7 an hour and a 60p

on those earning over 250,000 a year; Glasman fo

wage of 7.45 an hour.

Third, the party has relied on what Stuart Wh

Labourist approach to governance, with a strongattachment to the central state. Harker and Oppen

agree that Labour has been unremittingly manage

churning out well-intentioned policies rather than h

set of ideas. Philip Collins, Chair of Demos, points o


12/109

contributors variously argue, be more democratic,

pluralist, more social, and more liberal.

There is an almost universal call for electoral

with the majority of contributors urging Labour to first-past-the-post voting in favour of some form of

proportional representation. Other democratic inno

include the establishment of a citizens convention

construct a new political system, an idea fleshed ou

Harker and Oppenheim (and not unlike the one hel

Demos on June 4). There are also calls from Asato

Rushanara Ali, a community activist with the Young

Foundation and Labour parliamentary candidate, fo

democratisation of party structure. Asato writes th

Labours structures are an unhappy merger of old-

fashioned, soviet-sounding bodies such as the loca

Committee and powerless New Labour creations s

the National Policy Forum. She urges embedding c

voice in local parties by embracing primaries for th

selection of candidates, while Ali wants to recover

of Labour as a party of campaigning (in the broade

and activism.

There is, secondly, a strongly pluralist strand

of the essays. A number of writers want Labour to

more constructively with other parties, or as Stuartthe political philosopher puts it, to let go of the arr

and false idea that Labour has a monopoly on prog

politics. Closer working relationships with the Libe

Democrats and Greens are urged. Katwala propose

Labour could unilaterally decide not to field candid

seats where the main duel is between Conservative

Liberal Democrats, and consciously draw up a manthat leaves open the possibility of cross-party work

event of a hung parliament (for example by droppi

for ID cards).

There is a similar demand for more plurality i

introduction


13/109

much overlooked city-region status. But now Labo

to release power to local government, to recognise

the most innovative and intelligent public servants

now to be found in the town hall not Whitehall. Fodecentralisers assembled in this volume and they

decentralisers the current crisis provides the righ

moment to rethink the balance of power between c

and locality.

The third leitmotif of this collection is a repea

emphasis on the need for Labour to recover a stron

sense of the social of communities, civic associat

social institutions. We need a politics of social life

claim of Cruddas and Rutherford: We need a philos

the individual in society and a political culture that

the social goods that give security, meaning and va

people: home, family, friendships, good work, locali

imaginary communities of belonging. Cruddas and

Rutherford align themselves, in this respect at least

red Tory philosophy of Phillip Blond, director of th

Progressive Conservatism Project at Demos, who w

here that ordinary citizens want society back; they

control of their own lives and the ability to form

communities with others. They want to create a civ

middle that gives them back their society. Ali addpolitical dimension, arguing that Labour needs to b

more of a social movement again, and reconnect w

day-to-day issues of ordinary people. In similar vein

Glasman, Lawson, Meacher and Alan Finlayson urge

focus on civic association, relational power, the c

good and social-ism in place of individual-ism. B

the critique that Labour became too wedded tocommercialisation, commodification and a marke

these new social-ists are concerned to find new wa

articulating the necessary interconnectedness of ci

This communitarian emphasis contrasts with

introduction


14/109

people powerful do not want to give up the power

state. On the contrary, left-liberals are keenly aware

power of the state is a potent part of their armoury

just not their weapon of choice.The divide may not in fact be quite as great a

appears. Lawson, who writes most fiercely against

market individualism of the Blairites, also suggests

social-ism should be defined as the ability of peop

exert the maximum control over their lives a sen

with which radical liberals would warmly agree.

Katwala and Marquand strike a middle course

the liberal and communitarian positions, with Katw

suggesting that a focus on more equal life chances

fight against fate combines liberal ends and social

democrat means: This argument also has the poten

fuse together liberal and social democratic agenda

autonomy is the liberal end, then the social democr

concern is for the distribution of autonomy. On

macroeconomics, Marquand urges an alternative to

the neo-liberal gods Gordon Brown worshipped as

Chancellor, and to Keynesian social democracy of

war period with its faith in economic growth, fiscal

and macro-economic manipulation from the centre

sceptical that Labour can find it.These four values democracy, pluralism, so

and liberalism provide starting points for the ong

debate about the future of the progressive left. The

sometimes collide. Values cannot always be made t

neatly together, and it would be helpful to admit w

the case, and have the argument out.

But there is another requirement if Labour is any chance of renewal, which is a change of politic

intellectual culture. The party is beset by factionalis

fear. The era of heavy whipping and heavy top-spin

end, says Asato: Labour has to get away from its fi

introduction


15/109

We should, however, be under no illusions tha

renewal of the progressive left will be quick, or eas

task is very great. This week Alistair Darling said: W

to set clearly what we are for, our vision for the couour purpose for being in government. All of this re

course that Labour itself knows what it is for. Harol

famously declared that Labour was a moral crusade

nothing. Successful crusades require a clear ideolo

purpose, an inspiring leadership and an accurate m

destination. Right now, Labour lacks all three. As th

collection demonstrates, there are some rich intelle

resources available for the renewal of the progressi

But the work needs to begin now.

Richard Reeves is the director of Demos.

introduction


16/109

staring into the abysslessons from LabourspastKevin Jefferys

What lessons might be drawn from Labours recent

as it turns from reflecting on humiliation in the locaEuropean elections to the prospect of a similar rou

forthcoming general election? While ideology, polic

vision stand at the heart of any process of renewal

future, questions of presentation and leadership ca

ignored. In particular the issue of how united or div

party appears in the eyes of the public has always b

central to Labours fortunes; any political strategy,

bold or compelling, can never fulfil its potential if it

command broad approval among those charged w

conveying it to the electorate. In this respect, a gla

at how the party has reacted to previous election d

provides a timely warning. Each of the three occas

the Second World War when Labour relinquished itas the governing party has been followed by outbr

internal strife, twice contributing to the party endu

protracted spells in the electoral wilderness.

Attlees defeat at the hands of Churchill in 19

remains the partys most curious setback in the mo

Although Labours landslide 1945 majority all but

disappeared at the general election in 1950, and deexhaustion among the senior figures that built the w

state out of the rubble of war, Attlee need not have

the country when he did in 1951. During 1952 the wo

economy entered a phase of rapid growth from wh


17/109

Churchill and his successors proved adept at explo

steady economic growth during the 1950s. But Lab

undermined any chance it had of regaining power b

entering into bitter factional quarrels. Bevanite left-advocated building on the nationalisation program

Attlee years as the way forward, and clashed sharp

the emerging Gaitskellite revisionists, who placed s

equality at the centre of their creed. For voters, the

was of a party that traded in the unity of the immed

post-war era for futile tribal conflict. By 1952 Hugh

was singing an entirely different tune: More hatredmore love of hatred, he wrote, in our party than I e

remember.1

In the second example of Labour losing office

Wilsons defeat in 1970 was followed by renewed in

between the inheritors of the old fundamentalist an

revisionist traditions. Beset with problems over pol

notably over attitudes towards the European Comm

which Britain joined under Tory premier Ted Heath

party again presented a picture of disharmony in o

But unlike in the early 1950s, Labour this time got lu

Heaths decision to gamble by calling an election in

shadow of the three-day week in 1974 backfired ba

Wilsons emollient leadership papered over many ointernal cracks and he retained sufficient acumen to

Labour back to power, though at both the 1974 gen

elections the partys share of the vote, squeezed by

of Liberalism, fell below 40 per cent. This was hard

ringing endorsement, and confirmed the end of the

which the two main parties garnered the overwhelm

majority of all votes cast.The final instance of the party surrendering p

came when Callaghans administration was swept a

the aftermath of the winter of discontent in 1979. T

crushing defeat has parallels with Labours plight th

staring into the abyss


18/109

Instead of mounting a counter attack on the so-cal

left, leading figures on the Labour right decided it

to jump ship. Within months of its creation in 1981, t

Democratic Party could claim over twenty MPs, modefectors from the Parliamentary Labour Party, aim

replace Labour altogether on the centre-left by bre

the mould of politics.

Michael Foot, who replaced Callaghan in 1980

the backing of moderate trade unionists to begin a

back against the hard left, beginning moves to exp

members of Militant Tendency from the party. But tpoisonous atmosphere at Westminster and beyond

combined with savage tabloid attacks on Foots lea

meant Labour was in no position to mount an effe

challenge in the early 1980s, especially after Thatch

fortunes were transformed by the Falklands War. D

personal and ideological divisions, Labours own re

the run-up to the 1983 election described the party

implausible as an alternative government. So dism

Labours performance in 1983, when its vote share

slumped to 27.6 per cent, that the party faced the r

prospect of being eclipsed as the official oppositio

SDP-Liberal Alliance.

Friends and enemies alike spoke of Foots pabeing in terminal decline, racked by dissent and inc

of adjusting to the realities of Thatchers enterprise

In the event, rumours of Labours death were exagg

Under Foots successor Neil Kinnock, a partial reco

took place, and by the time of the 1987 election the

Alliance tide had receded; Labour came in a clear

distant second place. Kinnocks party was at leasbusiness, but the scars of the early 1980s took a lon

to heal. Kinnock never reaped the reward of his end

and eighteen years in opposition only came to an e

when Tony Blairs New Labour project held sway at



19/109

compounded by the crisis facing Gordon Browns l

as at all stages in Labours history, the standing of t

plays a crucial role in setting the tone of the partys

facing image.While the need for unity remains imperative,

more equivocal answers to the question of whethe

beneficial to ditch or stick with the chosen leader. I

aftermath of losing power in 1951 Attlee remained i

his standing high as the architect of major welfare r

but he lost the following election in 1955. Wilson to

on, despite much internal criticism of his 1970 defemanaged to stage a successful comeback four yea

Callaghans case, the departure of the leader a yea

Thatchers victory saw the partys plight get worse

got better.

What Labour does not have is a tradition (ac

here that Wilson in 1976 and Blair in 2007 went at m

of their own choosing) of forcing out serving prime

ministers. For insights pertinent in this regard to th

of Gordon Brown, one has to turn to the experience

Conservative party. In two of the three cases where

incumbent Tory premiers have been ousted since t

Eden, Macmillan and Thatcher (though the first two

departed partly on medical grounds) their replacmanaged to revive government fortunes sufficientl

the general election that followed, in 1959 and 1992

third case, Sir Alec Douglas-Home failed to pull off

same trick, but its often overlooked how close he c

losing by only a tiny margin as Labour squeaked ho

in 1964.

There is therefore some historical evidence toa change of guard at No. 10 Downing Street betwe

elections can improve a partys fortunes in the shor

especially if the new premier appears to mark a fre

and presents a different persona to the outgoing le


t i i t th b


20/109

to lose one prime minister in the lifetime of a parlia

unfortunate; to lose two is extremely careless.

Kevin Jefferys is professor of contemporary historyPlymouth University and author ofFinest & Darkest

andPolitics and the People.

Note


1 Dalton H in Pimlott B (Ed), The Political Diary of Hugh Dalton

1945-60 (1986)


21/109

return to societyJon Cruddas MP and Jonathan Rutherford

The Labour government faces the abyss. The Conse

party cannot break from the discredited orthodoxipast. It has failed to win peoples trust and can only

an election victory on a minority of the vote. Bereft

credible economic strategy it will divide the countr

politics of both parties now belong to the past, not

future. As Gramsci said, the crisis consists precisely

fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be bo

MPs expenses scandal, the constitutional crisis and

profiteering of the banking oligarchy, are all morbid

symptoms of this interregnum. We do not know wh

next election will bring nor can we predict the fate

Labour party. The task now is to begin building a

progressive left movement that unlike New Labour

break with the legacy of Thatcherism and establish

hegemony.

The era of excess

Thatcherism was the political response to Britains

industrial economy. It broke the power of organised

deregulated and restructured the economy, and op

up to global market forces. New information andcommunications technologies began to revolutioni

generation, processing and transmission of informa

Radical innovations, backed by financial capital pen

the old order and began to modernise the whole pr

return to society


22/109

mortgage-backed debt were utilised for profit by t

financial industries. A similar compact between the

elite and shareholder value created a tiny super ric

and became the unquestioned business model of thIt was a form of capital accumulation that

commodified society and engineered a massive tra

wealth to the rich. The institutions which had once

people access to political ideas and activities, such

unions, churches and political parties, experienced

membership-decline. The civic cultures of democra

increasingly subordinate to a winner takes all cultucapitalism. The nation state, which took responsibil

welfare of its citizens, was transformed into a mark

that promised them instead economic opportunity.

climate a business oligarchy accrued a dangerous a

power and captured the political class. Growing ine

and the erosion of civic culture opened a cultural a

economic gulf between the elites and the mainstre

working-class population.

The gulf widened as economic modernisation

restructured the class system around the new kinds

production and consumption. De-industrialisation h

undermined the income base of the working class a

left large sections of the population living and work

if they are a reserve army of labour. Millions are now

economically inactive, or work in casualised and te

jobs, or are threatened with the loss of their job. Tr

working class cultures which once offered a defenc

against exploitation and protection from social isol

have been destroyed. This cultural destruction now

threatens the existence of the Labour party itself asinstitutions which once supported it disappear or lo

their social vitality.

The collapse of this economic order and its g

ideology has been precipitous. Its toxic culture has

return to society

return to society


23/109

Unemployment is growing and areas of our country

devastated in the 1980s are now sinking again in th

recession. The social welfare contract that once ga

protection in times of adversity is in tatters.To make matters worse, the future is full of th

and challenges. A revolution in human longevity is

transforming society and leading to an explosion in

burden of care. The value of pension funds has bee

destroyed by the market. There is food and water i

and oil production will peak sometime within the d

Looming over all these is the threat of global warmthe great majority of people there are no individua

solutions to the problems we face.

This should be the moment of the left, but it

trapped in the same interregnum. It lacks a coheren

identity, is organisationally and numerically weak, a

unclear about its values. It has no story that defines

stands for. It is telling that during the last three dec

resurgent capitalism, social democracy in Britain ha

to produce a significant theoretical work to replace

Croslands The Future of Socialism. Croslands revis

answer to Marxism, however flawed, at one time pr

intellectual cornerstone for the centre left. Crosland

always out there on the horizon, keeping alive the l

of class, capitalism and equality. He is no longer the

self-inflicted crisis of capitalism is serving only to h

the weakness of the social democratic and liberal le

We need a politics of social life. We must ret

first principles and address the big questions of how

as well as how we create wealth. What kind of soci

want to live in? What kind of economy will sustain of the mainstream political parties ask these questi

do they have the cultures or language to address th

any meaning. Our political future cannot be bound

political institutions that remain unchanged from p

return to society

return to society


24/109

which created the modern spirit of the left. We nee

invent a plural and ethical socialism rooted in the o

life of the individual producing and relating in socie

central value of this socialism alongside liberty is eqbecause, as the social liberal Leonard Hobhouse wr

stands for the truth that there is a common human

than all our superficial distinctions. The philosophe

Taylor echoes this belief in his argument that the de

search for self-realisation lies deep in our culture. It

the right of everyone to achieve their own unique w

being human. It is about mutualism not selfish indivTo dispute this right in others is to fail to live within

terms: your freedom is equal to my freedom.

The progressive future belongs to a politics w

achieve a balance between individual self-realisatio

social solidarity. It will be a politics of alliances betw

and new political actors and one that makes comm

ground out of our cultural differences. Despite the

disillusionment with political parties, there is an

extraordinary level of political, cultural and commu

activism in our society. Politics has become more

individualised, ethical and rooted in a diversity of b

lifestyles. This is stimulating a search for new kinds

democratic political structures and cultures, which

connect institutions of political power with social

movements and political constituencies. Networks

databases, facilitated by the web, are of growing im

in campaigning, bringing political power to accoun

mobilising popular opinion. But political parties also

an essential part of our democracy. They provide

institutional continuity, while networks are often traThere is much to be gained by synergies between t

For this to happen, parties will need to allow their o

cultures and organisations to be opened up and

democratised in the process.

y

return to society


25/109

change, learn and develop. The decades long trans

wealth and power from labour to capital has to be

and capitalism made accountable to workers and c

through regulation and economic democracy. Climchange, peak oil and the need for energy and food

demand large scale economic transformations that

an active, interventionist style of government. We w

to build a civic state that is democratised, decentra

networked and which is able to both assert the nat

interest in new structures of global economic gove

and also be accountable and responsive to individucitizens and small businesses.

In the current political turmoil, the political fa

of a new era are taking shape. On one side are thos

continue to believe that the market and individual c

the most effective means of maximising individual

On the other side are those who believe that individ

freedom is based in social relationships and the de

of public action. This fault-line cuts across party lin

divides them from within: Thatcherites versus

compassionate Conservatives and red Toryism; ma

Liberal Democrats versus social Liberal Democrats;

neoliberal New Labour versus social democratic La

contest between these politics will shape the parad

the post-crash era.

In the period before the next election the Lab

and the wider left need to secure the social gains o

decade and start the groundwork for a new politics

government place-shielding can protect vulnerabl

communities from both recession and from future

Conservative attack. The minimum wage and benefbe increased and index linked. Constitutional and e

reform requires an alliance with the Liberal Democ

lets make one socialists and social liberals hold m

common. We need to know which banks are insolv

return to society


26/109

Jon Cruddas is MP for Dagenham. Jonathan Ruther

editor of Soundings and Professor of Cultural Studi

Middlesex University. They are co-editors ofThe Cra

view from the left.

Note1 Gramsci A in Hoare Q and Nowell-Smith G (Eds), Selections

Prison Notebooks (1971)

2 Unger, Roberto Mangabeira. The Boutwood Lectures, Comm

450 years of Corpus Christi College, Cambridge University (J

2002)


27/109

choose social-ismNeal Lawson

As I write the Labour party is in the eye of the bigg

that has ever engulfed it. A big chunk of the party wjunk the leader, some are still supportive and many

unsure.

Lets be clear. Gordon Brown has been the m

enormous disappointment as leader. Even on the ec

was little more than a year ago that he was lauding

bankers for their brilliance and was willing to apply

lessons of their success to the rest of the economthe substance and style of his leadership are deeply

But for a plot to unseat him to succeed it nee

it says in the title: a plot, a story about what is wron

what needs to be put right. In the absence of this w

rather hopeful anything is better than this leap of

some unknown future leader with an unknown polic

agenda. Again, at the time of writing it is no surpris

thus far Brown has remained seated.

But the truth is that some of the plotters do h

plot; one that reveals a deep schism at the heart of

It is between those that want the New Labour revo

be sustained and deepened and those that want to

with past and have a fundamentally different visiongood society. Gordon Browns problem is not really

doesnt communicate well or smiles at the wrong m

its that he promised a break with Blairism and neve

delivered on it. Unless and until Labour decides wh

choose social-ism


28/109

Its just a shame he didnt say so if he had it wou

helped spark the debate we need to have. I think w

hearing more from James and others on the develo

such a politics.It shares in passing some of the politics of th

democratic left as represented by Compass, in that

suspicion about the role of the bureaucratic state

the sense that the state can crowd out autonomou

and the unintended consequences of the lumbering

machine. Command and control politics was tried a

failed. And for good reason.But in rejecting the bureaucratic state the Bla

embrace the market state and in so doing plump fo

politics which is in essence about individual-ism an

about social-ism. Of course there are cases for indi

budgets for some care treatments. But the building

for social, economic and political change cannot be

individual. It has to be social.The story of the last thirty years has been the

of risk from the collective, the social and the comm

the individual. The crisis of profitability of capitalism

the condition in which privatisation and the commo

of the public realm were necessary for the survival

It meant not only that we had to buy more to stave

uncertainty and risk but that collectively our barga

hand was severely weakened. In the absence of a

modernising left alternative and alongside the suga

pill of turbo-consumption it led to a golden age of

individualism. But all that has unravelled; the debt,

insecurity and uncertainty are palpable. Extending

deepening that counter-revolution offers little hopereason why the small state agenda of David Camer

fly. There are no individual solutions to global prob

Instead the challenge is to find new and bette

be social. The benefits are both instrumental we

choose social-ism


29/109

complex and contradictory world. But the theme o

social and therefore the democratic must run throu

the new plot of the left.

Social-ism should be defined as the ability ofto exert the maximum control over their lives. For t

people have to be more equal; to have the resource

a free life. But they must also act in concert with ot

citizens shaping the big things in their life and not j

consumers buying the small things that change too

Of course the Blairites will disagree because

have a different vision of the good society, startingdo with the individual and not the social. Such diffe

should be openly and constructively debated. Thro

debate we will learn and adapt; find tangents on w

can agree and understand where we dont. Of cour

Blairites may win the debate and change Labour irr

to a party based on individualism. Perhaps they alr

have if so it is a sad day for the left. Other partiesrepresent in different shades the politics of individu

only Labour offers the hope of a world based on th

and therefore democracy.

Labour should now use the time until the nex

to do everything it feasibly can to put in place the b

blocks of solidarity and democracy. First, it should

the people who stand to suffer most if the Tories w

would include ideas like index-linking the minimum

and benefit payments to ensure George Osborne d

allow them to whither on the vine by not updating

should encourage a wide public debate about the n

dependable public services, to end child poverty an

taxes necessary to pay for both.Second, it must radically reform our democra

Democracy and social-ism are two sides of the sam

Key here is the call for a binding referendum on ch

more proportional voting system, which David Cam

choose social-ism


30/109

The party leadership should instigate a discussion a

the membership, the unions, affiliated societies and

Parliamentary Labour Party to draft a short restate

Labour values and policy intent up to the next elecstatement could be put online for everyone to com

It would be the vehicle through which the battle of

between those who want a bureaucratic state, a ma

state or a democratic state could be openly and ho

played out. It would be sent to every party membe

endorsement. Unless it signalled a change of direct

would garner little support. This process would beconcluded by the end of July and the Party Confere

to establish a plan of implementation.

This debate, however, is not just about Labou

answer to how to achieve the good society cannot

confined to one party far from it. One of the reas

New Labours failures in office is that it refused to w

others other parties and movements. It did not eproject in civil society and was therefore always pr

whims of a few swing voters in a few swing seats a

the financial demands of the city and media mogul

Brown once said he wanted to build a progressive

consensus. There has never been a better time to d

it will come from below not on high and it will be b

on the individual but the social.

Neal Lawson is Chair of Compass and author ofAll

Consuming to be published by Penguin in June.


31/109

rebuild the middlePhillip Blond

Where now for Labour? Strictly speaking the imme

future is one of electoral oblivion. But what type ofextinction is it? Could we be looking at the remova

Labour party from the determining political landsca

Britain? At the moment the standard conversation

the length of time Labour will spend out of power,

between two terms and a generation. But the outco

could be more even more extreme. To recover the

seats it has lost from its high point will, if the experthe Conservatives from their nadir in the 1980s is a

to go by, take at least a quarter of a century. Moreo

almost complete erasure of Labour councilors from

southern England denies the party any constituenc

activist bedrock in huge swathes of the South and

possibility therefore of ever electing a Labour MP a

Labour has just endured its worst council res

local government re-organisation in 1974. It now co

shire or county councils in England at all, and it has

third in the popular national vote behind the Libera

Democrats. An even more frightening future was ou

sharp relief by the European elections, which were

performance in this poll for Labour since the vote w

introduced. It lost the national vote in Wales for the

time since 1918, and in touching less than 16 per cen

national vote it is the worst electoral share since 19

presages an unthinkable elimination of the Labour

rebuild the middle


32/109

to third party irrelevance. However, the Liberal Dem

have shown no such imaginative triangulation so th

permanent relegation of Labour looks as yet an unl

not an unthinkable future outcome. Alternatively, athe more likely scenario given the relatively poor

performance of the Liberal Democrats, both Labou

Liberal Democrats could become in effect regional

with Labour governing only its shrinking welfare ba

Britains inner cities and the Liberals holding on to t

South Western enclave and scattered university to

While all the while a resurgent conservatism, if it exappeal across the political spectrum, can dictate an

the centre ground of a new politics.

How did it all come to this? We know the sho

reasons: the economic crisis, the expenses scandal

psychological limits and dictatorial habits of Gordo

But these causes alone, even if one reaches back an

includes the war in Iraq, are insufficient explanationcurrent precipitate collapse. To my mind, and I take

view, we have seen the final working out via its full

expression in New Labour of the legacy of the post

the bastard union of state authoritarianism and per

libertarianism. And it is this invidious issue that is n

wholly and rightly repudiated.

As I have argued elsewhere the legacy of c

state absolutism and subjective atomisation is a lib

bequest that was taken up enthusiastically and with

disastrous consequence by the post-war left. The B

in the middle of the 19th century was associative, c

reciprocal and religious. That this has now been rep

atomised personal autonomy, control of and by the

unilateral rights assertion and enforced secularity is

historical rupture that demands a full and sincere h

analysis, one which must be conducted elsewhere.

In brief, liberalisms true radical basis extends

rebuild the middle


33/109

be reconciled with the will of others. Since this sce

reconciliation is in essence irreconcilable, the confl

experienced in the state of nature is simply repeate

society with ever greater and more damaging effecpolitical context, the more individualist each person

becomes, the more power and control the state mu

in order to control the situation. So the liberal war o

against all requires an ever more illiberal state to co

protect a society so tragically and illegitimately con

The post war history of the Labour party mirr

almost exactly this debilitating tension. British socibeen progressively and aggressively pulverised by

assertions of state authoritarianism and individualis

libertarianism. The 1945 settlement, which achieved

much, also damaged and ultimately undermined a g

more. The post-war socialist state nationalised soci

rendered superfluous all of its intermediate and civ

structures. Institutions and the associative patternsbehaviour that they encouraged were the creation

possession of an empowered working class, but the

rendered redundant by the new managerial welfare

JB Priestly put it in 1949 the area of our lives unde

control is shrinking rapidly and that politicians and

civil servants are beginning to decide how the rest

shall live.1

This vertical state produced a new, disassocia

citizenry. Isolated and alone, an increasingly fragme

working class was vulnerable to the next version of

liberal legacy possessive individualism. The Bloo

group in the 1920s tried an earlier formation of the

deconstruction of common values and binding cod

the strong associative bonds of the pre-war middle

working class meant that this social nihilism never p

fully into British culture. However the mass consum

mindless libertarianism of the late 1960s middle cla

rebuild the middle


34/109

wants to regain the progressive agenda, must firstl

terms with its own legacy. It must repudiate the eas

relativism of the liberal middle class and the state

authoritarianism used to control the working class. must realise the new politics and the coming future

And what is this new politics? Well, it is the c

a new compact around intermediate associations a

institutions. It is a limiting of the centralising state a

monopoly market in favour of an empowered popu

a radical decentralisation and pluralisation of powe

property and purpose. But such a renewal can onlyplace around a cultural recognition of the permane

Unless Labour embraces a new conservatism that s

beyond culture and change to a persistent good w

be known, recognised and distributed, its innate cu

relativism will have it spiralling off into irrelevance.

Phillip Blond is Director of the Progressive ConservProject at Demos.

Note

1 Priestly JB, 'The truth about democracy', Sunday Pictorial (2

1949)

hi k di i


35/109

think traditionAlan Finlayson

If Labour is to remain a significant force in British p

then its leadership and its grassroots members neeunderstand two things. The first is the extent of the

disrepute into which the party has fallen; the secon

damage caused by the partys abandonment of its

social-democratic tradition.

Those closely involved with Labour at local o

national level may still imagine it to be the party of

the rights of ordinary people and community. Buteverybody else sees nothing of the kind. They see a

lacking such principles, whose leaders like to show

to celebrities (that they then appoint to the House

vie with each other for power rather than exercise

manage property portfolios paid for out of the pub

For the average twenty-year old (such as those I te

Labour is the party of war, commercialisation and s

interest. In this respect at least the party has been

successfully re-branded.

Labour people will disagree with this percept

they must acknowledge it and thus the gulf betwee

they see their party and how it is seen and experien

everyone else. Furthermore, they must appreciate t

fault does not lie solely with an unfair press or inatt

citizens and that it will not be remedied by finding

face, the correct form of words or a better narrativ

Ordinary people see in Labour a party that has aba

think tradition


36/109

society independent of the utilitarian values and co

imperatives of the market. If the Tory party, classica

its supporters from various kinds of commercial int

then Labour existed for those opposed not to the msuch but to its intrusion into areas understood to b

but without price.

British social democracy contrary to the st

are often told was immensely successful. But the

social changes it engendered altered the class, occ

and cultural patterns of the UK, initiated some clas

alignment in voting and changed the sorts of probexperienced by the poorest. None of this vitiated th

for political representation of working people. But

change was sufficient to decrease Labours politica

constituency (although this was exaggerated by th

a political interest in so doing). Social and econom

transformations (involving family life, gender relatio

workplace technologies and so on) required the Brand Labour movement to think afresh and to create

kinds of political interest to represent.

But what the Labour party, as New Labour, ac

did was in retrospect extraordinary. Its leaders dec

only that there was never any real conflict between

employers and employees but also embraced

commercialisation as a positive value. Its leaders an

advisers came to believe that market competition

necessarily induces responsibility in producers or p

and generates responsiveness to demand. They co

consumer choice with democratic freedom and intr

rules and regulations to make public services more

private ones. In many cases they directly opened u

former to the latter at prices far below market-valu

when you think about it, is pretty ironic.

The more that Labour abandoned its opposit

total commodification, the more its support has dw

think tradition


37/109

things: Greens, UKIP, BNP and some to Camerons r

and blue Tories.

Too many British citizens experience the pain

world too quickly eroded by the flow of capital, una sense of place and belonging, disorienting life an

values that animate it. The last fifteen years have se

change in what Raymond Williams called the struc

feeling in Britain. Thatcherism left us with a culture

too far towards competitive individualism and lacki

respect for the communal. New Labour pushed this

transferring more risk from the collective to the indand telling us to look out for ourselves, to purchase

pensions and healthcare rather than support anybo

and to invest in our houses not as homes but as ass

are left with a culture of nervously aggressive indiv

celebrated by a popular media filled with all kinds o

and humiliation. Compass long ago christened this

social recession. Camerons Tories now call it the society. Labour people sometimes feel forced to re

existence of both but the truth is that everyone kno

exactly what is meant. In a society where commerc

only source of value, you are what you own and yo

better get more however you can: steal it at knife-p

evade your taxes; artificially inflate your share price

fiddle your expenses and flip your house.Labour has not merely departed from the leg

European social democracy. It has sought actively t

it. It has attacked public sector workers, the forces

conservatism that Blair said had left scars on his b

the intention of promoting aspiration it has, in curri

reforms at both school and university level, intensif

insistence on the virtue of the lone entrepreneur ra

that of the servant of the public good. Today we ev

promote service in the armed forces not because o

virtue of defending your country or saving innocen

think tradition


38/109

ignorance and hostility to its own ideological tradit

Labour, far from renewing itself, has starved itself. I

have passed through a phase where it looked leane

more refreshed than before, but this was only one sthe process of wasting away. A tradition takes cent

build up and only one generation to wipe out.

The main symptom of this is that many Labou

leaders, in their writings, speeches and interviews, s

lack a concept of power of the forms it takes, of

it and the ways it might be exercised or directed. T

to think that passing a law or a regulation is in itselsufficient to bring about change and when it hasnt

they have given up like easily bored children or inv

new law, another regulation. They have devolved p

the consumer as if the buyer-seller relation exists in

vacuum and is always one of equality. But the intell

tradition of social democracy teaches one to recog

complex interactions between forms of power, andparticular to see how the capitalist market is driven

expand into and to colonise social life in the search

profitable returns. It certainly has dynamism and is

something without which a society cannot flourish.

energy needs to be contained and sometimes direc

to itself it gets out of control, crushes what is in its

then, when it is exhausted, crashes. New Labour thosuch an analysis old-fashioned. It fed the market,

encouraged debt, artificially inflated house prices a

encouraged us all to be investors. When the marke

decided the invisible hand was insufficient and that

greed of bankers should be paid for by tax-payers.

of understanding market and economic power, New

was ruthlessly played by those who understand com

perfectly.

An ethic of public service and awareness of a

good persists in British political life. It is there in sm

think tradition


39/109

renewal. But usually this means thinking about how

change others so that they will see Labour as it see

rather than actually looking in the mirror. The electo

now held that mirror before the party and it mustacknowledge the truth of what it finds there. The fi

Labour MPs and their supporters must now do is ac

it is over for them. They will lose the next election.

they accept this they will be able to concentrate on

their time in office with dignity.

In their final six to twelve months the Labour

government must accept that the financial servicesimportant though it is, imposes costs on the British

economy by distorting appearances and inducing s

termism over proper investment. The way to deal w

to tax transactions partly as a disincentive to too h

trade but also to build up the funds that will pay fo

damage tax payers did not do. In addition they sho

laws requiring fuller disclosure in private company Freedom of information has enabled citizens to reg

their corrupt politicians. It will also enable them to

the corporations. Our national economy is in need o

diversification and encouragement for those who m

things rather than those who trade in imaginary on

Labour should initiate a massive investment progra

biotechnology and green energy and the creation oinfrastructure for alternative fuel systems. And befo

leaves office it should index link the minimum wage

prepare for two referenda: one on the voting syste

one on the House of Lords. None of this will win La

next election. But Cameron has not yet secured a c

coalition to sustain himself in office and policies su

these will force the Tories to actively overturn pro-

pro-environmental policies. More importantly, they

right thing to do.

The results in Scotland and Wales are clear

think tradition


40/109

office again. Freed from the vain hope of re-electio

can step away from their ministerial offices and do

they should have done long ago: get out and speak

every church, school, union branch, college or charassociation that will invite them. They should apolo

then listen to whatever it is people have to say whi

learning what it is to make an argument for a belief

really mean it.

Such measures will not win Labour power bu

begin to put it back in touch with itself and with its

And that is also why Labour needs to learn its ideoagain to remember why working people (and tho

put out of work) need representation and why com

ification needs to be kept contained; to re-learn wh

is in a capitalist democracy such as ours, who has it

does not and with what effects on social and cultur

Only when Labour remembers and truly understand

it came from will it be able to work out where it is sto be going.

Alan Finlayson is Reader in Politics and Internationa

Relations at Swansea University.

the common good


41/109

the common goodMaurice Glasman

The reality of Labours distress needs no rehearsal.

confronts Labour now is pain and rejection. The soits suffering are to be found in the intensity of its

commitment to free market economics and a type

welfare state which have not only failed to deliver b

actively undermined the integrity of society. In its p

liquidity it has eroded solidarity. In its pursuit of fair

has centralised power. This is not a trivial matter. Th

strengthening of both the free market and the welfstate is a good working definition of the political ca

of Gordon Brown, and of New Labour. With the

unprecedented challenge to the assumptions of bo

welfare and market economics there is now an

uncomprehending void at the centre of Labour thin

policy and politics.

What is at stake now is whether Labour has tresources to renew itself as a potent force in British

or whether its present condition is indeed progress

the argument of this essay that Labour has invested

not just in a set of bankrupt banks but bankrupt ide

needs to disentangle from both so that it can draw

neglected resources within the Labour tradition tha

better explain its current predicament, as well as p

credible escape route and orientation for renewal.

Let us begin with the welfare state. The utilita

approach adopted by Labour means that power is

bi i f hi f ll i i i h

the common good


42/109

combination of this type of state collectivism with

market economics. This is the idea that capitalism i

form it takes in financial markets is the most efficie

of distributing resources, pursuing prosperity and pliberty. The withdrawal of Labour as a force within t

economy confining itself to spending the money

generated by financial deregulation on welfare h

to be decisive in determining its fate.

Labour was born in resistance to the dominat

the market and built institutions such as mutual soc

cooperative businesses and trade unions that tried the power of money in the distribution of power. It

emphasised, in contrast, the importance of building

politics based on relationships. The selling of things

not produced for sale and are not easily replaceabl

school playing fields or your body and its organs, is

known as commodification. The pressure the marke

to turn people and nature into things that can be band sold constitutes a real threat to the status not

human beings as a purposeful social agent, capable

and responsibility, but (as Margaret Thatcher remin

of society itself. Against this the Labour movement

contested the unlimited sovereignty of capital to d

economic relations. The organising principle of the

Labour movement was based on achieving the recofrom both employers and the state of organised lab

partner in production and in politics. They even we

as to name the entire endeavour Labour.

It was its commitment to financial services as

driving force of the British economy that put the n

New Labour. The scale of its dedication to this prin

expressed in the City of London Electoral Bill of 20

the partners or managers of each firm in the Squar

were given a vote based on the size of their workfo

electing representatives to the local authority. Five

t ili f t th i t f

the common good


43/109

countervailing force to the sovereignty of manager

could have challenged the decisions on the basis o

information and equal status.

The balance of power in corporate governanprimary concept here. The market ravages people a

environment to maximise returns on investment th

most effective exploitation of resources. Thats wha

and it should be recognised that such a goose as th

more likely to foul its nest than to lay a golden egg

genuinely prudent politics would assume this to be

It has been the fundamental role of democratic polAthens to domesticate it and make it serve human

Labour needs to reconnect with that idea.

The problem with New Labours view of the m

and the state lies in their shared conception of sove

Sovereignty has two aspects. It gives the sovereign

power to act but it also shields it from any reciproc

relationships or accountability. Machiavelli called thunilateral powerpotere. It is the uncontested asser

the power of a single will. The type of power Labou

pursued was inherently corrupting in that the capa

without constraint or oversight led to the arroganc

recklessness that have brought the City of London

Westminster so low. The meaning of the expenses

that the dark heart of sovereignty has been revealedangerous and dishonest. It is dishonest because P

is, in fact, impotent and subordinate to the executiv

Finding themselves powerless, MPs embraced the o

of sovereignty and exerted their prerogative to con

which led unsurprisingly to their recognition that th

steal from the public, exempt from any power that

deny them; and that is dangerous. Accountability o

meaning if there is a countervailing power that has

interest in holding people to it.

The alternative form of power is relational, in

It is also important to ask why given the scal

the common good


44/109

It is also important to ask why, given the scal

failure, anyone should be faithful to such a tradition

politics. Why be Labour now? The answer lies in th

inheritance of the Labour movement. The practicesideas of mutuality, reciprocity, the balance of powe

solidarity and above all, organisation, and their con

to the economic life of society are the distinctive g

the Labour movement passes down to us. Our iden

gives us the resources of renewal.

The English peasantry dispossessed of their l

enclosures and the artisans dispossessed of their stthe repeal of apprenticeship laws built an organised

movement that generated real institutions with rea

The Labour interest, at work and at home, became

significant force in the firm, the locality, the city and

nation through pursuing the common good on the

organised interests. This led to a genuine transform

the distribution of power and wealth. In the most hconditions the working poor buried each other, rec

each-others skills and protected the integrity of fam

The choices were hard and the politics were hard. A

is exactly where we are. The builders and creators o

Labour movement are our greatest teachers and w

honour them.

The organisation London Citizens is the closeembodiment of this tradition. They pursue a comm

politics based upon common action between differ

institutions through the practice of community org

So what are self-organised people, naming their ow

problems and pursuing their interests, claiming to b

important issues and policies?

The first is the establishment of a living wage

every worker at 7.45 an hour. This grew out of the

experience that you could work and still not be abl

feed your children or spend any time with them. A

necessity of engaging in a common-good politics w

the common good


45/109

necessity of engaging in a common-good politics w

religious communities who have succeeded in pres

their associational integrity when Labour has lost th

Respectability has always been a far more importanconcept in English politics than respect and Labou

re-engage with what that means.

The third campaign concerns affordable hous

possibility that families can have a home with enou

to live in. This involves a restoration of co-operative

land trusts which enables people to build their hom

outside the conventional property market. Wages, order and housing turn out to form the basis of the

agenda after all.

Barack Obama was trained and worked as a

community organiser and has consistently recognis

formative influence on all aspects of his politics, inc

his successful campaign. The energy, the connectio

first time voters, the common good content seem ldifferent world to that confronting Labour now. Ho

reasonable if you have the power to act effectively

others. The Labour movement is rooted in the rules

community organising which teach that only organ

people can change their world through building

relationships and engaging in common action. It inv

taking sides and holding power accountable to theit serves. Labour should argue that in order for peo

protect the things and people that they love they m

organise themselves around the institutions they tr

pursue a common good. Labour used to be one of

institutions but is no more.

So, finally, what now for Labour? The politics

common good.

Dr Maurice Glasman is Director of the Faith and Citi

Programme at London Metropolitan University and

look to the town hall


46/109

look to the town hall,not WhitehallTristram Hunt

In the midst of an ugly electoral post-mortem and v

necessary debate about constitutional propriety, Lamust not abandon intellectual activity altogether. In

than twelve months time, Britain faces an historic g

election which will decide whether Labour can emb

the progressive consensus. For what this months p

also revealed is the absence of any quickening hun

Camerons Conservatives. The electoral hill he has t

climb remains steep. Meanwhile, the Labour party ndesperately now to show a continuing instinct for c

and a capacity to think creatively. That means draw

the Labour movements past to offer meaningful, p

gressive solutions to an understandably anxious Br

The effective response of Gordon Brown and

British government to the global credit-crunch ove

year has rightly led to a renewed belief in the capacstate to act as a catalyst for reform. What has prev

recession slipping into depression and saved us thu

from a 1930s-style retreat into protectionism and s

unemployment is responsible and coordinated actio

treasuries across the world. After years of lazy Con

critique of Whitehall and town hall, suddenly the ac

public servants are not so risible after all.

But on the left, this crisis has led too many to

familiar, paternalist hand of the man in Whitehall kn

best. As such, it has formed part of a broader relian

failings of 21st century, laissez-faire financial capita

look to the town hall, not Whitehall


47/109

failings of 21st century, laissez faire financial capita

For there is another story of Labour which ha

too readily abandoned in the current debate. It is o

values the capacity of the state, but does not regarincrease in state spending as a virility symbol for so

Indeed, it has its roots in a tradition which was ofte

to the demands and depredations of the kind of Wes

elites we currently see chasing their own tails.

What shaped the pioneer, early 1900s Labou

was not just trade unions and intellectuals, but also

powerful hinterland of mutualism, associationalism society stretching back to the early 1800s. From th

Owenites to the Chartists to the Rochdale coopera

the friendly societies and self-help clubs of most Br

towns and cities Labours political ethos was cum

moulded. Here were self-governing communities te

employing and mobilising themselves. This traditio

mutualism provided vehicles for social mobility, civpolitical voice and even global activism on issues s

slavery, colonial liberation and militarism. Here lay t

of the trade union movement and provided the trai

ground for some of Britains most effective working

progressives.

With the advent of the vote, this civic ethos c

to guide the Labour movement in power in councilthe country. In Manchester, Glasgow and, most suc

of all, early 1900s London under the Progressives, l

administrations married civil society with political c

to produce the great epoch of municipal socialism.

Experimenting, innovating and delivering social jus

local scale, Labour councils put the civic tradition i

action. From school meals to free transport, public to parks, swimming baths to political education, art

galleries to decent housing, the full panoply of the

life was delivered to the people outside the purlieu

having come to power on taxing the excess profits



48/109

g p g p

utilities, ministers now run scared of BAA, big oil an

pharma. But in his black and white template, Blond

regard the Labour party as interested in the defenc

central state in and of itself. What is more, he argue

the modern Labour party has detached itself from

remnants of its civic tradition.

Few would argue that in 1997, after 18 years o

inaction and a monstrously desiccated public sphe

degree of concerted state activism was not needed

policy areas, New Labour went too far with its centambitions for Napoleonic control. But, at the same

last ten years has witnessed a magnificent devoluti

power from the Scottish Parliament to the Welsh

Assembly to the London Mayor and now (albeit be

further autonomy for local councils in terms of reve

raising powers and the much overlooked city-regio

Which is how it should be. In the age of the inmass migration, fragmenting multi-culturalism, and

culture of aggressive consumer power, the old com

and control template is over. What is more, recent

policy debacles have starkly revealed how pulling t

levers doesnt work. We have seen, despite over a d

aggressive policy responses from Whitehall which

hundreds of thousands out of absolute poverty, a cinability to transform ingrained social inequality wit

Britain. The traditional levers for change no longer

the kind of capacity building and social innovation

ground which shifts life chances. Only last month c

figures showing just how difficult it still proved to e

pensioner poverty, child poverty and inequality (at

highest level since 1961).1

Meanwhile, an array of high-profile education

initiatives from Building Schools for the Future t

Learning and Skills Council college building progra

betting and drinking which have done so much to d



49/109

the British high street.

But it also demands a New Deal with local go

and, with it, a realisation that some of the most inn

and intelligent public servants are now to be found

town hall, not Whitehall. And they need a new grey

between local and state power to allow for new p

innovations free from the fear of judicial review, let

rate-capping. They need the political capacity to pu

kind of commercial experiments which Manchester

Council has pioneered, or the plans for the Post OffEssex County Council are experimenting with, or th

region powers which Leeds intends to exploit. Labo

a new mind-set committed to radical policy devolu

both an economic and political level.

The question, of course, is whether its possib

carry out such party political re-engineering with th

of Whitehall all those civil servants ready to do tever present. It is also much harder to carry out wit

structure hollowed out of councillors and activists a

level. And then there is the political charge that this

the time, at the tail end of a parliament and after tw

years in power, to bring out the familiar canard of lo

empowerment. But the current crisis provides the p

moment to do just that. The Westminster model iscrumbling, MPs are reviled, the man in Whitehall do

know best. Now, surely, is the time for Labour to re

civic identity, abandon its centralism and endow a n

social-democratic power balance.

As the great Friedrich Engels once put it, sur

your antagonists while their forces are scattering, p

new successes, however small but daily force youenemies to a retreat before they can collect their st

against you; in the words of Danton, the greatest m

revolution policy yet known: de laudace, de laudac

double revolution


50/109

Jessica Asato

As politics as we know it implodes around us, it mig

a little odd to focus on the internal cogs of the LabThe typical invocation in times of political crisis is f

politicians to look outwards not inwards, but a deb

where Labour goes from here and whether it has a

of regaining its status as a vehicle for progressive c

the future, cannot ignore the structures of the part

The vast majority of political commentators ignore

happens in the constituency Labour parties meetinmonth in fusty church halls and tatty pub function

across the country. Quite rightly the focus is on tho

top. But it is in the branch meetings of the Labour p

trade unions where Labours problems start, and w

must shine a light to understand how Labour might

reconnect.

On evaluation, Labours structures are an unhmerger of old-fashioned, soviet-sounding bodies su

local General Committee and powerless New Labo

creations such as the National Policy Forum. As pa

Labours drive to protect policy-making from hard

elements of the party, a new system of policy form

was created called Partnership in Power. Scarred b

1980s where Militant Labour organised within the pissues such as unilateral disarmament dominated p

thinking, modernisers sought to create structures t

voice to the mainstream of the party. The problem

still written, and amended, and sent to various Secr

double revolution


51/109

State destined to end up in yet another waste pape

To debate ideas and practical policy measures at a

party meeting is like stepping into a time warp. It is

perplexing situation given the many years of mode

and innovation that we have seen Labour pursue in

government, but it is not surprising given that Tony

and Gordon Brown since, have had no appetite for

reforming the party. And yet producer capture, so

which reforms of the public service were often intr

alleviate, is rife in the Labour party.The psychology of members in the Labour pa

would surely be an interesting study in human beha

Many join with fierce conviction about their role in

tackle injustice and poverty, and fight against elitis

hierarchy. Yet the way people behave once they are

members often seems to strike against the very va

say they espouse. The organisation becomes a cliqvery little information is shared, dominated by the l

and those who have served the longest. New entra

treated with suspicion and not accepted into the fo

they have either given up any sense of a social life

accepting every committee position going, or deliv

rounds of newsletters on their own. Some members

extraordinary sense of entitlement and demand thebe listened to, purely by dint of paying subscription

the leadership doesnt listen, a sense of victimisatio

hold and all manner of conspiracy theories lead to

and sometimes unfathomable anger. For all Labour

of peaceniks and Christian socialism, entering into

Labour politics can often resemble being thrown o

battlefield.This isnt to say that Labours leadership is alw

right to ignore the membership. On the contrary, m

issues such as the uproar after the 65p increase in t

looking nature of party debates, a duty should be

i d d ll i b i h

double revolution


52/109

introduced on all constituency Labour parties to ho

meetings each year which allow local people to set

agenda. Instead of Palestine, Columbian trade unio

Trident being key topics for discussion, party mem

might have to face up to the fact that the vast majo

residents care about more mundane things such as

of activities for young people, school places and

unaffordable housing.

Labours manifesto process should demand t

parties only submit ideas and policy documents to general policy-making pot if they can show that the

reached their conclusions with the involvement of t

public. Not only will this bring in a sense of reality t

Labours internal debates, it will also force member

become better informed and to internalise argume

than parrot their own prejudices. The Labour move

needs to return to the days of the Workers EducatiAssociation set up in 1906, whereby those who are

are continually increasing the sum total of their kno

and crucially, improving the political education and

involvement of the least advantaged in our society.

extraordinary that in all the debates over the last d

about voter apathy, and all the hand-wringing abou

that it is those from the poorest social backgroundturn out the least, Labour has done absolutely noth

party to focus its efforts on engaging the very peo

it exists to support. This could be funded, as they d

Sweden, by a state levy to support political educat

training.

Embedding citizen voice in the Labour party

an important way of ensuring that it reaches out tothan the usual suspects, and also to show that ther

inbuilt progressive majority in the public. If anythin

European results show that the public are deeply s

arguments within these communities, preferring to

t th t h i t d f h i l d

double revolution


53/109

to the government who instead of showing leaders

decided that giving the EU a dressing down at ever

opportunity and creating lists of banned migrants t

will convince people that Labour is on their side. It

strategy which has catastrophically failed and prog

can only connect with those voters who are in th

vulnerable situations and deserve a Labour voice

becoming a mass political movement again.

One way we can start to create this is by emb

the idea of primaries. If the average electorate inconstituencies is 70,000, and the average Labour

constituency membership is now around 400, that

that the decision taken to select a Labour candidat

by a tiny proportion of the eligible electorate. No w

have unrepresentative representatives. By allowing

register their support for a political party, not only

give them a stake in the political process much earthe election itself, but it will also give them an oppo

to influence the thinking of Labours representative

they get into parliament. It means that a politicians

not in their party, but truly in their community. It wi

enable Labour to reach out to supporters rather th

members, thereby bringing in new influences and a

easier recruitment.Introducing proportional representation coul

similar effect of forcing the Labour party to take ci

concerns seriously. At the moment all efforts are fo

winning marginal seats. Core vote areas are often

abandoned as Labour noticed to its horror in the G

East and Crewe by-elections. But it would also forc

to acknowledge that the duality politics we have beoperating for more than a century is failing our dem

Both far left and far right unite in their opposition t

proportional representation because they argue it f

about strong government which suggests that Lab

doesnt think it can win on principle so it has to fix

double revolution


54/109

doesn t think it can win on principle, so it has to fix

practice. Labour has to get away from its fixer men

thuggish whips and bully boys threatening

excommunication. Collective decision-making is im

but only if the decisions are worth pursuing in the f

Finally, Labour needs to genuinely embrace

decentralisation. Senior government ministers have

time after time about double devolution, the new lo

and other New Labour buzzwords, but apart from a

local budgets which have been experimented with community parks and assets, local government has

the benefit of their words. The government should

and swipe 25 per cent of funding from Whitehall an

national quangos and give it, along with the requisi

powers, to the appropriate level of elected authorit

local level. This should include introducing elected

for every major conurbation with the option of allowcitizens to get rid of the mayoral system if they rea

like it. Labour must finally get rid of its daemons on

government. Good local authorities are much more

professional and well run than they used to be in th

they already have control of millions of pounds of t

money, but dont have the authority to get on with

Give them local tax-raising powers with the opportvoters to positively vote for increases dedicated to

issues such as education or healthcare. It will increa

connection with the way their taxes are spent and

revolutionise the sterile debate we have in the Labo

movement about whether we should raise the top r

tax. If voters can see where their taxes are going, th

more likely to think positively about giving more.This is no time to hide in a bunker. Labour ha

chance to reveal a radicalism which is at the core o

Labour but has become hidden under layer after la

take to the streets


55/109

Rushanara Ali

In the past, Labour governments ran out of steam a

a few years. By 1951, 1970 and 1979 they were visiblon empty. So the fact that it has taken 12 years for

reach this appalling convergence of ministerial resi

electoral meltdown and party panic could be read a

an achievement. But no one can be in any doubt ab

gravity of the crisis. An election which saw Labour

fourth and fifth place in some regions, and where a

worst the haemorrhaging of Labours share of the vdirectly benefitted the far right, is a source of chron

disappointment and shame.

So what is the root of the problem? It is not a

talent, intellect or great policy initiatives; we have a

abundance of all of these as a party. At root our pro

what so often happens to governments whether on

or left: it is the capacity of governments to lose touordinary people, a failure to have daily engagemen

life. Everything else follows from that the loss of

the loss of confidence and the loss of imagination a

courage.

Governments come to expect that the public

be grateful to them and then feel upset when none

forthcoming. Yet the first rule of politics is that younever expect gratitude the honour of serving sho

enough, and what matters more than what you ach

the past is what you offer for the future. This failure

a workers movement to a political force to be recko

in the 20th century

take to the streets


56/109

in the 20th century.

At Labours heart is the idea of a political mo

built on social action and recognition of peoples p

and capacity to make a difference. The Labour part

built on such a rich history. In the East End of Lond

birth of the Labour movement came from the strug

the match girl strikes, the subsequent trade union a

suffragette movements and later the struggles and

against Mosleys fascists. It was the combined effor

workers, social reformers and campaigners that ledrights for workers and paved the way for a welfare

we continue to see as a source of pride in our socie

Reminding ourselves of the past and our trad

political heritage is not an attempt at nostalgia but

counter to the risk of becoming too much part of t

establishment, too comfortable as what was once d

as the natural party of government rather than a mof people from different backgrounds that helped b

about such sweeping and positive change.

In the post 1997 era too little attention was p

how we remain a party of campaigning (in the broa

sense) and activism. The momentum and sense of e

solidarity and goodwill that was built up was quick

whittled away leaving disillusion and a sense of powlessness not only among activists, but many others

in government or elsewhere. The highly centralised

advertising and London-media dominated approac

end brought with it a high cost, just as the Tories fo

the 1990s when their long involvement with Saatch

Saatchi ultimately left their party hollowed out.

This under-current of powerlessness and disiwhat the Labour party must address if it is to turn i

a healthy, vibrant movement with a renewed sense

purpose. To do that, we need to build the skills of c

voiceless whether that is the elderly people who

fearful of rapid change in their communities, the yo

take to the streets


57/109

fearful of rapid change in their communities, the yo

unemployed graduate who made his family proud b

cannot get a job or the recession-struck cab driver

waits hours before he can make a few pounds on a

A political party that is truly in touch with the

draws new energy, ideas and a sense of purpose fro

insights and direct experiences. The Britain that La

inherited in 1997 was characterised by a very differ

needs than those we face today these are more c

psychological needs such as anxiety and depressiocombined with classic poverty and income inequal

only hope now is to combine a more energetic radi

on everything from long overdue constitutional refo

social policy with a return to what have always b

true sources of our renewable energy: that combin

frustration and hope that always ultimately drives

progressive change.

Rushanara Ali is Associate Director at the Young Fo

and Labour parliamentary candidate for Bethnal Gr

Bow.

tame the market


58/109

Michael Meacher

This is a climactic moment for Labour, losing all its

remaining county councils held and coming third b

UKIP in the EU elections with a devastating slump t

15 per cent of the national

What Next for Labour

Documents

Transcript of What Next for Labour