New Labour: Rebuilding the coalition.
| Author | Buck, Karen |
| Position | Essays - Essay |
Everything written about New Labour in the summer of 2006 will be overshadowed by the coming change of leader. But this change, hugely important though it is, cannot answer all the questions about Labour's future chances of success. The choice of leader is only one element in the urgent need for Labour to renew its vision for our country, to develop our ability to communicate that vision, and to show we have the means to put it into practice.
This brief paper has been written by Labour MPs who want to help develop that political strategy. We hold in common the belief that Labour needs to rebuild the broad electoral coalition that led to our success in 1997 and the more recent general elections. Our ability to unite a broad cross-section of British society, rather than to appeal to narrow sectional interests, is not only important to electoral success; it is the precondition for achieving progressive political change.
To do this we must identify clearly the challenges that face Britain today, and the Labour Party's most effective response. It may be that a serious debate on Labour's future direction will now develop. We want to reject the idea that the only choice for Labour is between its current course and a return to the Labour politics of the 1980s or, even worse, the 1970s. This false choice is an unhelpful caricature, which too often stifles debate about the direction the party should now take. Labour's hope for successful renewal relies on a cool-headed analysis of our strengths and weaknesses as a government. As the next election approaches, Labour will be operating in a changed political and organisational climate and in a context which has been affected by both our successes and failures in office.
Britain faces powerful economic and social forces at home and abroad. Unchallenged each will make our society less fair, more unequal and more divided; their power will feed our sense of insecurity. In a vicious circle, the more divided we become the less able we will be to manage those forces and regain a sense of security. Labour's core value--that only by working together can we all do better as individuals and families--still provides the best answer.
New Labour's success
New Labour's original momentum and success grew from our ability to describe and explain Britain in a way that made sense to the voting public. As a result, Labour's values were seen as widely and deeply held across society. The policies we proposed were understood as a commitment to change our country in tune with those values.
The emphasis we promised on collective provision was popular in a society reacting against the private greed and run-down public services of the Tories. People wanted the new opportunities we offered to those in poverty and deprivation, but they wanted to be sure that responsibilities would be enforced alongside rights. They were assured that we had clearly accepted the central role the private sector and markets would play in economic success and were comfortable with using part of the benefits for social justice. Equally important they were reassured that we also recognised the limits of markets and the importance of public provision and social interventions. In promising to be tough on crime and on the causes of crime we reflected both the public desire for protection and the understanding that social problems had deep roots.
In international policy, too, we held out the prospect of ending the growing isolation and lack of influence of Britain in Europe. We committed ourselves to the reform of global institutions and to introducing a more ethical dimension to foreign policy.
New Labour's original vision was much more than sets of individual policies for individual people. It was a reasonably coherent description of British that made sense to people in many different walks of life. It brought them together to vote us in. For some time, it infused Labour's actions in government and delivered the changes we are proud of.
Labour can claim to have pursued many of those original aims with significant success. The economy has consistently performed well. Record numbers of people are in work. The levels of investment in public services are higher than most people imagined possible and real improvements have resulted. The incomes of most of the poorest households have risen sharply. Overall levels of crime have steadily fallen.
In international affairs, where the invasion of Iraq and the government's approach to terrorism and the Middle East has dismayed many supporters, Labour has pressed for fair reform of the world trade system and there is no questioning the party's effective leadership and practice in expanding the aid budget and the focus on African development.
Arguably the real measure of our success is that on almost every issue that divided the parties in 1997--taxation, public spending, the minimum wage, Europe, social values, constitutional change and overseas development--the Cameron Tories have been forced to admit (in public at least) that we were right. This is a legacy that New Labour can fairly claim.
Drifting apart from the voters
As Labour MPs we share pride in those achievements. But what Labour MPs think of Labour's record is less important than the judgement that the public is making. And here there is no doubt that Labour's relationship is seriously strained. The number of people voting for us in general elections has fallen sharply. Recent by-elections and local elections have shown that all parts of our electoral base are under pressure. Recent opinion polls also confirm the sharp fall in party support. And although efforts are being made to highlight our policy differences with the Tories, we have to confront the possibility that key groups of voters are simply deciding not to vote for us again even if they have not yet entirely decided how or whether to vote.
There are many signs of this changing political landscape. We can see it in the widespread rejection of the government's view of the crises in the Middle East, and of the complex links between western foreign policy and the rise of British born terrorism. We can hear it when voters tell us that their measures of what makes a good public service are not necessarily the same as the targets the government has set and achieved. We show it when issues like Eastern European migration become a talking point in every community but for months government apparently has nothing to say.
After nine years it has become hard to see the country with fresh eyes. We inevitably want to justify what we've done, rather than accept what has actually happened. Pride at reduced waiting lists can blind us to worries about social care, mental health or other parts of the NHS that have not been given such a high priority.
At the same time power has become so centralised that it is difficult for government at any level to operate as flexibly and effectively as possible. It can lead to poor policy design and slow our response to changing problems. At its worst, in response to the Lebanon, it has allowed a policy that few supported to be imposed on party and country.
We've been too nervous about confronting powerful vested...
To continue reading
Request your trialCOPYRIGHT GALE, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.
