|
Before the attack on the World Trade Centre the story of
British politics would have been dominated by internal battles
inside Labour, and occasional ruminations on the newly-reinforced
destructive tendencies of the Tory Party. On the surface
all that has changed. The scaled down and somewhat token
party conference season was just one indicator of the new
situation, where foreign policy is to the fore and a form
of presidential, post-ideological politics dominates. That
change is not mere froth or temporary manoeuvring. The world
did change for the foreseeable future on 11 September, and
the collapse of the World Trade Centre was a tragic metaphor
for the meltdown of geopolitics as we know them.
This fundamental shift has been lost on some of the left.
Mirroring the remaining cold war warriors on the right,
they remain trapped within a world where the USA is the
perpetual and primary enemy. Renewal has argued
consistently for Labour to find its strategic and ideological
point of reference more in Europe than America. But we cannot
embrace the mono-causal myopia of those who only see faults
in our own societies, but seem blind to the reactionary
objectives and practices of the 'freedom fighters' who spout
shallow and self-serving anti-Western rhetoric.
It is not as simple as the free world versus terrorism,
let alone a global 'clash of civilisations'. But it is undeniable
that in the post-Cold War world, virulent forms of ethnic
nationalism and religious fundamentalism pose a real threat
to secular, pluralistic democratic politics. The serious
left and Will Hutton's 'hard liberals' need to focus on
building progressive forms of global governance and a global
politics of redistribution. Let us have a critique of existing
forms of globalisation, let's even ensure that legitimate
protest is used to change the terms of debate to prioritise
the interests of 'the people' (as Gordon
Corera suggests in this issue); but a violent, negative
politics, based solely on wrecking the meetings of world
bodies seems even more futile than before.
In this context the early actions of Tony Blair and the
Government were, in our view, broadly the right ones. The
Government has acted sensibly to reposition the conflict
away from the terrain favoured by the hawks in Washington,
and to build a broad alliance that is inclusive of moderate
Muslims at home and abroad. Of course, at the time of writing
(mid-October), there is no guarantee that the 'war on terrorism'
will achieve any progressive objectives, or that this alliance
will hold together. A recent Panorama programme on Muslim
attitudes in Birmingham to the 'war' was alarming, given
that even community moderates appeared to be opposed to
the Western attacks. In addition there is no clear exit
strategy in an asymmetrical war between global super powers
and cell-based terrorist networks that US Pentagon officials
simply don't know how to fight. In addition it is worrying
that we appear to be relying on a strategy based on 'our
enemies' enemy', in the shape of the 'Northern Alliance',
who are not necessarily our friends, nor friends of the
people of Afghanistan. In terms of the big picture, any
plans for a successor government, let alone social justice
in Afghanistan, look like a remote pipe dream. While the
option of doing nothing, or at least nothing militarily,
was neither realistic nor just, history proves that starting
a 'war' without an exit nor an end game can be a mistake.
In his Conference speech, the Prime Minister spoke of a
'kaleidoscope' of pieces in foreign affairs that we need
to shape before they fall into place. The same metaphor,
we believe, applies to the domestic political scene. The
fact that the fluid nature of British party politics has
received less attention is understandable, but urgently
needs to be explored if opportunities and threats are to
be dealt with. This editorial will explore some of those
parallel changes.
Labour
Andrew Rawnsley has argued that wars can benefit progressive
politics on the grounds that they make tangible the 'role
of government'. That may well be true, but the activity
that voters in the UK are more interested in is the capacity
of Labour to deliver on its public service promises. This
was supposed to be the parliament dominated by delivery,
delivery, delivery. Even the harshest critics of Gordon
Brown will acknowledge that this task has been made considerably
more difficult in a context of global downturn and possibly
reduced revenues and unexpected demands for military and
related expenditure.
The initial public response to the new situation has in
essence been 'nothing has changed'. Labour can still deliver
on its public spending pledges and meet any military requirements,
while the economy is robust enough to survive any temporary
downturn. We hope this is true, though words of reassurance
from Treasury spokespeople may not quite be enough to stem
the forces of the market if recession starts to rip. The
mantra 'no return to boom and bust' was always King Cnut
like wishful thinking.
However, this is only part of the picture. Delivering on
public services is not just about maintaining existing pledges.
It is also about two other things. First, finding and targeting
the resources in the next expenditure review. Second, developing
the strategic thinking and political imagination to get
resources through to where they are needed and make them
effective in time for the next election. Whatever achievements
on foreign fields may be secured over the next couple of
years, the Government should remember that Afghans don't
vote, at least in UK general elections. Any war dividend
is likely to be minimal and short-lived. Just ask George
Bush Snr.
So far the signs of having an effective strategy for delivering
on public services have not been good. An incredible amount
of energy has been expended on the rhetoric of reform, primarily
on making a case for private sector involvement. That seems
to have been in inverse proportion to any actual plans for
meaningful, realistic involvement, and to the capacity of
such rhetoric to alienate the very people needed to make
sure that reform works. Meanwhile the word on the streets,
or at least from inside the ministries, is of impossible
and undirected targets.
The early period of the second term, prior to the events
of 11 September, saw the Government burning political capital
at an unsustainable rate. Companies that 'burn cash' at
such an unsustainable rate soon go under. The Party is in
a sullen and increasingly resentful mood. The bounty expected
from the historic full second-term victory has already proved
illusive. It's over 100 days since the last election, although
it feels like more than 1000. But the danger is that some
in government are exhibiting what we could call a Millwall
tendency - 'no one likes us, we don't care'.
Political parties tend to be weakest just when they think
they are strongest. It is worrying to report, but there
is a terrible creaking feel of empty vessels to this government.
The glue of winning is proving insufficient to motivate
party members. On education, health, transport and jobs
too little progress is evident. Ten year plans have been
quickly forgotten and in any case are no substitute for
a sense of purpose convincingly communicated to the electorate.
A purpose of sorts was, of course, to be found in Blair's
speech to the Party conference - a liberal variant on the
New World Order. The content of the speech made a refreshing
contrast to the dour managerialism of 'what works'. And
in the concept of 'community' Blair seems to have returned,
via the third way and several other intellectual wild goose
chases, to the ideological territory he actually believes
in. (The second issue of Renewal in 2002 (Vol
10 No 2) will address the extent to which the left can claim
and exploit the potential of community.) The reception to
that speech has ranged from praise for the expansiveness
of its concerns and the desire to make globalisation work
for all, to sneering at naive high-mindedness that cannot
deliver its objectives in a fractured and hostile world.
We would like to be generous and place ourselves in the
former camp, but no matter what the judgement of the global
perspective, the problem is also what was not in the speech.
The Prime Minister has become a world leader. At conference
it felt as if Blair was no longer the party leader but the
fraternal delegate from some far away land, received respectfully
and listened to admiringly, but somehow now divorced and
separate from the world the people in the hall inhabit.
It is clearly not just what he is good at, but what he feels
most comfortable doing. But the fact remains that no such
vision has ever been developed or sustained for domestic
politics, despite rhetorical flourishes about young countries
and conservative conspiracies. Notwithstanding the philosophical
appeal to the power of community internationally and at
home, Blair has found neither an equivalent conception of
the good society under a modernised social democratic polity,
nor a domestic enemy worthy and credible of his reforming
zeal.
Despite electoral victories, life under Labour has rarely
been uplifting and too often now feels gloomy. From the
austerity spending measures of the first term, when we spent
less than the Tories, it seems only a blink of eye to the
prospect of another round of belt tightening. Gordon Brown
has shown many great qualities as a Chancellor, but articulation
of a vision of the good society has not been one of them.
Prudence may be a wise watchword for the markets. But it
will not revitalise domestic politics. Yet, tough decisions
on public spending and public sector reform loom. The leadership
can delay the debate, but cannot wriggle off the real-world
hook. Labour has an opportunity to go on the offensive,
to signal a change of policy on tax and to focus on the
real problems of delivery free from a foolish and wasteful
battle with public sector workers. It is time that tough
decisions now affected those most able to pay.
The ability to reform public services has been made almost
impossible by those who span and sanctioned the election
briefing on the use of the private companies in the public
sector. At a stroke they paved the way for a defensive wall
to be erected around existing practices, without the scope
for real innovation within the values and objectives that
rightly guide the public realm. A further opportunity could
be lost over Railtrack. If it wasn't for the 'war' then
the decision to end shareholder ownership of the rail network
would rightly been seen as one of the most momentous decisions
of this government. Renewal amongst others
(see Christian Wolmar in Vol 9. No. 1 Winter 2001) has made
it clear that the structure was untenable. But a dramatic
decision could backfire if we fail to make the most of the
moment. The not-for-profit trust they are looking to establish
could be the worst of all worlds. Ministers want someone
else in the firing line when things go wrong but they also
want control. They have to learn that they can't have both.
They should also ensure that the separation of 'track and
wheel' is overcome. In short they should renationalise rail.
Unfortunately, they won't do this. The worry is that they
won't even make a virtue of private sector failure. Without
being 'anti-business' we could now make it clear that we
recognise where markets work and where they don't. The perceived
worship of the business sector could come to an end. It
would certainly help with the public service debate and
allow the Government to get off the back foot over meaningful
reform of education and health service delivery.
We would urge that Labour identifies this unique moment
as the opportunity to draw breath and promote a programme
to modernise Britain - to stop the quick fix, to stop micro-management,
to go beyond managerialism itself and embrace radical structural
and institutional change in our public services and transport
system. And most importantly, picking up the theme of the
other articles in this issue of Renewal, to
make the case for a more equal society. The time since the
election has been a disappointment. The second term needs
to start again. We believe there is an opportunity to do
so.
The opposition
In theory, Her Majesty's Opposition should be able to benefit
from problems on the home front. However, we are talking
about the modern Conservative Party. By common consent,
shrunk in size and diminished in stature, there is no sign
whatsoever that the Tories can mount any significant opposition
to the Government. While it may be too early to write Ian
Duncan-Smith off completely, it looks like we are witnessing
the steady death of the greatest vote-winning machine in
the history of Western democracy. This changes the ground
rules for every preconception the British left has about
the balance between power and principle. As Peter Osborne
pointed out in The Guardian, the party is, 'no longer
plausible as a party of Government. It is no longer plausible
even as a party of Opposition'. New Labour was created as
a consequence of Tory hegemony in the last century. Blairism
is in part responsibly for the Tories' demise and for that
he should gain the credit. But now new parameters, dynamics
and forces are at work. The rules of British politics are
in flux and the threats and opportunities for the left are
immense.
Labour's foreign policy offers the Tories no space other
than bellicose soundbites out of touch with the rightly
more cautious instincts of the British electorate. Domestically,
there is only confusion and delusion. Tax cutting pledges
have been abandoned much to the annoyance of the Redwood
wing. Meanwhile they are going to be nicer to teachers and
will save the public services, mainly by getting fewer people
to use them.
Duncan-Smith's pleas for a more tolerant, inclusive party
echo the kind of calls made by Hague in his early period
of office. Once the conference speeches have died away,
the reality is that, 'The Tory Party membership is predominantly
white, bigoted, prejudiced and stupid' (prominent Clarke
supporter quoted in The Independent on Sunday, 2
September). This leaves them with only Euro-scepticism as
a battleground where they have both motive and opportunity,
and we know where that has got them in the past. The legacy
of Thatcherism for the Tories has been to awaken the ideological
instincts of a party that had hitherto put pragmatism above
principle. Now the genie is out of the bottle they seem
drunk on its contents.
For a brief moment the Tories had a chance to elect a Kinnock,
but they chose a Heffer instead. Unfortunately it is not
only the Tories who will have to live with the consequences
of their choice. Duncan-Smith was possibly the worst outcome
for Labour as well. For a leadership often bereft of a political
anchor, the space that IDS opens up to the right of Labour
may seem irresistible to hoover up. Both nature and politics
abhor a vacuum. Either that or it will simply breed complacency.
Who cares about delivery, about opposition and frustration
in our own ranks? There is no alternative.
That leads us on to the Liberal Democrats. Is Charles Kennedy
going to be left holding the prize when the music stops?
Politics can be a lucky game and the words 'place', 'right'
and 'time' certainly spring to mind in his case. But you
make your own luck. Kennedy has a rare quality in modern
politics - the more people see of him, the more they like
him, though attempts to appear statesmanlike and serious
in a crisis understandably eluded even his best efforts.
The Liberal Democrats know that they have an opportunity
to become the real Opposition, if not in numbers, certainly
in substance. That is not simply because of the feebleness
of the Tories. It flows from the fact that the main space
for opposition is to the left of Labour - a space where
a modern social democratic politics can and ought to be.
To the right is the vacuum that IDS opens up. The dilemma
for the Liberal Democrats is knowing which way to go, while
keeping their rural and urban supporters simultaneously
on board. Given the current political balance of power,
a march leftwards is the most likely option. Nevertheless,
that still leaves open a number of strategic and tactical
decisions. For example, a battle is beginning to rage over
the public sector in the Liberal Democratic Party that mirrors
the debate in Labour.
The fluidity of British politics is not merely an outcome
of the changing strengths and weaknesses of the major players;
it is also shaped by the variety of settings in which they
and other players (such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru) compete
for office; as well as by the agendas of equality, democratic
governance and social liberalism/authoritarianism that exist
within as well as across party boundaries. This will be
a major focus for Renewal over the coming
period.
This fluidity and re-configuring is, arguably, good for
the health of British democracy, though any challenge from
the left may not be as comfortably seen off as Downing Street
thinks. We reassert the belief that Labour is weaker than
it thinks. The Tories, standing on the precipice of credibility,
could decide against taking a brave leap forward. The Liberal
Democrats could attack Labour from left or right or opportunistically
mix the two. The kaleidoscope is turning.
Conclusion
In the second term the question is increasingly this - of
what can Labour be proud? In the first term the Government
made it easy. Against the slings and arrows of the hard
left, the cynical centre and the belligerent right, we could
hold up the shield of the minimum wage, union recognition,
a sound economy and far reaching constitutional reform.
But what now?
On the positive side there is a determination to make key
initiatives work, with notable success in Northern Ireland.
New ministers are also showing a refreshing willingness
to look again and act decisively on issues such as drugs
policy, education and training and executive pay. Beyond
this, the Government 6 Renewal Vol.9 No.4 2001 Renewal9.4Text.qxd
05/11/01 14:24 Page 6 makes soothing sounds about ambitious
objectives. Winning the debate on public services against
the right is one aspect of this transformation, while promising
noises are being made about an invest and tax initiative
to back this up. Equally there is Europe and the single
currency. These issues and others have powerful progressive
potential. Below the radar the message is 'trust us and
give us time'. But there are real problems with this approach.
First, government by U-turn has obvious limits and eventually
undermines confidence in politicians, whose absolute unwillingness
to bend is suddenly found wanting. Second, change still
comes from the centre, at their pace and in their direction.
Social forces are given only a passive role. This paternalistic
conception of change is simply wrong. Lasting and effective
transformation only comes with the empowerment and active
participation of a significant proportion of the population.
Second, there is increasingly little evidence that the Party,
let alone the people, trust or like this government. Blair
is admired as a winner, but the allure of winning is rubbing
off. On too many occasions, like public service reform,
asylum, national missile defence and specialisation in schools,
what the leadership wants puts them in stark opposition
to the instincts and beliefs of the party. Instead of trust,
increasingly there is either a romantically based hostility
or dejection. New Labour could end up getting what it fears
most - a return to the internal warfare of the past. To
paraphrase Yodda from Star Wars, mistrust leads to frustration,
frustration leads to anger, anger leads to opposition, opposition
leads to Opposition.
Tony Blair and new Labour have been the catalyst for the
electoral success of the left and the now fluid nature of
British politics. But new times require new political strategies
and forces. New Labour is in danger of looking old fashioned.
What is more, the sky could begin to darken as many policy
and positioning chickens come home to roost. Much to the
angst of Number 10, neither the party nor public ever appear
to be properly satisfied. At a crucial time in domestic
politics, it will not be enough to be a world leader. Unless
the Government can match its international sense of purpose
on the home front with a fresh and purposeful definition
of modern social democracy, we may not have seen the end
of that newly-found fluidity yet.
|
