As Labour considers what went wrong last Thursday, and leadership contenders jockey for position, we’re re-posting a piece from December 2010 by former general secretary Peter Watt. Four and a half years on, almost word for word, it’s as relevant today as it was then – Atul Hatwal (ed)
by Peter Watt
Understanding this year’s defeat is, as we all know, central to bouncing back electorally. A lot has been written about the need to listen and the need to reconnect to voters. And the launch of the policy consultations in Gillingham last weekend was an attempt to listen and learn the lessons of defeat.
But there is an arrogance at the heart of our politics that is going to make it difficult to really understand why we lost. It is an arrogance that says that we alone own morality and that we alone want the best for people. It says that our instincts and our motives alone are pure. It’s an arrogance that belittles others’ fears and concerns as “isms” whilst raising ours as righteous. We then mistakenly define ourselves as being distinctive from our opponents because we are morally superior rather than because we have different diagnoses and solutions. It is lazy, wrong and politically dangerous.
If you think that I am being harsh, just think about what we say about our opponents. We assume that they are all in it for themselves, that they are indifferent to the suffering of others. In fact, that they are quite happy to induce more suffering if it suits their malign ends. What we don’t think is that they may want the same things as us, but just have a different approach. Instead, we cast high-minded aspersions on their morality and humanity.
Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people’s suffering. What we don’t think is that he wants to improve the lives of the poor but just doesn’t think that the current incarnation of the welfare state is the best way to achieve this. And yet, much of his programme is familiar to the last (Labour) government. Presumably our motives were pure, though.
What about the heinous charge that they want to “ideologically shrink” the size of the state. We, of course, want to use the state to do good things for people. Their wanting to shrink it clearly indicates that they don’t want to do good things for people. Clearly, therefore, they are morally bankrupt. Well, perhaps not. Maybe they think that over-taxing people is wrong and that an over-reaching state is in itself bad for the same people that we want to help? I am not saying that I necessarily agree, but I am saying that it is a perfectly valid view and one that is not intrinsically immoral.
But does it matter? Well, yes, I think that it does. Because our arrogance has the effect of stopping us listening. In fact, it is worse than that: we think that we are listening when many voters know that we are not. If we are honest, all too often we do believe that our version of the world is not just better than anyone else’s, but also more moral and in fact just plain right. It makes us believe that if people don’t agree with us then they are either less moral or need educating. Possibly both. It is how we dismiss the opinion polls which show people being concerned about things that we would rather they weren’t, like immigration and welfare abuse.
We often don’t hear these concerns even when we say that we do. Our sense of moral outrage at the perceived underlying prejudice overrides all. I have heard people say that “we shouldn’t pander to people; we should be prepared to put them right”. Of course. I am sure that people will vote for us gratefully once we have put them right. That’s just what people have been waiting for. Really hearing these concerns doesn’t mean that we should accept the unacceptable. But it does mean that we have to be humble enough to accept that we do not exclusively own truth and morality. Ed said in his NPF speech in Gillingham:
“Being rooted in people’s lives is not about a slogan. It’s not about going out and just saying ‘tell us what we should think’, but it is about saying we need to be reconnected to the hopes and aspirations of the people of Britain”.
I agree. But not all of people’s hopes and aspirations may chime with our rigid moral code. And, increasingly, voters are less tribal in their political allegiances. In fact, most people are probably not even habitual voters for a single party, never mind being tribal. If we are really to connect with enough voters (such that they vote for us in winning numbers at the next general election), then we will have to find ways of understanding their moral sense of the world. We can’t just condemn or patronise everyone as not understanding just because they say or feel things with which we don’t agree.
Of course, we have values of social justice that guide us, and our values don’t change. But that doesn’t mean that other people don’t also care about social justice and that they may come to different conclusions. If we put aside our moral arrogance then we might just find that we have much in common with them and them with us. That may well be the beginning of understanding why we lost. On the other hand, we could just remain in opposition, happy with our own sense that we are right – morally at least.
Peter Watt was general secretary of the Labour party.
Tags: Labour arrogance, Peter Watt
I think you’re spot on! I think most politicians are in politics to do good, but to do good by how they best see it. I’m a labour member, but I cringe and am repulsed by labour members attitudes towards other parties, esp the Tories. Labour seems to love Tory bashing, even if they are trying to do the right thing. Let’s get off our high horse, we have our approach and they have theirs, they aren’t necessarily mutually exclusive
I could no agree more, this attitude is prevalent in Westminster and amongst younger members of the party. I would suggest this is part of the reason we disconnected with the public.
Not*
Outstanding analysis. Honest and unafraid to think the unthinkable. Wish more of us could see the mote in our own eyes: it would allow a clearer and fresher view of politics.
Did this sense of moral superiority also obstruct the possible coalition deal with the Liberal Democrats?
According to David Laws: “Instead, we found that the Conservatives made major policy concessions, and quickly; while, after three days of talking, Labour was too disorganised or divided even to table clear positions on tax, education spending, pensions or the deficit. And, on voting reform, Ed Balls was bluntly warning us that Labour MPs might not vote for their own manifesto pledge to support a referendum on the Alternative Vote.”
Now if the Lib Dem’s choice was between siding with good and siding with evil, this wouldn’t have mattered – the policies could have been worked out later.
And is making policy concessions to form a coalition, an evil act? Even if the consequences of not doing so are that you are out of government, and lose the whole manifesto. How can the worse outcome be more morally pure?
I am an ex labour voter that voted Tory for the first time in 2010. I work in the public sector and see the damage the welfare state is doing to disadvantaged people, I started to follow some of the work IDS was doing and was willing to listen to the Tories. I am disgusted with the behaviour of labour since losing the election their opposition of for opposition sake and Tory bashing approach to opposition is not winning my support. I want to see some of the humility Ed has been promising. You could start with the debate on tuition fees, yes I can see the political capital to be made but that is only short term. How about getting involved in the debate instead of gloating at the lib dems discomfort? How do we fund university for so many people with a decreased tax take and increased borrowing? You commisioned Browne, you introduced fees, I want a policy from labour not just political point scoring.
“It is how we dismiss the opinion polls which show people being concerned about things that we would rather they weren’t, like immigration and welfare abuse. We often don’t hear these concerns even when we say that we do. ”
Yes, that’s why when voters complain about immigration, ‘we’ smile politely and acknowledge their concerns, then get in a car, turn to another of ‘us’ and call them a bigot.
I think this point can never be made enough times. The left’s great vice is to think that the other side is being immoral and the right’s vice is to think the other side is being stupid.
I think so many of the mistakes of the coalition come from the fact that they thought Labour had been purely and slavishly statist (believing their own propaganda) and so their ideas had not been thought of or considered rationally.
But the flip is that we don’t believe an idea associated with the right can ever be trying to make things better for anyone but the well off. It’s why we got undid the health reforms only to do them all again. Because Tories tried to do it so it must have been done to take resources away from the most needy.
It’s one of those points which everybody knows but needs to be stated again and again. It’s not evil to be right wing, it’s just on many issues mistaken.
Brilliant piece. Essentially a valediction to your once-great party. Time to get out?
Your arrogance also stops you noticing that you started an illegal war in Iraq, promised to help the Afghan people and then did nothing for years, allowed creationism to take hold in schools, encouraged an enormous waste of public money through PFI, presided over 13 years of horror in hospitals, a huge increase in state surveillance, kettling, torture, rendition, shooting random members of the public etc etc etc.
Your arrogance makes your supporters think it’s a prefectly good election tactic to take the “mickey” out of members of the public who have seen close members of their own family lying in pools of their own faeces in hospital with no assistance (etc etc etc etc) – after a decade and more of a “Labour” government. Do you really think that sort of thing is going to encourage anyone to vote Labour? If so, I pity you.
Your arrogance stopped you forming a coalition with the Lib Dems and others after the 2010 election.
Your arrogance means you are not providing any sort of reasoned, intelligent opposition to the coalition – just shrieking and – quite frankly, on some subjects – lies and misrepresentation.
Your arrogance means loads of your MPs don’t realise what’s wrong with Phil Woolas and Ed Balls pandering to racists. (And no – two wrongs don’t make a right. That’s no excuse.)
Your arrogance makes you think the general public can’t see you doing U-turns on AV and the like, or that you introduced student fees and top-up fees against manifesto commitments and so-on. Or that you set up the Browne Committe and would have implemented it in full without a peep of resistance.
Your arrogance allows you to think the general public are innumerate and can’t figure out that many of your criticisms of the coalition just don’t add up.
Your arrogance means many of you have nothing but contempt for Caroline Lucas and the Greens, who are a genuinely left wing party – unlike Labour.
Your arrogance means you think we can’t see you now letting people like John McDonnell & Jeremy Corbyn appeal to the romantic left in this country, having completely ignored them for 13 years while you implemented an even-more-inept-than-John-Major version of garbled free market economics.
There’s so much more isn’t there.
Mainly, your “arrogance” means you have no clue at all why people who waited 18 years for the light at the end of the tunnel feel completely betrayed and will NEVER, EVER be voting Labour again – and that you don’t have to be remotely Conservative to find your “blank piece of paper” policy utterly pathetic.
Personally, “arrogance” isn’t the word I would use.
Brilliant
I am not a Labour supporter – far from it – but this article is “spot on”
Have my doubts that the Labour Party hierarchy will take on board the substance of what has been written by Peter Watt
Crikey, I’ve almost fallen off my chair – someone in the Labour party speaking sense.
I’m a small-state conservative/libertarian, without much time for any of the main parties. I believe that the best way to help people is to give them as much responsibility for their own lives.
Yes, we have a moral obligation to help the truly needy, such as the severely disabled. And yes, it is good for the country as a whole that we can step in to help people who find themselves unemployed in the short-term.
But it is in no-ones best interest that we pander to the entitlement culture that is pandemic in a lot of places. It leads to a lack of ambition that leaves people born into poverty trapped in it.
I am not a member of the Labour Party (indeed none), but I have been observing politics for a long time. I first voted in the 1959 election. This article has a strong central truth which I hope Labour policy makers will take to heart. However, there is another implication that individual members should take to heart – and it is this: moderate your language. I cannot emphasise enough how offensive it is to people like me (who have an honest opinion that most politicians want to do good irrespective of party) to read of a Labour MP describing Tories as ‘scum sucking pigs’. You lost one vote there.
Spot on, though I would suggest that this attitude not only applies to Labour but the other parties as well.
As someone who has campaigned for a long time for our exit out of the EU, your description of arrogance chimes only too well.
Peter Watt makes some very good points, but there are sound reasons for the critical and cynical response to Tory government, namely, that the evidence shows they do indeed implement policies which favour the better off and hit the poor hardest.
Look at the response to the deficit. A crisis, caused by the risk-taking arrogance of the financial classes, is being tackled by cutting the services the poorest in society rely on. What is the impact on the banks themselves? A paltry levy and a corporation tax cut. It’s so ridiculous as to be beyond parody. The anger at the Tories will remain while they continue to behave in a way that merits anger.
I would caution the left against losing entirely it’s moral compass. When politics becomes nothing more than a piecemeal set of individual tactics, then it is wide open to be led by the media. People need to know that underpinning Labour is a belief in a better, fairer society. If anything, our major failing in government was the loss of our sense of what we believe in and why. If people don’t buy into this vision, then perhaps the left has failed, but to abandon the vision entirely is equally as destructive.
We don’t have to claim (as many do) that Tories are “evil”, but we should never be afraid to shout when a policy has the effect of hurting the most vulnerable. The motive is irrelevant if the impact is unfair.
Nail
Head
Hit…!
A truly excellent piece!
A welcome admission. I am a Conservative voter who wants the best for all the people of this country and believe myself to be as caring and charitable as the next person. I was continually enraged when Brown claimed that these sentiments were “part of Labour’s DNA” and that the rest of us were evil by default. The only things wired into the DNA of Brown and his coterie of scoundrels (Balls, MiliE, Whelan, McBride etc) is their sanctimonious arrogance and misplaced certainty that their every thought and deed is perfect. Well done Mr Watt for telling the truth that most of us share the same fundamental decent values and aspirations and that it is our means of reaching the same goals that differ. That said, I fear the knives will be out for you once again.
Excellent article, and agree with Rocco above who says “this attitude is prevalent in Westminster and amongst younger members of the party. I would suggest this is part of the reason we disconnected with the public.”
Labour is a quasi religious cult in a society that doesn’t buy certainty anymore. The mantra of social justice can be used to push the most ludicrous policies.
Blair may have been charismatic but would anyone now want to follow him. His policies have been picked up by Cameron and Gove. How can a social democratic party justify tuition fees and the academy programme? The coalition’s policy is only a continuation of Labour’s failed education “reforms.” Would anyone sensible want to leave the future of education, as well as the budgets, in the hands of head teachers? Ditto foundation hospitals and all the other “leadership” nonsense pedalled by the Blair and Brown cabinets.
Sadly the apparatchiks now running the party are unelectable and as you comment have nothing else to do but question their opponents’ motives
What Buzz said.
Nice article. As a Conservative I have encountered what you describe and find it frustrating. For the most part, everybody I have ever met in politics is in it for the right reasons. They just take different views as to the road to travel and, sometimes, what the ideal end result might be.
What is important about this piece is not the views themselves, which have been obvious to us on the libertarian right since forever, but the fact that they are being expressed by a former General Secretary of the Labour Party. QWell done Mr Watt for demonstrating that Labour is not entirely bereft of intelligence. I doubt that your party will listen to you, though.
You’re spot on. All you have to do is read the comments from this piece to see the arrogance of the Labour base – http://www.newstatesman.com/2010/12/labour-lib-andrew-coalition
Wise words, Mr Watt, encapsulating everything wrong with the Partisan Politics that so often prevents things getting done.
As a non-tribal voter, I had hoped that the Coalition would demonstrate how compromise is not only possible, but a positive step forward in governing a country (results on this score are currently inconclusive).
I hope that Rocco is right, and that a new generation of more nuanced politicians is coming up through the ranks. Otherwise, we face devolving into a US-style system where policies are opposed, not because of any lack of merit, but solely because “it was the other lot’s idea”
Interesting article. I read something with a similar message on the Mumsnet forum. Among some of the mums is a serious concern about Coalition cutbacks, specifically how they affect their families, and particularly if a family member is disabled. As a result some have been motivated to join local Labour branches, looking for a lead in how to make their voices heard. However, the main criticism that was levelled was that their concerns weren’t listened to by the PLP if they didn’t fit into what was called a ‘Guardian viewpoint’ . They seemed to have got the impression that the PLP was rather remote.
Most people do have concerns about issues that the Conservatives have managed to exploit, such as immigration and welfare cheats. In fact the Tories have successfully managed to spread the myth that Labour somehow approve of people living on benefits, or at any rate are not motivated to challenge the situation. This is really quite perverse, since it was under the last Tory government that unemployment became a way of life in some communities – a disaster which Labour was trying to put right. However, due to our right wing media, Labour received little credit for it.
I don’t doubt that many Tories are quite decent and sincere in their beliefs. IDS, for example. However the fact that he’s had serious battles within Whitehall to get his ideas forward seems to indicate the Tory top brass would rather pander to the banks and big business.
There is undeniably a huge difference between grassroots Tories and the clique at the top of the Tory party. I’ve had loads of work colleagues who are Conservative supporters. Back in the 80s I worked with a lady who was a treasurer for the local party. She said she felt that the Conservatives only wanted what was ‘best for the country’. Since we lived in the affluent south-east, that may have seemed to apply to us. However, if we’d gone to look at a wrecked community in South Yorkshire (for example) we’d have seen something very different. It’s the return of those Thatcherite policies, which caused so much damage, that is the biggest mistake of the present government.
I agree with what Greg says, that there’s no getting away from the fact that the government’s policies favour the better off and hit the poor hardest – and in that sense Labour aren’t just bigging themselves up as morally superior.
Well done. An excellent piece.
I wish you well in persuading your party on this.
I think this problem is most obvious in Labour’s attitude to the £150bn deficit: that it was all the fault of the bankers who caused the recession.
They are right that the £50bn cyclic deficit was the fault of the banks, because that was caused by the recession.
Of course, £30bn was caused by Labour running a pre-crisis budget deficit.
But they ignore the biggest part of the deficit, which was caused by the collapse of a housing and debt bubble, the end of a tax windfall which the government had planned on going on forever.
The crisis may have caused the bubble to burst, but it was inevitable it would burst sometime.
My concern with Labour is they haven’t acknowledged this. And that their economic thinking is driven by the idea that, all we need to do is go back to creating growth in the way we did over the last ten years. In other words, an economic policy based on unsustainable bubbles.
Too often, when I read the comments of Labour members, they aren’t prepared to grapple with the real reason for the deficit, or its implications. They seem to dismiss the issue, saying it’s all the banks fault, and appear to think that, if Labour were in power, because Labour cares and the other parties don’t, they’d fix the deficit without anyone being hurt.
It doesn’t inspire confidence.
Dare I say, much of what Peter Watts refers to is the Blairite legacy and remains embedded at the top of the LP. And is manifest in the rotten control freakery that continues to pervade much of the LP. Decisions on who is ‘suitable’ to be LP candidates, young inexperienced SPADs parachuted into constituencies despite strong local candidates. The workings of the NPF, the dismantling of many constituency LPs. The recent arrogance over ‘right’ of David Miliband to be the anointed leader of the LP and the reluctance of his supporters to refuse to accept defeat and move on (yes Dan Hodges, we’re looking at you). And much much more.
Oh wow, this piece is excellent! The arrogance of the Labour party in govt. is one of the reasons I and many others joined the Lib Dems. The arrogance of the Labour party in opposition is one of the reasons most of us feel vindicated by the decision to do a deal with the Tories.
Excellent post.
I hope Ed Balls reads this.
As a left-wing libertarian, this is a brilliant analysis. I hate the tribalism that many of the old Left demand. For them, loyalty to the one idea – that only the State through a benign paternalism can bring about social justice, equality and a harmonious society – is the only test of being on the Left. There does not seem to be anyone on the Left who finds a case for some of the things the Coalition are doing as a positive for the aims and objectives of centre-left thought. But if you take of those tribalistic blinkers and critically analyse some of the Big Society/nudge things that they are doing and see it as something the Left should build on – then we might just get back into grown up politics.
Nicky – you’re obviously part of the problem.
As you say, “we’re not just bigging ourselves up as morally superior,” we ARE morally superior!
Good luck in 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030 etc etc
Mr Watt, your application to join the Conservative Party has been accepted.
Well done for agreeing repayable loans to the Labour Party when the would-be Peers would have agreed to make donations. Nice work.
@Peter Watt
From the chorus of approval in the comments by our political opponents it is easy to see this article is mostly bollocks.
Labour members pride in their party and what it has achieved over the past 100 years is something that should be encouraged not dismissed as arrogance. Take the NHS, a number of recent studies found the NHS among the best health systems in the world, the most efficient and the only top rated healthcare system where the ability to pay didn’t matter to treatment received – isn’t that something we the Labour Party should be proud of?
“Take the example of welfare policy. Listen to Labour and the assumption is that IDS wants to punish the poor, somehow that he gets off on increasing vulnerable people’s suffering.”
That is a totally wrong characterisation of Labour position, Alexander has taken quite a nuanced and intelligent response to IDS. There is a creditability gap between IDSs words and his actions, he wants to make work pay but he has cut tax credits for many low paid part-time works that means they must find an extra 8 hours of work to qualify.
“In fact, it is worse than that: we think that we are listening when many voters know that we are not. If we are honest, all too often we do believe that our version of the world is not just better than anyone else’s, but also more moral and in fact just plain right.”
Is that the fault of Labour party members? They spent the past 16 years being ignored and not being listened too.
Who are you blaming for the Labour’s failings?
Resistor don’t be ridiculous. And Chris I am not denigrating our record – it’s a record that I am proud of. What I am questioning is our attitude. I am also not questioning our values, it’s why I’ve been a member of the Party for over 20 years. BTW I almost dismissed your rant when you opted for abuse in the first paragraph.
@Peter Watt
“What I am questioning is our attitude.”
Whose attitude? Who are you denouncing?
“BTW I almost dismissed your rant when you opted for abuse in the first paragraph.”
This is the internet, pal.
This article is poorly thought through, and deeply insulting to all the millions of people who will suffer as a result of Tory policies (or whose lives were devastated by Thatcher and Major previously).
How can anybody honestly believe that the Tories are trying to act “for the good of ordinary people”? Their methods – dismantling the welfare state, denationalising the NHS, wrecking education – could only possibly harm the working class majority in this country. And funnily enough, they could only serve to benefit the upper middle class, the business-owners, and the rest of the elite. It doesn’t take a genius to put two and two together – they are doing all this, because they believe that the elite should rule over the proles. That’s all. They have no conception of the good of the majority – they don’t see that as a valid moral aim. It’s probably not “evil”per se (I will leave such mystical descriptions as an argument for the imaginary-supernatural-friendists to quote fictional “scriptures” at each other) but it’s certainly about screwing the poor and boosting their wealthy backers (if you want to understand the Tories, just follow the money!).
Labour might not be the only party on a moral, ethical crusade for social justice. The Greens, and in the past the Radical Liberals, as well as the more minor parties (RESPECT, the SWP, the Socialist Alliance, the Communists) have all done their best to preserve the rights of the majority, and stop anti-socialist, anti-society capitalist oppressors from eliminating their pay, working conditions, employment, workers’ solidarity, sexual and body freedom, education, healthcare and benefits. That’s a long and worthy struggle, and we’re all brothers on it. The Tories and now the Lib Dems lie FAR outside that struggle. In fact they are marching on the opposite direction: towards oppression, towards poverty, towards the destruction of the rights and liberties our forefathers and foremothers spent their lives struggling for. They must be stopped. Any concession that they are not the bad guys, any attempt to reason with them about methods as if we somehow share the same ultimate objectives (think we do? then spend, say, 10 seconds imagining the kind of Britain that IDS or Hague or Thatcher or anti-feminist Christian homophobes like Widdecombe would like to come true in their dreams), anything that comes them credibility or legitimacy and ignores the way they have stolen power despite a clear anti-conservative majority at the election… is just giving them ammunition to drive forward their dangerous and destructive agenda.
There should really be only two discussions about the Tories on the serious left right now (like I said, the “evil” question can be left to the mystics; the important thing is we recognise they are harmful and destructive, whatever their moral status). Firstly, remembering that their party has faced an anti-conservative electoral majority at every election for the last 50 years yet still keeps stealing power, and that this last election was a clear vindication for the wider Left (just not Labour specifically), we must consider the legitimacy of the government. After four and a half years, they will have caused massive damage to this country. We can expects tens of thousands of people to die as a result of their policies designed to attack the poor, the old, the disabled, and the frail. They are launching a state-sponsored genocide having abused the constitution to take power. Is it acceptable for Labour to wait so many years for a chance at electoral victory? Or should our efforts now rest on bringing this government down before too many suffer, by non-electoral means if necessary? The Labour Party is a big organisation, with a powerful and sophisticated media operations and access, and the ability to rally a lot of supporters in the streets. If it can join the other forces of Direct Action – students, unions, the anti-cuts resistance, and the small but tightly organised green, Marxist and anarchist groups – we have a serious chance of stopping this illegitimate bunch of butchers, before too many people’s lives are destroyed by their irresponsible and self-interested cuts. We should be weighing this up carefully – we may support democracy, but is it really democratic that the Tories stole the election? An election is not the only “democratic” way to change the government.
The second question is what to do once power is regained – either by election, or any other means. We must examine the Constitution. Even at Thacher’s landslides, voters opposed her in a 3 to 2 ratio: yet still she imposed the most fearsome, savage attacks on the poor, as if she was somehow a legitimate elected ruler. The wealthy elite that control money and the media, will always back the Tories if they have the opportunity to. And we know that the Tories are always try to destroy things that should have a sacred place in the Constitution: human rights, women’s rights, gay rights, jobs, right to healthcare, right to education… It’s not sustainable to allow them to keep doing this. We know they do it every time. And for the last 50 years, they’ve never had a majority of voters behind them, so it’s illegitimate. What are our options? Instituting PR means that the lack of a popular majority will hold the Tories back, but the Lib Dems have just shown how good the Tories are at recruiting co-conspirators. One serious option would be to ban the Tories outright. This is not impossible; other European countries such as Germany ban their far-right parties, and the BNP have been through the courts here too. To be certified to remain as a legal party, the Tories could be forced to disown anything (e.g. neoliberalism, mass privatisation, Christian fascism) that makes them opposed to social justice, women’s right, minority rights, etc. We could also ban party funding by businessmen, which would destroy the Tory link to the elite – or even impose a working class membership quota (e.g. 50% of party membership must come from the lower two income quartiles). Another possibility for limiting their power in government if they were to be allowed to continue as a legitimate party, is the “Venezuelan Option”. Build socialist and liberal values into the Constitution. Have a state that is officially bound to equality for all, nationalised and free universal public services, and all the other things the Tories want to destroy. Then the Supreme Court will block all their anti-socialist policies. We know that the vast majority of the British people are actually socialist, so this isn’t anti-democratic: it’s just preventing Tories from abusing their power if they steal another election.
Be radical and think big. Articles like this which give succour to the Tories are dangerous. The task of anyone on the side of light and reason, who supports rights and equality, is to find ways to destroy the power of the Tory party forever – both this current government, and for all time. And we must do this in the fierce resolve that if we fail, then the constant Tory assaults on the poor, the weak, the minorities, the workers, and our own human rights, will eventually succeed. This isn’t arrogance, it’s self-preservation.
Chris I’m not denouncing anyone. I am, as someone who wants us to win again, saying that I think that our sense of moral superiority gets in the way of us communicating with the public. And I know that this is the Internet ‘pal’ but i personally prefer comradely discussion and language on blogs designed to stimulate debate. As for ‘Left is forward’ comment…
Peter, I can tell you disagree and obviously you come from a different angle than me. But do please at least consider the possibility that you are wrong. Bevan gave us the NHS and you must surely regard him as a Labour hero? Yet what he said about the Tories seems to me to stand for all time.
“That is why no amount of cajolery, and no attempts at ethical or social seduction, can eradicate from my heart a deep burning hatred for the Tory Party that inflicted those bitter experiences on me. So far as I am concerned they are lower than vermin. They condemned millions of first-class people to semi-starvation. Now the Tories are pouring out money in propaganda of all sorts and are hoping by this organised sustained mass suggestion to eradicate from our minds all memory of what we went through. But, I warn you young men and women, do not listen to what they are saying now. Do not listen to the seductions of Lord Woolton. He is a very good salesman. If you are selling shoddy stuff you have to be a good salesman. But I warn you they have not changed, or if they have they are slightly worse than they were. ”
That wasn’t arrogance. It was a correct political analysis. The problem is that Bevan grasped that the Tories were so deeply wrong, that they should never be allowed to govern us again – yet neither he nor his party at the time did nothing to ensure this was the case. And over the decades we have had successions of Tory governments, every bit as dangerous and destructive as he set out, all of them “elected” despite the majority of people voting against them. The Tories do real harm – their actions kill people, simple as that, all in the name of profit for their supporters. How can we even countenance that any longer? How can we view their “elections” – from Thatcher to Cameron – as anything like legitimate? Uncontrolled elections that yield us savage governments who break all the basic principles that form the social contract (human rights, equality, redistribution, universal services) despite the fact that the majority voted against them, can’t be seen as “democratic”. True legitimacy and democracy comes from the people, not from fake elections. Yes, Labour needs to fight to regain that ground of solidarity with the oppressed majority – but if we do nothing, we risk the Greens, the SWP, and the other assorted socialists and anarchists taking it from us. We need ultimate answers on how to remove this government (the choice is: electoral means, or direct action) and how to ensure that the socialist wishes of the majority, and the basic principles of the Social Contract, can be maintained in future generations from Tory assault (which means constitutional change and more powerful laws to restrict or abolish the forces of conservatism).
Left is forward, I do disagree. TBH the biggest problem is that we think that we can assert our world view on others. This is (rightly) all to often interpreted as arrogance and not listening by voters. That matters more IMHO than whether the Tories are intrinsically bad (I clearly think not and you think they are). I also think that democracy is a good thing and that that means we will sometimes have Governments who do things I disagree with. It’s a price worth paying.
@Peter
“I am, as someone who wants us to win again, saying that I think that our sense of moral superiority gets in the way of us communicating with the public.”
But don’t our goals require us to appeal to people’s more altruistic, even morally superior, side?
I respect your opinion, Peter. I just so happen to think you’re wrong. With the Tories, it’s different – I disagree but don’t respect their view. I think they’re “more than wrong”, if you like. I guess I draw the line at when people suffer and die. The Tories cause that directly – they have to be responsible for the effects of being wrong. You’re wrong, but it isn’t hurting anybody, so I can still respect you.
Do you honestly think it’s “democratic” for the Tories to be in government now, though? Or that they have a mandate for the harm they are causing? Did you feel that Thatcher was legitimate, when voters were 3 to 2 against her? What you said about having governments we disagree with being a “price worth paying” for democracy would be more palatable if it was clearly democratic. But under any fair electoral system, the last 50 years of government would all have been either by Labour or a Labour-led left or centre-left coalition. It’s not incompatible to believe both in democracy, and the left holding continual power (see e.g. Sweden; but analagously Japan has had very long periods of conservative rule) – in fact since the majority of people are relatively poor and involved in oppressive power relationships (as employees, tenants, and customers) it’s natural for them to vote left. Labour is a party with a natural majority – if we don’t reach out effectively to that majority, we ought to be wondering why not, so self-criticism like this article is not a bad idea!
The Social Contract is essentially an unwritten aspect of our constitution, and the Tories seem to consistently and deliberately attack it. There does seem to be a case for modifying the Constitution so their power to do so is legally constrained when they do win an election. Again, constitutional change is something there’d be a mandate for, if it preserved the rights of the majority not to be oppressed by a wealthy and powerful minority. Writing a socially just clause into our Constitution isn’t arrogant, it’s about preserving the rights and wellbeing of ordinary people. If it means that the Tory party can’t exist, or at least govern, in their current form, then that’s not necessarily unjust or undemocratic. It’s better than risking the next Thatcher.
This does rather sound like a wish for a politics which has no real difference. I can’t see how any Labour person could not be repelled by Coalition policies
The answer is ‘not necessarily’ Chris. An appeal to altruism might work for you and I but we can’t assume that it will work for others. And if others are motivated by things other than altruism then we shouldn’t IMHO look down on them. Just look at the reasons people volunteer – more often than not because it’s good for their CV etc.
I’m sympathetic to what Peter’s saying in so much as I believe in politeness in politics, but here’s the problem – many Labour people express in moral terms what is actually close to the truth – that because the Tories are the natural party of capital, individual Tories cannot achieve social justice within their party.
Now, amongst Labour people there’s a lot of confusing the part with the whole (confusing the average Tory with the party as a force within society). In the same way, we might take the orientation of our party towards labour as an indication that every party member shares this sympathy. Sadly, this isn’t the case.
Give it up, Peter. You’re fighting a lost cause. The Trots like ‘Left is Forward’ (hahahaha) are never going to accept that other people may have morally justifiable policies, because that would remove their moral justification for squeezing the middle classes until their pips squeak. You’re asking them to give up something which is so fundamental to their arrogance that they can’t even begin to understand what you’re saying.
As-a-Tory, can I thank Peter Watt for this? It’s one of the best summations of the problems with the Labour Party I’ve read. Too often when I meet Labour activists, there’s a self righteous smugness about them (maybe they’re like this all the time – maybe they’re like this just when they meet Tories, or maybe it’s just meeting me!) that blinds them either to having a decent conversation, or from spotting that not everything was rosy from 1997-2010 and that we didn’t plunge into darkness on May 10th.
I hope this piece will be instructive to the opposition.
Peter,
This is spot on. As a relatively ideologically neutral observer, the impression made by far too many activists is that of Left is forward, which sounds frankly delusional in the modern age. Labour are right to be proud of the many achievements made over the last 100 years, but to dismiss those with differing views as somehow ‘evil’, ‘immoral’ etc, seems wrong.
Bevan may or may not have been right at the time he spoke, but adopting his approach now (and stereotyping all right of centre views as ‘dangerous’, or ‘actions kill people’ – iraq, anyone ?) projects badly.
I would like to see a socially responsible, plausible opposition, but you’re right – to achieve this, a change of mindset may well be required..
Good article Peter, Labour’s recent arrogance runs to a common belief that it is the Labour Party that will benefit from a collapse in the coalition, due to an implosion within the Liberal Democrats. Whereas, it is more likely that any ensuing election will see a libertarian right wing Conservative Party being elected with an overall majority.
I expect that the current vogue of attacking the Liberal Democrats, whilst not bringing the Conservatives to account will prove to be yet another historic mistake by the left.
Gerry
@Peter
“The answer is ‘not necessarily’ Chris. An appeal to altruism might work for you and I but we can’t assume that it will work for others. And if others are motivated by things other than altruism then we shouldn’t IMHO look down on them. Just look at the reasons people volunteer – more often than not because it’s good for their CV etc.”
So how do we defend the single mum? People in the 1950/60s thought that they were doing to the best thing for mother and child by forcing them to put the baby up for adoption.
@Adam Bell
“because that would remove their moral justification for squeezing the middle classes until their pips squeak.”
WTF? Who are you defining as middle class – people earning 6, 7 figure salaries? I don’t want to squeeze the middle classes, I am middle class, I want to squeeze the top 1%, 2% of earners, their pay doesn’t reflect their abilities or their worth. Pay at the very top has accelerated to proportions not seen since the early 20th century, just look at America where the middle classes are disappearing leaving a chosen few super rich and a great mass of have nots. Trickle down economics doesn’t work, once you have a certain amount of wealth you can’t help but become wealthier.
@Chris:
So, you’d be in favour of taking everyone earning up to £40,000 out of income tax entirely, would you? And shifting the tax burden wholly onto the top 2% of the population?
Also, if CEOs earning ridiculous sums aren’t paid ‘to reflect their abilities or their worth’ who should decide who gets paid what?