by Tal Michael
A winning slogan? You wouldn’t think so, but it seems many in the Labour party have decided that this is the approach they want to take. Twenty five years ago, in the piece of academic work I took most seriously during my time at Oxford, I wrote an essay on the rise and fall of the Labour left. Conventional wisdom was that “the left” was at an all-time low as Neil Kinnock and Roy Hattersley crushed a challenge from Tony Benn and Eric Heffer.
My analysis was slightly different. I argued that following defeat in 1987, most of the left had concluded that it is far better to propose a modest programme of reform, and when in government to put it into practice, than to go into an election and either lose, allowing the Tories to make things worse rather than better, or to win power, but discover that the economic situation makes it too difficult to deliver on the promises made.
When Neil Kinnock lost in 1992, most of the Labour party agreed to accept the leadership of John Smith and then Tony Blair not because those of us on the left had redefined our own personal views of utopia, but because we recognised that a moderate platform of reform was more likely to secure electoral success.
Whether the 1997 Labour platform was moderate is a matter of contention. A national minimum wage, devolution, investing in health and education, getting young people into jobs, halving child poverty and tackling poverty in old age were all a radical departure from the previous Tory government. The introduction of a minimum wage was going to bankrupt the country according to the Tories – yet now they are pretending they are going to raise it to a living wage.
It wasn’t enough for many on the left – but it was a programme which secured the approval of the British people. Significantly, having kept its promises on the nation’s finances, Labour secured re-election in 2001 and 2005 on the basis of increasing public spending. Whereas the old right had sought to crush internal dissent, Labour in the past twenty years embraced the left tradition of open debate. Even on the vexed question of war, Tony Blair was the first Prime Minister to allow the House of Commons to vote on going to war before making the decision – an important constitutional step.
The New Labour project wasn’t perfect and by 2010 it was right to rethink key elements and to develop policies for the changed world and to recognise the shortcomings of the previous regime (including recognising that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake).
The platform developed by Ed Miliband has been described as to the left of New Labour – but I don’t think that was necessarily the reason it was rejected by the electorate.
A more substantial problem was the failure to explain or justify Labour’s record in office. With the Tories and Liberal Democrats endlessly repeating the myth that the international banking crisis was caused by Labour overspending, the public needed to hear the facts – that Labour had during most of its time in office reduced the national debt as a proportion of national income and that with a collapse in private investment in the economy the last thing that is needed is an overall reduction in public spending.
That’s why there was a deficit folks – but we didn’t bother to tell people during the election.
The key point is that if we are ever to regain the confidence of sufficient voters to win a general election we need to build on our record in office – to learn from the successes and failures and demonstrate to the public that we have learnt those lessons.
The failure to curtail public spending in 2006-08 was a mistake, not because it would have prevented the international banking crisis but because it would have enabled us to better weather the storm. While maintaining overall spending was important, what the money was spent on was also important – and (as I argued at the time) after the crash happened, shifting spend towards investment (particularly in housing) would have enabled the construction industry to keep going and left us with assets that could be sold in the good times.
It was also an excellent opportunity to rebalance the housing market – establishing stability of house prices as a key government objective at a time when they were falling and enabling much wider shared ownership in place of the stark divide between mortgage and renting. A key component of this would have been reform of property taxes – perhaps a straight percentage tax on the value of property replacing council tax. Left wing? Radical certainly and progressive whereas council tax is regressive. But it is also the system which operates in most of the United States.
The left-right divide isn’t the only one that matters in this country: perhaps more important is the extent to which people want to see evidence that a policy works. The problem with “simple solutions” is that they often don’t work. UKIP’s solution of economic salvation by withdrawing from the EU is a clear example.
Even the most optimistic forecast for a future outside the EU suggests that this could only be achieved by a very open approach to migration – which is, according to UKIP, the main problem with remaining in the EU.
Likewise the idea of being “anti-austerity”. We can argue that cutting too far and too fast will damage the economy (it did); we can argue that the Tories have got the balance between spending cuts, tax increases and economic growth wrong (they have). But if we don’t borrow less as the economy grows, we really will end up in the same position as Greece has. And unless you can cover current expenditure out of tax income, even the drastic option of defaulting on your debts won’t enable you to escape.
Of course people have different views about utopia. But the pathway to improving the lives of ordinary people struggling to make their way in the world is more important than the end game. We can all agree that a peaceful world is a good objective, but embracing revolutionary movements despite their brutality while condemning our own armed forces with equal vigour doesn’t seem likely to bring about that peace. More importantly, it is a platform which will never secure the support of the British people. That isn’t the most important test for everyone – but it is the purpose of the Labour party.
We need to remain a broach church with a wide spectrum of views – and we need to be better at reaching out to others who may be outside our party but share our desire for a government which governs in the interests of the many instead of the privileged few. A retreat into talking to each other is understandable in the wake of the election defeat – but in choosing a new leader it is time to put such thoughts behind us.
We need a leader who will put forward a compelling but achievable programme of government which can secure the support of enough people to win a general election – not someone who is willing to speak words of comfort in our time of sorrow. Most of the voters who need to be persuaded voted Tory in 2015 and they need to be persuaded that we offer a better alternative.
Sure, the Tories lied about a wide range of things – but blaming them is not enough – we need to be more convincing. “Radical” or “left wing” ideas are unlikely to convince this key group of voters and are simply empty gestures if they cannot be implemented. Worse still is putting forward policies which you could not deliver if you were elected – as Syriza are discovering to their cost.
True radicalism is persuading enough of the public to vote for an alternative – and then delivering what you said you would. I just hope enough of my fellow Labour party members and supporters realise this in time.
Tal Michael is a former Labour councillor, Police & Crime Commissioner candidate and Welsh Assembly by-election candidate
Tags: Jeremy Corbyn, Labour leadership contest, Labour left, Neil Kinnock, Tal Michael, Tony Blair
at Labour had during most of its time in office reduced the national debt as a proportion of national income and that with a collapse in private investment in the economy the last
==============
Not true.
You put vast amounts on the pension debts.
You left 5,010 bn for the unfunded pension debts.
Yawn. Another hysterical Progress bit if garbage.
Starting to look like extremists.
It’s to late. You fielded shite candidates who deliberately avoided engaging with the membership and deliberately avoided making any committments of any relevance. To talk middle-class gobbledy-gook to a largely working class voter base beggars belief. Which moron dreamt that up?
You are in the mess you are in because that’s where you chose to be. Your choices were wrong for the situation you were in. That smacks of utter rubbish management, lack of direction and staggering arrogance. That or total incompetence.
Remember, this has been caused by fielding low quality candidates who had very little to say about anything.
The election is basically over. Corbyn is 1/3 to win with some bookmakers. I doubt they will be taking any more bets on him, within a few days.
The contest now represents a public building on the morning after a constituency count. A janitor is pushing a brush around the stage and the hall is empty, apart from the ‘moderate and electable’ Labour candidate who is standing in a nylon suit and dementedly arguing out loud like a schizophrenic.
“We spent too much”
“No, that’s a Tory lie”
“Well, we could have spent less”
“But all of that investment was vital”
“It probably wasn’t, but just give us another go and we will be as careful as the Tories this time”
“Your flies are undone”
“Well, you’ve got a funny nose”
To be fair, this is not the usual Progress garbage. We do need to consider what was good and bad about Labour in power from 1997 to 2010. It should then be possible to put before the electorate a realistic set of policies in 2020.
‘With the Tories and Liberal Democrats endlessly repeating the myth that the international banking crisis was caused by Labour overspending,’
Nobody has ever claimed that. They claim that the current debt crisis was caused by Labour’s overspending, which as you yourself note, was in fact true.
The key problem was that Gordon Brown ran a very large deficit in the years leading up to the crash (it was in fact larger than the official figure, because PFI, Network Rail and pensions were not included – so the situation was nasty). He refused to raise income tax, so he relied heavily on corporation tax from the banking sector to keep this barely manageable. This was lost, more or less in toto, as a result of the crash. So we faced an appalling triple whammy of declining tax receipts, ballooning spending and a public sector that was already living on credit.
It is neither unreasonable nor wrong to blame Labour for that particular crisis – or indeed, the systemic banking collapse, which was not mirrored in Canada or Australia and was largely due to the folly and ineffectiveness of the tripartite regulatory system devised in 1997. Nor is it unreasonable to point out that huge deficits are a bad thing unless you have built up huge reserves to deal with them. Brown had a chance to do that, as John Howard did in Australia. He failed. Labour were judged accordingly.
And until it fesses up to that and says sorry, loudly and clearly, plus saying it won’t do it again, nobody will trust them on the economy.
Whatever you think or I think the Conservatives are on the right side of history on the big picture issues – to sum up a) working towards a `low tax, high employment` society b) taking the correct attitude to welfare (as they see it) and c) tough on immigration.
When people harangue the tories what they are doing is haranguing the conservative voters in marginal constituencies.
Unless you can change that voters mind it leads nowhere. Arguably there’ll be enough Green and TUSC voters to help out – how many other voters will drift off elsewhere?
One man’s garbage is another man’s dogma. I honestly don’t believe that when Corbyn is elected Leader he will shift the Party to the ‘Left’ Politics does not operate in a vacuum; most politics is a reaction to some grievance that the people are expressing. At the moment its disillusionment with their out of touch politicians. That’s why so many independent mavericks are making head, from the Left as in Greece and Spain and the UK, as the Right as in the USA or Australia or Canada.
Most sensible people know that Trump and Boris Johnson and Harper are a bit off their head, but they still capture the public mood. And that’s also why Corbyn is popular. There is absolutely no way that Corbyn would implement Trotskyist policies. He wouldn’t be allowed to. And he knows it. Its a Wind of Change blowing right across the World; the Old Order giving way to the New.
”With the Tories and Liberal Democrats endlessly repeating the myth that the international banking crisis was caused by Labour overspending…”
Oh God, if I hear or read that one more time I think I will scream. No one says that Labour’s overspending caused the banking crisis. No one. That’s what you in the Labour Party would LIKE them to be saying. But no one does. I repeat, no one. Stop being delusional.
When Labour imploded in the 80’s Thatcher was so racicL,that she had mid term unpopularity and local election,sometimes fought in national issues still saw us win Council elections,Blairs first two terms were the exception in the last 60 years of midterm unpopularity, and where we lost general elections we could consolidate in winning council ones, the Toeies are trying the Mid 50’s Rab butler model, of trying to win working class union member votes,and if they do we won’t even win council election in 2017 2018
When Labour imploded in the 80’s Thatcher was so radical that she had mid term unpopularity and local election,sometimes fought in national issues still saw us win Council elections,Blairs first two terms were the exception in the last 60 years of midterm unpopularity, and where we lost general elections we could consolidate in winning council ones, the Toeies are trying the Mid 50’s Rab butler model, of trying to win working class union member votes,and if they do we won’t even win council elections in 2017 2018
Good article.Is Corbyn advocating permanent Quantitive Easing, or just to get the economy moving again?
Which foreign despots has he been talking to, and what about?
With the Tories and Liberal Democrats endlessly repeating the myth that the international banking crisis was caused by Labour overspending
No, they say the DEFICIT was caused by Labour overspending. Which you yourself say a couple of paragraphs later. Why are you unable to admit an accusation against Labour even when it is one you make yourself?
The left is not to blame. Having helped Labour to fight the last election I observed the behaviour of some sections of the parliamentary party.
When Ed was elected as party leader under the system that was in place at that time, some people shouted foul. These were the people who should have changed the system if they didn’t like it before Ed was elected. These same people within the parliamentary party then proceeded to demonstrate their churlish disagreement with the result by isolating the Party Leader, undermining his leadership and sometimes openly briefing against him. When attacked in the media his own Shadow Cabinet consistently failed to defend him. It was quite embarrassing watching some of his colleagues who are now standing for leadership positions themselves avoid defending him on television. It think this was a major contributory factor in losing the election. United we stand decided we fall.
These same parliamentarians had the opportunity to change the election system. These same parliamentarians allowed the £3 vote? These same parliamentarians allowed the left a voice through Jeremy Cornyn. These same parliamentarians are now the ones using inflammatory language. These same parliamentarians are now briefing against the process and crying ‘ foul’.
Why not get behind the democratic process, take the enthusiasm it has generated, work with not against the incumbent elected leader and mould the party and the new leader into a package the public will vote for.
The right of the party have and are making all the mistakes, don’t blame the left for your own incompetence.
“A more substantial problem was the failure to explain or justify Labour’s record in office. With the Tories and Liberal Democrats endlessly repeating the myth that the international banking crisis was caused by Labour overspending, the public needed to hear the facts – that Labour had during most of its time in office reduced the national debt as a proportion of national income and that with a collapse in private investment in the economy the last thing that is needed is an overall reduction in public spending.
That’s why there was a deficit folks – but we didn’t bother to tell people during the election.”
Well done on erecting a straw man and then knocking it down so effortlessly. The Tory narrative is not than Labour overspending caused the crash; it is that when the crash came Brown had been busy throwing money up the wall (we had run deficits since 2001, even though tax receipts had never been higher). Other nations had built surpluses, suffered less in the crash and came out of it quicker.
The likes of Balls call themselves Keynesians, they should realise one half of the Keynesian equation is that in the good times you save. It’s not borrow and spend in the good times, borrow and spend more in the bad.
“…..they should realise one half of the Keynesian equation is that in the good times you save. It’s not borrow and spend in the good times, borrow and spend more in the bad”
That’s only true if the current account (trade) is balanced.
The UK has a trade deficit of about 5.5% So the govt budget deficit has to be 5.5% too just to keep things all square in the economy.