I don’t want a new best friend. I want a Labour Prime Minister

Back  in 1994 Tony Blair sealed the deal with many of us when he was billed as “the man the Tories most fear”. After the crushing blow of losing in 1992 we wanted a winner. Damn his policies! As the late Tony Banks exclaimed “my members will eat shit to see a Labour government”.

Blair was given enormous latitude. The party was desperate to break its losing streak. We got hooked on successful – but corrosive – habits about stifling internal debate and adopting an approach to discipline that would make a Gordonstoun headmaster blush. But that approach helped keep us in power for 13 years; albeit with a long trail of political capital and supporters leaching out on the road behind us.

We now find ourselves in the middle of Labour’s first truly modern leadership campaign; one that eschews the left/right factionalism of the past and the fatalism we used to have about whether we could actually win power at all. It is opening up debate in a way that we are unused to.

But we have to be careful we don’t overuse our new gifts. There is a balance to be struck between embracing the party’s new glasnost and forgetting the old ways – and why we adopted them in the first place.

At the moment, there’s a lot of tummy tickling going on but not much vision. We need a discussion about how do we equip ourselves for a world where coalition governments may become commonplace. Where there is less money to spend our way to our social democratic nirvana. Where we articulate our own version of The Big Society. Where we back up our grand rhetoric on localism and environmentalism with real commitments next time. But these kind of hard-edged issues are simply not breaking through.

I doubt the Tories are quaking in their handmade shoes at the moment. You can argue that the Labour Party deserves a bit of TLC after being ignored and taken for granted for so long. But we’re a political party, not a neglected girlfriend.

Just as candidates need to listen they also need to lead. And that means telling the party some home truths. The public sector got too big and flabby under Labour. We did not demand results. Standards, performance and efficiency do matter. The public finances are a mess. Some public sector pension deals are scandalous. Immigration is a justifiable concern. In this “age of austerity” we must not become the party of soggy social liberalism, high taxes and public sector special pleading. 

There, easy. Candidates need to remember this contest is simply the first job interview. The big test is whether they can convince the electorate that they are fit to govern. And that means addressing the public’s concerns, not just playing safe by appeasing Labour party members. We need a Leader and Prime Minister. Not a new best friend.

The danger for candidates who forget this self-evident reality is that they end up like Neil Kinnock; endlessly contextualising their own past positions to wriggle out of casually made commitments. That way leads to a fatal loss of credibility.

This is a particular danger for Ed Miliband. He is fast turning into the political equivalent of a tub of Haagen-Daz ice cream. He’s comfort food for the terminally disappointed who see nothing in Labour but missed opportunities and betrayal. They gorge themselves on his selective analysis, reassuring commitments and “me-like-you” rhetoric.

For a former Chief Economic Adviser at the Treasury to tell us we need a “new political economy” is breathtaking in its chutzpah. Who created the old one Ed? And for a quintessential political insider to play the maverick insults everyone’s intelligence.

At a recent members’ event he was asked what he thought the party should do about reforming Partnership in Power. “But what do you think?” he asked his questioner. To which the reply came, “No Ed, you’re running for leader, what do you think.”

At the very least, this David Brentesque rhetorical device is hardly a winning strategy for Prime Minister’s Questions. In reality, however, it’s nothing more than our old friend ‘triangulation;’ with the hard edges rubbed off: You tell me what you think and then I agree with you.

Of course New Labour’s obsessive and disproportionate approach to internal discipline turned Labour into “the stupid party”. Yes we need to loosen up a bit. We need to learn that debate is not division. Hell, we even need some free thinking. But we must not unlearn lessons we learned the hard way about saying what we mean and meaning what we say.

To misquote Mario Cuomo, yes, campaign in poetry, but also in prose too. Our would-be leaders need to get on with talking about the big issues and serious challenges and get away from the windy rhetoric, flaky promises, selective history and simplistic pledges we have seen tumble out of this process so far.

Because the only winner at the moment is the Conservative Research Department.

Kevin Meagher is a former special adviser to Shaun Woodward at the Northern Ireland Office.


Tags: , , ,


6 Responses to “I don’t want a new best friend. I want a Labour Prime Minister”

  1. […] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Kathryn Sugg (Hughes, Stephen Bush and Mind In Flux, Labour Uncut. Labour Uncut said: I don’t want a new best friend. I want a Labour Prime Minister – says Kevin Meagher http://bit.ly/bq1Dym […]

  2. Jane says:

    I agree with this article. Many of us have been in despair as we saw a bloated public sector and little reform to follow the huge investment we made in public services. Even now, those who aspire to lead us are in denial at the necessary cuts that are required to balance the books. I am tired of the whinging and aggressive language and behaviour every time the coalition government indicate where cuts must fall. It seems to me that we are continuing with the errors of the past three disastrous years. We are left feeling that the nanny state knows best. The last government took away the concept of voluntary work by increasing the role of the State. They started paying Councillors to do a job that they once did on a voluntary basis. The last government nurtured the idea that the State would provide and many citizens now believe this. We have all sorts of groups wanting payment for undertaking familial roles. Thank goodness we now have a government who intend to roll back all this nonsense.

    I love this coalition government. I am witnessing a breath of fresh air and liberalism from many Ministers. It is refreshing at present to be told the truth and to have an awful lot of economic data opened up to us. Long may it continue. I shall now vote for AV.

    I am not enamoured by the leadership contest. I have seen a swing to the left by some candidates and a distancing too from their past relationships with Gordon Brown. I have little time for the two candidates who are in denial about their past. Winning a leadership contest is about principles not changing tack to gain votes. Should either of these two candidates win then I will not vote for the party. I deserted the party at the last election after 45 years of loyal support as I could not tolerate the last government under GB’s leadership and the thugs who surrounded him. Having made such a momentous decision then, it will be easier next time around. I have let my membership lapse. I am hopeful that those who are entitled to vote remember that we are looking for a future PM not just someone who can take on the Tories or someone who is a nice guy.

  3. Cat says:

    @Jane

    Couldn’t agree less with the article and your comment, are you actually a Labour supporter?

    The arguments for swingeing cuts to public services is looking more contorted by the day, first the actual government deficit figures were £20bn lower than estimated and now the first *estimated* growth figures are strong. Massive fiscal retrenchment is not necessary and could actually harm the economy; making the recovery much slower and weaker, meaning higher unemployment and throwing more people back into the poverty that Labour had spent 13 years trying to get them out.

    “I am not enamoured by the leadership contest. I have seen a swing to the left by some candidates and a distancing too from their past relationships with Gordon Brown. I have little time for the two candidates who are in denial about their past. Winning a leadership contest is about principles not changing tack to gain votes. Should either of these two candidates win then I will not vote for the party. I deserted the party at the last election after 45 years of loyal support as I could not tolerate the last government under GB’s leadership and the thugs who surrounded him. Having made such a momentous decision then, it will be easier next time around. I have let my membership lapse. I am hopeful that those who are entitled to vote remember that we are looking for a future PM not just someone who can take on the Tories or someone who is a nice guy.”

    Ah ok, you aren’t a Labour supporter. After 45 years?? So, you’ve followed the traditional rightward path of many as you’ve aged, do you read the Daily Mail? As it seems your arguments are little more than cliché tabloid bollocks, the same with your praise of liberalism from ministers – what did Clegg or any cabinet minister say about the police brutality leading to the death of Ian Tomlinson…nothing what a breath of fresh air.

    Hang on, what do you mean by not just electing a “nice guy” – you abandoned Labour because Brown was a “thug” which obviously implies you don’t think Brown was a “nice guy”, make your mind up.

  4. AmberStar says:

    The writer is obviously longing for a repeat of the Blair years & is hoping to re-fight the 1997 election in 2015. The world has changed. It’s time to move on.

    The strength of the public sector is a major triumph of Labour’s years in government. It is certainly less flabby & inefficient than much of the private sector.

    You appear to want Labour to blame economic woes on immigrants or public sector workers who’s unions had the guts to negotiate decent wages, pensions & redundancy payments.

    Labour candidates should be pushing back against adopting all the tabloid policies of the nasty party. That, Kevin Meagher, is triangulation – not Ed Miliband asking somebody’s opinion!

    And Yes, Labour are a political party. Yes, we want to win elections & see our leader as PM. But at what price? Where is the victory, if we have simply elected a Tory with a red rose pinned to his lapel?

    😎

  5. This is the same old moronic screed Uncut did last week. And the one before that. And the one before that. And again. And again. Ad infinitum. And it’s still bulls**t.

    Tony Blair got given free rein because we badly needed a victory. He gave us three of them.

    But he also gave us a decimated (and dispirited) membership, a 50% rise in the Lib Dem vote since 1997, an emerging Green threat, Lib Dems in control of councils in Labour heartlands like Newcastle and Aberdeen and a bankrupt party. And that’s not to mention the ten volumes of psychodrama a bunch of over the hill and over-promoted cabinet ministers have been producing when they should have been working to keep us in office.

    Yes, we’re a political party, not a neglected girlfriend. But that actually means that we (most of us) have some political convictions. We were prepared to let some of those slide to maintain power. And we were wrong. Because Iraq sure as hell didn’t help us in the polls, nor did letting the banks run riot, nor did the obsession with off-balance sheet spending because certain individuals were too cowardly to use their personal popularity to make a reasoned argument for proportionate tax rises.

    This is not on the ordinary member who didn’t like any of that, but still delivered leaflets, knocked on doors, sweated blood to keep in office a government that treated us with a mixture of fear and contempt. This is on you and insiders like you. You screwed us and I for one am not in the mood to listen to yet another lecture about how if we don’t do exactly what you say, we’re going straight back to 1981. It’s patronising, it’s delusional and it gets less convincing every time we hear it.

    Oh, and drop the cheap strawmen.

    “Just as candidates need to listen they also need to lead. And that means telling the party some home truths. The public sector got too big and flabby under Labour. We did not demand results. Standards, performance and efficiency do matter. The public finances are a mess. Some public sector pension deals are scandalous. Immigration is a justifiable concern. In this “age of austerity” we must not become the party of soggy social liberalism, high taxes and public sector special pleading.”

    Are you suggesting that Labour party members don’t care about standards in public services or that we want massive inefficiency? Do you really think we haven’t watched the news for three years and haven’t noticed there’s less money around than there used to be? Do you really think you can lecture us about public sector pensions when it’s your lot who set up the perverse compensation schemes for places like Network Rail?

    We’re activists. We knock on doors. We know immigration is a justifiable concern. That doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to demagogue on it. It’s certainly not a good idea to go on about ‘soggy social liberalism’. It’s cretins like you who let the Lib Dems lead their war on the vulnerable, just because you’re so keen to show that you can appeal to bigots too. This is a socially liberal country, you morons! This is not goddamn Alabama.

    As for the Ed Miliband bit, I saw him on Friday spending a good bit of his Q and A session informing his audience that he didn’t want to reverse most anti-union legislation, just to make it easier to hold a ballot legally. This was before an audience that badly wanted the law put back to 1992 at least.

    As an aside: you can’t complain about Miliband claiming we need a new political economy when you’re complaining that Labour made the public sector bloated and inefficient. I realise this is a seventeenth-rate hack essay, but even so a little intellecutal coherence is surely not too much to ask.

    Look, if you think the only way to win power is to piss off the Labour Party, then fine. That’s your opinion. There’s nothing I can do to stop you thinking that. But I happen to believe that I am not a dangerous leftist. I don’t think the only route to government is to treat people like me like lepers. I certainly won’t vote to be treated like a leper just so that you can get another Spad job.

  6. Robert says:

    Tens of thousands of claimants facing losing their benefit on review, or on being transferred from incapacity benefit, as plans to make the employment and support allowance (ESA) medical much harder to pass are approved by the secretary of state for work and pensions, Yvette Cooper.

    The shock plans for ‘simplifying’ the work capability assessment, drawn up by a DWP working group, include docking points from amputees who can lift and carry with their stumps. Claimants with speech problems who can write a sign saying, for example, ‘The office is on fire!’ will score no points for speech and deaf claimants who can read the sign will lose all their points for hearing.

    Meanwhile, for ‘health and safety reasons’ all points scored for problems with bending and kneeling are to be abolished and claimants who have difficulty walking can be assessed using imaginary wheelchairs.

    Claimants who have difficulty standing for any length of time will, under the plans, also have to show they have equal difficulty sitting, and vice versa, in order to score any points. And no matter how bad their problems with standing and sitting, they will not score enough points to be awarded ESA.

    In addition, almost half of the 41 mental health descriptors for which points can be scored are being removed from the new ‘simpler’ test, greatly reducing the chances of being found incapable of work due to such things as poor memory, confusion, depression and anxiety.

    There are some improvements to the test under the plans, including exemptions for people likely to be starting chemotherapy and more mental health grounds for being admitted to the support group. But the changes are overwhelmingly about pushing tens of thousands more people onto JSA.

    ——————————————————————————————————————

    report this week a man who went to a hearing who was told yes your ill, yes your disabled but you can work, has taken his life.

    I spent 46 years in labour man and boy, in 1990 I suffered what was called a major incident when I fell nearly 100ft, I spent eighteen months in hospital, lost the use of my bowel, I now empty this by the use of my finger, I lost the use of my bladder, I now have to use a catheter three four times a day, with infections bleeding and all the other problems, and guess what I’ve been told that just because I’m classed as a Paraplegic I can in fact work with the right help, what that help is and what that job is god knows, but I will now lose about 100.00 a week in benefits.

    For me labour died in 1997 it was struggling before that, under Kinnock, but I’ll never vote labour again.

Leave a Reply