Howard Reed is an economist who I respect a lot so when he writes a lengthy comment in this blog I think it worth giving I publicity. He wrote today of the Policy Network report on Labour's election strategy published on Thursday:
I've just read the McClymont/Jackson Policy Network report and to be fair to them, I think it's been reported very misleadingly in the Guardian (as happens so often nowadays, sadly!)
While it is true that the report does say that Labour can't win the next election solely by relying on support from public sector workers (and I'd agree with that, given that only a minority of people work in the public sector, and even less after the ConDem cuts) the main focus of the report's conclusions is that Labour needs to deliver a positive message about economic renewal and growth to win in 2015 — with well-worked out positives which present a clear alternative to the ConDems (e.g. more activist industrial policy). I think this is right — the ConDem appeal to voters is based on negativity and fear and Labour has won most convincingly in the past with a positive message of economic renewal (1945, 1966, 1997).
It seems to me, given the thrust of the report, that McClymont and Jackson would be highly sympathetic to many of the policy ideas for economic renewal presented in The Courageous State and also Compass's Plan B, for example. So for me, the report isn't that bad — certainly a lot better than the last Policy Network publication, In the Black Labour, which basically said Labour should abandon the economic argument to the Tory Party. However, it's not a perfect report by any means. The main weaknesses in the McClymont/Jackson report, as far as I can see, are:
1) there is no way, realistically, to deliver social democratic outcomes without spending more than the Tories (or the ConDems, if they choose some kind of electoral pact) are going to want to do in 2015-20. Thus there isn't much alternative to Labour being defined as a party that wants to “tax and spend”, at least to a higher degree than the Tories. But given the immense macro and microeconomic damage being caused to the UK by the cuts, I don't see this as a problem in itself. Rather, as Richard says, “the only way to stimulate the private sector right now is for govt to spend”. That needs to be the key message on the economy — along with explanation of what the money will be spent on and how it will benefit ordinary people.
2) There is no mention of the environment in the report at all and I think this is a very serious omission. “Growth” will only be possible insofar as it respects environmental constraints and in particular, limits to natural resources and limits to carbon emissions. Without that, our economic model is entirely sunk.
Just my €0.02 on this anyhow!
I agree with Howard that the Guardian's reporting of this report was not flattering and that it did contain more worthwhile elements than the Guardian suggested, but the most cursory glance at today's letters page in the Guardian makes clear just how far adrift very many people think Labour is, including I suspect many who simply will not vote at the next general election as a positive way of suggesting no choice offered to them is a credible or acceptable. In particular I think it worth drawing attention to the letter from Chris Guiton, who has clearly read the pamphlet and says:
While McClymont and Jackson's emphasis on an activist industrial strategy is to be commended, it's interesting what's not mentioned in their pamphlet. Where's the discussion, for example, about genuine steps to curb the power of the City; the development of a fairer, more progressive tax system, tackling inequalities of wealth as well as income; or action to return the utilities to public control. The continued focus on the squeezed middle, and rejection of increased public spending, suggests a political perspective wedded firmly to New Labour managerialism and an austerity-lite economic policy. Labour's problem is a failure to articulate an electoral argument to benefit the majority, low-income as well as middle-income.
I think that when this pamphlet is read in association with the previous Policy Network publication on 'fiscal conservatism' and also in the light of Ed Balls' too enthusiastic recent defence of the City just how easy it is to misread Labour economic policy documents even when, as Howard notes, there are merits to some of the arguments in this document.
That leads to the inevitable conclusion that the problem is that Labour has still not developed a coherent short narrative of what it dan really deliver for the people of this country, starting with a commitment to create jobs. And let's also be honest; so far have none of us critics done that convincingly enough, as yet, either.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Given that it has some omissions, however, it is a cogent analysis and convincing interpretation of what Cameron’s Conservatives are currently doing and how Thatcher did it before. I like its claim that Osbourne has to stick to “the austerity plan” because if he does not the Tories lose their reason for existence. I like its claim that the Tories are creating a position where come the election they will portay Labour as a taxation party. It also is convincing on how the Conservatives are able to portray Labour as partisan ( public sector, benefit claimants etc., ) while the Conservatives are “portaying partisan policies as national imperatives”. The authors have presented a narrative that while it maybe short on details for policies it does show how the Tories are manipulating public opinion their way. Its worth a New Year read and I easily read it with some nice red wine.
But it is just a narrative without a moral imperative attached
That’s its weakness
What Howard Reed also misses is
3) we cannot have a jobs, earn and spend economic recovery while we have what is effetively an open door employment policy.
All the Cable, govt and thecityuk spin aboutt ‘skills shortage’, ‘brightest and best’ and being ‘open for business’ cannot change this.
We can have a US style shares recovery based on downward pressure on labour, but is that what we want?
So – he either missed this, or is one more person that doesn’t want to talk about it.
And the failure of the Labour Party to recognise and address this is the main reason that it is going nowhere.
Linda – are you suggesting that the UK should leave the EU and have a zero migration policy? That seems to go considerably beyond even what the UK Independence Party are advocating. Sorry if I’ve misunderstood your point.
I am advocating transparency on what is going on, a recognition that ‘labour’ is a much bigger factor in ‘economy’ than is ever admitted, and for those who advocate Keynesian action to get real.
There can be no Keynesian beneficial effect, for example from ‘infrastructure projects’ while the current labour migration structures are in place (nb the Olympics construction). This is even more the case with the secretive structures being put into place right now.
I note that you only refer to EU internal migration. It is a big deal.
– The 13 000 estimate for A8 entry was a trick. At 1 1/2 million, the estimating of entry numbers stopped. There is in fact no actual way to know numbers.But the evidence is all around.
– The EU is not a fixed entity – its contantly expanding – always into low wage countries. Another 6 are now being taken in right now, though as ‘trade agreements’, secrecy is sanctioned.
– It is not just about eastern EU countries but west and south EU Member States with high employment. Enormous numbers of young Spanish workers are now arriving here. Have you not noticed??
But you do not seem to be cognisant of the big picture labour entry trade commitments being made on our behalf. In the imminent EU/India Free Trade Agreement, labour access is the single Indian demand, the UK is the main target and this is in fact a UK/India deal, as the EU Trade Commission admits,
but no information here. And such trade deals are effectively forever.
The Points Based System has been set up to accommodate these labour entry trade commitments- further evidence of the government’s betrayal of UK people, as it keeps all this secret.
But where is the Labour Party in revealing or discussing any of this? Nowhere, in fact running to the opposite corner and giving unquestioning support for the EU, and avoiding any discussion of labour migration, despite public concern.
BTW – UKIP? an essentially big business party, and in its mixed -up policies – has no problem with temp skilled migrant lab entry.
See my articles in Morning Star, Politics.co.uk, yahoonews for further info.
Sorry I didn’t respond before. Richard usually deletes what I write so I didn’t bother looking back.
Re the comment below – all I’ve written here is about ‘legal’ structures.
The deal was mass (illegal) migration to undercut employment costs for Big Business in return for a supply of future labour voters. No wonder no one wants to talk about it.
The basic problem for progressive politics now is that we all want to examine ConDem socio-economic policies in the same way as we would examine our own – i.e. as if we believed they actually matter.
ConDems however don’t much care about such policies, beyond how they impact on voting preference perhaps, because the fundamental ConDem position is that public policy will soon be a thing of the past http://pinkpolitika.com/2011/06/02/no-time-to-lose-if-condems-are-to-be-stopped/
The focus of ConDems is to achieve the opposite of ‘public policy’, which is in effect ‘DE-governance’; an aim much assisted by our bleating about the obvious fact that their so-called policies often don’t stack up.
We have to grasp, a.s.a.p., that for the Tories at least this doesn’t matter. Despite occasional worthy words, they have NO intention of creating meaningful integrated public policies in the progressive sense!
And this is a very, very moral matter. The Left does indeed need to take it extremely seriously.