Some would like to think Labour is having a bad weekend. If the papers were to be believed Ed Miliband is a disaster, when Labour stands at 41% in the polls. And his brother says Labour should move on from last year, and he's right.
So, although some would like to suggest Labour's having a bad time because of problems with its leadership I'm not sure that's true. I think Labour is having the same bad time all politics is having.
I've explained the ethical problem that I think all political parties in this country are facing at present: and that it is a problem of their own making. They have all, it seems, in the face of the financial crisis decided that there must be a smaller role for government in our society without there being any logic backing up that decision.
The reality is that the need for government intervention is independent of the size of our banking sector. It is, of course, constrained by what we can afford, but that again is independent of our banks: there are very many more variables involved.
Politicians have, however, almost universally linked the failure of our financial services sector with an apparent need to cut all forms of public services. That logic is flawed. This is already very obvious: the Conservatives are failing to deliver almost any of the policies they have adopted based on this flawed logic. As the months and years go on that failure will become increasingly apparent.
The simple fact is that in logic you can't work out what out to be happening from what is happening, and in politics you can't work out what government policy should be as a result of the failure of parts of our banking system. Both facts should be glaringly obvious, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Until our politicians realise this then we're going to continue to live in a mess, a muddle and a situation where democracy itself might be threatened due to the failure of government to deliver what is needed in our society.
The challenge, therefore, is to create a viable alternative. The Conservatives won't do this. They're not delivering small government because of the banking failure: they're trying to deliver it because they believe in it. They will fail because they will discover it's just not possible to reconcile their fantasy of government with reality. Labour can, however, accept the challenge. But, if it is to do so then it has to answer four questions. They are:
1) What is government for?
2) Why is that the case?
3) What policies should have priority as a result?
4) How do we pay for them?
These questions are more important than they might seem. Taking just the first as an example, it seems we have developed a breed of politicians who want power and yet have almost no clue what they wish to do with it. Wishing to hold power so you can privatise much of what the state is doing does not give any reason to have confidence in a politician. And nor does it encourage faith in government itself, or democracy, or in the services the state and that all who work for it can provide.
Of course it is appropriate for a politician to believe in the private sector, and in what it can do and what it can provide. Indeed, it would be very odd if a UK politician did not have that belief. But surely what we need in a politician is someone who believes in government, what it can do, and what it can deliver?
That confidence is almost absent in politics at present. There is no narrative of belief in government in existence, even amongst politicians of the left. That, I think, is a significant cause of the lack of confidence in politicians and democracy itself at present. The confusion that politicians exhibit about the purpose of government is very obvious to all, and people now reflect that back at them.
And yet the absence of a narrative for government that politicians can believe in is not wholly their fault. I'm sure such narratives for government and its role in the 21st century may exist, but I'm not aware of them. Don't get me wrong; that does not mean they do not exist. But what I am saying is that that the alternative narrative of why government shouldn't exist, why what it does should be done by the private sector and why government interferes with well being do all exist, are powerful (even if they're wrong) and they're also widely promoted and taught. It would be virtually impossible to complete a course on economics, finance, accountancy and maybe politics and related issues and not be taught that anti-government narrative at any university almost anywhere in the world right now. The crippling consequence of that process is now seen in the malaise in our politics and democracy.
So the need is actually obvious: if Labour wants to govern again it has to say what government is for. And it has to do more than that: it has to say why this is the case. Asserting that government is a good thing without providing a logical, reasoned case for saying so will not persuade people to give Labour a mandate. In the process there is a need — I'd almost call it a desperate need - for something Tony Blair said he would provide in government, but which he absolutely failed to deliver: that is ‘joined up thinking'. Although the need has now become one for joined up reasoning as to why government should undertake certain actions.
The excuse that it has always done something as a consequence of the post Second World War consensus is no longer good enough. The case for what government should and should not do in the 21st century needs to be made afresh so that if it is decided that the government should undertake an activity it does so with confidence, with reasons given, and with a confidence that not only is the service in question needed, but that it is the government that is the best agency to supply it. That confidence has not existed for far too long in governments of any complexion.
This does not just require reasoning though: it definitely requires some theorising; albeit that the theorising in question has to be readily communicable. That's a tall order, but hardly beyond the wit of humankind. And then, and only then can the third and fourth questions that Labour must address be dealt with.
If Labour knows what government is for, and why, the policies that it should follow should become readily apparent. Until then Labour policies will simply be, at best, opportune reaction to current events, and will look like that too. In that sense they will continue to look far too like what too many have been: policies remarkably like those of the Tories.
Finally, a coherent policy on tax has to recognise two fundamentals. The first is that the state has a right to tax and that all property rights are conditional on taxes due having been paid. For far too long it has been suggested that people pay tax out of their own incomes and assets but that's not true. The right to enjoy many incomes and assets is contingent on having paid the taxes due in the course of their acquisition. These are not independent events: they're utterly intertwined. Second, if there is a proper understanding of what government is for, what services it must provide and why then the confidence to tax will exist. But as has been absent for too long.
The result of this exercise would be radical: Labour would know what it was for and so would those who were being asked to vote for it. It's not clear that this has been the case for some time. It's certainly not clear that the Conservative do any such thing with any real confidence: being opposed to government is certainly not a basis for holding political office.
But there is a fifth question that needs to be asked. Is anyone willing to do this?
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:
Judging by his speech yesterday certainly not Red Ed Miliband.
Nice timing as well, banging on about scroungers, while her majesty’s government (very much HM’s Govt) sticks a bit of lipstick on it’s NHS privatisation bill.
Still, regurgitating what some characters think others want to hear (actually what some characters want others to think) is obviously preferable to presenting any actual opposition.
If keeping the opinion share down to a respectable, but unintimidating, 40% is what he’s there for, he’s doing a fine job.
As the cloth-eared Guardian, Frank Field and Policy Exchange agree he is ‘hitting the right note’; we are truly in the age of a relentless political monotony.
This is a useful and much-needed discussion, and it’s one that a lot of people I respect are having about reforming the Labour Party. The trouble is, the discussion seems to be centred on how to change the Labour Party, rather than how to build a movement that advances the kind of progressive politics we need. I recognise the dangers of appearing sectarian, and this is not intended to be a sectarian contribution.
I never joined Labour because I didn’t consider it a socialist party. That helped me work with Labour people on particular issues where we agreed without getting involved in the internal politics of the 1980s, when many people were trying to change the Labour Party into something it was not. The Party now seems to have turned itself away even from traditional social democracy to embrace neo-liberalism, and trying to change it back into a social democratic party seems as futile as the attempts to make it socialist.
Labour was formed because the existing parties were not offering a progressive alternative. The argument I get from many of my Labour friends is that “Labour is the biggest party capable of change”. It seems clear to me it is not. Joining involves taking on all the baggage rather than focussing on the issues, and activism is soon dulled as new recruits are pulled into the mechanical and organisational disputes that divert from the policy issues.
A political party is a means, not an end. There are plenty of people working inside and outside the Labour Party who have the kind of progressive ideas needed. I don’t have all the answers, no one person does. But focussing on the issues and grouping around them seems to me to provide more fertile ground for the kind of new political force needed than endless and pointless debates about what the Labour Party is and isn’t.
Martin
The truth is I’m not a member either – I address Labour, but like Compass am happy to see the issue as bigger than Labour
The point you make is a good one
And you aren’t alone in despairing of Labour’s capacity to change. I do, often
Richard
“we have developed a breed of politicians who want power and yet have almost no clue what they wish to do with it.”
Exactly. A typical example is drugs policy. Everyone knows that the current policy doesn’t work. Most experts are in favour of some sort of legalisation/decriminalisation. All logic points in that direction. It is fair to assume that many politicians share that view. And yet not one major politician will ever stand up, for fear of being portrayed as being weak. It is as if they have an image of what someone needs to look like in order to be elected, and then mould the beliefs they are willing to express in public to that image.
The tragedy for Britain is that our first past the post system generally gives a government te poer to do whatever they want, so there is no excuse for timidity once in government. But as you rightly say, power seems to be the motivation, then how to hold on to power, rather than what to do with it. Whatever political persuasion you are, has anything ever been less inspiring than Tony Blair’s first term, when he could hve done anything and ended up doing nothing for fear of not getting a second chance (presumably to do nothing again).
t seems we have developed a breed of politicians who want power and yet have almost no clue what they wish to do with it.
I’m not sure that is true. I think that there is a breed of politicians that believes the exercise of power is for the benefit first of themselves and then of their friends.
Part of this goes back to the dreadful heresy propounded by Margaret Thatcher in the middle 1980s that “there is no such thing as society”. That this is untrue is both self-evident and very hard to prove in any objective fashion. But until someone does nail this pernicious lie, the notion that power needs to be exercised for the benefit of the largest majority of people will be sidelined.
agreed
The British Constitution is based on the supremacy of Parliament and the rule of law. In history it evolved as a means of limiting the powers of the king, and winning rights and economic advantages which have empowered more and more groups going down the class scale over the centuries.
I believe the banks and the corporations are the new monarchs, and by reducing the size and power of the government and allowing tax havens to flourish, the government is relinquishing its constitutional and economic powers. Looking at my first paragraph, this means trampling on the rights and economic wealth of the poor and middle classes.
We need to make our voices heard and make the labour party do our bidding. Did not FDR Roosvelt say “go and make me do it” ref: the New Deal? We need pressure groups to make their voices heard, otherwise the governments will just take the easy way out.
Oh yes, yes, yes!
I’ve been having a look at the ICM polling data since 1984 (available here) and the headway that the main opposition party has made in the opinion polls one year since the previous general election. Results as follows:
June 1984: Labour polling 38% (up 10% since 1983 general election)
June 1988: Labour polling 42% (up 10% since 1987 general election)
April 1993: Labour polling 39% (up 4% since 1992 general election)
May 1998: Tories polling 29% (down 2% since 1997 general election)
June 2002: Tories polling 32% (down 1% since 2001 general election)
May 2006: Tories polling 38% (up 5% since 2005 general election)
If Labour is currently polling 41%, then it’s up 12% since the general election – and on that measure, Labour under Ed Miliband is the best performing opposition party since regular records began. He’s had a much better start than the Tories did under Hague, IDS or even Cameron. And polling methods were changed after the pollsters got it so wrong in 1992, so arguably Labour’s lead in 1984 and 1988 was significantly exaggerated – so Ed’s also probably doing a lot better than Neil Kinnock did back then.
Now of course, one could argue that there are special factors at work at the moment which mean circumstances aren’t comparable with earlier electoral cycles – the cuts programme should be making the govt more unpopular than it is, the collapse of the Lib Dems is helping Labour. But even so, on the face of it the headline numbers suggest Ed is actually doing much BETTER than people give him credit for.
Brilliant
Can I reblog tomorrow?
I would say he’s doing much better than he deserves credit for.
With Liam ‘There’s no money left’ Byrne as his policy review chief I can’t see much to be optimistic about.
“For far too long it has been suggested that people pay tax out of their own incomes and assets but that’s not true. The right to enjoy many incomes and assets is contingent on having paid the taxes due in the course of their acquisition.”
If I have a portfolio income derived from overseas sources then my right to enjoy that income exists irrespective of whether I live in the UK or Monaco. If I live in the UK, I am obliged to pay tax on that income, and the tax is paid out of my income.
It doesn’t matter which state or in what order – if it’s due it has to be paid – that’s my point
[…] The following was posted by Howard Reed on this blog yesterday as a comment, but it seemed worth reblogging it to me as it addresses yet another of the popular misconceptions the right wing press like to put out about Labor, so I do so, with his permission: I’ve been having a look at the ICM polling data since 1984 (available here) and the headway that the main opposition party has made in the opinion polls one year since the previous general election. Results as follows: […]