The long lament
May 4th, 2009
Thirty years ago Mrs Thatcher came to power. She changed politics utterly: moving the centre ground over three general elections firmly to the right; radicalising the right and the left as she did so, almost making the term ‘moderate’ seem like a criticism rather than a compliment; introduced the concepts of monetarism, privatisation and even Britain as ‘a property owning democracy’ into the bloodstream of public policy; all but broke the Labour Party and the labour movement; and of course, put Labour out of office for almost two decades until Tony Blair and New Labour created the opportunity to win again.
Few if any believed she would be so radical, so right-wing, so revolutionary in 1979.
Labour failed in the late 1970s to deal with its own demons. It mishandled a global economic crisis. It gave in too readily to trade union demands and allowed the Left to control the party. It seemed to be part of the problem with how power was exercised in Britain rather than the means by which ordinary families could do well and get on. It looked like it was being battered by events – including militant trade unionism – rather than in control. Frankly, Labour looked under seige.
And yet, in Jim Callaghan we had a Prime Minister and leader who was more popular than the party. More popular than Mrs Thatcher.
So, whilst there are parallels with where we are today there are important differences too.
We may have a leader less popular than the Opposition’s but we are not mishandling the economy; we may be conceding too much to the Left and the unions in the party but Britain is not in the grip of an industrial relations crisis. We may be being battered by events but to coin a phrase Jim Callaghan didn’t actually say, when it comes to comparing Britain today with 1978-79, ‘crisis, what crisis?’
That isn’t to say Labour isn’t in deep trouble. And has to change.
Of course, it is regrettable that Charles Clarke and Hazel Blears have to sound off in the media. Some of the language – like the ‘YouTube if you want to’ comment – was unacceptable because it was so obvious the media would have a field day with it.
It was equally unacceptable for John Prescott to call for Clarke to leave the Party for feeling ashamed over the McBride affair when I don’t know a single Labour member who didn’t feel ashamed and embarrassed by it.
But Charles, David Blunket, Hazel and others are merely expressing a sense of frustration – even exasperation – that so many Labour people have today.
It isn’t a Blairite thing or even a New Labour thing. It is a Labour thing: after a dozen years are we throwing away our own triumph in shifting the centre ground of British politics to the centre-left from the centre-right where Mrs Thatcher left it?
We were promised that when Tony Blair resigned we would experience “renewal in office” but it never happened. Instead, we have nose-dived in the polls, appear to have stagnated on reform, emailed away our “moral compass” and generally look like we’ve lost our touch.
If Charles Clarke and others weren’t speaking out in these circumstances we could legitimately ask why not?
This is not a Gordon Brown problem. Clearly he has had some communications and connection issues. But the problem is more fundamental than that: it is how we govern that is the problem not who leads the government.
To restore our reputation the government has to return to being New Labour.
We have to end and repudiate the language of Leftism that is creeping into the Labour lexicon. Allowing ourselves to fall into the Budget elephant trap of being badged “the end of New Labour” was a tiny example. Better to have cut income tax to stimulate the economy than to have broken our promise and introduced a 50p rate on top earners. Better to change the Budget plans now than break that pledge.
Criticizing primary school academies as being dangerous because they threatened to bring “free markets” to schools is crazy – especially as academies are a sound policy which New Labour introduced.
Giving local councils more say over academies or creating a new national control mechanism over them plays to activists not to parents.
We should be being more radical on schools and hospitals not slipping back or going silent.
Where are the policies and programmes designed to bring more power to parents, patients and carers through choice and competition between providers?
What is the long term vision for creating more new home owners not just more council houses?
Why have we stopped articulating our approach on crime, anti-social behaviour and bad neighbours when it connects across social classes and between communities?
How will more and more regulation on businesses – even in the name of ‘equality’ – help to create new jobs for those who will lose theirs in this recession?
Where are the plans to bring about a genuine greening of the economy as part of the recovery?
What is our appeal to the instincts and incomes of middle class voters who were essential to our victories in 1997, 2001 and 2005?
Why have we stopped owning the future? Why do we look like we have stopped all legislation with any edge? Even the Royal Mail Bill now looks threatened.
The answer is radical policy not just improved presentation. It is to be controversial if necessary not conservative by nature.
In 1979 we looked like we have been driven from office as much by exhaustion as election. We have to recapture a sense of excited in office not exhausted by it.
Jim Callaghan said during the 1979 election that he had felt that the tide had changed. He was right. It is not too late to turn the tide back in our favour. It needs us to be as bold and radical today as we were when we made the Bank of England independent.
Thatcher’s anniversary must be New Labour’s warning from history. Otherwise, the lament – to use Hazel Blear’s word of the week – will be long and hard and deep. It will be a lament for the lost opportunities of radical social reform by future Labour governments. Perhaps even for the Labour Party itself.