Labour’s victory on 7th June was so widely predicted and, according to media commentators, so inevitable that its historic importance seems to have been forgotten. So let’s remind ourselves that on general election day Labour achieved something that the British people have never before granted it: a full second term in office. But with this historic victory comes a huge responsibility. Labour has the chance to reshape the social, political and economic landscape of the country. Returning Britain to full employment. Rebuilding our public services. Reducing poverty. Reforming our political institutions. All these long-held Labour goals and aspirations could now become reality.
Our ability to achieve radical change is, though, contingent on two factors. First, we must have confidence in the electorate. The cautious, ‘safety first’ approach which marked some aspects of Labour’s first term was justifiable. After eighteen years out of power, Labour needed to earn the confidence of the voters in government, just as it had sought to win their trust in opposition. The message from the voters was not altogether clear in 1997. Yes, they elected us, but it was also obvious that our landslide was as much anti-Tory as it was pro-Labour.
There was, however, nothing ambiguous about this result. The voters overwhelmingly supported investment in public services and rejected the Conservatives’ call for tax cuts, privatisation and smaller government. On the doorsteps, in the opinion polls, even the Prime Minister’s well-publicised encounters with voters, the electorate’s message to Labour was clear: deliver better schools, healthcare and transport – and deliver sooner, rather than later.
Second, the government must recognise the crucial role of the Labour Party itself. The election victory resulted from the partnership between party and government which has been the hallmark of our first term. The fall of the last Labour government was attributable to many factors. A key one, however, was the total collapse in the relationship between the party and government. This was a scenario which Tony Blair was, rightly, determined to avoid. Moreover, it was a goal in which he has, so far, been successful.
We should also acknowledge that Partnership in Power has given many party members the chance to participate in policy discussion, through the policy forums, in a way that the party’s previous policy-making structures did not allow for.
Now, however, is the time to assess that future relationship. To a degree, the pursuit of unity between party and government over the last four years has come at a price. Too many individual party members feel that their opinions do not count sufficiently – in everything from the selection of party candidates to the shaping of party policy. It’s important to remember that people join Labour not simply to campaign to see the party elected, but also to play a part in determining who represents it and what policies it pursues. Only by recognising this fact can the party begin to address the issue of why Labour’s membership is currently falling.
If Labour is to preach the virtues of pluralism and democracy to the country, then it must practice them itself. Labour’s leaders must learn to trust the party again and realise it’s time to let go. The iron discipline which was needed to bring us out of eighteen long years of opposition into government and, successfully, to re-election can now be loosened.
Labour will not descend into the shambolic state which characterised its behaviour in the late 1970s and throughout much of the 1980s. Thanks to Neil Kinnock’s heroic battles with Militant, Labour no longer contains within its ranks supporters of a party which are intent on infiltrating it. There have also been fewer points in the party’s history when it has been more united. In short, ‘fixing’ – of the party’s internal elections, its choices of candidates and votes at conference – is not simply unappealing, it is also unnecessary.