Fighting a wave of apparent unpopularity on several fronts, one might have guessed that the government would be seeking ways to shore up support amongst its natural followers. We are told it plans to abandon spin, reconnect with Labour party members, and relaunch with a series of radical policies which will wow the voters ahead of a general election in eighteen months time.
In reality, the government does not need a relaunch so much as a reminder of who it is and why it was elected in the first place. Of course, ‘spin’ and trust are issues. But to a degree, have they not simply becoming a shorthand way for people to gripe about the government? Were every spin doctor in Westminster to be fired tomorrow, does anyone seriously think Labour would overnight regain its popularity?
There is actually something grossly disingenuous about the media’s attack on the government’s supposed ‘culture of spin’. It is the media, with its short attention span, its obsession with personalities, and its desire to raise every disagreement to the level of split and schism, that has necessitated a culture of news management and soundbite in government. Moreover, there’s little evidence that this government is any way worse than some of its predecessors when it comes to its desire to present its case in the best possible light.
The question of ‘spin’ is actually a distraction from the important work that Labour faces and the debate we need to have about how we convince people that they should re-elect us. That case must be based around what we will do, not what we have done. In this issue of Progress we launch our year-long dialogue on Britain’s continuing progressive deficit (page
3 and cover feature). That deficit – the inequality gap; our democratic deficit; under-funded and poorly functioning public services; an historically weak economy which failed to produce prosperity for all; and the marginalisation of Britain in Europe – resulted from the triumph, through much of the 20th century, of the forces of conservatism.
We need to recognise that in some areas, the government is not simply failing to inspire or move fast enough; it is actually heading in the wrong direction. Take the democratic deficit, for instance. Yes, the government has devolved power to Scotland, Wales and London by creating new democratic institutions. It is also showing welcoming signs, after initially adopting the opposite approach, of abandoning the over-centralising, statist approach which has been a constant feature of the British state. Instead, principles of localism, mutualism and devolution are being heard to emanate from ministers’ lips.
However, it appears that fundamentally undemocratic and archaic institutions like the House of Lords are being tinkered with rather than transformed. Only a second chamber with a majority elected element is worthy of a progressive government. Freedom of information legislation remains tepid. And, despite the historic passage of the Human Rights Act, the government shows a worrying disregard for the civil liberties of its citizens.
This tendency is illustrated by its plans to introduce national identity cards. As Mark Littlewood argues on page 17, these are expensive, impractical, ineffective in terms of the goals claimed for them (fighting terrorism, illegal immigration and benefit fraud) and, very possibly, unworkable. Most importantly of all, however, they are an affront to principles – a regard for civil liberties and human rights – for which Labour claims to stand. There will never be a right time for compulsory identity cards.
Despite progress over the last six years, Labour’s work is nowhere near complete. The party’s foremost challenge is, as Peter Hain suggests in our interview on page 26, to begin
to present the case for progressive government with much greater ideological clarity. The vacuum caused by our inability to make a strong intellectual case for state action has been filled with a managerial style. It has failed to inspire our core voters and has confused many others about our overall purpose.