Elections are rare and special moments. Once in 1,500 days the people become the masters. It is a moment when electors and elected come close and therefore when politicians reveal themselves.
Elections are not just about winning; they set the tone for years to come. You cannot campaign as one thing and govern as another – at least not without the threat of being quickly ejected from power, if not office, as happened to John Major after 1992. For just one day it is the collective voice of the people that determines the political complexion of the nation. Mass attention switches, albeit fleetingly, to politics and to our rights
and responsibilities as citizens.
Will the next election be a real fight? There is still no evident threat from the Tories. Despite Labour’s troubles, they still don’t look or feel like an alternative government. The Tories have gone past their own ‘tipping point’ – the moment when they should have junked the unelectable IDS before the next election. So Labour may be punished for political failures but we won’t be dropped.
Bearing a political earthquake, Labour is going to win the 2005 election. The issue is by how much and, more importantly, on what basis. There will of course be a lot of Labour MPs who care more about ‘by how much’. But it has always been my view that Labour’s majorities have been too big.
The problem with landslides is that they disorientate political parties. Without a strong compass you end up defending constituencies – and therefore people, ideas and policies – outside of your values-based orbit. That doesn’t mean a return to the oppositionism of Labour’s past, but it does mean that in trying to be all things to all people you tend to end up being little to anyone, and you will therefore fail to create that ‘New Britain’.
Knowing that we are likely to win in 2005 is crucial. It frames our thinking. In 1997 we were so scarred by 1983, 1987 and, most devastatingly, by 1992 that we had to convince ourselves we were not about to lose again. It probably could not have been helped. But in being so cautious we threw away a huge opportunity – to put in place policies and programmes for eight years, not just four.
The electorate were so adamant they wanted rid of the Tories in 1997 that they gave us a majority for a decade, if only we had realised it. We behaved, and perhaps still do behave, like gatecrashers at a party: nervously occupying the seats of power like uninvited guests who could be thrown out at any moment. We won’t be given eight years grace again, but 2005 will not be about winning that election – it will be about whether we deserve to win in 2010.
If we accept that strategic premise, then the election should be about the longer term and the chance to set expectations. Let’s go back to a key slogan we used in the 1997 election campaign: ‘Enough is enough’. It was a phrase used to sum up the feeling that it was indeed ‘time for a change’.
But let’s view it again in light of recent polling evidence from Philip Gould – Labour’s distinguished campaign strategist. At the Progressive Governance conference in July, Philip presented an analysis of the mood of the electorate. It can be summed up by the fact that today people feel incredibly empowered as consumers but incredibly disempowered as citizens. In a world that is witnessing the end of deference and the rise of self-assertive individuals, people increasingly find personal expression of their identity and beliefs not through how they vote, but through what they buy.
This insight of Gould’s takes us to the most profound political paradox that the 2005 election must begin to resolve. Through the market, people feel more in control of their daily lives than ever before, but at the same time they have never felt less able to shape, direct and control the world in which they live.
They can choose anything, it seems, except the range of choices that are put before them. Politics is simply failing to match the seemingly invigorating power of the market. Instead politics shrinks, promising less, doing less, becoming increasingly mechanical and pragmatic rather than moral and visionary.
While we should welcome the vitality, diversity and access that markets can bring, the left must pose an alternative route to ‘freedom’. The ‘good life’ cannot be achieved solely through the market, because the acquisition of more and more goods and services is ultimately unfulfilling. The good life consists of the belief that there is more to life than consumption and that the cost of that consumption in terms of ‘failed consumers’ (the excluded), the quality of our lives, and the sustainability of our planet is too great. It is the belief that ‘enough can be enough’.
Instead, people should feel at least as empowered as citizens as they are as consumers. That through politics and democracy the ability to shape their world and its institutions is at least as compelling as the latest brand. That meaningful freedom requires greater equality to achieve it and that it is something we can only seek together – not on our own. They should feel that democracy matters at least as much as shopping.
As we prepare for that election, is New Labour’s glass half full or half empty? Even the most supportive of us know that things have to change. Labour will have achieved much by 2005. But to achieve as much again will require a fundamental renewal
of our political project. The election, if we know it is already won, provides us with the chance for renewal by asserting the primacy of politics and democracy.
We joined the Labour party and campaign for it because we believe in a different type of world and a different type of society. Of course, principles have to be continually tempered by the demands of power. But to be a realist you first have to be a visionary. The next general election is a moment when the elected no longer hold the torch and control its beam. Instead it is the moment when the people turn the lights on and take control. The goal of the democratic left is to ensure that the lights are kept on for as long as possible, as often as possible. Its belief is that through democracy people can and will shape their own world by doing it together. It is about popular socialism.
