Mid-way through Labour’s second term in office, Peter Hain contemplates the next general election and issues a warning: ‘we’re heading for a lower turnout than last time unless we turn it around.’ It’s a fear – that voters will repeat the grudging acquiescence with which they returned Labour in 2001 – that many party members will recognise.
However, Hain, promoted to Leader of the House of Commons in Tony Blair’s summer reshuffle, is neither despondent nor resigned to this scenario. Yes, he agrees, raising turnout is about ‘extending voting opportunity’ – through postal voting, new technology and increasing polling hours – but it’s also about much more than that. ‘We need to inspire people with a much clearer vision and a much clearer set of values and ideals within a framework that people can understand,’ he suggests.
And for Hain, that vision – of closing the equality gap, making public services more user-friendly, improving quality of life, laying out a new progressive internationalism, and pushing for democratic renewal – is one that Labour needs to begin setting out as soon as possible, not simply in the three weeks leading up to polling day.
What Hain terms the ‘more visionary approach’ is, of course, not just about boosting the enthusiasm with which Labour gets re-elected. It’s also about warding off the seemingly distant danger of a Tory victory: ‘Don’t ever under-estimate the Tories, because they’re getting their act together, slowly but surely, and they’re going to pose an increasing threat.’ In such a situation, argues Hain, ‘I think there is a great danger that if we are just seen as another set of politicians managing society, then people may say, “we’ll have a look at a different set of politicians”.’
Part of the problem, admits Hain, is that much of what the government has achieved – the ‘hugely redistributive’ tax credits and minimum wage, reform of the House of Lords, Human Rights Act and freedom of information legislation that, together, come close to a ‘constitutional revolution’ – has been done ‘almost unnoticed’. The result is that people are ‘not bound into a vision and a feeling that we’re going somewhere, we know where we are going and want to be part of that’.
For many voters, however, the problem appears to be not that they do not know where Labour is going, but they don’t much like what they perceive to be the direction. Thus, the public’s enthusiasm for increased levels of investment in public services is matched by a wariness about the prospect of vouchers and an extension of co-payments – the amount which the individual has to add to the government’s subsidy – which some in Labour’s ranks seem to be suggesting.
What does Hain think of the argument that only by embracing such concepts can Labour prevent the middle-classes from abandoning state provision of public services altogether? ‘I don’t agree; I’m opposed to vouchers. That’s a Tory idea,’ he says before recalling that his first act as a Welsh Office minister after the 1997 election was to abolish nursery vouchers – a policy that was ‘hugely unpopular’ with both the electorate and the party.
While co-payments don’t provoke outright opposition from Hain, he believes they need to be handled sensitively: ‘It’s really important that we define what we mean, draw very clear boundaries and approach this whole issue very carefully… If this debate, and if any policy movement, becomes effectively a backdoor way of introducing private charging on a widespread scale, especially in our hospitals and schools, then I’ll say no to that. I think the party will. I don’t think the government will do that; it’s not what we are about.’
The party has to recognise, though, that co-payments are nothing new and are not always unfair. ‘Take university education,’ he suggests. ‘We have a system of co-payments there and we always have had, even before fees.’ He says he has no problem with the current system where, for every £15 of funding per student, the student contributes £1 and the taxpayer £14. Moreover, if universities take up the option of top-up fees, he sees no problem with the student contribution rising to £1.50, so long as this is not in the form of upfront fees but operates retrospectively through what he chooses to term ‘a form of graduate tax’. Taking through the argument in this fashion and with a clear understanding that they won’t ‘suddenly have fees in their face’, the Leader of the House believes students, too, will see this as ‘a pretty fair deal’.
So where are the boundaries? For Hain, free, universal access to the health service and nursery, primary and secondary education is non-negotiable. Yet, for example, an extension of congestion charging and road pricing, as a way of protecting the environment by encouraging a move from road to rail, is a positive use of co-payment.
Hain offers a possible way forward for a third Labour term, with what he terms ‘a citizen’s contract’, whereby ‘we as a government say that we are providing this range of entitlements – free access to nursery, primary and secondary education and so on – and in return for that we ask you to contribute 10p, 22p, 40p tax according to your income plus your National Insurance contributions.’
This contract is not, he suggests, about hypothecation but is ‘a better way of breaking through the cynicism barrier about what the government is doing for me as an individual’. It will allow governments to say clearly: ‘this is our promise to you, we’ll keep that, and if we don’t meet our targets – say, on waiting times – then we’ll explain ourselves.’ The citizen’s contract would also, believes Hain, be very helpful for politics: ‘The gap between the voter and the political system is partly because people are not seeing outcomes and a clear, democratic chain of accountability and we need to establish that.’
Hain also wants to see the government pushing new issues up the political agenda in a third term. ‘Liveability,’ he says, ‘needs to be much higher up our list of priorities’. The Leader of the House thinks government needs to recognise that ‘although people are better off – they have more money in their pockets – the truth is, transport is very congested, quality of life needs improving environmentally and there’s quite a lot of insecurity.’
Labour needs to make clear at the next election, therefore, that it is not just about ‘improving people’s prosperity: we’re about improving the quality of their lives’ and that, for Hain, is a big agenda: ‘everything from greener energy to a cleaner environment; the quality of our neighbourhoods; the cleanliness of our parks and streets’.
But the government will pay dearly if it simply hands down its agenda from on high. There is, Hain admits, ‘a lot of fractiousness and a lot of unease about where we are going’ in the party and the Labour movement at present. ‘Some of the areas where we have run into trouble with the party and our backbenchers have been where things have come out of the blue, instead of emerging as a process of proper consideration.’ The solution is to ‘bind the party in parliament and the party in the country and the unions back together again’ by ensuring that ‘new policies and new moves forward come out of a process of discussion. The party has got to feel ownership.’
The average grassroots member, Hain believes, doesn’t want to ‘dictate policy or veto policy’ and ‘understands that governments have heavy responsibilities to discharge and a whole series of pressures that it is not always possible to appreciate as a party activist’. Nonetheless, he goes on, ‘I think that they want to feel that they have had their say and that they have been listened to much more than has been the case up to now.’
As Hain speaks, I am reminded that the Guardian’s Jackie Ashley once remarked that listening to him made her wonder: ‘with Hain are you getting Hain, or early indications of where Blair is going next?’ Does the minister recognise this description? He laughs. ‘No, you’re getting me,’ he replies. ‘I have always found Tony Blair, contrary to his image in certain sections of the party, very open to good ideas. He’s not sectarian about new ideas and new approaches. Otherwise, I guess he wouldn’t have me in his cabinet.’
Hain on the euro
‘If at any point we didn’t seem serious about joining the euro, then I think our influence in Europe would wane. The existing twelve eurozone countries would formalise their independence from those outside the euro and we would be isolated. The longer we stay out, and year after year goes by with no momentum, the more difficult it becomes because people will question our seriousness. Everybody understands that the economic circumstances have got to be right. When you look at the route map to the euro that Gordon Brown set out in June, it’s very clear: there’ll be a draft referendum bill and a paving bill for the euro. Those signals are absolutely crystal clear about our intent. We’re fast-tracking planning and housing legislation in order to create much more flexibility for joining the euro. We’re on a clear route map. Exactly when we come to the end of the road remains to be seen – when the economic circumstances are right. But it’s not a decision that we can put off forever.’
Hain on George Bush
‘Labour’s sister party in the US is the Democrats and the sister party of the Republicans is the Tories – so everybody knows where we stand. But it is an absolute imperative that we work in close partnership with George Bush’s administration. The powerful relationship Tony Blair has formed with him is crucial. On the other hand, I have been very critical of American policy over the years. One of the things that brought me into politics was the protest against the Vietnam war. I – and we as a government – don’t agree with American policy on the international criminal court, which it’s not signing up to, or on the Kyoto protocol on climate change, which it’s not signed up to, or with the refusal to bring into force the comprehensive test ban treaty and other international treaties. But one thing is for sure: as the most powerful nation in the world by a million miles, if America felt it had no good friends in the world, and if we hadn’t been willing to stand by it as we did after September 11th and over Iraq, then the pressure for isolationism and uniltateralism would have become enormous. What we have to do is work patiently and continuously with Washington to create a world in which American security interests feel comfortable, and which is based on multilateral agreements. That means, as far as Europe is concerned, that we have to be much more serious about our foreign policy. I want to see Europe as the leader of progressive internationalism. We already commit over half the world’s overseas development assistance. Already, we’re the richest and the largest trading block. But we’re not punching our weight in global affairs. With European values of human rights and social justice and democracy, we can really lead the world towards conquering poverty, extending democracy, and getting fair trade and trade justice. But to do so, we need to be working in close partnership with the Americans, not in rivalry or with antagonism.’