Our Labour party today has
the same values as its socialist pioneers. The same burning passion for democracy, justice, individual freedom and for confronting inequalities of power and wealth. The values behind what we do today would be recognisable to the socialists of the past.
However, we have not always done enough to explain to our own members and supporters how the policies we pursue, such as our radical new vision
for public services, are in step with our roots. This must be explained as being more than simply ‘what works’. It must
be shown how this reconnects us with a specific socialist tradition in our politics which has been historically neglected
or downgraded by the left.
Tony Blair has set out a bold programme of reform for our public services based on decentralisation with national standards, responsive to individual needs: universal services, personalised provision – delivered and managed locally. He has rightly acknowledged that we often look no further than a 1945 reference for a perfect public services model. But, as he implied, there are other references. Meeting today’s public service objectives does not require moving away from Labour values – more a recognition of with which tradition of socialist values we should re-connect.
However understandable it was in
the postwar years of the 1945 Labour government, the paternalistic relationship between state and individual was a relatively modern left position. ‘Whitehall knows best’ would have been anathema
to our founding fathers, who believed in localism, devolution and mutualism. They believed in high national standards set by government – as we do. But they would not have endorsed the view that socialism is what Labour governments do from
the centre alone.
We have seen the limits of top-down, centralised solutions in many areas
– from the failure of Railtrack to the difficulties of achieving progress in the NHS. And we have seen that where
we have ‘let go’ – in Wales, Scotland
and London – the sky has not fallen
in because they have chosen to adopt policies often radically different from those we are pursuing at Westminster.
So, in the modern Labour party itself, many of the problems of the first term were self-inflicted. Mistakes such
as the handling of the selection of candidates in Wales and London and interference in NEC elections have
been acknowledged. We are now seeing
a more open party, with genuine dialogue between members and government, and openness to innovation and decentralising. We must apply the same model to the country.
The history of our party and of the left in Britain shows that an enabling, devolving socialism – not a statist socialism – is truer to our roots than
the tradition which came to be identified with the left and with Labour in particular.
Pioneers like the Levellers, Agitators and Diggers from the mid-seventeenth century – or, later, Tom Paine, the Chartists, Robert Owen, William Morris and GDH Cole – were libertarian, not state, socialists. They were committed egalitarians. But, crucially, they were
also inspired by liberal values of individual freedom and justice.
Meanwhile, trade unions and political organisations evolved from a series of
self-governing societies, groups and institutions not dependent upon some central apparatus. They were part of a radical democratic tradition later joined by the Chartists and still later by the suffragettes. However, the need for collective action and the use of state machinery to mobilise for the first and second world wars appeared to vindicate Labour arguments for government intervention and control. Nationalisation was unthinkingly adopted as a model, with the emphasis on planning and state ownership of hierarchically-run enterprises. Decisive state action was also necessary, and indeed successful, in setting up public health, education and social services for the first time.
One of the reasons we proceeded
as we did in the first term was because
of the chaos caused by the unfettered localism of the Tories under the internal market. No national standards, no focus on the killer diseases, no independent inspectorate. The postcode lottery in drugs was real, and there were differential waiting times across the country. We had to get a grip – hence national frameworks for heart disease and cancer, and our drive to cut waiting lists. In education, we had to establish tough targets for literacy and numeracy – otherwise Tory failure in these basic skills would have continued.
Now we have created that framework we need to let go, and let entrepreneurship flourish as a means of meeting local and individual needs and preferences. The ‘statist’ approach, according to which inequalities of power are overcome centrally, has been a worthy approach.
But in practice it has led to centralised bureaucracies suffocating local initiative and reproducing hierarchical structures.
Balance is the key. Power can only be spread downwards in an equitable manner if there is a national framework where opportunities, resources, wealth and income are distributed equally, where democratic rights are constitutionally entrenched, and there is equal sexual
and racial opportunity.
Pluralism must be a key tenet of a modern socialism. A Labour government should not be afraid to promote countervailing sources of power – whether through devolution, as we have done in Wales and Scotland, or English regional government – which might not all be Labour-controlled. The state must assume an enabling role, though retain
an enforcing role through upholding individual rights and the rule of law.
However, casting the state as an ‘enabler’ rather than a domineering ‘enforcer’, does not mean a passive role
in the economy. On the contrary, government should be highly active, sustaining economic stability and intervening in partnership with business
to invest in education, train the workforce and create high-quality infrastructure.
This is why it is important not to confuse Labour’s genuine attempts to devolve power with the right’s attacks
on public power in the name of greater personal and local autonomy. The Tories’ current search for ‘localist solutions’ should be scrutinised with extreme scepticism. They may tap a desire for more personal choice and local control. But their agenda is the dismantling of public provision and privatisation. Only the left can be trusted with this new agenda of localism.
It’s time that we in the Labour party trusted people to decide for themselves what they want and how they get it, without sacrificing standards or equity. This may well lead to tensions and different outcomes. But decentralisation will be
the key to reform of public services.
We have the chance to a build a political legacy that we can look back on with pride. Our rich history shows that our movement was founded through democracy and freedom, and the decentralisation of control, ownership
and decision-making. Too often, we on the left have talked as though we are about control and centralisation or about nothing. Past governments have sounded paternalistic and managerial, rather than empowering and liberating.
It is in libertarian socialism that our true roots lie – and on its application to localism on which our success as a government will depend. In returning to those values, we can see the route-map
by which we can unite around a future vision for Labour.