One thing is clear as the smoke begins to clear from this month’s elections. The twelve-year hiatus from the normal rules of politics – lasting from the day when Britain crashed out of the Exchange Rate Mechanism until the outbreak of war in Iraq last year – is now well and truly over. ‘Super Thursday’ confirmed that Labour has, at last, caught a bout of mid-term blues.
Those of us who are on the New Labour wing of the party need to think seriously about what we can do to reach out to those members of the party and its supporters who – beyond their disagreement with individual policies – feel a general sense of unease about the direction Labour is going in. Progressives – who have been so fixed on building a New Labour electoral coalition and appealing to middle England’s ‘floating’ voters – have been far less careful about the concerns of the party’s centre-ground.
Unless we want to become, over the long-term, the equivalent of the Tory party’s liberal wing, we should begin thinking now about Labour’s moderate middle. It is indeed true that there is nothing terminal in the results. During the 1980s, the Tories recovered from similar drubbings in local elections to win general elections a year or two later. However, the Tories did not simply rely on Labour weakness to get themselves re-elected, they also made a positive appeal – the promise of a share-owning democracy with low taxes and the unions held in check – which resonated with large numbers of voters. And this appeal was, itself, based on a crucial prerequisite. Difficult as it is to remember, the Tory party was highly united prior to Margaret Thatcher’s overthrow. Labour may not be riven by the kind of rifts, which still divide the Tories, but the party does not appear at ease with itself.
Restoring Labour’s confidence in itself should thus be Tony Blair’s first priority. We can start by thinking about the language we use. To many members of the party, ‘reform’ sounds like a euphemism for privatisation; ‘choice’ a code word for allowing the middle-class to escape failing public services; and ‘localism’ an excuse for downgrading the role of government. Such fears can only exist in a vacuum, where phrases are bandied around and never explained in concrete terms. ‘Choice’, for instance, is simply about providing the same kind of opportunities for individuals to have a say and influence over the public services they use, which many in the middle classes have taken for granted for years. And we need to go beyond that to explain, in practical terms, what a choice agenda will deliver in terms of the day-to-day effects on health, education, housing and social services, for instance.
Much of the frustration within the party flows from a sense of powerlessness. Changes to the party’s policy-making process over the past ten years have transformed the confrontational and archane system, which existed previously. However, this has come at a price, with many members believing that their views are not transmitted through the policy-making process and that they are denied a say over contentious policy issues. It has also come at a price to the government, which would have gained from taking issues like tuition fees and foundation hospitals through the party’s policy-making process, rather than having to conduct the debate with the party under the media spotlight. There are good reasons why governments cannot be expected to consult with – or take orders from – their party’s members on every aspect of policy. However, progressives need to remember that, at a time when we are advancing the case for devolving power to local people and communities, so too, we have to dare more democracy when it comes to our party.
Progressives should also heed developments across the Atlantic. There’s long been a close relationship between the Clinton-inspired New Democrats and New Labour. And, like New Labour, New Democrats have taken on, and won, many battles against those in their party who argue for different electoral and governing strategies. Those divisions have now eased not only due to the success of President Clinton’s time in office and a widespread desire in the Democrat party to unite to defeat President Bush, but also due to more specific efforts. The New Democrat’s Progressive Policy Institute and union-backed Economic Policy Institute, for instance, now meet regularly to hash- out a future Democrat agenda. Similarly, the ‘new synthesis’ group brought together Old and New Democrats.
After last week’s bad mid-term results, it would be all too easy for New Labour’s more authoritarian tendency to retreat to its command and control bunker and batten down the hatches. This would be the wrong course: instead, we need to reach out and start a debate about the kind of third term which would truly make our supporters proud.