‘Aspiration’ is not new to the progressive lexicon, and it is undergoing a welcome revival. The statue of Gladstone erected in 1905 on the Strand is inscribed with four words summing up the Grand Old Man’s career: ‘aspiration’, ‘courage’, ‘education’ and (sorry, sisters) ‘brotherhood’.
Nye Bevan coined the phrase ‘poverty of aspiration’ to highlight the fact that it is not just material poverty that undermines social justice – there are many people who need to raise their sights, not just their incomes or qualifications. Indeed, that is part of the vision behind Labour introducing free entry to museums and the recent commitment by Ed Balls and Andy Burnham to offer schoolchildren at least five hours per week of cultural education – making the best of our thriving arts scene available to all kids, not just a privileged minority. Only a Labour government would dream of doing this.
Aspiration has featured frequently for New Labour over the past 14 years and is a crucial element of the repositioning of the party brand and of the glue of our electoral coalition. This is partly because New Labour is forward-looking and on the side of people who want to get on in the world and give their kids more opportunities than they had; partly because Old Labour was seen as rather killjoy and hostile to the idea of personal success; and partly because ‘aspiration’ is thought to appeal to both our traditional working class supporters as well as more middle class voters.
In a world where a majority are wealthier and more confident, and in a culture that is more individualistic and more materialistic, it would be politically suicidal for Labour to be seen to be anti-aspiration. At one time in British history, it was axiomatic that a majority of people stood to gain from a more active state with a commitment to the redistribution of power, wealth and opportunity. It’s still true now, just not as obvious to the majority. The dilemma facing progressives that JK Galbraith identified in The Affluent Society is a real one, and for many in New Labour being the champion of aspiration neatly squares the political circle.
Gordon Brown has often quoted Nye Bevan’s phrase and he devoted part of his first leader’s speech at annual conference to the resurgent theme of aspiration.
‘I want a Britain where there is no longer any ceiling on where your talents and hard work can take you … where what counts is not what where you come from and who you know, but what you aspire to and have it in yourself to become … a Britain of aspiration and also a Britain of mutual obligation where all play our part and recognise the duties we owe to each other.’
As our prime minister carefully builds his moral, intellectual and political case for a fourth Labour term around ‘unlocking potential’ and ‘an opportunity revolution’, expect to see more references to aspiration as well.
So aspiration still looks to be central to the New Labour project, but it can also be vague, obscuring hidden tensions. For instance, do we support the aspirations of some people to take load of cheap flights, or send their kids to private school or own two homes at the expense of those who own none? A proper focus on aspiration has sometimes morphed into an unfortunate reluctance to acknowledge the scandal of inequality in Britain. We have been uncomfortable talking about inequality, let alone whether or not we actually believe that making Britain less unequal is possible or desirable.
This is a different but related question to the one about abolishing child poverty, where our commitment is unequivocal. But on inequality, we tend to wobble. To the distress of many Labour members, for whom tackling inequality is the prime motivation for joining the party, Tony Blair repeatedly and notoriously refused to give a straight ‘yes’ to Jeremy Paxman’s question before the 2001 general election about whether he wanted to reduce the gap between rich and poor in Britain.
One great irony of this is that the rise of inequality was actually halted under Tony Blair. A second great irony is that at PMQs on February 9th 1995, Tony Blair had challenged the then Tory Prime Minister, John Major, on precisely the same point. Blair leaned across the Despatch Box and asked ‘does the Prime Minister accept it is a responsibility of government to reduce inequality?’ John Major got up, said ‘yes’, and sat down again. If Old Etonian multi-millionaire David Cameron were to ask son of the manse Gordon Brown the same straight question next Wednesday, would this PM’s answer be as clear and concise as Major’s? I believe it would, and with a million times more credibility.
Nevertheless, some Labour ministers are uncomfortable discussing inequality. Last summer, the so-called ‘battle of the handbags’ between Harriet Harman and Hazel Blears during the Deputy Leadership contest was blown out of all proportion but summed up our dilemma quite neatly.
The key issues are these: Can New Labour express its discomfort with the grotesque inequalities in our society and develop sensible policies to reduce them without being seen to threaten to our economy, reignite ‘class warfare’ or appear ‘anti-success’? Is this more possible now that it was in 1997? Would it help to boost Labour’s reputation as the party of fairness and actually help to rebuild our electoral coalition if we were clearer that we are not intensely relaxed about some of the consumer choices of the filthy rich? Should we expect the wealthiest people in Britain (doms as well as non-doms) to pay a fairer contribution to the common good and thus help unlock the potential of the whole of the next generation?
We need some straight answers to these questions. Surely we can all aspire to that?