Dear Jon,

I think this debate could go seriously wrong if we start from the wrong place. I suggest that we, and everyone else, leave certain labels at the door. There is no viable future to be found in a debate between ‘Blairites’ and ‘Brownites’ – these words have no content. There is no fruitful discussion between New and Old Labour – that battle has been over for a long time. It’s the unusual alliances that will renew the Labour party, not a renewal of tribal hostility.

Let’s cut the argument differently – centralisers on the one side and federalisers on the other. The (ugly) terms come from the Guild Socialist GDH Cole. I can’t do better than quote him: “I became a Socialist because, as soon as the case for a society of equals, set free from the twin evils of riches and poverty, mastership and subjection, was put to me, I knew that in no other society could I have the right to be content.”

I think that pins down the main issue: mastery and subjection. The unequal distribution of power is the basic problem we are trying to address. Amartya Sen has written that we are all egalitarians – we just differ on what we are egalitarian about. The dimension that concerns me is power. Some people have a lot more capacity to live a life of their own choosing. As far as possible, I think politics should try to rectify that fact.

So I think the fascinating debate is between those who think that power should be dispersed against those who think it should be centralised. It’s between those who think individuals are usually well placed to know what’s in their own interests against those who think that experts generally know better. It’s between those who think that collective power needs to serve the ends of individuals (like trades unions do) against those who think it is a value in itself. It’s between those who think that central state power is often a useful tool for making people more powerful and those who think a strong state is a defining feature of their ideology.

Now, I don’t pretend for one second that all the wisdom is on one side but, faced with the choice, I’m in the first item of every couplet. I suspect you are too. If so, we should discuss what that means in lots of policy areas and, crucially, what it doesn’t mean.

Phil

---

Phil, interesting start.

First we can agree on a couple of points. I always found the ‘Blairite’-‘Brownite’ divide pretty stale – for example, Blairism’ from 1994-2001 was a very different thing from what it later, sadly, became. So let’s park those descriptions.

In terms of the ‘new’ verses ‘old’ – I also find them pretty sterile terms. I would suggest we briefly return to them at the end of our discussion however, because within both there are some pretty tired command and control, centralising positions; indeed authoritarian ones – which have to be acknowledged from both sides in order for us all to move on.

One point which I know you will expect me to make – and so I will from the outset – is that we have to talk about the economic; the dynamic of power which does not just reside in the political or social realm but is about exploitation and the power of capital. Class is therefore critical. The world changed on 15th September last year when Lehman Brothers went for Chapter 11 insolvency; we are living through an historic turning point – economics has therefore to be centre stage.

I would suggest that your conception of power lends itself towards a more individualised political liberalism. I personally would tend toward an ethical socialist tradition. What is interesting, however, is the possible areas of crossover between both and what that means for a renewed political programme. Sen’s emphasis on us as egalitarians – and politics being about releasing people’s capabilities is similar to
Charles Taylor’s arguments about the democratic search for ‘self-fulfilment’. That is a very good departure point.

There is a radical politics here – the notion of the Good Society – that moves us beyond individual economic calculation. It also offers a new language of generosity, solidarity and hope in public life. It is precisely this that we have lost as a political party over the years and must rediscover with some urgency. A growing crisis of political representation is emerging because we have lost our own language – derived from an ethics- to help people as they navigate through this economic firestorm.

So, given that we share some concerns regarding the state as an end in itself, we should start to talk about the policy implications of where we are coming from.

Jon

---

Jon,

There’s a lot we agree. As you say, we do start from different places but I think that, in the overlap, we might find an intriguing coalition of voices.

I don’t want to acknowledge that New Labour contained some authoritarian elements. I want to shout it from the rooftops. I don’t, of course, speak for ‘New Labour’ but, for what such an admission is worth, I agree that all phases of the Labour party’s history have contained such ideas. It’s no accident that it was a Labour minister who said that the man in Whitehall knows best.

Of course you are right that we cannot fail to discuss the economy. Purchasing power is part of power – which is what I care about – at any time. It’s crucial now as unemployment climbs and the economy contracts. But we will need to distinguish carefully between the emergency measures that the economy may require now (war-time) and the type of economic policy that will be right for reconstruction (peace-time).

Also, we need to remember that power is about more than money. I’ve often thought that the left is unhealthily obsessed with income. I don’t make the opposite mistake of thinking income doesn’t matter, but it’s not enough. Imagine giving the same income to a disabled person, a person who is the victim of racism, an isolated widow and to you or me. The income egalitarian would be happy. The power egalitarian would think we’d hardly started.

Let’s get into some policy discussions and see how far we get without fighting. My starting point is that I want power as close as possible to the people concerned. So the right place for power is the lowest possible point. I think Liam Byrne put it nicely when he said he wants a country of powerful people.

That leads me to be strongly in favour of making money available at street and neighbourhood level. I also want to see people given the money to take control over their own chronic care, social care, housing, training and so on.

I think transferring control gives democracy bite. Give people the power to get things done and you’ll see a flowering of citizenship activity. Instead, what we do is we plead with people – please be civic, you know it’s good for you. There’s no real power attached but here’s a committee you can join. Then we scratch our heads with confusion when they don’t bother.

I’d like to see local government doing a lot more than it does. Central government is excessively powerful. I’d like to see strong city government because, unlike regions, cities are places that people identify with. Behind this too is the flow of funds. If we don’t give tax raising, and tax varying powers, to the locality, we are raising hollow expectations.

That raises the vexed question of different levels of service in different areas. The most important things can be subject to a national standard. But because I want to spread power I’ll take local difference on the chin. If the local populace has chosen something then I’ll wear it. It’s their choice and I trust their ability to do well by themselves. I think too many people in the Labour party will be wincing at this point because, deep down, they think that they know better.

We hear a lot about the public not trusting politicians. It’s more worrying the other way round – politicians not trusting the public.

Phil

---

Dear Phil,

Right, lets drill into the foundations of this discussion.

I note your immediate reply to my comments on class and the economy – a response on the basis of individual purchasing power – that is revealing and does set us apart.

We also need to clear out a bit of wreckage in the road in order for us to make some progress; by isolating some common ground and decontaminating some of the language and recent history of this debate.

First, the chronic delusions contained within the localism/subsidiarity agenda to date. For example, academies with the veneer of localism which disguised greater centralisation and arm-twisting within the old DFES. Our borough was removed from the first phase of Building Schools for the Future when for pragmatic reasons it declined an academy. Hmmm liberating? Radical? Don’t think so.

Second, we need to detoxify some of the New Localism often funded by Serco, Capita, Sodexho et al. Qui bono? This is important as a proper debate about devolution has to acknowledge the revolving doors, the pork, the cosy relationships which see this agenda as a simple one of privatisation and the dismantling of the state. The key territory should be about reinvention of the state – and local government in particular – not simply to roll it back like Thatcher and indeed Cameron’s new civics.

For example, proposals to alter Dorset Libraries using ‘volunteers’ rather than librarians to run local services because it is cheaper. There is a danger that a glassy-eyed wonkery about the voluntary sector threatens to take us back to pre-45 cinderella services- this time hidden under the language of ’empowerment’.

Having cleared the decks on some of this stuff you can then see some dry land. The two final points you make are bang on. First finance – new bond finance in local government – removing the centralism in many funding formulas based around whether you embrace the new Whitehall fashions – and local taxation – there is a rich seam for us all to explore here.

Second, local policy frameworks – say 25 local priorities determined by local people in Dagenham in their Local Area Agreements – rather than 300 box ticked targets from Whitehall. This is the radical agenda for the future. Sure national frameworks, minimum standards, inspection regimes etc but then let it go. The most boring description ever thought up in Whitehall – Local Area Agreements – obscures the real pioneering potentials contained within them.

Jon

---

Dear Jon,

I think that the fertile ground you’ve cleared is pluralism. We are both pluralists. But I think I might be tougher about it than you are and I’ll explain why.

Your point about academies raises an interesting test for a pluralist. I’m strongly in favour of schools being given a lot of scope to run their affairs. I think power should rest with parents and teachers. But a genuine pluralist doesn’t therefore mandate that everyone must have one just because he likes it. So if a locality decides against, that’s their decision. We can amicably disagree on this as long as neither of us wants to tell everyone else what to do. The question we need to answer is: who decides? When we talk about the locality, who do we actually mean? I want to get parents involved in that decision. I don’t think they are adequately involved in those decisions at the moment.

I’m also a thoroughgoing pluralist with respect to one of your other points. You say that the argument about local power is being used as a Trojan Horse for privatization, for the desire to roll back the state. Well, that’s emphatically not my view. I have a much more radical position than that. As a matter of principle I don’t care which sector provides things. I think it’s the wrong question.

I want to dismantle services that fail people, whoever provides them. I think this is an empirical question, not an ideological question. Hackney LEA was hugely improved by sacking the public sector but some private care homes are a disgrace. I don’t want to defend Doncaster children’s services but rail privatization was a disaster. I’m allowed to think both things and I do.

And this is where I part company with a lot of people in the Labour party. I think, at root, they think the public sector is just better than other providers. I agree it often is in practice. I’m certainly not hostile to the public sector. But some people think it is better in principle. (I’m well aware, of course, of the existence of public goods). So, if the volunteers run Dorset libraries better than the local authority then let them run it. Maybe they don’t, in which case vice versa.

I agree with you that I’d like to see a great deal more money raised locally. Crucially, it must also be spent locally. Look at neighbourhood renewal. Far too centrally planned, far too little attention paid to the specific differences of places. Let each place build up its own asset base through a Community Fund. Or let it hand out the money equally to all of its residents. Let’s see a big extension of budgets at individual, street and neighbourhood level. Start at the bottom and work up. Don’t start at the top and grudgingly ‘devolve’.

By the way, all I meant by purchasing power was making poor people richer. I don’t place a value on shopping per se.

Phil

---

Dear Phil,

I think you are correct: you do have a harder line than me. But this process is providing more clarity in terms of where we agree and where we do not.

For me there are indeed distinct boundaries in terms of what parts of the public realm you open up to the market; what you commodify and allow corporations to extract a profit out of. I respect your position – no a priori opposition to anything being handed to the private sector. I just disagree. Although space does not allow us to explore this.

Return to the issues of academies. What worries me is the penetration of the market into the very ethics of the schools themselves – the striking electronic display of the FTSE 100 Index in the entrance hall of the City of London Academy for instance. I have no problem if Hackney want to go down the academy road – a plurality of models seems to me totally legitimate. What I oppose is the financial penalties imposed against those who don’t necessarily embrace that model irrespective of need. I think we might agree on that.

Housing is a good example where the government has constructed central policy frameworks and then used the financial regimes to induce councils to embrace these frameworks and where the consequences are appalling in terms of confronting housing need and building supply. There is no level playing field- that is what the whole ‘fourth option’ debates were about. This deep hostility, rather than neutrality, regarding public sector provision – has lead to the absolute disaster of 5 million in need of social housing.

That is why finance is important. It is the key to unlocking the centralised public services agenda. Alongside the money is the decision-making – again I think we are closer than we might have imagined at the outset. Although the precise decision-making would have to be sorted out.

The difficulty with this discussion is that we have tended toward a policy debate almost exclusively framed around the devolution of public services. We also need to talk about the really elemental stuff: are the rich too rich? If so, what do we do? How does the state recapitalise the poor? New forms of economic regulation, the environment, defence etc. How does the role of the state fit in with your ‘new liberal’ paradigm in these areas? Maybe some other time.

Jon