In 1993, Blackburn Labour party published a pamphlet I had written on the need for Labour to adopt a new set of political objects to replace ‘Clause IV’, our statement of intent dating back to 1918.
I argued that unless we explicitly examined our underlying ideology and changed the way we applied our values to the realities of 1990s’ Britain, we would hamper our chances of winning power, never mind sustain it through the inevitable fire of decision-making, that inconvenient yet necessary imposition on all governments.
The then Labour leader John Smith was unimpressed by my handiwork. Tony Blair, however, supported me and shortly after becoming leader in the early summer of 1994 he published a Fabian Society pamphlet in which he himself questioned the value of the old clause IV [1].
The outcome was that in April 1995 the party changed its central political object. The essence of the values and mission enshrined in the new statement of Labour’s objectives can be summed up in five words – ‘economic prosperity and social justice’. This was the moment when the power of the free market to generate wealth was acknowledged by the party, albeit as the servant of society and not its master, the crucial distinction from the right wing view of the markets.
Winning power with the old Clause IV would not have been impossible. But it would have hindered our chances of success. Modernising the party helped us to dispel some of the lingering myths about Labour.
This has been demonstrated most acutely in the context of the global economic crisis, which has shown both the correctness of Labour’s ideological position and the profound flaws in the Conservative party’s mindset.
The new clause IV equipped Labour with the flexibility to resort to nationalisation when it was required and privatisation when that was appropriate. Hence, when the banking system stood at the abyss, we were able to take the decisive intervention that was needed to pull us back from the brink of economic collapse.
The Conservatives couldn’t even countenance that notion, because the economic orthodoxy of the 1930s, the ghost of Montagu Norman, continues to exert an undue intellectual hold on them.
My 1993 pamphlet had the gripping title of ‘Policy and Ideology’. This was partly to deal with the then fashionable assertion of Francis Fukuyama that the collapse of the Soviet system meant the ’end of history’. The sober kernel of Fukuyama’s otherwise extravagant claim was that the old ideological certainties had collapsed with the Berlin Wall.
The preoccupation for many of us since has been to ensure that although the political divide has become more opaque, it is still defined by values, and politics has not slowly deadened into a value-free battle of the technocrats.
Indeed, what recent months have shown us is that the characterisation of the choice between the two main parties merely being about their relative ability to manage the affairs of state is inaccurate.
So I now want to talk about the thing which sets us apart most profoundly – our commitment to equality and the Conservatives’ ambivalence about it. This is not some narrowly defined ambition confined to economic indicators, but an all encompassing philosophy which reaches into every part of our lives.
I will also set out my prescription for re-connecting with communities in a way which promotes this broad vision of equality, not least in relation to crime and justice.
Equality
First, equality. The parody from the right has always been that what the left seeks is an equality of outcomes, in which individual talents and aptitudes are crushed out of us so we all become the same. This skewed vision is a wonderful comfort-zone for the right.
Moreover, it also provides a justification for unfairness and a ‘winner takes all’ society such as that we saw created by Thatcherism and would see again under David Cameron. When, however, the democratic left speaks of equality, ‘levelling down’ is not what we mean.
The great democratic socialist thinker R H Tawney made this point many decades ago when he said:
‘The existence of opportunities to move from point to point in an economic scale, and to move from humble origins to security and affluence is a condition…both of social wellbeing and of individual happiness’ [2].
That, so far, could describe an approach from the right as well as the left. But Tawney had a crucial closing phrase:
‘…impediments which deny [opportunities] to some while lavishing them on others, are injurious to both’ [3].
This underlines the need continually to correct the forces in our society which will otherwise impede or halt the progress of so many individuals from realising that ‘full potential’ which is so crucial to new Labour’s objects.
That means lowering economic hurdles to achieving potential, but social ones as well. As James Purnell has said recently: ‘We need to widen out from a narrow focus on income, to aiming for equality of capability – giving everyone the power to pursue their goals.’
So by improving education, for instance, we are seeking to give every child the chance to reach what might seem beyond their grasp, but in doing so we are also committed – unlike our political opponents – to trying to remove unfair obstacles in their way, the things that hold them back.
It’s why Tony made ‘education, education, education’ such a priority and Gordon has continued that. And it is working – dramatically so. In Blackburn with Darwen, for instance, more than twice as many 16 year olds are now achieving five or more good grades at GCSE, compared with 1997. Then the percentage was 34.4% – in 2008 it had risen to 66% and then 72% in 2009. That’s a remarkable change, which is having a profound effect on the lives of hundreds of children, and their families.
But this pursuit of an equality which allows everyone to able to achieve their full potential can never be achieved if a neighbourhood is blighted by crime and anti-social behaviour. Here the necessity of removing obstacles to people’s individual and collective happiness is all the more urgent for obvious reasons – one of the first duties of government is of course to do everything in its power to protect its citizens.
Crime
In the 1980s and early 1990s Labour was wary about focusing too heavily on what a party of the left should do about crime. Our 1992 manifesto devoted just four paragraphs to this crucial issue. I’ve checked. One was on fencing off wasteland. We’d walked off the field, despite the Tories’ open goal of crime increasing by 50% (BCS).
Tony’s work on home affairs in the mid-1990s, symbolised by his famous phrase ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’, changed all that. But until then we were too ready weakly to blame offending behaviour on individual circumstances. That may be the case for some, but it overlooked the responsibility we all have to each other, whatever our personal circumstances.
This approach has led to us being described as authoritarian and too eager to appear tough on law and order issues. If that means wanting to reduce crime, lock up the most serious offenders and deal effectively with those crimes and anti-social behaviour which can so blight a community, then I plead guilty on both counts.
I am genuinely liberal on the rights of law-abiding people to enjoy their lives without gratuitous interference from others or the state, hence the work I have done better to protect those of a different race, religion or who are gay or lesbian, and on the Human Rights Act.
But others take a much more liberal view than I about how best to deal with those who break the law. And it’s right to tackle the causes of crime as well as being tough on those who commit crimes. But this latter point is critical. We will never completely erase crime from our streets – there will always be a need to deal with offenders. And I believe how tackle these two issues – the crime and its causes – is critical to our pursuit of greater equality.
Crime is a source of great inequality. Those who’ve been the victims of crime, or who have suffered a well founded fear of crime know only too well how the experience greatly reduces their quality and enjoyment of life.
Moreover, the victims of crimes of all kinds – from serious violence, burglary or theft, through to neighbourhood disorder – are disproportionately from lower income groups. In government the Conservative party failed to deal with anti social behaviour, or to reform the youth justice system, or to send targets to the police and local authorities to get crime down.
They are quick these days to highlight those cases where the system fails and an offender commits a further serious crime – all are hugely regrettable – but this comes as rich from a party which went so far as to abandon training in probation: the very people whose difficult job it is to try to guide offenders into a life away from crime.
My view is that Labour policy on crime should start from the premise of what works best for the community. If that means locking someone up for a few months or longer to give a community respite from their thuggery that is the right thing to do. Labour must always stand up for the law-abiding majority – seeking to remove the impediments in the way of their pursuit of their full potential.
And our approach has worked. The result is a 36% fall in crimes of all kinds, with violent crime falling by over 40% and the chances of being a victim of crime at their lowest level since recording began in 1981 (Source BCS). It is lower income groups who have most benefited from this.
Moreover, we have all benefited not just from more justice being done, but it also being more visible – seen to be done.
This time last year there were many sniffed about offenders wearing orange jackets emblazoned with ‘Community Payback’. If you listened to some of the complaints about this scheme, you might be forgiven for thinking that we had returned to the days of the pillory and the stocks. That is nonsense. I’ve spoken to young and older offenders on community payback. They recognise they are doing tough but fair punishment. They recognise that they didn’t have to commit crimes.
It is critical for the community to see offenders repaying for their crimes and to see justice being done for their benefit. We shouldn’t be coy about this. In the last year alone, 8 million hours of Community Payback have been undertaken by more than 62,000 offenders. That represents £48 million worth of work for the community. Moreover, if we want to promote non-custodial ways of dealing with appropriate offenders and show the community that they are not a soft option as some believe, we can only do so by making them tougher, giving people more say in them and ensuring they are visible.
So as well as orange jackets, we’ve introduced more ways in which the community can choose what projects they would like offenders to take on in their area, ways in which the public can find more information about what happens when someone comes to court. We are engaging the community in the justice system so that they have a stronger voice and a greater chance to have their say about this important public service.
Rebuilding trust in politics
This comes right back to Clause IV and the pursuit of a society where ‘we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect’ [4]. The moment we detach issues like crime and justice from these aims we will lose credibility with the people we serve.
But it also takes me on to my next point, which is that we also need to be ever more responsive to the demands of the community in order that not only are they being told more about the work done on their behalf – for instance through the criminal justice service – but they are also able to shape that work by being given the chance, when they wish to, to engage in it.
So we are learning to communicate more effectively with communities as part of a wider effort to engage more effectively, in part to rebuild the trust between Westminster and the world beyond. This brings me to the other end of my beat at the Ministry of Justice, our constitution and our democracy.
Electoral reform
Parliament and its relationship with the people is, of course, central to this – ergo how we elect our parliament is a fundamental link.
At this point some in the audience might be hoping that I am about to announce an extraordinary conversion to proportional representation for elections to the Commons. I am afraid I am going to disappoint you.
Indeed I remain as convinced as ever that in an imperfect world, a majoritarian system is the way to best preserve and indeed nurture the link between citizen and parliament. I have long been sympathetic to moving to the Alternative Vote system which would recognise the growth in the number of parties contesting seats.
Far from being a constitutionally conservative view, this is in fact the radical approach, whereas PR for the Commons, far from being a panacea for all ills – as it is so often portrayed – would undermine our democracy, the effectiveness of our government and the relationship between electors and elected.
For a start, it is just plain wrong for those who seek PR for Westminster to insinuate that a result where seats are proportional to votes cast will also produce a result where power is proportional to both votes and seats.
In any democracy that is a logical impossibility, for by whatever system the electoral winner is determined, the winner – which forms a government – necessarily gains much more power than those who end up in opposition.
In truth PR allows weak governments with limited mandates to hold on to power for decades and takes away the fundamental power of ordinary people to remove them. Even apart from that, experience shows that countries with PR systems are much more likely to have unstable minority governments where small third and fourth parties dictate terms – which can lead to a tyranny of the minority.
But while I do not believe PR is the answer in terms of reconnecting the political class with the people, I am concerned about the apparent disconnection – exacerbated by the expenses scandal – between those of us who inhabit this village and the outside world.
Alongside PR, other mechanisms proposed to bring about this change include: open primaries for political parties and greater use of referendums and citizens’ assemblies [5].
I agree that citizens should be given more power. Within the Ministry of Justice I am pursuing measures to involve the public more directly in policy making and policy implementation.
I hope parliament will follow suit. In particular, there should be a better system for handling public petitions which could enable citizens to influence the parliamentary agenda by triggering debates or select committee inquiries.
But I think we need to be realistic about what can be achieved and recognise the problems we face in trying to create new mechanisms to stimulate political engagement, not least their cost. They are not a silver bullet.
There are, however, ways forward. They are inexpensive, fairly easy to organise and incredibly effective.
One measure is called, in New England, the ‘town meeting’. In Blackburn I call it the ‘residents’ meeting’. It provides an opportunity for citizens to talk about local issues with their local police chief, councillor, MP and so on – and to get action in response. I’ve held more than 60, on a regular cycle around town, in six years. And I still do soapbox open air meetings in the shopping centre on a Saturday morning. It’s not brain surgery. People turn up to both in numbers. It works.
It doesn’t mean eschewing new ways of communicating. But it does mean applying the ‘town hall’ brass-tacks principle to everything I do – if you communicate with authenticity, in language people understand and in ways which reach as many people as possible, it doesn’t matter what the forum is.
Conclusion
I have covered a lot of ground in this speech. I want to finish by returning to my main theme – that of the role of the state in tackling inequality.
The ideological divide between the two parties is clear – where we acknowledge that the state has a role to play in protecting and supporting communities, the Conservatives still instinctively oppose state intervention. To quote James Purnell again, while we are optimistic about what the state can do, the Tory approach is founded on pessimism about the role of government. It’s a very clear choice.
So when we are accused, wrongly, of being obsessed with ‘top down state control’ we can point to the reality that there is nothing top down about our approach because Labour values are rooted in the pursuit of greater opportunities for all in a way the Conservative party simply never will be.
It’s why right wing commentators miss the point when they accuse us of class-war. My politics is not about class-war and it’s not about envy – it’s simply about whether the best people to understand the desires and demands of the vast majority of British people are those whose values are rooted in the interests of all or those who, because of their ideology, have a centre of gravity which lies elsewhere. Through their words and deeds, the Conservatives have demonstrated where their interests lie.
And for them equality of opportunity is meaningful only as a chance outcome of something else – for progressives it is a guiding light. We think it is worth fighting for.
And my final point is this – greater equality, and therefore a better life for the many, not the few, simply cannot be achieved without the state. Not a state which drives remorselessly through all our lives, but a careful hand on the tiller, creating opportunity, protecting the vulnerable, supporting us all in the background.
As Gordon wrote recently in Prospect magazine: ‘Without a strong role for public services and welfare provision, the recession would have brought widespread misery. In these circumstances, the enthusiasm for cutting back the state, so visible in contemporary Conservative thought, is a recipe for economic crisis and social injustice.’
This is the fundamental divide in British politics: the clear choice between a progressive approach which believes that government can make a difference and a Conservative approach which is a prisoner of the past and which we know will fail because we saw it fail with such terrible consequences for our country between 1979 and 1997.
I am proud to have been one of those who contributed to Labour’s rebirth in the 1980s and 1990s. I am even more proud to have served in a New Labour cabinet for twelve and a half years.
But most of all I am proud that through our approach we have started to turn the country around towards greater equality: half a million children and 900,000 pensioners out of poverty, rising educational attainment, crime down by a third and the rise in income inequality constrained. Moreover, in place of prejudice, we have nurtured a more tolerant nation.
When I wrote Policy and Ideology in 1993 I didn’t dare to dream that all or any of this could be achieved. But what Tony and Gordon led was a progressive coalition which changed the course of our nation’s history. New Labour now faces its first serious threat. We must make the danger of going backwards under a Conservative government, and the erosion of the progress we have made towards greater equality, the central focus of the election challenge next year.
Thank you very much.
Check against delivery
[1] T. Blair, Socialism, Fabian Society 1994.
[2] Tawney 1931 (1964) Equlaites 100, quoted Shaw p22.
[3] Tawney 1931 (1964) Equlaites 100, quoted Shaw p22.
[4] Labour Party Constitution.
[5] See, for example, T. Finch & C. Oppenheim (eds), A Future for Politics: Ways to reform our political system (IPPR, 2009).