The new coalition has ushered in a new political cliché. Talk of a ‘new politics’ will dominate the minds of the commentariat for some time. The ‘new politics’ will oscillate between being a dazzling success to a miserable flop, varying with the fortunes of the government. It will probably be a while before we have a clear idea of whether the coalition represents a lasting change or a short-lived back-room deal.
Meanwhile it would be foolish for Labour to write off the government and just sit back and wait for its premature demise. That is not to say that the current circumstances are not without opportunity. The Thatcher-Reagan consensus that has dominated politics for most of the past three decades is fragmenting, and there is a great deal of new thinking that we can draw on. We have the opportunity to occupy the political centre ground and also to shift it. But to achieve this we also need to examine our approach to politics itself.
First of all, any new Labour leader must take a firm line on any hint of corruption. It is not entirely surprising that some have succumbed to temptation after such a long period in power. But one of the things that the party absolutely has to do in order to regain the trust of the British people is to ruthlessly root out any trace of impropriety or sleaze. The Tories, with their duck islands and moats, with Lord Ashcroft and the yachts of Russian billionaires, have never fully dealt with the sleaze that contributed to their downfall, and they have still not got the message. This will yet return to haunt them. We must get the message.
We also need to reach a clear position on electoral reform. Some of our leaders experienced an apparently Damascene conversion to the cause in the days after the general election and we now need to do our utmost to turn this into a real commitment. Electoral reform is not a bone to throw at the Lib Dems when we think we might need them, something we can conveniently forget about when it no longer suits us. In the current system elections are won and lost in Labour-Tory marginal seats. In order to win a majority we need to chase a relatively small group of swing voters. So political debate is conducted largely for the benefit of this small group, and the political consensus is formed in this small space. This is why we have been outmanoeuvred on the left by the Liberal Democrats at times, and why we sometimes might feel trapped into policies that are well to the right of where the centre ground ought to belong. Any serious attempt to realign the left in British politics needs to include a serious debate on electoral reform. Despite recent events, there is still a progressive majority in Britain, a majority that we should harness to promote the kind of politics that we believe in.
And a key area that we need to focus on is the appallingly poor participation of women in British politics. That the new cabinet does not count more women than its predecessor is not a compliment. There are only 142 women in the new parliament, just under 22 per cent of the total. That puts us behind most of Europe. We’re also behind South Africa, Angola, Argentina, Uganda, Tunisia, Iraq, Pakistan and the United Arab Emirates, to name a few countries. In opposition there is little Labour can do to improve the situation across the board. But I hope that the next leader takes a serious look at how we can dramatically increase the role women play in our party. In Spain José Luis Rodriguez Zapatero presides over a cabinet which includes more women than men; there was an equal balance in his first government. Imagine a Labour prime minister leading a cabinet with equal numbers of men and women. Now that really would be a ‘new politics.’
yes and what six disabled people in all parties sitting as MP’s, and you only employ 1.75% of disabled people within Parliament, but hell so long as we have more women thats OK then….
real New labour…
Dear Robert, I certainly don’t think that it’s OK that there are not more disabled people in parliament, or that there is so little diversity all around in the Commons. There are many groups of people, with varied experiences of life, whose talents are excluded from political life. But women constitute around half the population, and it seems a logical place to start. This is not going to be easy, to go beyond tokenism, to achieve real progress. But the results should be worth it. There is evidence from around the world that increasing women’s participation in politics tends to lead to more openness all around in public life. Though you say ‘real New Labour’, New Labour’s track record here does leave something to be desired…
less than 5% of the population went to Public Schools. 55% of MPs went to public school – and nearly all the Cabinet. Whilst were casting around for unrepresented sectors of society, lets not forget the working class. The working class that used to be well represented in the Labour PLP – unti we made the system “fairer” to tke the power from the Trade Unions and give it to the Lawyers and “proffesional” politicians who now make up the majority of the PLP.
Tanweer,
The issues of ‘electoral reform’ and ‘women MPs’ may be of utmost importance to you yet I fear they have little relevance to the vast majority of voters when it comes to electing their local MP. I am sure that voters are less concerned about the sex of their MP, whether they are gay or straight, disabled or not or even public or state educated, and more interested about how they will be a voice for them, address their concerns and improve their lives and that of the community. I doubt if many people refused to vote for a candidate because they were female (or, for that matter, only voted for them because they were female).
Similarly, ‘electoral reform’ (i.e. a changed voting system which allows minor parties to soak up peripheral voters) is of no consequence to the electorate (unless, of course, they support a party that is lying a poor third locally and/or nationally).
Even your point about ‘political corruption’ seems to have less influence on the electorate than the media hoped or expected. Perhaps the increased voting turnout would suggest that those who voted did not hold such ‘black and white’ views on MPs expenses. Perhaps they were more mature in the assessment of the complexities of being an MP than either the self-flagellating politicians or the bear-baiting media. What you see as a ‘betrayal of public trust’ I see as a ‘typically loose enactment of any profession’s expenses system’.