Certainly there is evidence to suggest that centre-left parties are in difficulty across the continent, with recent electoral defeats in the Netherlands, the UK and Sweden. Progressives are in opposition in all the major countries with the exception of Spain, where the PSOE is clinging to power in conditions of great economic adversity. It would be all too easy to succumb to electoral pessimism and believe that we are in for a period of centre-right hegemony.
Douglas Alexander suggested that the age of austerity could usher in a period of great political turbulence as electorates turn against incumbent governments across the EU. Yet there is no guarantee that the centre-left will be the immediate beneficiary of such dissatisfaction. Populists and the far-right might, by adopting ‘a plague on all your houses’ stance, be able to capitalise on the anger and resentment expressed by those whose living standards are under pressure.
The challenge for Labour is to devise a new and compelling prospectus for the electorate. This has to be both optimistic (offering growth and prosperity) and credible (recognising that reducing the deficit will remain a priority for the immediate future). Far from viewing the period of Labour government as a series of missed opportunities, we should celebrate the record at the same time as we forge a new political settlement for today’s conditions. New Labour, with its message of economic dynamism and social justice was the right approach in the 1990s, but the challenges of an integrating global economy demand a new politics of production, with the state and the market working together. Robust opposition to the coalition is a necessary but insufficient condition for electoral victory.
In endorsing this analysis, Roger Liddle responded to Alexander by observing that New Labour sometimes seemed over-enthusiastic in its embrace of markets. Part of the process of renewal requires that we become more critical of globalisation. More specifically, it has to be recognised that there are winners and losers and too often in the recent past social democrats have failed to pay enough attention to those adversely affected – and have been seen as representing winners, especially in the public sector. Simply focusing on the poor and low paid is unlikely to produce the broad coalition needed for victory. There must be a new theme that draws together the threads of the progressive story into a coherent narrative. Developing a distinctively social democratic notion of sustainable growth could offer a winning formula, allowing Labour to focus once more on school standards, improving the life chances of the unskilled, the necessity of pension reform (to cope with demographic pressures) and the demand for more cooperation across the EU (to deal with climate change and the regulation of the banks). In order to win social democrats must be robust and aggressive in addressing these real challenges.
Will Straw explored whether the left in Europe could learn anything from recent experience in the USA and identified four critical points of both similarity and difference. First, the Democrats are not social democrats and have rather different instincts from those on the left in Europe. Second, contrary to recent experience here (and in the US midterms) there is every sign that Barack Obama will be re-elected in 2012. Third, when the Democrats controlled Congress they failed to deliver on Obama’s legislative priorities – the healthcare bill was less than the president wanted, the new architecture of financial regulation was diluted, the stimulus package was probably too small (and proved unpopular) and finding resources for the ambitious innovation agenda identified in the State of the Union address will be problematic. And finally, the president will find it hard to legislate and hard to spend money until the composition of Congress changes.
There is a strong case for saying that Labour is better positioned than we might think to capitalise on the coalition’s difficulties. This is hardly 1981. The party is united, a comprehensive policy review is progressing well and there is both a healthy respect for New Labour’s achievements and a refreshing willingness to embrace new thinking to rebuild our electoral coalition. The emphasis on a new politics of production (including an active industrial policy) and on work as a political issue (social democracy does not stop when a worker crosses their employer’s threshold) are both important new points of departure. All the speakers recognised that a critique of finance-driven capitalism has to be matched by a social democratic story about good business. Moreover, all the participants agreed that the national process of renewal will proceed more smoothly if the European centre-left exchanges ideas and experiences.
Despite the bleak electoral landscape in Europe there is every reason to believe that a social democratic resurgence is possible if Labour provides an effective opposition, anticipates the challenges the country may face at the time of the next election, rebuilds its economic credibility and offers a compelling story about how to sustain growth, jobs and prosperity in a more competitive world.
aaaaahhhhh look , Clegg’s gone all black tie.
I think the biggest challenges facing the Social Democrats is that they were and became something other than was painted on the tin. The idea that during their time an arrival of a “political elite” could occur is truly amazing. I remember attending a Fabian meeting in Westminster (I am no longer a Fabian) a back bench Labour MP talking about the elites in Europe as though it was normative and plainly acceptable. The discussion was about Europe. The whole point as far as I am concerned in Social Democracy/Democratic Socialism to me is a very simple one. It exists as the ultimate insurance policy for when things go wrong. Dealing with the rough edges of the market, protecting people from harm via healthcare, empowering people by giving the vast majority good vocational skills for both public and private sectors, bringing dignity to the elderly, and also building up and diversifying our respective economies by increasing competition (which assists both the market, the service user, and where relevant the public sector to when tasked to provide a service for Governmnet). Additionally these Governments were expected to Govern. To Govern. To Lead. Not to be led. To regulate in an objective and even handed manner to create as fair a market environment as possible, to rule the public sector responibly by ensuring that it is protected and defended by good management and undogmatic goals. Once public sector services decline, either due to deliberate or incidental reasons the argument for the private sector to take over is made. Despite the fact in some areas the private sector cannot, with the greatest respect manage some services responsibly due to the economic pressures placed upon them. Life in the market is tough. Social Democracy has to change, a new narrative is required, one that is master of understanding the full range of options between those services best provided by the State (locally or Nationally), those services best run by the private sector in whatever forms are most diverse. This must be the case because the battlefield for the Left and the Center has changed. We know that with the environmental concerns we have that decentralisation is very important for many, many reasons, we know that the best sewrvice provision is defined by the experience of the majority of users, we live in an age where communication and technology is way ahead of our outdated politics. The ball game has changed completely and the first Parties in Europe to the prize will be the ones that become the “natural” leaders in power for the next century. The communication enables us, as we are seeing with the way in which polling and think-tanks focus on surveys, and the way certain companies use technology to better understand their customers, to truly empower citizens in a way never before done. This is actually great news for Social Democracy as the means by which people can express themselves, or take part in matters or at the very least, tick a few boxes online can increase participation in Democracies. Of course with this are dangers to in terms of how an argument is presented and with the context by which information is relayed, so the more open the process the better it will be. As we found with Wikileaks, the narrowing of boundaries with information in this age as well as the future will be incredibly difficult and additionally the way in which elected reps in Europe and elsewhere behave will have to change as well as the ability to withold/blind people with academic posturing to hide motive will become increasingly difficult especially as people can easily check the voting record etc of their reps. To fight this tide is vain, to accept it and use it for the best of reasons will reward the ones employing it.
“well p’raps he’s going to a funeral”, “oh yeah,who for” , “whodyafink” .