Labour loves its history. But does it learn from it? Unlike the much older Tory party which puts its prime ministers on a pedestal – literally so in the case of Margaret Thatcher in the members’ lobby of the House of Commons – Labour prefers to see its past leaders as having feet of clay.
Clement Attlee was derided by the left between 1945 and 1951 and mocked by Bevanites in the 1950s until he stood down in 1955. Harold Wilson, Michael Foot, Jim Callaghan and Neil Kinnock have always had more detractors than admirers. John Smith’s early death avoided the regular rubbishing his predecessors suffered. Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, despite presiding – at least up to the bankers’ recession of 2008 – over a decade of solid economic growth, constitutional reform, social justice measures and actions to promote liberal tolerance, are still excoriated by many on the left.
Labour’s self-destructive demon has left the party without the organic self-confidence to be an enduring party of government. Even after Labour’s third consecutive win in 2005, ministers were still pinching themselves, not quite sure they were in power.
Labour has plenty of histories of its years in government. But has the time come to examine with the same historical intensity Labour’s periods of opposition? In 1931, 1951 and by 1981 Labour went into opposition and was stuck there for a decade or longer. The 1930s, the 1950s and the 1980s were Labour’s lost decades. Why? With a century of history to examine, can Labour historians start to produce a theory of Labour-in-opposition that connects the three eras spanning the 1930s to the 1980s?
Some obvious answers present themselves. In the 1930s, Labour thought the answer to the rise of fascism was to support petitions calling for peace. Labour walked the road to Wigan Pier but did not notice the rise of a new suburban, car-owning, house-buying Britain in the south and Midlands which was uninterested in appeals to socialism.
In the 1950s, Labour opposed the creation of commercial television, premium bonds and betting shops. No to Corrie and no to a flutter pleased bishops and the fellows of All Souls. But was that where the great British public was? In the 1980s it was the same story over moving the state out of economic ownership or making Britain a serious European player.
Now some of the best practising historians of Labour, led by Professor Andrew Gamble, will come together with witnesses from these key eras like David Owen, Polly Toynbee and Gerald Kaufman at the first ever major conference to discuss Labour’s lost decades. Called 31-51-81 Why Labour Stayed in Opposition, the event takes place in Rotherham on Saturday 19 March 2011. It is based on the proposition that the best way for Labour to avoid the errors of its lost decades is to examine them calmly as history. A read-across to current times may be unavoidable, but Labour history is history, not a weapon to be used in today’s debates.
Labour’s lost decade, 1997 – 2010, when it was in power for its longest ever period, and did sod all to change the balance of wealth and power in this Country. The Tory Libreral coalition have come up with more radical proposals to attack workers in 12 months, than the positive policies of the Labour Party in 13 years. The rich got richer, and poverty increased, and we did nothing. To get elected we have to show working people that we will benefit them – not just carry on privatising and imperialist invasions.