In his article in May’s Progress magazine, Graeme Cooke talked about the ‘sense of place… the value of ordinary life and common institutions that make us human’.
This touches on one of the issues I raised at #PPW11 at the excellent session led by Liam Byrne. Many of these ‘common institutions’, like pubs, post offices, independent shops, petrol stations and high street banks, have been disappearing from our neighbourhoods in recent years largely because of market forces and behavioural change driven by technology (eg people emailing rather than sending traditional snail mail). Now we’re seeing libraries, day centres, youth clubs and buses also disappear, this time as a consequence of local government cuts. These totems of ‘ordinary life’ are fading away.
Change has always been with us but the rapid pace of modern change is undermining the social bonds that hold communities together and community cohesion is much harder to achieve if the ‘glue’ starts to dissolve. The social and psychological impact of this is anxiety, insecurity, suspicion of outsiders, and negative effects on crime, health, and educational attainment. Attachment to place and community is an important aspect of what defines us all as human beings and our environment has an impact on our wellbeing.
Part of the critique of ‘Blue Labour’ is based on class and the charge that it is chasing after a declining demographic with conservative values that are inimical to the progressive left. I am a councillor in Cambridge where the possibility of a Tesco convenience store opening in a road with lots of independent shops, provoked a highly active local campaign, predominately middle-class, the kind of voters that Labour needs to win back in places like Cambridge where we lost them to the Liberal Democrats in 2005. They are not ‘Blue Labour’ by any stretch of the imagination and they would not agree that their campaign to preserve the character of the road was in any way reactionary or conservative. Instead, their desire to protect the diverse and eclectic nature of their neighbourhood could easily be explained in progressive, liberal terms. They saw themselves as resisting the impersonal and all-consuming nature of multinational business, dislocated from any sense of place, which if left unchecked would turn all of our town and village centres into drab clones. (They lost by the way and now Sainsbury’s also wants to open a store on the same road).
The people protesting about bus service cuts in Cambridgeshire are mostly poorer and elderly by comparison. They depend on public transport to avoid isolation and imprisonment not just in rural villages but also within the city of Cambridge as well. They are a different demographic from the anti-Tesco crowd but they are articulating the same anxiety. Similarly, the group trying to save their local library in the north of Cambridge is very different from the library campaign in my own, more affluent neighbourhood but they both share the same objective of saving a vital community service.
My contention is that consciously or unconsciously most people care about their neighbourhoods and all are affected in some way by the loss of social hubs like post offices, libraries, and bus services not just because of their practical utility but also because of their symbolic and psychological value as the tendons that hold society together and make it function as a body politic. These issues cut across class boundaries and if Labour is to succeed electorally it needs to be a party that appeals to the whole country and across all socioeconomic groups. We can do this by incorporating the concept of ‘human geography’ into our policy thinking.
We could turn our backs on disappearing community assets and say that this is ‘progress’ driven by forces over which we have no control; or we can recognise their social value and place the idea of ‘social security’ at the heart of our philosophy. ‘Social security’ should no longer mean welfare and benefits but the concept of being physically and psychologically secure in our environment and in our status relative to others. We can draw on our heritage of co-operatives and friendly societies to find new ways of supporting communities by, for example, expanding the use of social impact bonds to raise finance to sustain local institutions, supported by re-energised and re-empowered local government working in partnership with the private sector.
This is not reactionary conservatism, it’s not Old Labour, New Labour, or Blue Labour; it’s inclusive, protective Labour; a shield against the negative effects of powerful social forces and impersonal multinationals which can move to any location on the globe at the drop of a hat. Reckless, unchecked ‘progress’ built on crumbling institutions is a recipe for social chaos and risks greater inequality. First we need the firm foundations of socially and psychologically secure neighbourhoods and communities, built around common institutions, before we can inspire all of our citizens to aspire to a better future.
Labour should no longer be the party of one class or another or even a party that wins elections by building temporary, fleeting alliances across class divisions such as they might still exist. We should stop talking about class and start talking about people. We should be a party that understands the common needs of all people: trust, neighbourhood, and security allied to equality, freedom, and progress.