We are the true guardians of the spirit of 1945
One of the most thought-provoking questions on the state of the Labour party after the general election defeat came from my six-year-old daughter.
That is not explicitly a comment on the rigour of the Labour leadership debate – there has been quite enough written about that, some of it fair and much not. Nor is it intended to highlight the genius of my daughter, which is obvious and need not be dwelt upon.
It is closer to the emperor’s new clothes maxim that it sometimes takes a child’s questioning to expose what ought to be blindingly obvious.
The question my daughter asked was: ‘What did you want to do at the election?’ And then: ‘Why did more people want what the other team wanted to do?’
That it was harder to give a succinct yet convincing answer to the first part of question (to anyone, let alone a six-year-old) brought home just how badly Labour has drifted in recent years.
But more worrying still is the fact that many Labour people consider the second question an irrelevance which exposes those who ask it as slow-witted dupes of an outdated political orthodoxy.
It is just simple maths, they say. Three times more people did not vote Tory as those who did, so all Labour has to do is pick up a few more of the non-voters and, hey presto, we are back in power.
Lovable old Clement Attlee inspiring people to switch from Winston Churchill’s Conservatives to Labour’s promise of a welfare state in 1945 – that kind of thing was all very well in its day, but it is frightfully passé now. For these people, the 76 per cent figure of those who did not vote Tory has already become a symbol by which subscribers to the new politics can identify each other.
And a growing number think that not only should those who voted Tory in 2015 be ignored, they should be despised. Following this argument, anyone asking why the Tories were more popular is not stupid or stuck in the past, he or she is actively wicked. Those seeking to understand why voters turned to the Conservatives are carrying out a devilish plan to steal what is left of the soul of the Labour party.
This is the flawed logic of the cult. If the Labour party is serious about continuing as a force to fight injustice, poverty and lack of opportunity, it must not become entrapped by it. The reason we did not win this year is because the leader was wrong to say Labour could win while stepping away from the instincts that have always guided successful Labour governments. After our crushing defeat, many have constructed ever more elaborate explanations as to why glory is around the corner as long as we keep the faith, or, better still, turn more hardline and take not just a step but a giant leap away from Labour’s winning instincts.
If we want to get back to a position where we can actually stop what the Tories are doing to Britain rather than just criticising it, we need to fully acknowledge how bad things are.
The knowledge that only a quarter of our seats we lost to the Scottish National party have majorities of less than 10,000 and that over two-thirds of our 106 target seats this time saw an increase in the Tory majority, is simply a letdown to our party.
Not only must we recognise how far we have fallen, we must be passionately intolerant of the self-indulgence of the new Bennites masquerading as evangelists of a new politics. Andy Burnham recently said that the Labour party of today would be too scared to build the NHS like the Labour government of 1945. In fact, Messrs Attlee, Bevan, Bevin and Cripps, men who governed through the horror of war and went on to win the peace, would send packing those who espoused the fantasy politics that is seducing many in the aftermath of our latest defeat.
The true guardians of the spirit of 1945 are those who seek to understand how fast the world is changing and change their ideas to meet the new challenges.
Britain’s population is ageing rapidly, its expectations are rising, and the frontiers of medicine are receding as technology advances. In these circumstances, preserving the NHS in aspic would do a gross disservice to the memory of those who created it. Even more importantly, it would let down the millions who will never be able to buy their way to good health and need a Labour government to stand up for them.
All of which ought to return the focus to my daughter’s first question. Or, rather, what we will want to do at the next election. Again, people immersed in the world of politics and political strategy can grossly overcomplicate what in the eyes of the electorate seems pretty simple. Political parties win elections when they have better ideas than their opponents, when they seem more in touch with the state of the world and the lives of their voters than the other lot.
Labour’s leadership election must be only the start of Labour’s renewal of mission. If we are genuinely determined to serve and be a vibrant part of the communities being divided and impoverished by years of Conservative government, we must think afresh how Labour’s historic values of spreading power, opportunity and wealth to all can best be achieved in a world that is so different from 1997, let alone 1964 or 1945.
Embrace that new challenge and we can do so much. We can run rings round a government that ought not to have got the chance of a second term. Carry on as we are and we fail those who need us and continue on a path that may ultimately lead to oblivion, or, at best, shrunken, factional irrelevance. The organisation I am proud to chair, together with many thousands of other Labour members who share our values, will fight and fight again to prevent that happening.
———————————-
John Woodcock MP is chair of Progress
———————————-
It is true that Progress does embody many of the characteristics of a cult:
1. The near worship of a (generally reviled) ex-PM and many of those previously associated with him.
2. The seeming inabilty to comprehend that they are but a small and diminishing faction, within the wider Labour movement, whose former dominance may serve to convince themselves, that they alone hold the answers to all the important questions.
3. Intolerance of those who may take a contrary position. The sowing of fear, uncertainty and doubt, as the favoured tactic, whenever they cannot deliver a convincing alternative vision or a refutation (dictionary definition) of the opposing case.
The Progress position appears to be: that the ‘centre-ground’ is now so narrowly defined and immutable, that any Labour candidate’s unique selling point essentially boils down to: I may not prove to quite as bad as my Conservative opponent! It is unsurprising that the alternative viewpoint and vision, offered by Jeremy Corbyn, has achieved such resonance with Party members, affiliates and registered supporters.
On your website, it states: “Progress, Labour’s new mainstream, aims to promote a radical and progressive politics. Founded in 1996, we are an independent organisation of Labour party members. Through our national and regional events and regular publications, we seek to promote open debate and discussion of progressive ideas and policies.”
If Progress are no longer mainstream, radical or perhaps even progressive then who do they now represent?
One of biggest changes facing Labour today is how to approach progressive taxation. In the past it was – or seemed to be – easier. Chancellors Dalton and Cripps presided over a top rate of 97.5%. Chancellor Healey introduced an 83% rate ( it was 75% under Heath’s Tories). Only levied on the last slice of substantial incomes certainly, but impossible in today’s climate, even Jez only talks about supporting the 50% rate.
Socialists today need to find new ways to create greater equality. Some will look to Marx, I’m more inclined to look to Tawney and Crosland. We need a restatement of our values, and have done for some time. JC’s popularity reflects this paucity.
Jon Cruddas likes his polls but I suspect he will not draw attention to the latest Survation and YouGov ones reported in the Guardian!
http://tinyurl.com/p75qezz
It’s only two polls, so caution is advised but it appears that Jeremy Corbyn is the most popular of the 4 leadership candidates among the general electorate and massively so in London: “This found he was more popular with better-off voters, the young, old, Lib Dems and Ukip voters. While he had 46% of support, Burnham came second on 21%, Cooper was third on 20% and Kendall last at 12%.”
Commenting on today’s polls, a spokesperson for Jeremy Corbyn’s campaign said:
“We do not usually comment on polls, but given the debate about who is best placed to win, it is worth noting the following. The national Survation poll and the YouGov poll of Londoners both point to an emerging, clear fact – that Jeremy Corbyn reaches voters beyond Labour’s existing vote, and that he has a strong electability-factor based on his ability to take on David Cameron and stand up for ordinary people. These polls show the value of leadership – straight-talking politics that give people hope and a real sense that winning with a better kind of politics is possible.”
I’m really disappointed with the reaction of a lot of the party to the concept of ideas other than their own being actually popular? So everyone who supports JC is wrong? And pre-election/election Labour leaders, policy makers were wrong as well. Post election defeat wisdom and now pre leadership election wisdom! So JC is unelectable yet remaining an MP for so long and is the leading candidate for leader?
This does not demonstrate an ability to listen, adapt and feel for what people actually want and believe in.
The faith in your ideals and simplicity and directness in the way you articulate them really makes people trust you (like with SNP/Sturgeon). A majority of voters don’t read the policies or are interested in the detail of policies but they need to hear the party/leader’s ethos and direction which must not be vulnerable to being easily undermined like they were at the election.
The party ethos, direction and values needs to be the core values which the party membership and supporters believe in. They do not have to be old fashioned etc they should be modern and current and derived from the beliefs of the party, not a set of policies purely designed to win some Tory voters or win the next election because that will not be genuinely felt and people will see through that, this is why JC comes across in a way people can relate to – he deeply believes in what he says.
In Westminster Labour should be an opposition which does everything possibly to protect the people who need it, highlight the wrongs and consequences. At a local level Labour councils, councillors and members should be doing good in their communities in an obvious and organised way which actually demonstrates what labour stands for and shows labour are not a protest party but a party of action and a socially active movement. People will see the true value of a Labour movement right in their communities. Don’t be a party which tells people how they should think or what they think is wrong, be a party which provides help and care to people.
It’s late and I may be rambling but I really hope the labour party becomes stronger rather than weaker after the leadership contest.
Hear hear. It’s late but you’re anything but rambling. Nail hit squarely on head. Self-serving career politicians are not what makes the heart of the Labour Party beat, they’re what maintains the growing inequality in the UK. Seeing and hearing somebody espouse the values of equality, integrity and honesty – the ethos you’re talking about – is what’s making people flock to the Labour Party right now.
Thanks Marc. Nice to know it’s not just me, there may be hope after all. I agree with your sentiments.
Having read this article three times I can’t find any content, just the usual mud slinging and ludicrous rewriting of history. Progressing backwards I ‘m afraid
“Embrace that new challenge and we can do so much. We
can run rings round a government that ought not to have got the chance
of a second term. Carry on as we are and we fail those who need us and
continue on a path that may ultimately lead to oblivion, or, at best,
shrunken, factional irrelevance. The organisation I am proud to chair,
together with many thousands of other Labour members who share our
values, will fight and fight again to prevent that happening.”
Unfortunately you do not seem to be able to run rings round the Government! In your efforts to differentiate yourselves from the Tories you have become part of the problem. Did you watch your candidates “open letter” video? If you do not understand that this is the sort of vacuous drivel created by some media type that is driving people away from politics and particularly the Labour Party.
You claim to be representative of the mainstream of the Labour Party but it appears that this might only be true of MP’s. Do you not understand that a lot of folks out there do not see much difference between your views and those of the Tories, and all your efforts appear to be offering pretty much the same to most voters. I think some of your representatives have shown how they value democracy now that they are clear that the “Progress” candidate is going to be “annihilated” in the election.
Corbyn has won hearts and minds because he answers questions clearly and does not waffle without ever saying anything meaningful, is above the personal attacks and most importantly (and this is the bit you do not seem to have offered or had the understanding to offer) he is willing and wanting to offer an alternative to Austerity and other Tory policies. You have completely misunderstood just how unattractive your narrative has become and appear devoid of meaningful alternatives other than we wont cut quite as much.
My perception is that you have sold your souls to get power to the point at which I wonder what is left if you were to win.
My perception is that you have sold your souls to get power to the point at which I wonder what is left if you were to win.< Perfect
Tony Blair’s latest diktat:
http://tinyurl.com/pf2zncz