Those first heady weeks of May 1997 were a time when all seemed possible for a new Labour government, given
a massive mandate. Yet even back then, behind the smiles, was great trepidation. Few of us had any inside knowledge of government, and much had changed during the long, dark, eighteen years of Tory hegemony.
Nevertheless, there was an initial bold move when the Chancellor granted the Bank of England its independence. Each of us will decide for ourselves whether or not it was
the right move. What cannot be denied was that it was extremely successful in ensuring that the markets did not react negatively to the return of an untried Labour government.
Over the course of time, there were to be other triumphs of which any Labour government would have been proud. The very first minimum wage was a socially progressive move, vital to those on the bottom of the wage scale. The Working Families’ Tax Credit was
a boost for others nearer the margins
of economic activity.
There was major constitutional reform. The long-cherished devolution for Scotland and Wales was an early success. The first stage in the reform
of the House of Lords was universally welcomed – except by redundant hereditary peers.
Finally, due to a healthy economy, and despite recession elsewhere and
the aftermath of 11 September, unprecedented amounts of money have been committed to our public services – health, education, transport – on a scale that previous Labour governments could never have dreamed about.
Why then, should there be any unease? Did not the electorate give
us another full term with another landslide? Are we not now what Harold Wilson once aspired for us to be –
‘the natural party of government’?
Both the anecdotal and the psephological evidence suggests that much of the government’s support remains rather shallow. Detestation of the Tories remains a prime factor in people’s voting rather than love of Labour. Worryingly, the trend to lower turnouts seems to be strengthening. That, of course, might be attributed to complacency about a government with which voters are content. On the other hand, it may well be a sign of cynicism which says that ‘you are all the same’.
We are not. The personal venality and corruption within the Major government was tangible. Attempts to make similar mud stick to the Blair government have failed. What has stuck, however, is a reputation for spin, and,
in some areas, for mendacity.
It was absolutely essential that in
the campaigning years – and in the first years of government – we should value presentation very highly indeed. However, that can be no substitute for delivery – hence, Tony’s assertion that this second term of office must be about delivery. He is absolutely right.
Yet old habits die hard, and the spin remains an early port of call for ministers and advisers. They must realise that, five years on, they will not be judged on cash-laden promises, but on whether or not trains are running, operations are performed, and children are taught. Policing of the media in the name of presentation will not replace policing of our streets in the people’s priorities. That is why the clarion call now is ‘delivery, delivery, delivery’. The fundamentals are in place; we must build upon them.
Peter Kilfoyle is MP for Liverpool Walton
In the 20th century the Labour
Party seemed to be the weak link
in European socialism and social democracy. Today, there are good grounds to believe that we will make
a more effective contribution in this century. On tax and spending, public services, social policy and our international role, the government is setting the political agenda rather than fighting on Conservative ground.
Since 1994 Labour’s renewal has been based on five themes. First, steadfast values, but innovative means to achieve their delivery. Second, the development of a ‘liberal socialism’ – a social democratic commitment to social justice through collective action enriched by a renewed commitment to individual freedom. Third, ideas for wealth creation, the ‘politics of production’, with a commitment to fair outcomes, the ‘politics of distribution’. Fourth, the redefinition of territory held
by the right – for example on law and
order and defence – for progressive ends. And, finally, the engagement with dynamic and emerging currents in British thought and society, from communitarianism to environmentalism.
Of course, not everything has gone right. Our core narrative, concerning the social and economic requirements for full development of human potential, has been occluded by the pell-mell of activity. The relationship of government to its supporters has been free
of the fratricidal negativism of the 1970s,
but a happy synthesis of movement and leadership has not yet been achieved. And
we need to do a better job at building up
the stakeholders in Labour’s project.
We have a big agenda for this parliament. But it is never too early to start thinking about the forward agenda. Britain remains a country scarred by divisions of class – and those divisions stretch between generations. Labour’s challenge is to tackle existing inequalities and promote social mobility.
This is one reason for the continuing importance of education. It is a motor of social and economic advance, and a key
issue for electoral mobilisation.
Second, Britain remains stubbornly under-productive. Our economy is regionally and sectorally unbalanced. Labour’s challenge is to give each region the tools to develop
a distinctive industrial strategy, and to develop national sectoral strengths from pharmaceuticals to digital media.
Third, Britain remains bedeviled by centralisation and weak local government, despite the success of devolution. We need to empower local government to change communities.
Fourth, insecurity today brackets together issues of crime, public services, personal finance, identity and foreign policy. This is a powerful cocktail, exploited by
the right in Italy and Austria, and one which the left must define and address on its own terms.
Finally, the future of the environment
is not just a source of fear; it is also the basis of idealism about the future, and Labour needs to stand up as the responsible party ready to protect the planet.
The foundations of social democratic power fifty years ago were the national state, a relatively homogenous working class base and a benign international framework. Yet each has been shattered. We have started to rebuild the state’s capacity to steer social
and economic change. We have come to electoral terms with changing class structures. Now we need to factor international action into domestic politics, as the EU is challenged to move beyond congratulating itself for preventing war to helping build a prosperous peace.
New Labour now needs to define
itself positively not negatively, for what it
is for, not for what it is against. Our story
is essentially a simple one – about the development of civic and social institutions that empower and enrich the lives of the large majority of people who depend on what we do together for their personal freedom. It is up to us to tap into the emerging currents of British life, and gain strength from them. There are simply no prizes for standing still – or standing on
the side.
David Miliband is MP for South Shields