The central issue for the Labour party is how it can return to power in 2015. Liam Byrne MP should be warmly congratulated for his insightful – and at times sobering – analysis in his new Progress pamphlet, The new centre-ground: how can progressives win a new majority? Byrne argues that we must forge a new path towards greater political self-confidence to win the support of voters. Our country has changed and so we must change with it. The challenge is to win over new voters without losing our clear sense of identify and purpose.
The problem of insecurity
We must first identify the central issues that most concern voters and shape a compelling vision of how they are best addressed. It is tempting to provide lists drawn up from media headlines, but there is one particular issue that speaks to them all. This is the issue of social and political insecurity.
The problem of insecurity will be the defining issue for the 2015 election. Citizens face this problem across a wide array of issues. People have insecurity about finding new employment or remaining in work. They face insecurity concerning housing both in entering the housing market and anxiety about falling house prices. There is insecurity in other areas as well, such as higher education. Record numbers of students are choosing to avoid studying at university in light of government policies permitting annual fees to rise to £9,000.
Public insecurity about employment, housing, and other issues feed into other insecurities, such as immigration. It is public insecurity about their future and the lack of opportunities that contributes to concerns about immigration. Advocates of greater border control express not racism or xenophobia, but instead a general insecurity about existing pressures on present circumstances and a lack of belief in future opportunities. The best way to tackle immigration concerns is to give the public hope and dispel their fears for the future of this country. Mere border restrictions alone will not meet this demand.
The politics of fear
One way to approach the public’s insecurity about the issues of most concern is through a politics of fear. This is the approach of the Tory-led coalition government. The politics of fear addresses insecurity by feeding it and building obstacles. Optimism is met with pessimism and even cynicism. This view of politics argues that the best way to speak to public concerns about job insecurity and wealth creation is turn neighbour against neighbour.
The politics of fear is a politics of us against them where the road to prosperity is to be found on removing needed benefits and cutting public services. Obstacles are built in closing programmes that offer fresh starts and a helping hand along with a closed door to new economic migrants who wish to make a better life in Britain. We’re not all in this together. We’re all in this on our own. This is the politics that the coalition believes is best for Britain.
The politics of hope
Labour is about an alternative: the politics of hope. This is the politics of optimism and self-confidence eloquently addressed by Byrne.
The politics of hope says that the future is not in creating obstacles, but opportunities for growth. Hope is built through solidarity and a sense of community. It is an irony of the modern condition that as our world becomes ever more connected we lose our connections with each other. Our bonds are many, but their strength has become weak. The politics of hope is a politics that says we are in this together. What is the best outcome for us and not only for a select favoured few?
The politics of hope is not about less, but about different. Fiscal responsibility is correctly the new religion. But building economic confidence must be more than a view about what will be cut, but also a vision for what we want to create. We must deliver public services for less without delivering less. This calls for fresh thinking about the services the public most want and new ways of doing old things.
The government’s politics of fear looks to the future as an event to be dreaded and endured. Our politics of hope looks to the future as a challenge to be embraced for its opportunities and potential promise.
Labour 2015
Liam Byrne rightly seizes the need to refocus our efforts on addressing the problem of public insecurity as the defining issue for 2015. The party that wins the public over to its vision for the future will win the election. The government offers no vision of a future worth waiting for. Labour has long been the party of opportunities for all and an optimism about the future of this country.
It is time Labour renewed its mission as the party of aspiration built upon a politics of hope. We have a vision to bring the country together and not pull it apart. We also have a determination to ensure that all citizens look confidently to the future and that their insecurities about jobs, housing, immigration, and other matters can be addressed without fanning the flames of cynicism and despair.
Together, we must win over the public to our vision of hope for the future to win the battle for Britain in 2015.
—————————————————————————————
Dr Thom Brooks lectures in political and legal philosophy at Newcastle University. His website is thombrooks.info and he tweets at @thom_brooks
—————————————————————————————
“The best way to tackle immigration concerns is to give the public hope and dispel their fears for the future of this country.” For me the best way to tackle immigration concerns is to cut immigration back to only cases where it is absolutely necessary. That way the indigenous population don’t have to fear becoming strangers in their own land. You lefties may struggle to compute the last statement but it is a real fear whispered amongst those in the not too fluffy areas with a high migrant population as the very real white flight highlights.
I argue that insecurity is the defining issue for the 2015 general election. Your comments support this view. The “fear” that some have about the future of this country is an indication of the insecurity and vulnerability that many people share. The question is how best to respond. Either we play to public fears or we speak to their aspirations. The former accepts the status quo, but the latter does not. We must offer hope where there is fear. It is time we reclaimed our belief that things can only get better and reject the despair fed to us daily by a dejected coalition government that lacks a vision and competence. Britain deserves better. It deserves Labour.
This does rather assume there’ll actually be an election in 2015. Consider, there’s no opposition from Labour and the House of Lords have just declared themselves doormats. This leaves the Coalition in the enviable position of being pretty much able to make the laws they like. So, why not simply do away with those pesky elections, absorb a handful of neoliberals (both Eds & friends) from Labour into the Coalition and simply announce it to the public as a fait accompli? Think I’m joking? What’s to stop them?
Labour needs to open its eyes to the huge distress that their introduction of the Employment Support Allowance and their engagement of the loathsome ATOS Healthcare, has caused to the sick and disabled to Britain. And then it needs to apologise and help extinguish the fire-storm that has set the poor (and just about everybody else) at the throats of the sick and disabled.
Startling omission of fear of crime and feel the university professors emphasis on higher education and university fees in favour of it should give real concern, especialyl when advising the party on which direction it should take.
I have argued that insecurity is the defining issue for 2015. I believe the main emphasis is on the economy, including jobs and housing. But insecurity is not confined to these issues alone and it extends to other issues as well, including higher education fees and criminal justice.
So I think we agree. In fact, I am particularly interested in criminal justice and have a new book out, entitled *Punishment*, this spring. See here: http://www.routledge.com/books/details/9780415431828/
Does the book in any way mention the failure to fulfil Community Safety Strategy commitments?
It is a wide ranging study looking at a variety of perspectives with any number of recommendations for how criminal justice may be improved.
Yes I get that but does it in any way mention Community Safety Strategies. For example them failing and if their key objectives were completed in full criminal justice would be improved?
Is the idea that the problem with Community Safety Strategy should be implemented *better* (rather than *not at all*)? I’d agree with that and my book defends a new approach to punishment that builds off of restorative justice.
wonder if there is any relationship between ,no ,what is the relationship,no ,how can one better see the relationship between the hiked oil price by speculators and those about to chuck 100bn . on the firestorm
that is Greece, for starters ?