The Progress Purple Papers tour made its way to the University of East Anglia in Norwich last week to discuss the topic of ‘Real change for Britain: what should Labour’s priorities for government be?’, hosted by former Suffolk police and crime commissioner candidate Jane Basham.
But after the opening 10 minutes of panellist Steve Van Riel ‘playing Eeyore’ (in the words of Stella Creasy, also on the panel), thoughts quickly shifted to how we could win over the public to the tough sell we face. Steve spelled out the stark problems a Labour government would face: interest payments on UK debt will stand at 88 per cent of the education budget by the time of the next election, and come alongside ballooning costs in healthcare, childcare and social care. With these dilemmas, he emphasised that going into the next election we need to either work out how we’re going to credibly pay for increased spending, or start now to build a mandate for reform.
‘The more we believe Ed Miliband can win the next election, the harder we have to work to tackle these difficult questions.’
As Steve spoke it was easy to see parallels with François Hollande across the English Channel. Hollande faced problems less severe than those in the UK, failed to ready the ground for the inevitable solutions to them by campaigning on a vague oppositional platform, and is now reaping the rewards with the lowest approval ratings in French history just a year into his term. Labour has two nightmare scenarios, only one of which has been getting much focus so far. The obvious one is that we lose in 2015. The one potentially even worse is a repeat of 1974: that we win narrowly on a disingenuous mandate and are put out for a generation after. The latter scenario needs just as much work to be averted.
Potential solutions were laid out by Stella Creasy and fellow panellist, prospective parliamentary candidate for Norwich North Jess Asato. Keeping with the novel theme of the evening, Stella claimed the mantle of Tigger, setting out an expansive, holistic vision of how a Labour government in 2015 should govern. Pinpointing that by 2050 over-65s will make up over a quarter of the population, Stella stated that tackling a problem with implications far beyond just social care would need a radical approach. Using the democratic power of ‘big data’ and ensuring a social return on all investment through zero-budgeting were two proposals highlighted, and Stella warned against solutions imposed on communities rather than driven by them. ‘All too often on the left we think we are fighting for the poorest, but we just end up patronising them.’
Jess duly assigned herself Winnie the Pooh and took a more conventional line than Stella’s on how Labour ought to govern, attacking the bedroom tax, calling for regional banking, and a rural manifesto from the Labour party (‘we’re not all Tories out here …’), but did agree with Stella that Labour should look more towards local sources for policy ideas rather than Whitehall.
Disagreement came in the Q&A session, with political disenchantment (both among the general public and youth), and how to deal with the rising spectre of UKIP being among issues that came up. Steve dismissed UKIP as only a threat to the Conservatives, but Jess warned against complacency, pointing to the resonance that UKIP were having with some traditional Labour voters, particularly in the North where UKIP don’t have the brand damage that have ruled out the Tories and the Lib Dems as credible alternatives. Jess suggested that Labour should expose UKIP myths on the doorstep, but Stella argued against this, saying we shouldn’t allow UKIP to frame the debate, and claimed we can only win back these voters with an overall positive alternative message of hope.
Pointing out that 40 per cent of non-voters in 2010 were members of campaigning organisations, Stella claimed that non-voters do care about their communities, but just don’t see what political parties offer to them. On the solution, she railed against
‘the #LabourDoorstep and ContactCreator culture’
saying it made campaigning more about what Labour got out of it than what we did for our local areas, proposing community organising as the solution to fighting disillusionment on the doorstep. Jess countered by pointing out the morale boost that #labourdoorstep gives to our activists and that voter ID remains vital to ensuring Labour candidates get elected.
The panel on the evening were in unanimous agreement that the choices facing a Labour government would be difficult, and would require radical solutions and a break from the past. However, there was a clear divide on how we get there. Stella’s grassroots approach to campaigning has worked spectacularly both in Walthamstow and with her celebrated campaign against payday lenders, but the question stands over how easily this could be replicated nationwide and whether Labour would be able to wean itself off ContactCreator – or whether it even should. Norwich, at least, has had success using new campaigning techniques in local elections, with recent campaigns against cuts to fire and ambulance services being combined on the doorstep with traditional voter ID to good effect. My gut feeling is that though the party has a lot to learn from Stella’s community organisation model, the Tigger approach may be a little too overconfident in the results it can deliver without the bread and butter of voter ID.
—————————————————————————————
Tyron Wilson is a member of Progress. He tweets @TyronWilson
We need more money to fund all this, there is plenty about…Get all the taxes paid, then add a premium tax on business and super rich…call it an ‘investment tax’ and use it for education, jobs, training etc….for the future prosperity and sustainability of the country. If they don’t want to pay it, then their short termism will be revealed and their greed and self interest exposed.
I think you might have missed the bit where I said we didn’t want to just copy Hollande.
The thing is, decades of wealth t/f to a minority at the top continues unabated. Many are totally fed up with this…there is more than enough money there…the key is to find a way to reverse the trend and channel it back down again…even if it is under the banner of a temporary measure. Cyprus showed what can be done, and I am not against a measure like that. Labour is floundering around without anything dynamic or radical to say…while the vast majority feeling the backlash of Tory dogma are screaming out for new ideas and for justice and fairness in wealth distribution. Things like a 10p tax rate are nonsense, no one cares about piddly stuff like that…radical ideas for a fairer society are what is wanted..and that means no more mutli million pound pay offs, bonuses, tax dodging and offshore tax evasion…Who else will stand up for the working class if not Labour…
Exactly. There’s plenty of assets and wealth about, it’s just mostly in the grasp of a select few.
I don’t understand how some people can view being fair and trying to make sure everybody is looked after as ‘extreme’, ‘ridiculous’ and ‘unrealistic’ (some of the many things I’ve seen compassion being labelled as.)
Money is a system of control and manipulation. That’s not even a ‘leftie’ opinion, that’s simply what it is. To prioritise figures on a computer over people’s lives is just macabre and from their point of view, pathetic shallow and sad.
Find me a single time that a) that approach has won an election, b) actually been enforceable, and c) not led to a crashing defeat at the election after in modern Western politics and I might agree. As it is, I’m not willing to take the risk of another five years of Conservative government after 2015. There’s no point promising the earth if it can’t win an election and if people don’t trust that you can deliver.
As it goes, I hardly think a Cyprus-style savings steal would be the most appealing platform to go into the next election on either.
Well,from your replies..it doesn’t sound like the Labour party that I knew, or the Labour Party most of us want. This is not a discussion or an exchange, just you rebutting anyone who doesn’t agree with you. I’m out of here.I don’t agree with you, and I don’t agree with the way you say Labour are going…and sadly this wishy washy stuff will not win an Election either, in my opinion of course…Bold and radical policies to reverse the extremist Tory policies is what we are looking for, but it just seems like more of the Blairite Labour Party to me.
I didn’t realise that discussion and disagreement were apparently mutually exclusive these days.
Thought there’d be answers here – still not sure what the LP’s priorities are. The bottom line is that all 3 main parties agree on 90% of things more or less – we are talking about micro-issues as there is a consensus about the economic system we are ruled by. We could start by properly empowering local government in England, particularly giving it real financial autonomy and borrowing capacities, re-organising the administrative mess that is local and regional government in England, setting up a proper governance structure for the whole of England and reducing the size of Westminster.
Stopping Trident and replacing it with a more modest deterrent might be a good move & save a few quid.
More autonomy for local government is an idea I find really intriguing, but any borrowing capacity would have to be done with limits (i.e. against confirmed housing capital) in order to prevent illegal budgeting as a protest method.