Throughout his impressive and highly effective leadership campaign Jeremy Corbyn made it clear that he wants a truly open, inclusive and constructive conversation about the future of the Labour party: how can we craft an inspiring new vision and narrative? What should our new policy priorities be? How can we regain the trust of the British people, become an effective opposition, and ultimately return to government in 2020?
In order to be able to answer any of those questions, we must first of all understand where it all went so wrong. For me, the fundamental weakness of the last five years was that we talked a lot about what we were against, but said little about what we were actually for. We rightly expressed our outrage about growing inequality and injustice, but did not speak enough to people’s hopes or ambitions. The electorate did not understand our vision for society, because we did not really tell them what it was. They heard us repeatedly hammering the bedroom tax and zero-hours contracts, and their response was: ‘I agree with much of that, but what does it mean for me when I’m not on zero hours, or liable for bedroom tax? How would a Labour government help me and my family to do better?’
On 7 May, the message from the majority of the British electorate was clear: we think that you do not really care about us, the hard-working families who are trying to get on in life. That feeling was wrong, but it was strong. Labour was rejected because we seemed to be focused exclusively on a narrow, disadvantaged section of the population, when it is blindingly obvious that political parties only succeed when they have broad appeal.
In my recently published pamphlet – A New Nation: Building a United Kingdom of Purpose, Patriotism and Resilience – I argue that if Labour is to have a chance of winning in 2020 then we must do three things.
First, we have to convince the British people that we can once again be trusted with the economy. We have to make it crystal-clear that our top priority in government will be to balance the books by modernising the welfare state, and by delivering purposeful policies that foster investment, competitiveness and sustained growth. Rebuilding our relationship with large and small businesses, heeding their good ideas, must be a vital part of this new approach.
Second, we have to reclaim patriotism. I am proud to be British and I love the United Kingdom as a united country of fair play and liberty, bound together by our shared values of compassion and of courage. Decentralising power and resources, putting the English regions on a similar footing to Scotland and Wales, making governments listen, celebrating what is best about Britain: these are the qualities that should drive our new patriotism. And this renewed sense of localism and civic pride will provide us with a platform upon which we can stand tall in the world, inspired by the confident patriotism that flows upwards from cohesive communities. In this age of insecurity it is more important than ever that we engage constructively with Europe and Nato, if we are to have real influence on the decisions that impact directly on our national interests and security.
Third, we have to show that Labour is the only party that can deliver the radical changes that are necessary if we are to build a more resilient country. In a world that is in a constant state of flux the successful countries will be those that are quickest to recover from unexpected events and adapt to new realities. High skills, properly funded research, flexible labour markets underpinned by real investment in reskilling and re-entry, an economy that is not dependent on huge household debt, and a manufacturing renaissance: these must be cornerstones of our new resilience.
Between 1997 and 2010 our appeal was broad, but ultimately it proved to be too shallow. Between 2010 and 2015 we narrowed our offer by prioritising issues like the bedroom tax and zero-hours contracts. This enabled us to deepen our support among certain sections of the electorate, but on 7 May we learned the hard way that a narrow offer is electoral suicide.
A 21st century Labour party that is truly ‘for the many, not the few’ must therefore be based on an inspiring vision, narrative and policy programme that will secure broad and deep support. It has to be sound on the economy, strong on reform, and resolute on our place in the world.
There must be no going back to the wilderness years of the 1980s: now is the time to renew, not to retreat.
———————————
Stephen Kinnock is member of parliament for Aberavon. He tweets @SKinnock
We need a narrative that paints a picture of how good things can be with a small re-distribution of wealth that brings the poor into employment in such a way that even those taxed more will be still be better off because of newly created wealth.
To do this we need the ‘right kind of investment’ – i.e. wealth creating investment.
We can only offer this when our own party members understand the what is wrong with the ‘wrong kind of investment’ – i.e that which does now grow our ability to make our way in the world.
To achieve this our CLP’s must be given debating subjects with guidelines that are designed to expose the detailed consequences of currently proposed policies.
Once our members understand the choices that could actually work, we must ask them to create functional working relationships that enhance commerce for the benefit of all, but particularly for those currently excluded from employment.
When the narrative emerges we need to knit that into a vision that shows how good our country could be and that is what we share with the electorate.
The hardest task will judge the cutoff point in the salary pyramid where we get enough supporters from the far side of the middle ground.
What ever we do, we have no chance without that winning debate.
‘Narrative’ – a strangely repulsive meme amongst the long-winded. Kinnock – ‘modernising’ always means cuts. We all know this, so just say it plainly. Put that in you story/narrative/fairy tale. Same for ‘balancing the books’ – you mean austerity for the workers. Again, everyone knows this – so it’s not clever code, so why not say it? Because, you think, ‘not everyone knows the code – the chavs don’t for a kick-off and, unfortunately, we need their votes.’ Kinnock – the disadvantaged section is not ‘narrow’ but broad, we all know it so why not say it? Because then you’d have to admit to yourself that you have been kidding us (and maybe yourself) for years.
Point 1, especially the second half clearly vital, point 2 I really don’t think, apart from the diminishing war generation, frothy at the mouth Tories, some sports fans and a whole load of ultra right groups, that there is a great deal of patriots out there – what there is are a lot of people upset by the rapidly changing world out there, their lack of security, etc., a lot of whom blame Labour and immigration. English regional devolution is unlikely to convince anyone other than the local politicians interested in what additional power it gives them (which is not to say we shouldn’t be doing it) but as a route to winning elections, forget it.
Point 3 – High Skills etc. We said this all thru the last labour Government, but essentially failed to deliver much on it other than a lot more, now unemployed / underemployed graduates loaded up with debt, and the flexible labour market – also known as increased job insecurity, lower pay and benefits, etc. If we can demonstrate a way out of this and as suggested reduced household debt without its potential corollary of reduced demand in the economy and the economic consequence of that, then we might be on to a winner.
The statement that Between 2010 and 2015 we narrowed our offer by prioritising issues like the bedroom tax and zero-hours contracts. The reality was that the party leadership resisted committing on these issues until very late on. The real problem was that we said far too little on most policy areas up until 2014, by which time it was too late to alter impressions, although absolutely agree we then had far too little to say to those in work not personally suffering the worst end effects.
and applaud SK trying to start the debate on what we need to do.