For the first time in 13 years Labour finds itself adjusting to the problems and challenges of opposition – and they are real. It’s not just the chauffer driven cars and private office officials that have disappeared. More important – and much harder to overcome – is the lack of easy access to information and data, no longer having an automatic slot on prime time news and, for a while at least, still trying to argue from the policy platform on which they lost the election.
And, of course, not yet having a new leader to provide direction and purpose adds to the problem. These things will sort themselves out in time, but for a while Labour will continue to struggle.
Already that struggle for purpose and new ideas reveals itself in Labour’s leadership contest. The fact that four of the five candidates are white, middle aged males, all of whom have come into Parliament having been special advisors is well commented on. What is also true is that these four have shared the same fundamental analysis about what Labour had to do to win office and keep hold of it – they were the foot soldiers in the development and practice of what was called New Labour.
And it is this analysis of what Labour had to do to win which has turned out to be flawed, with devastating consequences for both the Labour party and the country, and which holds such dangers for Labour’s future now.
With hindsight, it is perhaps easier to see that New Labour’s analysis added up to little more than a series of positioning moves and reactions to counter the Conservatives’ perceived strengths. New Labour’s policies became detached from the principles and values that had underpinned the existence of the party. The result was that it hurtled headlong into a series of policy positions that became increasingly incoherent and at times bewildering.
Take just three areas as examples:
Since the second world war the UK and the USA have been engaged in a sort of pirouette around what is called ‘the special relationship’. It has had its ups and its downs. Harold Wilson courageously refused intense pressure from Lyndon Johnson to send troops to Vietnam. Clement Atlee moderated Harry Truman’s approach to Japan. President Eisenhower rightly refused to support Anthony Eden’s misadventure in Egypt. President Reagan supported Mrs Thatcher over the Falklands. Mrs Thatcher supported President George H W Bush over the invasion of Kuwait and subsequent war with Iraq.
It has been a relationship in which British prime ministers have been able to moderate and influence American presidents. Tony Blair could have – should have – played that role over Iraq. It was clear then, as it has been ever more so since, that Mr Blair just felt it was right to stand by America no matter what. No attempt at moderation, let alone the courage of a Wilsonian refusal. He just did not want to allow any gap between him and the Americans.
Law and order was long thought to be a ‘Tory’ issue. So New Labour adopted the tough mantra of ‘tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime’. Endless numbers of criminal justice bills were enacted. More people were sent to prison. There were ASBOs, on the spot fines and a great raft of other initiatives. None of it driven by principle, but solely to ensure that there was no political ground for the Tories to occupy.
And, of course, the economy. It’s easy to be wise now but there were plenty of people at the time who warned Gordon Brown that his tripartite system of regulating the City was a mistake. There were plenty at the time who warned against relentless spending and borrowing.
Labour’s whole economic policy was built on the entirely erroneous view that the economy would endlessly grow and that spending, and the borrowing necessary to support it, would be perfectly fine. Of course the world has suffered a severe economic crisis. For the UK that has come in addition to the economic shambles Gordon Brown created.
For the Labour leadership contenders, facing up to these as well as other policy areas, as well as being proud of their achievements, is a vital first step to rebuilding the party’s political fortunes. For Ed Balls to understand, let alone accept, the scale of economic misjudgements he personally participated in as Gordon Brown’s closest advisor is probably out of the question and is enough in itself to rule him out as a serious contender for the top job.
The bitterness that some leading Labour politicians feel about losing the election and then watching the Liberal Democrats co-exist in government with the Conservatives is palpable. In a Newsnight interview on 17 June David Miliband articulated how ludicrous he thought the alliance was. That same day in the Commons Liam Byrne could hardly contain himself at the despatch box when replying to Danny Alexander’s announcement of cuts in spending.
This great sense of loathing and grievance needs to be productively channeled into a sense of real passion and purpose to rebuild Labour’s policy base. Hurling invective at the opposition maybe cathartic for Labour politicians but it is acomplete waste of time as far as practical politics is concerned.
The challenge for the leadership candidates is fundamentally to re-think Labour’s analysis of what it should be doing and how it should do it. The opportunity is for the next generation of Labour leaders to seize the moment, to refashion their party, to restore its principles and integrity and to be bold and brave.