A negation of the negatives. That’s what “new” Labour set out to accomplish before the 1997 general election – get rid of its supposed minus points.
Electoral liability number one was the old Clause IV of the party’s constitution. Dump that and Labour would no longer be a party of nationalisation. That the clause was anything other than a symbol from the past was not at issue. Scrapping it was a device to promote a strong leader and electoral appeal.
Electoral liability number two: the perception that Labour couldn’t run the economy efficiently. So give independence to the Bank of England and set up a triumvirate of regulation. Economic efficiency becomes all about “choice”.
Electoral liability number three: the influence of the trade unions. Solution: give the unions the status of pressure groups and take pride in retaining the most flexible labour laws in Europe.
And so the list continued. Taxes had to be “fair”. Fair to whom? Nevertheless, increases in the top rate of income tax were no longer on the agenda. Argument and persuasion gave way to triangulation and tracking to the right.
Now, with less than a year to go until the next general election, the Tories are addressing their own negatives. Unlike Labour, they aren’t abandoning long-held principles. But they do seem to be winning the arguments. They are winning because Labour has failed to make the case for public spending. And when the Government recapitalised the banks, it didn’t nationalise them. The Tories are winning because, at a time of change, Labour’s high command is stuck in control-and-command mode.
The political class is held in contempt because of the MPs’ expenses scandal. There are many good and honourable Members of Parliament who don’t deserve the opprobrium of the electorate, but they can’t escape it. In any event, disengagement of voters from the politicians has been going on for some time – from cash for questions to cash for honours, through the war in Iraq and now the quagmire of Afghanistan. But while all politicians have felt the consequences, not all of them have been in power for the past 12 years.
Yet a David Cameron government would take an axe to public spending and reduce the role of the state even further. According to a recent Populus poll, a majority of voters now trust the Conservatives more when it comes to public spending. This state of affairs simply beggars belief.
With the failure to capitalise on the rescue of the banks by then taking full and effective control of them and cracking down on bonuses, Labour made a serious strategic and tactical error. Unless the Government throws the book at the bankers and starts to make the argument that, at this time of trial for the country, now is not the time to start paying back debt, the scale of Labour’s defeat next year could be overwhelming.
There are contradictions in current Government policy. There was Keynesianism in action with the announcement of the £1.1 billion to be spent on the electrification of the Great Western and Liverpool to Manchester main lines – the first major rail electrification since the 1980s. At the same time, workers at the Vestas wind turbine factory on the Isle of Wight are faced with redundancies while the Government declines to intervene. That makes no sense. In the future, we will all need the skills and experience of workers who know how to produce environmentally-friendly wind turbines.
Faced with mass redundancies at the Corus plant, steelworkers are similarly aggrieved. Another industry with the capacity to make high-quality goods is abandoned. The banks have deprived the car and the construction industries of capital and are thus helping to kill them off. In contrast, at the first whiff of grapeshot from the generals, the First Secretary of State announces that the defence budget is ring- fenced.
Another lord, this one leaping out of the Government of all the talents, supported the military top brass on equipment. Lord Malloch-Brown said: “We definitely don’t have enough helicopters. When you have these modern operations and insurgent strikes what you need, above all else, is mobility.” The departing Foreign Office minister later clarified his remarks when he claimed to have been making a more general statement about nature of warfare in the modern world.
On this occasion, it is easy but premature to blame the Prime Minister. Who, we might ask, failed to foresee that more helicopters might be needed in Helmand province? We might hazard a guess that it was the same generals who are now complaining.
Labour’s demise in 2010 may yet be avoided. In order for that to happen, the party’s arguments must be far better framed and the contradictory signals emanating from the Government have to cease.
This is not the time for massive public spending cuts. We can’t afford another lost generation with a bleak future. Jobs must be saved. State intervention is not a problem. Rather, it is a solution. If there are cuts to be made, it is obvious where they should be implemented. The Trident missile system is not some macho trophy to be preserved at all costs. The Labour battles of the 1980s are over – unless we want to see a return to the cruel monetarist policies of the Thatcherite years.
