This year’s general election is likely to be a game-changer for the Labour Party, win, draw or lose. It is implausible that it will continue as the broadly continuous institution born of Liberal and socialist parents and which came of age in parliamentary form in 1906. The Cabinet split over how to deal with a £178 billion national deficit is a touchstone for an ideological divide within the party which predates “new” Labour but which now defines the frontline between those – such as Peter Mandelson – whose preference is for public spending cuts and those – such as Ed Balls and the Prime Minister – who want to deploy the benefits of extra revenues from stronger growth and/or lower unemployment to boost spending and thus reduce the pain and extent of any cuts.
This goes beyond electoral or economic tactics and cuts into the heart of Labour’s strategic political purpose. According to Gordon Brown’s new year rallying call, Labour is here to “make the most of the unique abilities of every child and use the power of government to support all those who aspire to the best for their families”. Labour’s aspiration has always been the “greater good of the commonweal”. As Mr Brown’s words implicitly state, this has always been seen as the harnessing of the state by a single party in power to its policies and principles in defence of fairness, equality and the distribution of wealth – no matter that implementation has too often fallen short of promise.
In a speech trailed as concessionary to the will of Mr Brown, who faced calls for a ballot over his leadership as Tribune went to press, Lord Mandelson warned that in future the centre left “cannot and must not confine itself to the politics of distribution”. To what else, then? After Mr Balls defended in Tribune the differences between the Tories and Labour policy on tax and spend as outlined in the pre Budget Report, Lord Mandelson let it be know that he despaired the party was heading for an election strategy that appealed to its “core” vote. Wouldn’t that be about time?
No, says a new alliance of modernisers, because that would abandon the “new” Labour coalition and the party cannot win only with “old” Labour votes. This ignores the fact that the coalition is already broken. Amid speculation – and senior-level behind-the-scenes, cross-party discussions – on the consequences of a hung parliament there are strong, emergent forces within Labour which, in pursuit of that illusive grail, the progressive realignment of politics, are advocating closer ties with Liberal Democrats under the guise of greater “pluralism”, the new political zeitgeist. This is not tactical electioneering of the Commons deal variety but a growing movement that would leave both “old” and “new” Labour behind for something new.
As the election approaches, it is right that the primary focus should be on the damage a Tory victory would inflict on the country and its people. But there needs to be more debate within the Labour Party on what it is to become. The poor should not be abandoned by default.
