Labour will assemble in Brighton in sullen mood. A narrow mid-term poll lead fools no one. Few think Labour can win, most fear it happening. Why? The reasons are deep seated and systematic. And because it’s difficult, people shy away. Labour is a party with its fingers in its ears, intoning a one-nation mantra in the hope that the real world won’t intrude so it can fall over the finish line first with just 35% of the vote. Then, without any political strategy, the party imagines it can continue where it left off in 2010 – before the voters rudely interrupted.
This tells us Labour ducked the real conversation after its second-worst result ever at the last election. Instead of using the message sent by voters to think afresh, to debate what the party stood for and assess its record in government, it simply agreed with what Ed Miliband wanted. A fragile and shallow unity ensued, underpinned by the bounce of a dead cat and vast coalition unpopularity. But as the Tories and Liberal Democrats claw their way inexorably back, three years have gone by and no strong floor has been put under the party – intellectually or organisationally.
Of course any assessment of Labour’s fortunes depends on what you think is feasible. If it’s simply to mitigate the worst effects of free markets and to slow the rate at which the poor get poorer and the planet burns, I suggest you look away now. But if your desire for Labour’s purpose is more transformative – to change the country and build a good society – then there are three critical challenges that have yet to be faced.
Challenge one: capital went global while social democracy stayed avowedly national. Labour still has no answer to the blackmail of global corporations that insist on low taxes and liberalised markets. Mark Zuckerberg, the founder of Facebook, says his creed is “companies over countries“. But just when we need solidarity and policy across Europe, the one nation tag fails to answer this fundamental problem. In its opposition to a financial transaction tax, Labour shows it has learned nothing from the crash and the defeat that followed.
Challenge two: capitalism has buried itself deep into our psyche through the consumerisation of our lives. With people going hungry, the question Labour needs to ask and answer is how big does the worker’s plasma TV screen need to be? If enough is never enough, socialism won’t ever catch-up with the demands of a turbo-consumerism that destroys the fabric of social solidarity and erodes Labour’s electoral base.
Challenge three: the shift to a world of horizontal relationships, driven largely by the internet and social media, creates a desire for self-management in which people have multiple identities and belong to myriad different groups and causes. And yet, in this vastly more complex and interconnected world, Labour demands blind obedience to its top-down nostrums. Its deep tribalism only makes sense if a parliamentary majority is the be all and end all of making change happen. Not only is parliamentary power insufficient given the wider forces reined against it, it’s an increasingly unlikely outcome because of the precipitous decline in belief in all the three main parties and an electoral system that was designed for big single-party majorities but now delivers the opposite. If we are in for a long period of hung parliaments, Labour looks temperamentally ill-prepared for it. So people are going elsewhere to protest, campaign and think.
The Tories are hollowing out too, but it matters much less to them because they’re always in power, through the banks, the control of the media and the whole consumer-industrial complex that every minute of every day shapes our preferences. Labour has no sense of the countervailing forces it needs to create an equal and opposite dynamic.
These aren’t Labour’s problems alone. September has already seen big defeats for the centre-left in Australia and Norway. And it was unimaginable that the German Social Democrats wouldn’t lose on Sunday. But unless and until Labour works out how to address these three fundamental issues, then it’s a party living without hope. It can have no compelling vision of a different kind of society and no ability to mobilise the forces necessary to make it happen. The half-life of Labour’s power decays – from Attlee, to Wilson, to Blair and Brown. It gets weaker and weaker.
In truth, the forward march of Labour was halted long ago. New Labour applied go-faster stripes to a clapped-out vehicle but won elections only by telling the country it wasn’t really the Labour party any more. The sugar rush simply accelerated the long-term decline.
So Labour in Brighton will be going through the motions. It will showcase the madness of doing the same thing while expecting a different outcome. The tragedy is we need a radical party – that can set limits to the free market and democratise the state; that knows sustainability and equality must go hand in hand; that has answers to the anxiety and insecurity of modern life; and that prefigures the good society by trusting in people, empowering them and practising an everyday politics of love and compassion. The tragedy is not just that so much more is needed, but that so much more is possible.
This article first appeared on the Guardian’s comment is free here
Thnk you NEal for a good summary of the crisis. At lasta bitof realism.
However it is also what I have been saying for several years and being attacked for it in these columns.
YEs the forward march of Labour was halted many years ago. And nothing can be done about it for the simple reason that Labour no longer stands for anything whether in opposition or in spite of the necessary compromises when in power.
All progressives have to face the fact that Labour as the vehicle of progress is finished. There is no longer any point in discussing ‘rescuing’ ‘reforming’ or ‘refounding’ Labour. OR discussing teh challenges facing the next Labour government.
Labour no longer exists except as a rather toxic brand.
It is not only voters who have deserted and members have left. Even activists do not turn up for ward meetings.
What is there left.?
In any case it is clear that there will never again be a majority Labour government
There will only be naive mourners for what might have been.
A range of economic and industrial problems could be addressed by the vigorous promotion of mutualism – the substantial ownership of companies by their ’employees’. It would encourage investment and innovation within the UK, while giving workers a genuine long-term stake in the fruits of their labours. A non-coercive and low cost means of promotion mutualism would be by making lower rate company taxation (and tax concessions for commercial loans) conditional upon the satisfaction of a set of criteria (increased employment within the UK, training, real fixed investment, etc.) that emphasised progress towards the mutualisation of the business in question. Advantageous inheritance tax treatment could also be made conditional upon the level of mutualisation that had been achieved by a company in the past.
Great. I might even support Labour were you shouting this from the platform (and adding in Barry Jones’ comments)…
Labour might even get other voters too were it to admit that Blair (egged on by Brown) co-founded UKIP (real name EIP) by appearing to abandon over half of the electorate. Were Labour to harvest the votes of the working class (oops, excuse such political incorrectness!) it would win an election (as well as the support of socialists like myself, lucky to be a bit richer)
This is a very fair assessment of political reality as far as the Labour party is concerned.
Atlee, with a broken society and in financial ruin, managed to bring about great change, the greatest of which has to be the NHS.
Unfortunately that great placement Blair, disavowed socialism in his quest for total power based almost exclusively on Tory policies, for a short time it appeared to work but the foundation did not exist and crumbled.
Far too many Labour MP’s have never had the salutary experience of working for a real living, instead swapping university for research as a stepping stone to Westminster. The chattering classes have no real conception of ordinary people’s life and living, of the daily struggle to get by. They fail to understand how so many feel threatened by so many things, sneer at those who cite immigration for instance, or complain of the face veil, but these are just a couple of things that excersise the minds of those in poorly paid jobs or those with no job. If they are ignored, they wont go away but they will go elsewhere, without any real hope and expectation of real change and for the better, ex Labour voters will remain just that.
What a pity there were not any “hard-hitting” articles at the time of the Tory and Lib/Dem conferences. Neal wants to make up his mind. Is he for or against this Tory government?
Like other Labour Party members, I received an email from Angela Eagle MP, asking me ‘Why are you Labour?’ Here’s my answer:
“I am a worker and a trade unionist. The trade unions formed the Labour Party[the party of working people] and so I am a member. Also, at the present time, Labour seems to be the best option for winning socialism in Britain”. The Blairites are out to initially weaken further and then break, the trade union basis of the Labour Party. Falkirk ended-up as nothing. A police investigation with no criminal charges. A Labour Party investigation with no disciplinary charges. Those elements that ran with this scam, the Blairites, trapped in the headlights of the multi-billionaire press and media, should be ashamed of themselves; but contrition isn’t in their ethos or understanding.These same elements from the right wing were calling for the consideration of another vote on the matter of following Obama to bomb Syria.Even Cameron accepted the Commons vote.
The trade unions are the mass democratic organisations of labour ie working people. They have at best been tolerated and at worst suffered attempted political castration by their own ‘friends’ in Labour, going back to ‘In Place of Strife.’ Why does Labour want trade unions as quiet partners, just footing the bills? Is listening to them too much trouble? Aren’t they educated sufficiently to understand the economic situation? Reality shows that the unions are standing in the way of the excesses of capitalism and furthermore, have an alternative programme that can get Britain out of this perpetual capitalist crisis. Who is fighting austerity in Britain and Spain, Portugal, Greece, Ireland, Italy, France and anywhere else one looks? Yes, the unions. Labour may want to go down the road of further weakening the role of the trade unions in the Labour Party. It’s worth recognising; the unions will always be here. But will Labour?
Neal is saying what so many of us are thinking. Will those at the top hear it , or heed it ?
I note that Neil nods towards the end at the need for sustainability ,but it isn’t presented as one of his challenges – perhaps he couldn’t think of an alliterative ‘c’? I hear nothing loud and clear from Labour that suggests they are doing anything beyond simply presenting a less damaging different route to more shopping and personal consumption. Ed used to be really good on climate change etc when he was shadowing on environment.But now we never hear of the real challenges that we all face and the limits to relentless market driven growth..I am a Party member but until the Party develops a credible sustainable economic and environmental vision and talks about how it proposes in the next Parliament to work with us as citizens to take us decisively in that direction I find it hard to work up any real enthusiasm for what I hear. I’d also like to hear more Union voices around that agenda by the way.
It is an indication of the lack of imagination and confidence of the so-called Left that they bewail the Blairite attempt to break the link with trade unions.
It should have been the trade unions who should have made the decisive break. Only about 25-30% of trade unionists actually vote Labour.
Trade unions will never get any thing more out of Labour and it is pointles pouring more money down the drain. In any case the Labouir Party which is financially (as well as ideologically ) bankrupt now has to rely on corporte funding. When in need all they have to do is pick up a phone.
The uniosn shoudl sever all links but unfortunately it will have limited impact now. The tide has gone.
Forthere is another reason why Labouris finished. It toook its core vote for granted by allowing uncontrolled mass immigration and becoming obsessed with gay rights, etc etc adn allthe other PC issues.
THe core vote has gone and it will not be coming back.
So goodbye Labour and good riddance.
Neal talks in generalities. All organisations serve their owners. Private organisations serve their private owners. Public organisations should serve the public. It follows that public services should be publicly owned and publicly accountable. Labour should promise to re-nationalise the Royal Mail. Even in today’s post I received a softening-up letter preparing me for reductions in the delivery service that will follow centrally imposed economy targets without any understanding of local conditions. It is good that HS2 is now being seriously questioned. The funding and payback arrangements have never been discussed openly. Questioning rather than outright condemnation of coalition policies will put the Tories on the back foot and help to reveal the shallow thinking behind them. The nuclear deterrent is dangerous and pointless; the arguments need to be deployed from the standpoint of logic and reason rather than emotion. Too many people think of the protests and marches and forget what the protests are about. Earlier this year I saw a film about Chile and how a referendum was won by promising good times rather than depressing the complaisant voters with bleak stories of life under the dictatorship of Pinochet. Labour must look forward to a better future in which all can share.
Sensible and thought provoking article; starter for ten: Labour needs to define 3/4 key outcomes that mesh with and support a value-based social democratic strategy, which are demonstrably affordable, which are capable of being sustained over more than one electoral term.
I seems as if it is time to find a new real socialist Party. Any better suggestions than the Greens?
It’s irrelevant which political party wins or whether the UK has a collation government. Politicians adhere to their paymasters and their own individual interests they never govern in the interests of the electorate as a whole. The only difference between political parties is their marketing spin. Its nothing new you only have to look back in history. Radical change (a better society) again history illustrates the folly of such thinking. Labour 1945 government creation of the NHS, education, housing all being dismantled. The last 1945 government great act the NHS will be privatised within the next twenty years. Essentially the UK is reverting to pre 1930’s standards. Until humanity devises a better economic model things won’t change. To do this humanity needs to evolve beyond our current consciousness and overcome humanity’s motivation for greed. Given humanity history this isn’t likely.
Left Unity then?
As usual, absolutely spot on. Miliband’s lack of any strategic vision is appalling. I agree with Will Duckworth. The Greens deserve support.
This all looks rather silly after the conference. Neal is way off the argument again. Luckily he is a lone voice and nobody is listening to him.
As I told Neil at the ice cream booth in Brighton, I am not clapped out and nor is the party and nor do I want a Lib Lab coalition and nor do I agree with Neil that the party is not listening – tho’ it may not be listening to Neil any more. I am fed up with undermining and division and we need to win in 2015 if there is to be anything left of the decent society. After conference I am more sure than ever that we and Ed can do it – so I am resigning from Compass if I can manage to work out how to!
This speech does mark a change towards a real fight, which as Polly Toynbee says asks questions about ‘who’se side are you on?’ – and might even bring out absentee voters. Would Tom Crompton be able to do another values analysis on the speech…?