Petition power cannot be brushed aside

The road pricing crisis should be seen as the first challenge of the Gordon Brown era. It will be Br

As I write, more than 1.3 million people have signed the online petition on the Downing Street website to "scrap the planned vehicle tracking and road pricing policy". After Douglas Alexander, the Transport Secretary, went on the radio to denounce the petition's organisers for peddling "myths", an extra 200,000 people signed up. By the time you read this article, the figure will be much higher still, and cabinet ministers will be even more infuriated with the British public than they are already. The petition deadline is 20 February, by which point it is possible that the numbers will have reached the level of those who marched against the war in Iraq.

It is not that two million people cannot be wrong, but the government cannot afford to be entirely dismissive of this level of public feeling. Alexander may be right in saying that, as a country, we have no choice but to deal with congestion, but being right is not enough.

This is the first time Alexander's mettle has been tested as a minister. As one of the Chancellor's trusted allies, he will play a prominent role in any post-Blair government. The road pricing crisis should therefore be seen as the first challenge of the Brown era. It will be Gordon Brown, not Tony Blair, who will have to deal with the consequences of this decision, whether or not ministers decide to cave in to pressure. This may not be "Labour's poll tax", as the Daily Telegraph would like it to be, but it will give an indication of how a Brown government will approach mass opposition to its policies.

Alexander is one of a group of young politicians around Brown who are defined by the power of their intellect and convinced of the wisdom of their views. The Transport Secretary's frustration at the apparent stupidity of his opponents has been evident in recent days as he has struggled to put across an argument that, to him, must appear blindingly obvious: if we are to reduce congestion on our roads we must persuade people to leave their cars at home. A series of pilot schemes for road pricing must seem to Alexander an utterly reasonable way of going about this. But people are rarely convinced by an argument which begins with the assumption that the person making it is cleverer than they are.

Old right-wing causes

It can't have gone unnoticed in government circles that the most popular petitions on the No 10 website are either the old right-wing causes or Tory party policy. This may explain why one minister is said to have described the Downing Street adviser who came up with the idea for putting petitions on the website as a "prat".

None has attracted anything like the number of signatures on the road pricing petition, but the next three in order of popularity urge the government to scrap inheritance tax in the next Budget, to repeal the Hunting Act 2004 and to scrap the proposed introduction of ID cards. In all, 60,000 have signed the inheritance tax petition, set up by Macer Hall of the Daily Express as part of his newspaper's campaign on that issue. Roughly 25,000 have signed the hunting petition and around the same number have signed up to oppose ID cards.

But this is not the whole story. Other petitions that have received more than 3,000 signatures espouse liberal and left-wing causes. The opposition to ID cards is not a Tory monopoly. There are also popular petitions to oppose the renewal of Trident, ban faith schools and scrap tuition fees. Admittedly, there are also petitions to replace the national anthem with "Gold" by Spandau Ballet and to make the Prime Minister "stand on his head and juggle ice cream" which have more than 3,000 signatures, but for the most part the suggestions are serious.

Those around Brown will be sorely tempted to scrap the online petitions as a crazy Blairite innovation, but they would be unwise to do so. They may be an expression of public frustration at conventional politics, but they also point the way forward if politicians can avoid the temptation to sneer. The e-petition system was set up by Tom Steinberg, though he is not being blamed for the idea itself. Steinberg is a web evangelist and political activist, whose projects such as NotApathetic.com and TheyWorkForYou.com have been designed to re-engage people with politics. His thinking is close to Our Say - set up by Saira Khan of the TV series The Apprentice - which campaigns for increased use of referendums on issues of public interest.

It is too easy to dismiss this "citizen politics". Governments know too well that the problem with giving people too much say is that sometimes they come to the wrong decision, as would almost certainly be the case if local referendums were held on individual road pricing schemes. But if ministers take the approach that petitioners are just wrong-headed or "spreading myths", people may choose to make the ultimate bad decision and vote them out of office.

Getty
Show Hide image

The New Times: Brexit, globalisation, the crisis in Labour and the future of the left

With essays by David Miliband, Paul Mason, John Harris, Lisa Nandy, Vince Cable and more.

Once again the “new times” are associated with the ascendancy of the right. The financial crash of 2007-2008 – and the Great Recession and sovereign debt crises that were a consequence of it – were meant to have marked the end of an era of runaway “turbocapitalism”. It never came close to happening. The crash was a crisis of capitalism but not the crisis of capitalism. As Lenin observed, there is “no such thing as an absolutely hopeless situation” for capitalism, and so we discovered again. Instead, the greatest burden of the period of fiscal retrenchment that followed the crash was carried by the poorest in society, those most directly affected by austerity, and this in turn has contributed to a deepening distrust of elites and a wider crisis of governance.

Where are we now and in which direction are we heading?

Some of the contributors to this special issue believe that we have reached the end of the “neoliberal” era. I am more sceptical. In any event, the end of neoliberalism, however you define it, will not lead to a social-democratic revival: it looks as if, in many Western countries, we are entering an age in which centre-left parties cannot form ruling majorities, having leaked support to nationalists, populists and more radical alternatives.

Certainly the British Labour Party, riven by a war between its parliamentary representatives and much of its membership, is in a critical condition. At the same time, Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership has inspired a remarkable re-engagement with left-wing politics, even as his party slumps in the polls. His own views may seem frozen in time, but hundreds of thousands of people, many of them young graduates, have responded to his anti-austerity rhetoric, his candour and his shambolic, unspun style.

The EU referendum, in which as much as one-third of Labour supporters voted for Brexit, exposed another chasm in Labour – this time between educated metropolitan liberals and the more socially conservative white working class on whose loyalty the party has long depended. This no longer looks like a viable election-winning coalition, especially after the collapse of Labour in Scotland and the concomitant rise of nationalism in England.

In Marxism Today’s “New Times” issue of October 1988, Stuart Hall wrote: “The left seems not just displaced by Thatcherism, but disabled, flattened, becalmed by the very prospect of change; afraid of rooting itself in ‘the new’ and unable to make the leap of imagination required to engage the future.” Something similar could be said of the left today as it confronts Brexit, the disunities within the United Kingdom, and, in Theresa May, a prime minister who has indicated that she might be prepared to break with the orthodoxies of the past three decades.

The Labour leadership contest between Corbyn and Owen Smith was largely an exercise in nostalgia, both candidates seeking to revive policies that defined an era of mass production and working-class solidarity when Labour was strong. On matters such as immigration, digital disruption, the new gig economy or the power of networks, they had little to say. They proposed a politics of opposition – against austerity, against grammar schools. But what were they for? Neither man seemed capable of embracing the “leading edge of change” or of making the imaginative leap necessary to engage the future.

So is there a politics of the left that will allow us to ride with the currents of these turbulent “new times” and thus shape rather than be flattened by them? Over the next 34 pages 18 writers, offering many perspectives, attempt to answer this and related questions as they analyse the forces shaping a world in which power is shifting to the East, wars rage unchecked in the Middle East, refugees drown en masse in the Mediterranean, technology is outstripping our capacity to understand it, and globalisation begins to fragment.

— Jason Cowley, Editor 

Tom Kibasi on what the left fails to see

Philip Collins on why it's time for Labour to end its crisis

John Harris on why Labour is losing its heartland

Lisa Nandy on how Labour has been halted and hollowed out

David Runciman on networks and the digital revolution

John Gray on why the right, not the left, has grasped the new times

Mariana Mazzucato on why it's time for progressives to rethink capitalism

Robert Ford on why the left must reckon with the anger of those left behind

Ros Wynne-Jones on the people who need a Labour government most

Gary Gerstle on Corbyn, Sanders and the populist surge

Nick Pearce on why the left is haunted by the ghosts of the 1930s

Paul Mason on why the left must be ready to cause a commotion

Neal Lawson on what the new, 21st-century left needs now

Charles Leadbeater explains why we are all existentialists now

John Bew mourns the lost left

Marc Stears on why democracy is a long, hard, slow business

Vince Cable on how a financial crisis empowered the right

David Miliband on why the left needs to move forward, not back

This article first appeared in the 22 September 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The New Times