Return to: Home | Blogs | Bright's Blog

Mr Brown's long year

One survey suggests that "Real New Labour", an eminently moderate group, could well become the dominant faction

The propitious start to Gordon Brown's first year as Prime Minister - the calm and statesmanlike response to the foiled London and Glasgow terror attacks, the summer floods and the outbreak of foot-and-mouth - all now serve only to highlight how dreadful things became in the months that followed.

The crucial "hinge", when the fates turned against Brown, was not the cancelled election of October 2007, but the Northern Rock crisis that preceded it. In an act of complacency, the Labour Party wandered into last year's conference season believing its own propaganda that the mythical fourth term was all but won. The vainglorious briefing about the possibility of a snap election was a symptom of the state of denial the party was in.

If Alistair Darling is to be believed, the warning signs were already there. He knew the worsening economic situation in America was likely to hit everyone in the UK. And although at first the British public seemed persuaded that only Gordon Brown could be trusted to deal with a worsening economy, as the reality of the situation emerged, the new Prime Minister's reputation for competence was hugely undermined.

Errors inherited from Brown's final Budget as chancellor, especially the abolition of the 10p tax rate, hit sections of the core Labour vote not likely to be forgiving to a prime minister they had had no hand in electing. A year on from Brown's coronation, the Labour Party is in the worst place it has ever been. The future looks bleak for what was once called the progressive consensus.

Shift to the centre

Those closest to Brown still believe he can win the next election. They have to. They say that we are living through times uniquely suited to progressive solutions. The British electorate has shown that it wants the party of government to protect the National Health Service, safeguard the interests of the most vulnerable, and offer educational and economic opportunities to the "many, not the few". Even the Tories accept this (at least rhetorically).

But their argument is not entirely convincing when the Labour Party faces a 20-point deficit in the polls. It may be that 11 years of Labour government have forced the Conservatives to accept the progressive, social-democratic consensus on a range of issues from the minimum wage to public-sector spending. But this acceptance, and the shift to the centre ground that goes with it, may itself help towards a Conservative victory at the next election.

There is such an air of pessimism in Labour circles at the moment that it is hard for sympathisers to imagine a way out. Party finances are so bad that it would have been near impossible to put up a candidate against David Davis in the Haltemprice and Howden by-election, even if the party leadership had the nerve to do so. Various scenarios present themselves: the implosion of the Labour Party in a blur of Seventies-style infighting; the emergence of a new radical faction on the left; an über-Blairite coup. None seems particularly attractive.

But a new survey of a hundred political experts by the PoliticsHome website suggests that the announcement of the death of the Labour Party may be a little premature. The panel was asked not what should happen, but what was likely to happen. Nearly two-thirds of respondents (politicians as well as academics and pundits) felt Labour was likely to become increasingly divided; but only 19 per cent thought this was potentially terminal.

In policy terms, most felt Labour was likely to hold to the centre ground. Most (60 per cent) said it would become the champion of the "enabling state" but would not become unduly interventionist (by renationalising the railways, for instance). Nor would it shift to the right by privatising new parts of the health, education and criminal justice systems. It was felt likely that it would raise taxes by stealth (20 per cent) rather than through income tax (just 3 per cent) and would not indulge in populist tax-cutting measures.

Growing up

The experts were also asked which faction of the Labour Party was likely to become dominant in the years to come, and here the results were genuinely surprising. Not a single panellist thought this group would emerge from the hard left and just 6 per cent thought it would come from the moderate left, as represented by the 2007 deputy leadership candidate Jon Cruddas and the Compass pressure group. The panel suggested that neither Brownites nor ex-Blairites had much of a future.

A solid 24 per cent felt that a group of so-called "Real New Labour" MPs such as John Denham and Angela Eagle represented the party's future. This eminently moderate group has been arguing for some time that Labour has to maintain its southern Middle England vote but without buying in to the worst aspects of Blairite free-market fundamentalism. However, nearly half of the panel felt there would be no dominant faction in the near future.

Could it be that the Labour Party is growing up, that it won't tear itself apart after the next election, even if it loses? Wise heads have already suggested that Labour should fight the next election as if it were an opposition party. The PoliticsHome survey suggests that it could even survive opposition and rebuild itself as the party of the progressive centre. We live in hope.

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

6 comments from readers

Chas
26 June 2008 at 18:03

There is nothing progressive about socialism. It was a 19th century invention that caused most of the destruction wrought in the 20th century and should be buried in the 21st century. Socialism never made anybody richer or more equal. It is in every sense regressive and has no place in the modern world.

writeon
26 June 2008 at 23:33

Talk about over-the-top rhetoric getting the better of one. Sweeping generalizations and absolutes piled up on top of each other to such dizzy heights that they have to topple over and crash back down to the ground, ouch!

This is probably futile, but here goes, such a narrow, distorted and partisan view of history can't be allowed to stand. What caused most of the destruction in the 20th century was nationalism and war, not socialism.

Beginning with the first world war, which can hardly be blamed on socialists, unless one stretches the word to include the conservative/liberal elites who ruled in every European capital and launched the conflict.

The seizures of power in Russia and Germany by totalitarians can hardly be heaped on socialism. What characterized Stalin and Hitler was that they were barbaric dictatorships, their politics and the labels they assumed were of secondary and minor importance. Stalin wasn't intrested in political theory or socialism, he was interested in power for himself. He was a crude and stunted megalomanic. In fact he persecuted and murdered most of the socialists who stood in his way to total power.

Hitler, Stalin's evil twin, started the bloodbath that was the second world war, and it's hard to define him as a socialist, isn't it?

China had the Maoist revolution, but once again this was yet another totalitarian dictatorhip steeped in blood and nationalism, and it was the product of even more war, famine and destruction. Strip away the communist/socialist rhetoric and what's really important is the totalitarian dictatorship part that lies underneath, not the thin 'socialist' 'communist' veneer on top. All that is just for show.

On the other hand, If one looks at the European countries where social democrats have come to power peacefully, without the scourge of war and massive destruction, countries like; Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Finland and Iceland, all very rich countries by the way, one sees a very different picture imerging.

Let's look at the facts. Progressive social democratic policies led to concrete and measurable material improvements in the lives and living standards of millions of ordinary people. They became richer, healthier, better educated, better fed, better housed, the enormous differences between the social classes lessened considerably, people became more equal as wealth of society, created by society was more evenly and fairly distributed for the benefit of all. The welfare state triumphed in these countries, so much so that only a tiny, reactionary minority, would ever dream of trying to dismantle a social democratic form of 'socialism' that has led to such clear social progress and delivered such stunning results compared to most other countries.

But then I suppose one could deny that any of this has happened, and try to convince the social democrats in these countries that everything they've acheived had absolutely nothing to do with their version of practical socialism and their desire to create a richer, fairer and more equal soiciety, one could try, but one wouldn't get very far.

knave
27 June 2008 at 17:00

Write on, correct as ever

“Let's look at the facts. Progressive social democratic policies led to concrete and measurable material improvements in the lives and living standards of millions of ordinary people. They became richer healthier better educated better fed better housed the enormous differences between the social classes lessened considerably people became more equal as wealth of society created by society was more evenly and fairly distributed for the benefit of all. The welfare state triumphed in these countries so much so that only a tiny reactionary minority would ever dream of trying to dismantle a social democratic form of 'socialism' that has led to such clear social progress and delivered such stunning results compared to most other countries.”

Very true and it also prevented the rise of fascism and communism in those countries

“But then I suppose one could deny that any of this has happened and try to convince the social democrats in these countries that everything they've achieved had absolutely nothing to do with their version of practical socialism and their desire to create a richer fairer and more equal society one could try but one wouldn't get very far. “

True but why should they .

All this talk of right prospect and compass trying to take the soul of the party is nonsense labour should have 3 priorities when looking at policies.

1. Are they correct ones for the country not the party or ideology?

2. Will they get you elected? Sometimes 1 and 2 will come into conflict.

3. For the labour party will they create a more country with opportunity for all classes? My view , is that a country is based on how you treat the less well off in your society. At the present time they are looked upon as feral beasts ( the underclass) by the followers of Charles Murray ( Nick Cohen, Frank Field, most journalists, the real Tories, party and I am ashamed to say certain sections of the Labour party)

Good article by the way

writeon
27 June 2008 at 22:33

knave,

I agree with you. I too think that the way a society chooses to treat it's weakest, most vulnerable and poorest citizens, tells one an awful lot about the nature of the society examined.

But we do the opposite. We compare the how successful we are in increasing the share of national wealth directed at the richest sections of society - why?

We do it because society, in reality, is ruled and controlled by the richest and most powerful. Virtually everything revolves around them and this is obvious and easy to understand, unless one willfully chooses not to understand for some reason.

The attitudes, views, interests and prejudices of the rich and powerful are grossly over-represented all over society and it's always been like that and not a lot has really changed, apart from the great post-war boom, but that relatively period is now difinitively over, and the old pre-war power relationships are rapidly returning and with a vengence.

New Labour, like the Tories and the rest of them, is the party of the aspirational middle-class. This is fine as long as the economy is expanding, even if it is a false, Potempkin economy.

I think it's highly debatable that it can 'pay' to have poor people, an underclass. It's not only a grotesque waste economically, but also morally. Then why do we allow so many to live in poverty? It is a choice we make.

I think we allow poverty to exist for its 'detterent effect' on the rest of us, especially those in gainful employment. The poor function as a warning of what kind of life awaits those who fall out of society. The poor are punished as an example. The poor are necessary to the smooth running of the system. The poor are a form of collatoral damage or more accurately victems and casualities in the class-war. This truth about the role of the poor was at the very core of Thatcherism and everybody knows this.

Yet we can't really debate these things in any substantial public forum, because the tiny minority - perhaps a few as half and million people - who really benefitted from the Thatchrite class-war, own and control the country and virtually all the media and access to it. So we have a sham democracy, democracy without debate and without citizens.

Serosch
03 July 2008 at 09:09

Tony McNulty has announced that the military wing of Hezbollah has been put on the Governments list of banned terrorist groups.

The US has openly admitted to funding, and carrying out covert acts of terrorism including targeted assasinations in Iran, will we be banning the military wing of the US as well?

ravcasleygera
04 July 2008 at 10:58

To get- God forbid - back on topic,

"A solid 24 per cent felt that a group of so-called "Real New Labour" MPs such as John Denham and Angela Eagle represented the party's future. This eminently moderate group has been arguing for some time that Labour has to maintain its southern Middle England vote but without buying in to the worst aspects of Blairite free-market fundamentalism. However, nearly half of the panel felt there would be no dominant faction in the near future."

Martin - could you say more about how this new-labour-without-the-free-market-excesses is different from Brownism?

Post your comment

(Your email address will not be published)

Recent Posts

The horror comes home

22 January 2009 09:58

Ken Clarke's return

19 January 2009 16:10

A New Deal of the mind

15 January 2009 09:31

It's a New New Deal

08 January 2009 09:51

A year of ups and downs

18 December 2008 09:44

Mystic Mart

15 December 2008 13:06

The two-man show

11 December 2008 09:44

Past Entries

Follow this blog

Vote!

Was the government wrong to sack David Nutt?

Suggest a question

View comments

© New Statesman 1913 – 2009

Tracker