As the crisis continues, Labour just looks tired

If it's safety first and safety last, then the party is doomed to disappoint.

Shhhhhhhh. Quiet!! Labour is sleepwalking to the next election. Don’t wake it up. It might die of fright. Whisper. Don’t rock the boat. It's one more heave but without any heave. If it doesn’t move or make sound – then it might cross the finishing line of the election first without anyone noticing.

Next week, Labour is having its annual conference.  An event where nothing will happen. As I write, G4S or some other outsourcing behemoth will be putting up barriers around the Manchester conference zone to conceal nothing – absolutely nothing.

I’ve never known the run up to a party conference to feel so lame, so uninspiring, so flat and lacking in energy and vitality.  There are no rumours, no conflicts and little life.  Even the unions are silent.  I guess everyone must be happy. The election is in the bag. The next Labour government will sweep all before it and rule for a generation, creating Jerusalem in our midst. Oh, happy days.

Out there, in the wide-awake club, the ice caps melt, the eurozone teeters on the brink of collapse, the Tories rip the hope out of the lives of millions of young people, and the CBI calls for what’s left of the public sector to be privatised.  Neo-liberalism continues unabashed and untamed.

In fairness, Labour did have a half good idea about a British Investment Bank – but it was nicked by The Thick of It and then by Vince Cable. It's still got some other policies, like a five point-plan no one can remember, that would make virtually no difference to economic growth, and a promise to charge students £6,000 fees. Three thousand pounds more then they paid before but hey, £3,000 less than the Tories. Who says politics isn't about real choices? But it's giving little else away – that would be risky wouldn’t it?

Compare and contrast two things. First, Labour in 1994-97, when the party was last in opposition. There are no bigger critics of what became of New Labour than this happy scribe, but at least it had a sense of energy and ambition. Ideas frothed. New think-tanks bubbled up. Tireless work went into strategy and language. The "third way" was endlessly debated.  Of course, most of it turned out to be nonsense but at least the party had a go.

Second, look at the energy in the Tory party. Pushy backbenchers churn out tomes like Britannia Unchained that fizz with new policy ideas. Boris Johnson bounces round the fringes of the government – threatening a right-wing regime that is popular.  And Tim Montgomerie and chums set up Conservative Voice as an alternative government-in-waiting.  They all know where they want to take their party, the country and how. 

Labour, meanwhile, looks limp. Laid low to the level of a coma by an opinion poll lead that merely flatters to deceive. The decline of the Lib Dem vote just helps the Tories. The economy is bound to pick up. Of course, Labour might win – but what then? What do we do about the bond market, the public finances or the euro crisis? Labour is still hooked on the same political economy of setting finance free and redistributing the crumbs from the table. Hence its outright objection to a financial transaction tax (FTT) levied in Europe, making no attempt whatsoever to persuade the USA of its obvious virtue in stabilising markets and supporting essential social expenditure.

The party has nothing to say on public sector reform, nothing to say on welfare reform and nothing to say on climate change. If they have, then I, and everyone else, has missed it. Why not a genuine Green New Deal or an FTT? Why aren’t we pushing harder on a living wage, a German-style KfW environmental bank, real separation of retail and investment banking, new rules on takeovers, a national carers scheme, taxes on land and wealth and so much more?

This accidental or intended strategy seems to take its cue from the Australian Labour Party circa 1998-2001.  It was called the "small target" strategy. The party had almost been wiped out at the previous election and nervous shadow ministers decided the best chance to win was to stop rocking the boat and become a "small target" for Conservative attacks, on economic credibility in particular. If the party curled up into a tiny enough ball no one would notice and it might just win. But the ALP had no credible story that could capture the popular imagination or revive the party’s base. They lost even more seats.

I’m sure Ed will make a good speech – he might even make a great speech.  After all, he’s been right about responsible capitalism – but the age of the speech as a political lever is over. It’s now the age of emotion, action, campaigns and alliance building. Hope is loaded onto Jon Cruddas's policy review, but what if everything is vetted and stripped of any meaningful content? If it's safety first and safety last, then the party is doomed to disappoint.

The serious point is this. Capitalism has done two things – with devastating effect on Labour and the wider left. First it went up and then it went in. It went up to a global level– in so doing it cut itself free from any democratic accountability. Second, it went into our minds – as our identities and aspirations became steadily defined by what we bought.  The combination of financialisation and consumerisation destroyed the salience of class politics. Without a homogenous, organised and disciplined working class base Labour has become increasingly lost. It will stay lost until it finds or, better still, creates a new moral politics, new constituencies of interest and finally accepts that it's no longer 1945. The world has moved on and has become more complex and pluralistic.  Against the backdrop of the biggest crisis capitalism has ever suffered, Labour just looks tired.  

It's not as if the party is even being complacent – no one I talk to from the right or the left is under any illusion that winning will only be a slightly better disaster than losing.  Journalists and campaigners are gleefully calling and emailing me to express their relief that, for the first time in their lives, they aren’t going to conference. And who can blame them? Who wants to spend a week listening to Labour snore?

Sleep tight, my party.

Neal Lawson's column appears weekly on The Staggers.

Labour's annual conference opens in Manchester this Sunday. Photograph: Getty Images.

Neal Lawson is chair of the pressure group Compass and author of the book All Consuming.

Photo: Getty Images
Show Hide image

I'm far from convinced by Cameron's plans for Syria

The Prime Minister has a plan for when the bombs drop. But what about after?

In the House of Commons today, the Prime Minister set out a powerful case for Britain to join air strikes against Isil in Syria.  Isil, he argued, poses a direct threat to Britain and its people, and Britain should not be in the business of “outsourcing our security to our allies”. And while he conceded that further airstrikes alone would not be sufficient to beat Isil, he made the case for an “Isil first” strategy – attacking Isil now, while continuing to do what we can diplomatically to help secure a lasting settlement for Syria in which Assad (eventually) plays no part.

I agreed with much of David Cameron’s analysis. And no-one should doubt either the murderous barbarism of Isil in the region, or the barbarism they foment and inspire in others across the world.  But at the end of his lengthy Q&A session with MPs, I remained unconvinced that UK involvement in airstrikes in Syria was the right option. Because the case for action has to be a case for action that has a chance of succeeding.  And David Cameron’s case contained neither a plan for winning the war, nor a plan for winning the peace.

The Prime Minister, along with military experts and analysts across the world, concedes that air strikes alone will not defeat Isil, and that (as in Iraq) ground forces are essential if we want to rid Syria of Isil. But what is the plan to assemble these ground forces so necessary for a successful mission?  David Cameron’s answer today was more a hope than a plan. He referred to “70,000 Syrian opposition fighters - principally the Free Syrian Army (FSA) – with whom we can co-ordinate attacks on Isil”.

But it is an illusion to think that these fighters can provide the ground forces needed to complement aerial bombardment of Isil.  Many commentators have begun to doubt whether the FSA continues to exist as a coherent operational entity over the past few months. Coralling the myriad rebel groups into a disciplined force capable of fighting and occupying Isil territory is a heroic ambition, not a plan. And previous efforts to mobilize the rebels against Isil have been utter failures. Last month the Americans abandoned a $500m programme to train and turn 5,400 rebel fighters into a disciplined force to fight Isil. They succeeded in training just 60 fighters. And there have been incidents of American-trained fighters giving some of their US-provided equipment to the Nusra Front, an affiliate of Al Qaeda.

Why has it proven so hard to co-opt rebel forces in the fight against Isil? Because most of the various rebel groups are fighting a war against Assad, not against Isil.  Syria’s civil war is gruesome and complex, but it is fundamentally a Civil War between Assad’s forces and a variety of opponents of Assad’s regime. It would be a mistake for Britain to base a case for military action against Isil on the hope that thousands of disparate rebel forces can be persuaded to change their enemy – especially when the evidence so far is that they won’t.

This is a plan for military action that, at present, looks highly unlikely to succeed.  But what of the plan for peace? David Cameron today argued for the separation of the immediate task at hand - to strike against Isil in Syria – from the longer-term ambition of achieving a settlement in Syria and removing Assad.  But for Isil to be beaten, the two cannot be separated. Because it is only by making progress in developing a credible and internationally-backed plan for a post-Assad Syria that we will persuade Syrian Sunnis that fighting Isil will not end up helping Assad win the Civil War.  If we want not only to rely on rebel Sunnis to provide ground troops against Isil, but also provide stable governance in Isil-occupied areas when the bombing stops, progress on a settlement to Syria’s Civil War is more not less urgent.  Without it, the reluctance of Syrian Sunnis to think that our fight is their fight will undermine the chances of military efforts to beat Isil and bring basic order to the regions they control. 

This points us towards doubling down on the progress that has already been made in Vienna: working with the USA, France, Syria’s neighbours and the Gulf states, as well as Russia and Iran. We need not just a combined approach to ending the conflict, but the prospect of a post-war Syria that offers a place for those whose cooperation we seek to defeat Isil. No doubt this will strike some as insufficient in the face of the horrors perpetrated by Isil. But I fear that if we want not just to take action against Isil but to defeat them and prevent their return, it offers a better chance of succeeding than David Cameron’s proposal today. 

Stewart Wood is a former Shadow Cabinet minister and adviser to Ed Miliband. He tweets as @StewartWood.