Politics
Labour seeks candid politics as Cameron copies Blair's mistakes
Published 28 May 2007
Are there any original minds out there struggling to show themselves, but fearful of the consequences?
Don't blink, because you might miss it. For the past few days British politicians have been rediscovering a lost art. They have been talking openly and honestly about the rights and wrongs of different policies. Sometimes they have even dared to disagree in public. And, contrary to the fears of the new Labour control freaks of the 1990s, neither the country nor the party falls apart when issues are debated.
When the Secretary of State for Justice, Charles Falconer, and Peter Goldsmith, the Attorney General, take opposite sides on proposals for a written constitution, one might expect the words "split" and "crisis" to resonate in the media. But, no, instead we have the start of a mature discussion. Is this because neither Falconer nor Goldsmith, unelected men personally beholden to Tony Blair, has much of a future under Gordon Brown? Is it because Britain has two prime ministers but nobody actually in charge? Or could it just be that newspapers, which profess to reflect the mood of their readers, detect a yearning for candour from our elected representatives?
Take Margaret Hodge. The Barking MP's suggestion that "indigenous" families should take precedence over immigrants in housing allocation is unlikely to find favour with most NS readers. As Jon Cruddas, MP in neighbouring Dagenham and deputy leadership contender, has pointed out, Hodge's remarks are wrong in spirit and wrong in fact. Asylum-seekers are usually placed in private rented accommodation, so complaints about "queue jumping" are mostly mythical and pander to racism. And yet, no matter how sensitive, this is an important area for debate.
Indeed, one could begin to argue that just as Labour is discovering the joys of a more open politics after Blair, so the Conservatives are beginning to adopt the worst manifestations of the ancien régime. Tories who stray off-message now face summary dismissal, such as Patrick Mercer with his ill-judged but not malevolent remarks about race and the army in March. The other trick that David Cameron has taken to emulating is mistaking deception for leadership. In his search for a "Clause Four moment" to confront traditionalists in his own party, Cameron believed that he would look strong not so much by shifting policy on grammar schools (he was restating a quietly established position), but by being seen to ignore his shadow cabinet.
Blair's people would boast that during his first term, the cabinet did not have a single meaningful discussion about anything. Then came the deceptions of Iraq, and by the time the old government tried to change its ways, the reputation had been established. It will be hard for Brown to change it, and, given his record for secrecy at the Treasury, a good deal of scepticism is in order. But still he should seize the chance with alacrity.
So should those around him. One of the most depressing aspects of the past decade has been the intellectual poverty of Labour's front bench. Are there any original minds out there struggling to show themselves, but fearful of the consequences? If the deputy leadership contest is anything to go by, the omens are not good. When the NS interviewed the six contenders earlier this year, only Peter Hain and Harriet Harman, in their respective remarks about US neoconservatism and British justice, showed even an understanding of the problems this government has faced. The platitudes from the others could have been ascribed to Blair's still being in charge, and the formal race not having begun.
Now they have no more excuses. They need to show courage and conviction, to mind less about what Brown would like them to say, and more about what it takes to revive Labour and make it more relevant to the millions who count themselves of the left, but see the ruling party as inimical to their concerns. It would take a remarkable turnaround for us to endorse either Hazel Blears or Alan Johnson; Hilary Benn would need to shake off his customary caution. Our sympathies lie more with the politics of Cruddas, Hain and Harman. There are a few more weeks for one of them to convince us that he or she has what it takes.
A better way to mind the money
If Gordon Brown wants ideas about how to remove the patina of sleaze that "cash for honours" has left on No 10, he could take a tip from the Polish prime minister. Jaroslaw Kaczynski has revealed that, at the age of 57, he still does not have a bank account. Instead, he told Wprost magazine, he hands his salary over to his mother.
Mrs Kaczynski is clearly a remarkable woman: Jaroslaw lives at home with his mother and her cats, while her other son, Lech, apparently makes sure he takes time out from his day job - as president of Poland - to telephone her twice a day.
The Polish PM's lack of a chequebook is due not to excessive maternal dominance, however, but to his adherence to a quality with which his incoming British counterpart is familiar - prudence. "I don't want a situation where someone pays money into my account without my knowledge, and the next day I read about it in the newspapers," explained Kaczynski.
If only the finances surrounding the Blair government had been similarly ascetic. There would have been little purpose for a Lord Cashpoint, for instance, if there had been no cashcard with which to make withdrawals.
But Brown may not wish to take lessons in campaigning from Kaczynski, who presented a rubber duck as his party's symbol at last year's elections and urged voters to "feed the duck". Our future PM probably feels that the one lame duck left in Downing Street is already one too many.
Post this article to
We want to encourage people to comment on our content and to exchange views with other readers and hope this will be done on a courteous basis. However, if you encounter posts which are offensive please let us know by emailing comments@newstatesman.co.uk and we will take swift action where necessary.
