Politics
Good luck in changing this undemocratic, unequal nation
Published 28 June 2007
Perhaps it was appropriate that Tony Blair pursued his search for a new job, as special Middle East envoy, through the medium of briefing and spin. First we were told that George Bush was keen. Then everyone, it seems, wanted the outgoing premier to save the Israelis and Palestinians from themselves and from each other. Notwithstanding the irony of handing the post to a man who has so contributed to the region's mayhem, it is the style of Blair's last few days that is so telling.
The final session in the Commons, with its showmanship and its ovation, gave him the dignity he sought. But overall this long goodbye has been tiresome. Britain had already moved on from Blair.
This is Gordon Brown's moment. He has waited so long for it and, if for that reason alone, he will be determined not to squander it. He has used the six-week transition period cleverly, setting out what he calls his "moral compass".
On the specifics, he is moving fast, embracing a Bill of Rights and welcoming debate on changing the way we exercise our democratic vote. He has talked of restoring authority back to parliament, as distinct from the two organs of power that so obsessed the Blairites - government and media. All this is to be welcomed, but with caution. The legislature, in its composition and practices, has long been discredited. Before trust can be restored, the institutions of politics must be reformed. The select committees of the Commons must be given full powers to subpoena ministers and to approve major public appointments.
Most important will be to fashion a parliament - and thereby a government - that is far more representative of the British people. Key to that will be electoral reform. At the New Statesman we will campaign vigorously for this fundamental change, not in order to advantage one party over another but, as David Marquand points out on page 31, to start the long revolution in the way the UK is governed.
This alone would demonstrate a remarkable change for Gordon Brown, who until recently had shown little form as a champion of constitutional reform. In this area, as with others, it may seem strange that a man in whom so many fresh hopes are vested is the same man who played such a major role in an administration that has dashed similar hopes in the past.
Brown has promised to change the way he operates personally. His was the most dispiriting of political styles. His team worked on the basis of loyalty, spinning and bullying its way out of problems with as much alacrity as Blair's. If they have really understood the need for change, then they will enjoy considerable goodwill. An open government means just that - keen to provide information to the public, ready to accept criticism and to admit error and receptive to new ideas. Cabinet government means not just listening to colleagues, but allowing "all the talents", as Brown puts it, to express themselves in their own ways.
A more candid approach will help Brown and his new and radically different ministerial team deal with the challenges ahead. In health and education, debates about priorities in spending should be frank. On housing (a welcome new priority), transport and the environment, the trade-offs should be set out honestly. The balance between liberty and security should be vigorously debated at each step of the way; and never again should a prime minister be allowed to advance the case for war on the basis of tendentious evidence.
The deputy leadership contest does not bode well in this regard. We did not endorse Harriet Harman (our preference was for Jon Cruddas), but we congratulate her on her victory. Harman has long been a radical spirit constricted by a new Labour straitjacket. We urged her and the other candidates to demonstrate their credentials by speaking out. At one point during the hustings, Harman very tentatively apologised for backing the Iraq War. She should not subsequently have denied saying so. We hope she was not put under any pressure. After all, she was merely reflecting the views of most sensible-minded Labour members.
The first months of the Brown administration will set the tone. He has used the transition period well. For the first time since David Cameron took over as leader, the Conservatives found themselves exposed. The defection of Quentin Davies was important not so much for what it said about Labour but about the misgivings many Tories feel about their party's new direction, or lack of it.
In his acceptance speech in Manchester, Brown spoke of the "noble purposes worth fighting for, a progressive future still to be built". Fine words, with which we concur. But were we not similarly awed by Blair's rhetoric back in 1997? There is much in Brown's record that gives cause for concern: his fear of alienating the super-rich; his previous ambivalence towards civil liberties; his inexperience in foreign affairs; and, most of all, his support for war in Iraq.
And yet, given that the NS has spent much of the past five years railing against the excesses of the Blair regime and, on several occasions, calling on him to resign, it would be churlish of us not to greet this long-delayed handover of power with enthusiasm. Indeed, it would be worse than that. It would be intellectually inconsistent and politically self-defeating.
Britain, one of the most unequal societies, with moribund political institutions and an increasing disdain for human rights, desperately needs a radical government of the centre-left.
We wish Gordon Brown well. We hope that, this time, Labour delivers.
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.
