Labour would reform the state, not just rebuild it

Tight budgets will demand imagination and innovation in the way public services are run.

Against a background of austerity and pessimism, it is Labour’s duty to set out a vision for Britain’s future which is both optimistic and hard headed. As Ed Miliband has said it is our One Nation mission is to tilt the balance from despair to hope.

Optimism is needed to counter the Tories’ divided, inward-looking version of Britain. But Labour must also be hard headed because the country will take time to change. Tight financial constraints will require tough choices. As some budgets are increased to reflect our priorities others will have to be scaled back. These “switch spends” will not be an option but a necessity.

The road will not be easy. One Nation Labour is a decade’s commitment to national renewal. It offers a new contract for Britain’s future, committing a Labour Government to support ambition, fairness and strong communities. We are under no illusion that to win two successive elections we will have to demonstrate our progressive passion can deliver real change for families in an era where there is less money around. 

In the aftermath of the global financial crisis, Ed Miliband has led the debate on the need for big changes to the economy. He and the shadow cabinet also know that One Nation Britain will require big changes to the state, which, by 2015, will have been battered by cuts and subjected to an ideological onslaught on its value and integrity. Our vision for a new state is not about simply repairing the damage, recreating the post war state or replicating the state we built between 1997 and 2010. It will reflect both financial limits and the challenges of a changing world. Labour knows both that an active, effective state is an essential force for good   but that it should never be suffocating, overcentralised, undermine autonomy or diminish the importance of non-state factors in building the good society. That is why we will reduce the role of the state where appropriate and strengthen it where necessary.

This article is primarily about the states place in our one nation story about national renewal, a new social contract, public service improvement and a new democratic engagement between Government and citizen. I recognise a major priority for the state is always to protect the security of its citizens. I have no doubt this will rightly be the focus of other peoples contributions to the debate about a new state.

A One Nation approach recognises that both unconstrained markets and an over-bureaucratic state can frustrate people, holding them back from the lives they want to lead. All MPs surgeries include often vulnerable individuals who receive poor treatment at the hands of one public institution or another. So tackling inequality is about improving life chances and living standards but also requires us also to ensure people irrespective of status are treated with respect in their interactions with the state.

Labour’s vision of a new state must signal our commitment to a new engagement between government and citizen. The story we tell about the One Nation Britain we want to nurture recognises both the virtues and the limits of the state. As Jon Cruddas has said, people’s lives are shaped by relationships with family, colleagues, friends and community networks focused around leisure pursuits, the voluntary sector, faith and community identity.

The NHS, schools, policing, council services will always be vital, but our quality of life is heavily dependent on these non-state relationships. So the state needs to achieve the right balance between supporting these positive relationships and networks without seeking to replace or undermine them. Cameron’s Big Society did not fail because the public didn’t want a greater voice in shaping their own neighbourhoods and services. It failed because of deep rooted cynicism about Tories who claimed to champion active communities while cutting the voluntary sector, failed to appreciate the enabling role the state can play and were enacting policies that corrode the foundations of strong communities.

By the end of our period in government, Labour’s failure to talk about family and community left the impression that we saw Britain’s future only through the prism of state and market. One Nation Labour believes our future success depends on our capacity to harness the best of an active state, aspirational individuals, strong families and community networks supported by a vibrant private sector. A healthy life usually achieves the right balance between independence and interdependence.

A new "Rights and Duties" social contract will define the relationship between state and citizen. Rules and expectations that are explicit about both government’s responsibilities and the duty of citizens to make a positive contribution related to their ability and means. What does that mean? A tough and fair welfare system with a greater correlation between what people contribute and what they should expect in return while recognising that vulnerable people must always be treated with dignity and compassion. This includes a compulsory jobs guarantee for the long term and young unemployed and a clear requirement to take work except in cases of sickness or serious disability; rewards and incentives for wealth creators who innovate and invest for the long term with a clear expectation that businesses will contribute their fair share in taxes and decent pay; a living wage that will reduce the numbers dependent on the state for their income; a cap on non-EU immigration with immigrants supported to integrate, including a requirement to learn English; neighbourhood policing with the powers to enforce a zero tolerance approach to anti-social behaviour. The vast majority of British people are fair-minded, tolerant and generous but they want to be sure their government  will be tough in ensuring that the system is fair and not abused by their fellow citizens.  

Labour will need to undo the damage this government is doing to public services but we will also set out our own radical programme for change. When we left office, NHS waiting times and crime were at record low levels. Schools were improving with disproportionate progress being made in deprived communities. This didn’t happen by chance but through a combination of investment and reform. Many of the reforms were necessary and effective but it is also important to acknowledge that some top-down targets led to unintended consequences and sapped the morale of staff, crowding out innovation and creativity.

One Nation public services means a commitment to minimising the post code lottery with core entitlements and standards. It means striving to bring up the levels of the worse to those of the best in every community. Service improvement is essential to meet public expectations, reduce inequality, enable us to do more with less and cope with the demographic challenge of an ageing society.

This should not be about perpetual organisational upheaval but improving the quality and efficiency of the frontline. National standards, expressed in terms of entitlements, would be coupled with support for local delivery and innovation, transparent measures of performance, tough new value-for-money duties and audits, more empowered and more accountable staff at all levels, and a relentless focus on world class leadership. The remuneration of public service managers and executives should be subject to much greater transparency and scrutiny. Public service changes should not be imposed top down but co-designed with staff and citizens.

New private sector provision would be supported where state provision has repeatedly failed or is unable to meet needs and where partnerships between public and private can improve outcomes. But this has to be within a framework of public accountability and high ethical standards. It is one tool in the locker, not the answer in all times and places.

In the NHS and education, the Tories have focused on giving power to the providers of services. One Nation Labour will give more influence and control to patients and parents. In my view choice is neither a panacea nor a realistic option in many circumstances. But it is crucial to give people a personalised - not a “conveyor belt” - service, with greater control for individuals and families over decisions about their lives together with a greater stake in collective community provision.

It was a Labour Government that promoted personal care budgets, neighbourhood based budgets and a membership model for NHS foundation trusts. An increasing number of Labour councils are introducing new cooperative models of public service organisation. We will continue to be the public service pioneers and innovators. Whitehall must be reformed to remove the policy and financial silos which lead to poor procurement and undermine integrated frontline service delivery and place-based budgeting. More power and resources should be devolved to local councils and city regions in return for greater voluntary sector, community and business participation.

If we are to make inroads with those families who continue to present the most challenges to their communities we must change an approach which involves numerous agencies that fail collectively to achieve any real change. Instead, each family  should have one named lead professional who has control of a pooled budget and an agreed contract focused on opportunities and responsibilities. This would be both more efficient and more likely to reduce social exclusion on a long term basis.

Within a framework of clear national standards, our approach to service delivery will be to redistribute power from Westminster and Whitehall to local statutory and voluntary organisation, communities and citizens. Our aim must be to ensure that the vast majority who rely on the state for education, health and social care have access to the same quality and also the same level of control   as those who can afford to buy the best private provision.

As the failure of the coalition’s economic policies has demonstrated there will be no prospect of a fairer, more united country without dynamic businesses generating jobs and growth. That is why Chuka Umunna is working with business to identify how the state can develop an active industrial strategy, supporting UK plc to compete in the global market. This is something we came late to in government. It should have been an integral part of our policy from the beginning. Government must play a leading role in supporting viable businesses of all sizes to start, grow and scale up by ensuring Britain has the infrastructure, skills and capacity to innovate. We should not apologise for providing targeted support to sectors which give UK plc competitive advantage – new manufacturing and the green economy, for example. Nor should we be timid about the radical changes in skillset and mindset which will be required to create a new entrepeneurial Whitehall with the capacity to drive an active industrial strategy in partnership with business.

Most of all, as Ed Miliband has said, the economic model which is predicated on wealth and opportunity trickling down from a few at the top has been discredited. An active industrial strategy must ensure the economy delivers for the working people who help to create the wealth. Britain’s recovery will be built by the many not by relying on a few at the top.

A new state must also adopt a radically different way of interacting with citizens. “Real Time Democracy” requires new kinds of engagement, accountability and participation. The same level of effort made by parties to connect with the electorate during election campaigns should be devoted to engaging with citizens by a government throughout its term in office. Labour wants to consider a number of new ways of making this happen, harnessing the power of social media. In opposition, Labour’s Peoples’ Policy Forum and Your Britain website have already gone a long way in opening up the party’s policymaking process. Some potential ideas for an incoming Labour Government could include: opening up decision-making in a way that does not simply share the outcome with the electorate but includes the range of options under consideration; senior officials being expected to create advisory boards of frontline experts, including service providers and users; fewer Whitehall “consultations” and more citizen juries; public services having a duty to publish accounts and create systems of external scrutiny. The new state must have the explicit goal of improving public confidence and trust in the political process.

If we are to build an ambitious, fair and proud Britain we must reject those who want to pose a bogus choice between big and small state. The Tories are hell bent on undermining public confidence in the capability of government. By the time we left office it sometimes appeared that we believed the state alone could resolve our economic and social challenges. The truth is that building One Nation in the context of a shrinking interdependent world and where we are truly all in it together will require the best of an active state, strong families, ambitious individuals, dynamic wealth creators, a vibrant civil society and empowered communities. It is getting the support and incentives right to give people a real stake in our national renewal which will determine our nation’s future destiny. That is how Labour will rebuild Britain.

Ivan Lewis is the MP for Bury South

Photograph: Getty Images
Matt Cardy/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Former MP Bob Marshall-Andrews: Why I’m leaving Labour and joining the Lib Dems

A former political ally of Jeremy Corbyn explains why he is leaving Labour after nearly 50 years.

I’m leaving home. It’s a very hard thing to do. All of my natural allegiances have been to Labour, and never had I contemplated leaving the party – not even in the gloomy years, when we were fighting Iraq and the battles over civil liberties. I have always taken the view that it’s far better to stay within it. But it has just gone too far. There has been a total failure to identify the major issues of our age.

The related problems of the environment, globalisation and the migration of impoverished people are almost ignored in favour of the renationalisation of the railways and mantras about the National Health Service. The assertion that Labour could run the NHS better than the Tories may be true, but it is not the battle hymn of a modern republic. It is at best well-meaning, at worst threadbare. I don’t want to spend the rest of my life talking about renationalising the railways while millions of people move across the world because of famine, war and climate change.

The centre left in British politics is in retreat, and the demise of the Labour Party has the grim inevitability of a Shakespearean tragedy. Ironically, history will show that Labour’s fatal flaw lay in its spectacular success.

Labour is, in essence, a party of the 20th century, and in those 100 years it did more to advance the freedom and well-being of working people and the disadvantaged than any other political movement in history. The aspirations of the founding fathers – access to education, health and welfare; equality before the law; collective organisation; universal franchise – have all to a large extent been achieved. The party’s record of racial and religious tolerance has been a beacon in a century of repression. These achievements have been enshrined in the fabric of British society and reproduced across the world.

The success brought deserved, unprecedented power and created political fortresses across the industrial heartlands of Britain. But with power, the party became increasingly moribund and corrupt. The manipulation of the union block vote at party conferences became a national disgrace. The Labour heartlands, particularly Scotland, were treated like rotten boroughs, and were too often represented by union placemen.

Instead of seeking a new radicalism appropriate to the challenges of the age, New Labour sought to ambush the Tories on the management of market capital and to outflank them on law and order: a fool’s errand. It inevitably succumbed to another form of corruption based on hubris and deceit, resulting in attacks on civil liberty, financial disaster and catastrophic war.

The reaction has been to lurch back to the status quo. The extraordinary fall from a massive majority of 179 in 1997 to a political basket case has been blamed on the false dichotomy between Blairism and the old, unionised Labour. Both have contributed to the disaster in equal measure.

I believe desperately in the politics of the 21st century, and Labour is at best paying lip service to it – epitomised in its failure to engage in the Brexit debate, which I was horrified by. The Liberal Democrats are far from perfect, but they have been consistent on Europe, as they were in their opposition to the Iraq War and on civil liberties. They deserve support.

But it’s a serious wrench. I’m leaving friends, and it hurts. Jeremy Corbyn was a political ally of mine on a number of serious issues. We made common cause on Tony Blair’s assaults on civil liberty and the Iraq War, and we went to Gaza together. He has many of the right ideas, but he simply has not moved into addressing the major problems.

To be blunt, I don’t think Corbyn is leadership material, but that is aside from politics. You need skills as a leader, and I don’t think he’s got them, but I was prepared to stick it out to see what happened. It has been a great, gradual disappointment, and Brexit has brought it all to the fore.

Frankly, I was surprised that he announced he was a Remainer, because I know that his natural sympathies have lain with a small cadre within Labour – an old-fashioned cadre that holds that any form of trade bloc among relatively wealthy nations is an abhorrence. It’s not: it’s the way forward. Yet there are people who believe that, and I know he has always been sympathetic to them.

But by signing up and then doing nothing, you sell the pass. Labour was uniquely qualified to confront the deliberate falsehoods trumpeted about the NHS – the absurd claims of massive financial dividends to offset the loss of doctors
and nurses already packing their bags – and it failed. Throughout that campaign, the Labour leadership was invisible, or worse.

At present, there is a huge vacuum on the centre left, represented in substantial part by an angry 48 per cent of the electorate who rejected Brexit and the lies on which it was based. Politics, like nature, abhors a vacuum. There is no sign from Labour that the issue is even to be addressed, let alone actively campaigned on. The Labour leadership has signed up to Brexit and, in doing so, rejected the principles of international co-operation that Europe has fostered for half a century. That is not a place I want to be.

The failure to work with, or even acknowledge, other political parties is doctrinaire lunacy. And it will end very badly, I think. The centre left has an obligation to coalesce, and to renege on that obligation is reneging on responsibility. Not to sit on the same platform as other parties during the Brexit debate is an absurd statement of political purity, which has no place at all in modern politics.

The Liberal Democrats have grasped the political challenges of the 21st century as surely as their predecessors in the Liberal Party failed to comprehend those that faced the world a century ago. For that reason, I will sign up and do my best to lend support in my political dotage. After nearly 50 years as a Labour man, I do so with a heavy heart – but at least with some radical hope for my grandchildren.

Bob Marshall-Andrews was the Labour MP for Medway from 1997 to 2010.

As told to Anoosh Chakelian.

This article first appeared in the 27 April 2017 issue of the New Statesman, Cool Britannia 20 Years On

0800 7318496