An LED screen displayed the word "Labour". Photo: Oli Scarff/Getty Images
Show Hide image

Will we ever see a Thatcher of the left? Peter Hain and Will Hutton on Labour’s potential for reform

In new books, both Hain and Hutton recognise Labour as the only vehicle for reform – but what kind will emerge remains to be seen.

Back to the Future of Socialism
Peter Hain
Policy Press, 304pp, £19.99

How Good We Can Be: Ending the Mercenary Society and Building a Great Country
Will Hutton
Little, Brown, 304pp, £16.99

The financial crisis was a moment of optimism for the left. The form of capitalism that had reigned for three decades was held to have been so discredited that change was inevitable. Just as the postwar consensus evaporated in the 1970s, it was thought that the long wave of neoliberalism would retreat. The ensuing seven years have shown how misguided these hopes were.

After the initial shock to its standing, the market reasserted itself with remarkable ease. Through a supreme act of political conjuring, the right redefined a crisis of banking as one of debt. Ever since, the left has struggled to contest this narrative. Since the abandonment of socialism and the discrediting of “the Third Way”, it has lacked an alternative account of the economy and society. In those few countries where it has taken power, such as France, it has invariably disappointed expectations.

It is against this backdrop that the former Labour cabinet minister Peter Hain and the Observer columnist Will Hutton ask how the left can be regenerated, offering their manifestos for the transformation of Britain’s economy and its governance.

Both proceed with reference to past tracts. Hain’s book is intended as a sequel to Anthony Crosland’s revered The Future of Socialism (1956), a project that Ed Miliband had aspired to pursue during his sabbatical year at Harvard. Hutton’s marks 20 years since the publication of The State We’re In, his excoriating critique of Thatcherism that was briefly embraced by New Labour. As he notes with regret, the defects that he anatomised then proved even greater than he feared: “I certainly thought the gentlemanly capitalists of British finance short-termist and far too powerful – but believed they had an instinct for self-preservation; I had not reckoned that the whole system could be driven to the point of collapse.”

Hain and Hutton write with respect for New Labour’s achievements: the minimum wage, devolution, the improvement of public services and the large reductions in child and pensioner poverty. Both locate its defining failure in its unwillingness to challenge the economic settlement it inherited. They affirm their faith in the market as an indispensable means of wealth generation but crucially recognise that the question is not whether capitalism should exist but what form it should take. (Hain’s “socialism” is largely a romantic rubric for a social-democratic programme.)

In opposition to David Cameron, who has perpetuated the myth that “big gov­ernment” got us “into this mess”, they contend that only an active state can get us out. The task is now to reshape the economy so that it better serves the twin objectives of prosperity and equality. Both argue for the empowerment of state banks to drive investment, for the imposition of a training levy on companies (to remedy the British disease of low productivity), for employee profit-sharing, for the renewal of trade unions as stakeholders in capitalism, rather than as marginalised opponents – and for the revival of public ownership in the case of natural monopolies such as the railways.

The evidence marshalled for these demands is a salutary reminder of how successive UK governments have arrogantly neglected best practice. As Hain writes, “There is no future for Britain trying to compete at the shoddy end of the quality spectrum, charging rock-bottom prices for copycat products made using clapped-out kit by unskilled labour on poor pay.”

In rejecting the economic assumptions that continue to hold sway among the establishment, they also reject the dominant fiscal assumptions. Both rightly chide Labour for its timidity in rebutting the Conservative assertion that Britain only narrowly avoided bankruptcy in 2008 and that deficit reduction must be prioritised above all else. Hutton notes, “The national debt has been proportionally higher for most of the last 300 years, with the low national debt in the three decades before the First World War and the three decades up to the financial crisis the norm rather than the exception.” The best means of restoring the public finances to health is not austerity but growth through investment. With its long-term debt maturity (an average of 14 years) and ultra-low borrowing costs, Britain is well placed to follow this path. Hain argues for a £60bn two-year programme of investment “focused upon housing, infrastructure, low-carbon investment and education and skills”.

Where growth cannot fill the gap, the priority should be tax rises, in a country where the state continues to levy less than many of its competitors. Hutton calls for “higher taxes on wealth, business and property, from ending the UK’s tax-haven status, broadening the VAT base and taxing polluters”. More radically, Hain proposes all of these as well as a financial transaction tax, the abolition of the upper earnings limit for National Insurance and the extension of stamp duty to football transfer fees. If all of these measures lie starkly to the left of the recent consensus, it is worth noting that, as in the case of the 50p tax rate and the “mansion tax”, they would likely command overwhelming public support.

As well as confronting the UK’s persistent flaws of low investment, extreme inequality and dilapidated infrastructure, Hain and Hutton demand an end to its absurdly centralised state. With the public increasingly alienated from Westminster – most vividly displayed in the vote for Scottish independence – the creation of a federal Britain and large-scale devolution to city regions can no longer be deferred.

It is a programme worthy of any progressive government. The harder task is identifying how it can be effected. Hutton, in common with Hain, recognises Labour as the only vehicle for such reforms. Indeed, no British leader in recent times has better represented their social-democratic aspirations than Ed Miliband. But because of the long-term decline in support for the party, it may struggle to fulfil this role. Any Labour government that takes office after the general election will almost certainly do so without a parliamentary majority, with Ukip, the SNP and the Greens all poised to erode its base further. After the birth of multiparty politics, Britain may never again elect governments capable of emulating the transformations of the past. That the times demand a new Attlee, or a Thatcher of the left, is without doubt. What is not is whether one will yet emerge.

Will Hutton will appear at the Cambridge Literary Festival, in association with the New Statesman, on 17 April

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

This article first appeared in the 20 February 2015 issue of the New Statesman, Still hanging

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

After Richmond Park, Labour MPs are haunted by a familiar ghost

Labour MPs in big cities fear the Liberal Democrats, while in the north, they fear Ukip. 

The Liberal Democrats’ victory in Richmond Park has Conservatives nervous, and rightly so. Not only did Sarah Olney take the votes of soft Conservatives who backed a Remain vote on 23 June, she also benefited from tactical voting from Labour voters.

Although Richmond Park is the fifth most pro-Remain constituency won by a Conservative at the 2015 election, the more significant number – for the Liberal Democrats at least – is 15: that’s the number of Tory-held seats they could win if they reduced the Labour vote by the same amount they managed in Richmond Park.

The Tories have two Brexit headaches, electorally speaking. The first is the direct loss of voters who backed David Cameron in 2015 and a Remain vote in 2016 to the Liberal Democrats. The second is that Brexit appears to have made Liberal Democrat candidates palatable to Labour voters who backed the party as the anti-Conservative option in seats where Labour is generally weak from 1992 to 2010, but stayed at home or voted Labour in 2015.

Although local council by-elections are not as dramatic as parliamentary ones, they offer clues as to how national elections may play out, and it’s worth noting that Richmond Park wasn’t the only place where the Liberal Democrats saw a dramatic surge in the party’s fortunes. They also made a dramatic gain in Chichester, which voted to leave.

(That’s the other factor to remember in the “Leave/Remain” divide. In Liberal-Conservative battlegrounds where the majority of voters opted to leave, the third-placed Labour and Green vote tends to be heavily pro-Remain.)

But it’s not just Conservatives with the Liberal Democrats in second who have cause to be nervous.  Labour MPs outside of England's big cities have long been nervous that Ukip will do to them what the SNP did to their Scottish colleagues in 2015. That Ukip is now in second place in many seats that Labour once considered safe only adds to the sense of unease.

In a lot of seats, the closeness of Ukip is overstated. As one MP, who has the Conservatives in second place observed, “All that’s happened is you used to have five or six no-hopers, and all of that vote has gone to Ukip, so colleagues are nervous”. That’s true, to an extent. But it’s worth noting that the same thing could be said for the Liberal Democrats in Conservative seats in 1992. All they had done was to coagulate most of the “anyone but the Conservative” vote under their banner. In 1997, they took Conservative votes – and with it, picked up 28 formerly Tory seats.

Also nervous are the party’s London MPs, albeit for different reasons. They fear that Remain voters will desert them for the Liberal Democrats. (It’s worth noting that Catherine West, who sits for the most pro-Remain seat in the country, has already told constituents that she will vote against Article 50, as has David Lammy, another North London MP.)

A particular cause for alarm is that most of the party’s high command – Jeremy Corbyn, Emily Thornberry, Diane Abbott, and Keir Starmer – all sit for seats that were heavily pro-Remain. Thornberry, in particular, has the particularly dangerous combination of a seat that voted Remain in June but has flirted with the Liberal Democrats in the past, with the shadow foreign secretary finishing just 484 votes ahead of Bridget Fox, the Liberal Democrat candidate, in 2005.

Are they right to be worried? That the referendum allowed the Liberal Democrats to reconfigure the politics of Richmond Park adds credence to a YouGov poll that showed a pro-Brexit Labour party finishing third behind a pro-second referendum Liberal Democrat party, should Labour go into the next election backing Brexit and the Liberal Democrats opt to oppose it.

The difficulty for Labour is the calculation for the Liberal Democrats is easy. They are an unabashedly pro-European party, from their activists to their MPs, and the 22 per cent of voters who back a referendum re-run are a significantly larger group than the eight per cent of the vote that Nick Clegg’s Liberal Democrats got in 2015.

The calculus is more fraught for Labour. In terms of the straight Conservative battle, their best hope is to put the referendum question to bed and focus on issues which don’t divide their coalition in two, as immigration does. But for separate reasons, neither Ukip nor the Liberal Democrats will be keen to let them.

At every point, the referendum question poses difficulties for Labour. Even when neither Ukip nor the Liberal Democrats take seats from them directly, they can hurt them badly, allowing the Conservatives to come through the middle.

The big problem is that the stance that makes sense in terms of maintaining party unity is to try to run on a ticket of moving past the referendum and focussing on the party’s core issues of social justice, better public services and redistribution.

But the trouble with that approach is that it’s alarmingly similar to the one favoured by Kezia Dugdale and Scottish Labour in 2016, who tried to make the election about public services, not the constitution. They came third, behind a Conservative party that ran on an explicitly pro-Union platform. The possibility of an English sequel should not be ruled out.  

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. His daily briefing, Morning Call, provides a quick and essential guide to British politics.