UK Politics
A good start, but Gordon Brown will ignore the left at his peril
Published 21 May 2007
What if General Galtieri had not invaded the Falklands 25 years ago? What if Neil Kinnock had not held his Sheffield rally in 1992? What if John Smith had not died in 1994? Counter-factual history invariably intrigues, but rarely guides. And yet, as Gordon Brown marks a successful first week as prime minister in all but name, one question continues to nag. What if Robin Cook had not collapsed while climbing mountains in Scotland in August 2005?
This matters not because Cook might have challenged Brown for the top job. One does not know what would have transpired in the intervening two years, but chances are that, although he would have played an important role in Tony Blair's Iraq-soiled final years, Cook would have been an unlikely leadership contender. It matters rather because of the politics that Cook stood for. Brown has long shared some of that radicalism, and has recently acquired more. An anger over poverty and injustice, at home and abroad, is something the two men shared; likewise a respect for hard work and a disdain for spin and celebrity. In the past few months, as he has finalised his programme for office, Brown has acquired some of Cook's passion for constitutional change, and for a more ethical and multilateral approach to foreign policy.
Brown accedes to the throne with public expectations low after a decade of Labour rule, but paradoxically high among those who could still be categorised as being of the left. As the hapless search for a leadership challenger testified, this group struggles for meaningful representation. There is, however, another kind of left, one that all too rarely finds a voice at Westminster. This is manifested in everything from living-wage campaigns and generic environmental causes to the many who oppose Britain's now-redundant nuclear deterrent. They are concerned about, and prepared to fight for, civil liberties.
These people are not the fringe, as the Blairites believed for so long. It is only in the UK, and the US, too (as Andrew Stephen notes on page 12), that anyone who advocates liberal or radical views is regarded as extreme. As the deputy leadership candidate Jon Cruddas has pointed out, these people cut across class, age, gender, race and region. They should all be natural Labour voters. Some may - thanks to Iraq - be lost for ever, but many are recoverable. Most are realistic enough to know that they will not achieve all their aims.
Brown has devoted considerable time to nurturing friendships with the editors and proprietors of the Daily Mail (something Blair achieved only briefly) and with Rupert Murdoch and his executives. He will strain every sinew not to lose them now. The often desperate attempts to court these self-styled voices of the floating voter are a consequence of Britain's skewed electoral system. Brown will have to act deftly to combine this requirement with the need to revive progressive politics. He has made several positive gestures. His eco-towns proposal combines what we hope will be a more ambitious approach to green policy with a long-overdue commitment to increase the supply of social housing; his approach to public services is likely to revolve more around outcomes and less around tinkering with systems.
But he can and must do more to distance himself from the workings of the former administration. He has made the right noises about rebuilding trust in politics, so in two areas he should intervene strongly and quickly. He should tell his allies to stop their lamentable attempts to exempt MPs from Freedom of Information legislation. And he should prepare to abandon the dangerous identity card scheme, whose enormous cost overruns were smuggled out - in true new Labour secrecy - on the day of Blair's resignation announcement.
As our political editor argues on page 10, Brown will soon realise that he needs the left, inside and outside parliament, more than he currently cares to admit. There will be many arguments, and this is healthy for democracy. What Brown must not do is to follow Blair in defining himself against progressives to curry favour with those whose politics are thoroughly reactionary. That way lies the path to destruction.
Final proof that Tony was a Tory
We always knew that the new Labour vanguard were closet Tories. Now, as the sun sets on the Blair administration, comes the proof. Invitations to the wedding of the soon-to-be ex-PM's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, specify a strict dress code: "no ties".
Allowing the top shirt button to swing free of formal encumbrance is, of course, the mark of David Cameron's Conservative Party. Not a photo opportunity goes by without "Dave" and his friends parading their lack of stuffiness and exposing an inch or two of boyish chest. Prominent Labour figures, on the other hand, may have been accused sometimes of possessing "brass neck", but never "open neck".
Those who grew up in the Labour tradition, such as Alan Johnson and John Prescott, are never seen in public without a decent length of silk (perhaps, it pains one to say, occasionally polyester) knotted about their top button.
But Powell - the brother, let us not forget, of Margaret Thatcher's trusted adviser Charles Powell - like Blair, did not imbibe the strong brew of socialism along with his breaktime milk. They both "chose" the Labour Party - a dubious honour for which few now feel inclined to thank them.
Many Blairites mix socially with the Cameroons. The dress code on the Blair sofa has long been "no jacket required". Now that ties are being openly dispensed with, too, the true blue colours of his circle have finally been revealed.
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.
