Return to: Home | Politics | UK Politics

Individual, but collective

Published 12 June 2008

There is a paradox at the centre of modern politics, and the Labour Party must grasp it

As the new Labour project comes to a shuddering halt, attempts by the Blairites to revive it throw into stark relief two contrasting possible directions for the the Labour Party. Most recently and notably, those who want to salvage the wreckage of new Labour have called on the party to "liberalise or die". But what type of liberty do they mean? The answer the party gives will determine whether it has a progressive future or not.

There are two types of liberals. The first are those, like the Blairites, who are essentially still in the neo-liberal box. We can call them "neo-Labour". The others are those who want a more "social" liberalism. Both types start from the same question: how are people to take control of their lives in the 21st century? But their responses are very different.

Labour's neo-liberals have emerged out of the decade-long process of triangulation that has taken much of the party's programme into centre-right territory. Their target is the centralised and bureaucratised state, which they want to see broken up and power passed down to individuals. Smashing the state is, for them, what defines new from old Labour. But the essential point is that they are liberal on economics. Free markets and globalisation are to them an inevitable force that must be accommodated. Not only must markets be largely left alone, they must also be encouraged into the public services to make them more efficient.

The guiding force of neo-Labourism is the former health secretary Alan Milburn who, in a speech 18 months ago, and repeated more recently, argued for power to shift from the state to the individual. "We can't let the right be the voice of the me generation," he has written. So ideological and electoral strategy come together: the Tories are defeated by taking their terrain before they have a chance to get there.

So far there is very little detail about what all this might mean. Individual budgets are the one big idea, but their range is limited to long-term conditions, and they bring with them all sorts of problems, especially in terms of equity. Those that can top up and game the system will do better. Inequalities will be exacerbated. Individual budgets just follow the inexorable logic of the market. If individuals are best placed to spend their money, then why not go for Tory-style vouchers or, better still, drop tax altogether and cut back the state? Sound familiar? It should do - this is not just the sentiment of Thatcherism but of former Labour minister Denis MacShane MP writing in the Telegraph just a few weeks ago.

The problem with this neo-Labour form of liberalism is that it does nothing to calm the anxiety and insecurity of modern life. The shift from collective security to the daily individual struggle to survive is the root cause of the social recession the country is experiencing. We are better off but less happy, able to buy more of what we want but unable to control the big things that affect our lives.

There is another way. Liberalism starts with the individual, but true autonomy and freedom comes only from collective action. This is social liberalism, or if you like liberal socialism. It is a creed temporarily crushed by Fordism and the mass production and mass politics of the 20th century. Now all that is unravelling, there is an opportunity for it to reassert itself.

Social liberals recognise the complexity of modern life. They want diversity, experimentation and localism so that people are more engaged in key decisions. But they want fairness, and as much equality and universalism as possible, which can only come from a strong centre. This creates the central paradox of modern politics, as diversity and equality conflict.

A paradox can't be solved, only managed - and the tool to manage it is democracy. Instead of the bureaucratic or market state, social liberals want a democratic state, so that at every level, people are given not just more individual control to pick and choose providers but a collective say in the big decisions and institutions that currently dominate their lives.

Patient power

Let's take an example. If a patient is unhappy with their GP, the neo-Labourites would advocate exit, based on a competitive alternative. But the problem is that it's usually only the more affluent and confident middle classes who have the means and the car to find a different GP. Even then it's hard to know if the new GP is any better. And how does exit encourage the old one to improve? What if instead all the patients held an AGM and had the power to vote on whether the GP retains their post based on proper deliberation and debate? The reality of a collective "you're fired" would be a huge incentive to perform. In the process, a demoralised service is remoralised through the engagement and ownership of users and producers. Already people with individual budgets are clubbing together to form co-operatives to buy services collectively rather than individually. They are pooling risk to get a better quality of service.

Neo-Labourism fails to meet the complexities of living in the 21st century, but is not even working at the level of electoral strategy as the Conservatives, no longer stupid or nasty, are refusing to play the triangulation game. Blairism has left so much space to the left that David Cameron has found it impossible not to leapfrog into it.

There is an important dividing line between liberals and authoritarians, but an even bigger one between the left that wants equality and democracy and the right that wants free markets and more individualism. It's the battle for the heart and soul of what's left of the Labour Party.

Neal Lawson is chair of Compass. The New Statesman is sponsoring its national conference, "Born Free and Equal", in London on Saturday 14 June. Details at www.compassonline.org.uk

Post this article to

8 comments from readers

OneUnderGod
12 June 2008 at 12:13

When buisness excess bankrupts itself then all of a sudden its govts duty to save them ,yet by the same token govt lets buisness do as they chose ,its having your cake and eating it too.

But not one buisnes votes govt into power ,its the voters seeking the govt protection , protection that govt seems to only give to big buisness.

But then media is a big buisness as well ,just as taking the voter /tax payer is the fodder for the court 's ,

thus lawyer-ing has become a big buisness ,

but what is pointing out the obvious

the voter dosnt matter ,just because their taxes , govt fees levies pay for only further oppression.

Then we get to medicines big buisness, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2008/06/1...

read how this heavely govt subsidised big multinational is killing us [but govt dont care] ,it serves its elite and to hell with the damm people.

well to hell with labour ,the two party demon-autocRATic farce is killing us all ,[but govt is deaf [the media is dumb ,self serving and deliberatly keeping the true facts from the people.

taghioff.info
12 June 2008 at 14:49

This type of thinking is much more compatible with what needs to happen internationally, in terms of moving towards democracy at a global level, than the current hole the left is in.

cybernet
12 June 2008 at 22:00

Gosh, If this is what Compass stands for please count me in!

Libertarian Socialism empowers the collective in the running of services they want, and gives them 'ownership' of them at the same time. I've long believed that the move to privatise public services is a disaster for the left, but we've gone along with it because state-ism doesn't seem to either work or be affordable. Now we find that privatisation (surprise, surprise) doesn't work either.

What we need is to do is stop telling people what is going to happen, such as having their bins emptied every fortnight instead of weekly, and ask whether they want daily collections together with paying the price that would mean to them. In other words, we need to be much more democratic and power needs to be devolved to the lowest possible level.

The argument against this approach is that the masses are too busy to bother and cliques would take the power, but anybody involved in politics knows that when the people are involved they are interested. They will go to a cold, remote school hall to hear about local plans and watch councillors deliberating the pros and cons of issues which otherwise might be called 'boring'. This in turn has a positive know-on effect as ordinary people see that their representatives are ordinary too, so they also consider becoming councillors etc.

As the freedom agenda has been shoved firmly into the spotlight, Labour looks like it's on the wrong side of the argument. What better way to change that than giving power to the people?

writeon
12 June 2008 at 23:08

Where to start? That's the first problem in attempting to analyse the malaise at the heart of the Labour Party. How far back should one go, how broadly should one examine things, that's the question?

Perhaps there's a fundamental, structural, flaw or profound misunderstanding and mistake at the very heart of the social democratic reform project, and not just in Britain? Is it that, basically they simply don't really see or understand the true nature of the 'free market' and 'Capitalism', and therefore all their attempts at reform are inevitably doomed to failure in the end, and 'the end' can take serveral decades to mature? But this is a massively complex subject to get into, so I'll take a step back and try something else.

Perhaps part of the problem lies in the very title of the Compass conference? 'Born free and equal'. Is this meant to be ironic, a form of satire? Probably not. Yet even here, in a detail, there's something missing. Where is the question mark? Surely it should read, 'Born free and equal?' The original title is a typical New Labour stylye platitude, and time has run out for more of them, surely; the second an attempt to question assumptions and redefine the core of the debate.

People are not born free and equal in contemporary Britain. In fact they are less free and less equal than they've been for decades, despite the efforts of New Labour to soften the worst, most stupid and vindictive aspects of raw and brutal Thatcherism. Surely this must give some pause for thought? That after ten years of New Labour and a 'boom' the levels of inequality in society have actually gotten worse. Doesn't this, at the very least, indicate that there are mechanisms at work in the economy and the 'free market' that promote and nurture inequality, despite the policies of the state to 'massage' the system?

And it's not as if inequalty doesn't really matter, that a rising economic tide lifts all boats etc. Economic inequalty is a profound indicator of other inequalities. Inequalities of diat, of eductation, of life expectantcy, of housing conditions, of health, of political involvement.... and on and on. Inequality really, really, matters and has profound consequences for society. Economic inequality also means that Power in society is also distributed unequally and this has implications for the kind of democracy one sees in Britain. It's a democracy which is profoundly unequal and distorted.

Britain is becoming a democracy like the United States, where a minority rules and the majority simply watches and shrugs 'what the point?'. Democracy should be a system where the people participate, not merely a kind of spectator sport, or a sport where one takes part every four or five years in an election. Democracy is about far more than elections. Democracy should be about a strong democratic culture and democratic involvement in all aspects of society, democracy at the core of society. Yet in Britain today one is moving in the opposite direction and has been for years.

Is it just a coincidence that the rise of Thatcherism and the power of market forces has happened at the same time as democracy has been rolled back and back? No, of course not. In esssence Thatcherism was a form, dare one even say it? of class warfare, a successful strategy to counter the post war attempts to redistribute wealth and power in society and build social democracy. And what is social democracy at heart? A mild form of gentle 'socialism' designed to mitigate the worst effects, the most socially destructive aspects of a uncontrolled market system left to itself. A market system left to itself creates massive economic and social inequalities, that is in its DNA, it's very structure, and this has important implications for democracy.

Britain like the United States has become a kind of controlled or managed democracy. A form of market democracy, only markets aren't democratic, Capitalism isn't democratic in its essence. And perhaps it's this fundamental truth that social democrats don't really understand or perhaps they don't really care about what equality really means and why it's important, and why nobody whose bought and sold in the marketplace can be free and equal?

Riaz Ahmad
13 June 2008 at 01:49

What is Blairism? Servile addiction to everything American, including politics getting in to bed with big business and the press (also part and parcel of big business) just like it is in USA. The government feeds the public with a daily dose of spin and half truths followed by a second dose of spin and sensationalism from the press.

knave
13 June 2008 at 14:42

"The argument against this approach is that the masses are too busy to bother and cliques would take the power, but anybody involved in politics knows that when the people are involved they are interested."

Very true and believe it or not it is the so called authoritarians such as Brown and Balls that want to bring true socialism to the people. Schemes like surestart and extended schools are aimed at diverting power to the providers and consumers.

knave
13 June 2008 at 14:51

"Let's take an example. If a patient is unhappy with their GP, the neo-Labourites would advocate exit, based on a competitive alternative. But the problem is that it's usually only the more affluent and confident middle classes who have the means and the car to find a different GP. Even then it's hard to know if the new GP is any better. And how does exit encourage the old one to improve? What if instead all the patients held an AGM and had the power to vote on whether the GP retains their post based on proper deliberation and debate? The reality of a collective "you're fired" would be a huge incentive to perform. In the process, a demoralised service is remoralised through the engagement and ownership of users and producers. Already people with individual budgets are clubbing together to form co-operatives to buy services collectively rather than individually. They are pooling risk to get a better quality of service. "

My problem with this approach is what if there is clique of individuals who have powerful personalities that dominate these small collectives and a good GP is dismissed because of personal emnity. There have to be safe guards for the rights of providers.

What I do believe in is a consumers having more say in the resources.

For example you have a school, parents should decide what is spent on the budget. More staff therefore smaller classes or more computers.

Diamond Cutter
19 June 2008 at 19:00

Labour have not cut back the power of government and they are certainly not free-market capitalists. On the contrary, they have expanded big government's size, power and influence on to people's lives and taxes have only increased to ludicrous levels.