Registered user login:

Labour's deep hole

Nick Raynsford

Published 11 August 2008

Ex-minister Nick Raynsford compares Labour's plight to the Tories in 1990 when the Thatcher government was deeply unpopular pointing out they won in 1992 under John Major

“When you are in a hole, stop digging”. This simple, familiar advice might appear very apt for the Labour Party at this moment in time. But it prompts three questions fundamental to Labour’s future:

1. Just how deep a hole are we in?
2. What type of digging should stop? And
3. What other activity is necessary if we are to get out?

Let’s take them in turn.

After the Glasgow East by-election, no one can doubt that Labour is in a deep hole. This is much more serious than mid-term blues which may be expected to evaporate as the General Election approaches.

But much less clear is the inevitability of defeat. The historical parallel is closer to 1990 than 1995. While the Thatcher Government was deeply unpopular in 1990, losing the Eastbourne by-election on a similar swing to Glasgow East, the electorate had not yet committed to Labour as the next government. Hence John Major’s surprise victory in 1992. By 1995 the position had changed. The electorate had decisively shifted their loyalty to Tony Blair’s government-in-waiting and nothing could save John Major.

We are not yet in that position today. David Cameron has still not secured the unequivocal support of the electorate. So there still is a possible way out for Labour. But it is equally true that ill-targeted digging could actually close the potential escape route.

So what types of digging need to stop? First is the frantic search for some magic populist policy solution. There is no single ‘Get Out of Jail’ card, and it is foolish to believe that such simplistic solutions will do the trick. Indeed some are counter productive, inviting the public’s contempt by implying a desperation to “buy” support by ditching unpopular taxes or offering dubious incentives. Dangling the carrot of home ownership in front of low-income council tenants in current market conditions for example is a deeply suspect proposition.

Just as dubious is the siren call for more initiatives. One of the greatest mistakes in government is to confuse activity with outcomes. Just because ministers feel busy devising 101 new ways of tackling a problem does not guarantee the problem gets solved. Instead the public grow cynical as government rhetoric becomes increasingly divorced from reality, while practitioners grow exasperated when expected to implement yet another initiative, often before the previous one has even been evaluated.

So we have to stop inappropriate digging, and instead focus clearly on the steps necessary to extract ourselves from the hole. As David Miliband rightly stressed, we need to start by winning the argument over our record, our vision for the future and how we achieve it.

Compared with the position we inherited in 1997, today’s Britain is a better, fairer, more successful, more confident and more tolerant society. But it remains a society facing serious economic, social and environmental challenges. Labour must be seen to have both the will and the capability to meet them, and by doing so regain the trust and confidence of the public.

This will require a clear focus on key objectives rather than a plethora of initiatives. It will mean doing less but doing it better, and devolving more power and discretion from the centre to the locality and to front-line deliverers of public services.

Finally, escape depends on us turning the heat on the Tories. They have enjoyed too easy a ride in the past year, reveling in the Government’s discomfort while avoiding firm commitments on what they would do themselves.

From now until the General Election, they should be under remorseless scrutiny and pressure. Every evasion, ambiguity and contradiction on policy must be ruthlessly exposed, and the electorate left in no doubt about David Cameron’s dependence on shallow presentation skills rather than serious analysis and deliverable policies.

Nick Raynsford is MP for Greenwich and Woolwich and a former minister for local government

Post this article to

  • Digg
  • del.icio.us
  • newsvine
  • Reddit

11 comments from readers

sweety
12 August 2008 at 02:55

Nick Raynsford , does not realize bless him, the contempt the populace has for him and his ilk. Does he not read the papers other than the Guardian?The way he trots out his words with deadpan seriousness is offensive iin itself. Pigs in a trough the lot of you.!

Origen
12 August 2008 at 09:19

"As David Miliband rightly stressed, we need to start by winning the argument over our record, our vision for

the future and how we achieve it."

Winning the argument over the New Labour record? Perhaps we should have a better look at that record first.

In Mr Nick Raynsford's case the record shows how he voted:

- For introducing ID cards.

- For introducing foundation hospitals.

- For introducing student top-up fees.

- For Labour's anti-terrorism laws.

- For the Iraq war.

- Against investigating the Iraq war.

Records also show that his participation in parliamentary debates has been below average

Or should we better look at his 1999 - 2005 record as Minister of State (at ODPM, DETR/ DTLGR) under

John Prescott.

"the electorate [must be] left in no doubt about David Cameron’s dependence on shallow presentation skills rather than serious analysis and deliverable policies."

This statement is not only incorrect, but also ironical when you think about the New Labour governance style and the disastrous legacy of the Blair years.

tom tom
12 August 2008 at 14:11

Two weeks ago you gave us MacShane, then last week Roche and now Raynsford. Can't wait for next week.

Admin
12 August 2008 at 14:35

Glad you're enjoying it so tom tom.

madasafish
12 August 2008 at 15:28

Well I read all that. Most of it was stating the obvious:

eg "

Labour must be seen to have both the will and the capability to meet them (the economic challenges)"

Sorry? Labour ARE the Government. They are elected to sort these issues. If Nick has to state they above, it is clear even to him they appear not to have the ability to GOVERN, (as that is what Governments do - surprisingly enough).

And

"Finally, escape depends on us turning the heat on the Tories."

Wrong: Governments govern. oppositions oppose. You cannot diss your opponents by saying that what they might do - if in power - would be useless. You get on and fix the problems and show that your Opposition are a waste of space.. by your actions.

Clealry this article was written in despair of a Government who are NOT competent, don't govern and show themselves to be incompetent.

Well yes.. all of that is true..

As for the 1990s analogy, Major won because he was not Mrs Thatcher - the Conservatives got rid of her as she clealry was no longer a winner but a loser..and becasue Neil Kinnock was a loser as well.

Well Labour have another loser.. and they are doing nothing about it. Clealry they can't see another winner around. Well, back in the 1990s how many people gave John Major a glance before he became PM? Virtually none. But he beat Kinnock in a General Election.

So I conclude: it's just words. Nick has absolutely no idea of what could make Labour win again. So he's spouting plattitudes with no action plan.

Personally? Well Brown has to go. He's not only disliked but as a politician he's not competent. Look at the current mess on stamp duty. All HIS fault.

Who to replace him? Anyone but that Mr Balls I suspect.

SamS
12 August 2008 at 15:32

To continue the John Major analogy, wouldn't the Tories have been better served by losing in 1992? Better to be out of government for five years then have a chance to come back rather than out for three terms or more.

And judging by the positive ref to Miliband and the absence of any ref to GB we can take it that Raynsford wants a leadership contest asap then? Wonder how many Labour MPs have voted in your website poll (anonymously of course...)?

BegbiesEvilTwin
12 August 2008 at 23:09

Editors*: At the risk of sounding abusive I assume Geoffrey Robinson has ordered both of you to publish all this crap from the MacShane, et al?

In all sincerity it's very GCSE.

*Online and print.

Carl Jones
13 August 2008 at 10:42

For Whats it worth, I believe Labour`s problems are a deliberate construct played out by Blair and senior players in the Labour party.

First we had a raft of silly policies under Blair, these all fell away, then we had Brown`s coup attampt against Blair. This involved Charles and Livingston (now keeping his powder dry for PM) and the NotW spy scandle. The plot was blown when Murdoch used illegally gained information to warn Blain, who at the time was on the US West Coast. The coup was nearly stopped when a man with a similar name on a LHR terror watch list was allowed to board a plane bound for the US....half way across, the pilot was informed and asked to proceed to the US where the alledged terrorist would be arrested. However, the pilot didn`t play ball and returned to LHR, where the massive security (deliberate) blunder was hushed up. A week latter, we had SIS scam liquid bomb plot....even the NYT`s said it was "hyped beyond belief".LOL This global ruination of the airline business kept Blair in power for another 9 months....

.....no doubt this was buying the NWO extra time to put in place all the plots which have wrecked Brown`s time as PM.

So lets just remember what the NWO (SIS) have thrown at Brown.

On his first full day in office we had more flase flag terror attacks, in London`s Haymarket and at Glasgow airport. I won`t go into speciffics right now.

On Brown`s first day of holiday, we had F&M at Pirbright, so back he came.

Then we had.....well can really say what he is without being censored by the NWO, but surfice to say, he was offering lots of money on condition that it didn`t go under his name....and yes, some did take the poisoned loot.

Ah yes, the missing data disks out of the post....must be MI5.LOL

And now for the cherry on the cake, they tried to assassinate Brown at LHR, again, I won`t furnish all the details, but surfice to say that I sent No10 an email outlining the plot, they didn`t get back....amazing that, someone outlines a crime and the police don`t call....I think they call this pre-determined/selective outcomes.

Nothing can help Labour. The forces lined up against Brown are so strong and in part, deeply embedded within the Labour party (like Kennedy Libs), that it is unlikely Brown can win the next election.

The NWO requires predictability....when they want the PM to jump, they expect him/her to jump the right height and in the right direction....they simply dodn`t trust Brown.

Robert Powell
13 August 2008 at 11:12

La la la. He's madder than Madav.

Carl Jones
13 August 2008 at 11:40

Robert; Being mad might help. but at least my mind isn`t living in a NWO pig sty, farmed for their pathetict globalisation scam.

john problem
14 August 2008 at 19:10

'Britain is fairer, more successful, more confident and more tolerant.' Eh? None of the people down my street would agree. Fairer? Look at them bankers. More successful? Economy down the tubes. More confident? Scared to walk down the street after 10 o'clock. More tolerant? Don't make us laugh. But in Westminster's hallowed corridors all of these happy phrases would be applauded, wouldn't they?

Post your comment

Please note: you will need to login or register before your comment is displayed on the website

You may enter up to 2000 characters (about 300-350 words)

Characters left:

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.

Read More

Vote!

Should Darling have been bolder with the 45% tax rate?