The factions square up

There is, as ever within Labour, a third way, and this one seeks a return to the party's true values

The battle lines are now drawn and the fight for the soul of the Labour Party has begun in earnest. In some ways this is a blessed relief. David Miliband's pre-holiday intervention in the Guardian lanced a disfiguring conspiratorial boil that had been festering for far too long. The candidate of the "anyone but Miliband" campaign has yet to emerge, but already there is talk of a union-backed "bloke ticket" of the former deputy leadership candidates Jon Cruddas and Alan Johnson.

For ten years Labour had been a fragile but effective coalition. Now it is once more a set of factions, united only by the belief that Gordon Brown's leadership is heading for the buffers. Only a shift to the Blairite right or the social-democratic left, or a profound reshaping of the government's message in the centre, will rescue the party from oblivion. Gordon Brown's failure to communicate Labour's message is now identified as a potentially terminal problem from the cabinet down. Some ministers generously suggest that the government bears a collective responsibility for failing to get the message across, while others are more direct in their criticism of the Prime Minister. But the real question is whether insurrection will provide the remedy.

There is a possibility that David Miliband has moved too early. By tilting at the Prime Minister so aggressively, he has unbalanced himself, unsettling the Parliamentary Labour Party by such an open act of disloyalty and alienating himself from the unions and the grass roots. At the same time it has opened up the space for the centre-left Compass group of MPs to stake its claim to represent a different vision of the future of the Labour Party: more collectivist, more hostile to the private sector and unashamedly egalitarian. At present, Compass is the faction shouting the loudest in the Labour ranks. Its campaign for a windfall tax on the energy and oil companies is an obvious move to take ownership of the conscience of the Labour Party.

Both groups claim to have the ideas. The "modernisers" coalescing around Miliband have the backing of the Blairites in the Progress group within the Labour Party. Its ideologues are Richard Reeves, the new director of Demos, and Phil Collins, a former Downing Street adviser and speechwriter for Tony Blair. Their "Liberalise or Die" argument suggests that Labour needs to move away from its centralising, statist roots in order to survive in the 21st century. In contrast, the Compass group, led by Neal Lawson, a former lobbyist and adviser to Brown, has argued for a "conversation about tax". Writing in the Independent on Sunday on 3 August, Cruddas reformulated a familiar Labour mantra: "tax cuts for the many, and a fairer share from the super-rich".

There is, as ever within the Labour Party, a third way. This was outlined by John Denham in a Sunday Times article at the weekend urging an end to leadership speculation. In a call for a return to the true values of new Labour, an eminently moderate Denham wrote: "The future needs as much personal ambition and success as the past but most of us will succeed only if we also take care of the common good."

The logic of Denham's position is that Labour cannot present the public with a second unelected leader, so it must redefine its values under a Brown premiership. There is also talk of the need for a Chris Patten figure to act as cheerleader for the party, as the Tory chairman did in the run-up to the 1992 election to cover for John Major's inadequacies. More likely will be the emergence of a praetorian guard of seasoned TV and radio performers to protect Brown from the growing hostility of the media.

A comeback for Prescott?

One figure who may yet make a play for the Patten role is the former deputy party leader John Prescott, who has re-entered the fray as an unlikely blogger on the LabourHome website. His "campaign for a fourth term not a fourth leader" challenges MPs to put an end to the speculation and return to constituency campaigning (his maths isn't dodgy, by the way; he's including John Smith in his calculations). Unfortunately, in his second blog he likened the PM to the captain of the Titanic, but Prescott's re-emergence could yet prove significant.

A textual analysis of the Miliband, Cruddas and Denham articles shows that the three men have much in common. Indeed, there are those on the "liberalising" wing of the party who are very worried about Miliband's social-democratic, centralising tendencies. One conspirator said this past week: "The only concern about David is that he would turn out to be just like Gordon."

Miliband has been done no favours by the "über-Blairite" Stephen Byers and Alan Milburn, who have made it plain he is their candidate of choice. If he looks like he is their creature, his leadership bid is finished. The much-trailed reshuffle will be the most dangerous moment for all concerned. If Brown does not act against Miliband he will be seen as weak, but what if the young pretender does not agree to be shuffled? There is already talk among the insurgents of using a reshuffle to kick off a full-scale revolt.

It would almost certainly be fatal for Brown if several ministers refused new posts and returned to the back benches. The Prime Minister might be faced with the prospect of being able to reshuffle only his closest allies (as their loyalty is assured). His safest route may well be not to reshuffle at all.

But battle has been joined, and everywhere you look the martial metaphors are flying. Some are talking the language of modern warfare. This is an "asymmetric conflict", with one side top-heavy and the other side bottom-heavy.

Miliband has powerful ministerial friends including some at cabinet level. His base in the parliamentary party is weak, however, and polls suggest that his move against Brown has damaged his popularity with party members and Labour voters. The Cruddas faction recognises it has its own weaknesses, but it is ready for the war. One senior Compass figure admitted: "They have a few potential leaders but don't have the troops on the ground. We may not have the leaders yet, but we certainly have the troops."

Cabinet moderates such as John Denham may talk the language of peace, but it may already be too late.

This article first appeared in the 18 August 2008 issue of the New Statesman, Superpower swoop

Getty
Show Hide image

Chuka Umunna calls for "solidarity" among Labour MPs, whoever is voted leader

The full text of shadow business secretary Chuka Umunna's speech to Policy Network on election-winning ideas for Labour's future, and the weaknesses of the New Labour project.

There has never been an easy time to be a social democrat (or “democratic socialist” as we sometimes call ourselves in Britain). Whereas the right can demonise the poor and extol the virtues of the market, and the hard left can demonise the market and extol the role of the state, our position of constraining the domination of markets and reforming the state is, by definition, more complex.

It is nonetheless the case that social democracy has a historic responsibility, in every generation, to renew democracy and preserve a civic culture. This is achieved not through soundbites and slogans, but through the hard-headed development of a progressive politics that reconciles liberty and democracy, new comers and locals to our communities, business and workers, in a common life that preserves security, prosperity and peace.  This historic mission is all the more urgent now and my determination that we succeed has grown not weakened since our election defeat last May.

But, in order to be heard, it is necessary to make balanced and reasonable argument that both animates and inspires our movement, and which is popular and plausible with the people.  The first is pre-requisite to the second; and there is no choice to be made between your party’s fundamental principles and electability. They are mutually dependent - you cannot do one without the other.

We are in the midst of choosing a new leader and it is clear to anyone who has watched the UK Labour Party leadership election this summer that amongst a significant number there is a profound rage against Third Way politics – as pursued by the likes of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, Gerhard Schröder and others - as a rejection of our fundamental values.

In the UK there is a view that New Labour accepted an uncritical accommodation with global capital that widened inequality, weakened organised labour and we were too close to the US Republicans and too far from the European left.

I do not believe this is fair, not least because we rescued many of our public services from the scrap heap when we came to office in 1997 and there were very significant achievements  we should celebrate.  New Labour renewed our National Health Service in a fundamental way; we built new schools and improved existing ones; we set up new children’s centres all over the country; we brought in a National Minimum Wage; we worked with others to bring peace to Northern Ireland; we introduced civil partnerships.  Just some of our achievements.

However, though we may take issue with the critique, I do not think we can simply dismiss out of hand those who hold critical views of New Labour. Like any government, the New Labour administration made mistakes - it could and should have achieved more, and done more to challenge the Right’s assumptions about the world. In the end, it is not unreasonable to be ambitious for what your party in government can achieve in building greater equality, liberty, democracy and sustainability. It is far better we acknowledge, not reject, this ambition for a better world, as we seek to forge a new politics of the common good fit for the future.

Realising our values in office has been disrupted by globalisation and the surge of technological forces that are displacing and reshaping industry after industry.

Some argue that globalisation as an ideological construct of the right. But we must recognise that we live in an increasingly integrated world in which markets have led to an unprecedented participation of excluded people in prosperity, a rise in living standards for hundreds of millions  of people and a literacy unprecedented in human history – this is particularly so in emerging economies like my father’s native Nigeria. And the internet has led to a level of accountability that has disturbed elites.

Yet, this has been combined with a concentration of ownership that needs to be challenged, of a subordination of politics that requires creative rather than reactive thinking, and these global forces have exacerbated inequalities as well as helped reduce poverty.

So it is important that we understand the sheer scale and impact of new technologies. At the moment we are engaged in a debate about Uber and its threat to one of the last vestiges of vocational labour markets left in London, those of the black taxi cabs and their attainment of 'The Knowledge'. But the reality is that within the next decade there will be the emergence of driverless cars so we have to intensify our exploration of how to support people in a knowledge economy and the realities of lifelong learning, as well as lifelong teaching. As people live longer we will have to think about how to engage them constructively in work and teaching in new ways.

Once again, I'm addressing all of this, Social Democracy requires a balanced view that domesticates the destructive energy of capital while recognising its creative energy, that recognises the need for new skills rather than simply the protection of old ones. A Social Democracy that recognises that internationalism requires co-operation between states and not a zero sum game that protectionism would encourage.

Above all, Social Democratic politics must recognise the importance of place, of the resources to be found in the local through which the pressures of globalisation can be mediated and shaped. Our job is to shape the future and neither to accept it as a passive fate nor to indulge the fantasy that we can dominate it but to work with the grain of change in order to renew our tradition, recognising the creativity of the workforce, the benefits of democracy and the importance of building a common life.  Sources of value are to be found in local traditions and institutions.

This also requires a recognition that though demonstration and protest are important,; but relationships and conversations are a far more effective way of building a movement for political change.

One of the huge weaknesses of New Labour was in its reliance on mobilisation from the centre rather than organising. It therefore allowed itself to be characterised as an elite project with wide popular support but it did not build a base for its support within the party across the country, and it did not develop leaders from the communities it represented. It was strong on policy but weak on strengthening democratic politics, particularly Labour politics.

Over half a million people are now members, supporters or affiliated supporters of our party, with hundreds of thousands joining in the last few weeks. Some have joined in order to thwart the pursuit of Labour values but many more have joined to further the pursuit of those values, including lots of young people. At a time when so many are walking away from centre left parties across the Western world and many young people do not vote let alone join a party, this is surely something to celebrate.

So it is vital that we now embrace our new joiners and harness the energy they can bring to renewing Labour’s connection with the people. First, we must help as many them as possible to become doorstep activists for our politics. Second, I have long argued UK Labour should campaign and organise not only to win elections but to affect tangible change through local community campaigns. We brought Arnie Graf, the Chicago community organiser who mentored President Obama in his early years, over from the U.S. to help teach us how to community organise more effectively. We should bring Arnie back over to finish the job and help empower our new joiners to be the change they want to see in every community – we need to build on the links they have with local groups and organisations.

I mentioned at the beginning that in every generation Social Democracy is besieged from left and right but the achievements of each generation are defined by the strength of a complex political tradition that strengthens solidarity through protecting democracy and liberty, a role for the state and the market and seeks to shape the future through an inclusive politics. Solidarity is key which is why we must accept the result of our contest when it comes and support our new leader in developing an agenda that can return Labour to office.

Yes, these are troubled times for social democrats. All over Europe there is a sense among our traditional voters that we are remote and do not share their concerns or represent their interests or values.  There is surge of support for populist right wing parties from Denmark to France, of more left wing parties in Greece and Spain and in Britain too. There is renewal of imperial politics in Russia, the murderous and abhorrent regime of ISIL in the Middle East, volatility in the Chinese economy and in Europe a flow of immigration that causes fear and anxiety.

But, the task of Social Democracy in our time is to fashion a politics of hope that can bring together divided populations around justice, peace and prosperity so that we can govern ourselves democratically. We have seen worse than this and weathered the storm. I am looking forward, with great optimism to be being part of a generation that renews our relevance and popularity in the years to come.

Chuka Umunna is the shadow business secretary and the Labour MP for Streatham.