CHARTIST blog

Jon Trickett MP on disappointed hopes and winning back Labour’s missing millions (written before the local election result, but re-inforced by it!).

New Labour is caught in a classic electoral pincer movement which spells potential disaster. In 1997 we benefited from the support of a wide social coalition. We now face a twin movement. Our core support may never vote Tory, but many are showing every sign of not voting at all. On the other hand those people who switched from Thatcher to Blair now look anxiously at their insecure lives and wonder about converting to Cameron.
Successive election reverses in the 1980s had led New Labour to triangulate to the right in order to gain power in 1997. This worked well at first with the 1997 landslide and our early achievements: the windfall tax on the privatised utilities and the drive towards full employment, the refinancing of the public services, devolution, the minimum wage and progress in Northern Ireland.
There were those in the leadership who even seemed prepared to envisage social democratic transformation. In September 2003, Gordon Brown told us that we are “best when we are boldest, best when we are Labour.” In the same speech, he asked us to remember that “to transform lives you have to transform society”.
But deep in New Labour psyche was the ever present fear that British political culture is inherently conservative and imposed severe limits on the capacity of a Left government to manoeuvre. And so triangulation ceased to be a simple electoral tactic and became instead a governing strategy. The reforming thrust of the early years dissipated into a disappointing timidity.
Tony Blair acknowledged the frustrated reality of the country’s hopes and aspirations, as well as of its disappointment. “Great expectations, not fulfilled in every part, for sure”, he said, at the time of his retirement.
There was, however, much more space to be bold than New Labour allowed. The country had decisively rejected the Tories. The Conservatives actually lost a further 900,000 votes between 1997 and 2001.
Whilst there had been no return to the Tories, by 2005 4 million Labour voters had stopped voting New Labour. Disappointed hopes and unfulfilled aspirations detached them. Asked which party they felt most comfortable with, they said Labour, and yet could not bring themselves to vote New Labour. They stayed at home on polling day, or they voted for non-Tory alternatives to Labour.
Labour’s missing millions did not move back to the right as New Labour theory told us. But they were hit by the destabilizing social effects of unregulated and uninhibited free markets. They felt disappointed by the government’s failure to provide the security they sought.
In the place of the New Labour promise of a modernised Britain, we saw the re-emergence of an Older Britain: a country of ancient hierarchy, a sclerotic class system where what your parents did counts for more than who you are, unrestrained markets, dominant private interests, fragmented communities. Insecurity for many; unheard of wealth for a few. 19th Century solutions for 21st Century problems.
The richest 30,000 in Britain now earn £33 billion per year and yet pay little or no tax. New Labour ministers saying we should celebrate ‘huge riches’, appearing to demonise council tenants and incapacity benefit recipients, marketising education and health systems, proposing loyalty oaths to the monarch, refusing to address two tier labour markets, with the penetration of finance capital into house buying thereby jeopardising millions of peoples’ mortgages.
These policies are neither New, nor are they Labour. They are neo-liberal either by accident or design. They will not reconnect with our core vote nor will they allay the anxieties of the many people in the South of England who voted for us in 1997. This disappointed progressive consensus urgently needs to be reanimated. This will not be done by triangulating to the Right. Even David Cameron understands this.
At the time that Tony Blair left office, New Labour poll ratings had sunk to the lowest levels for 12 years. It was noticeable that Gordon Brown’s emergence as Prime Minister with the single watchword of ‘Change’ led immediately to a poll surge putting us into a double digit lead. As time has passed, and particularly with the re-emergence of Blair-like statements from leading Cabinet ministers, our poll ratings have sunk catastrophically.
Labour’s future now looks perilous. We see further rises in the number of core Labour identifiers saying that they will not vote. Amongst manual workers 62% felt that things had become worse over the New Labour years and that 58% felt that ‘nobody speaks out for people like me in Britain today’. Equally, the same poll revealed that 52% amongst the hard working middle class, uncertain and anxious about its own position in an increasingly insecure world, feel unrepresented. A staggering 80% of the ABC1 social group feel that it will be more difficult in the future to afford a home of their own.
Cameron is triangulating leftwards and some are contemplating voting Conservative again. Yet pollsters reveal continuing strong support for Labour policies such as more public spending on Education and Health.
The present political situation is unstable. New Labour faces either defeat or must offer a new prospectus. The modernising left argues that a Britain is waiting to be born, one which can best be expressed by Labour’s values of fairness, a cohesive society and individual liberty.
It’s time to break with New Labour timidity. The modernising left, will sit quiet no longer hoping for a more progressive face to emerge from within the obscurity of New Labour’s bunker. Our party wills the change that we are being denied. Our country needs it.

This article is in the May/June 2008 edition of Chartist.

Gerry Hassan argues that we are witnessing the slow decoupling of Scotland from the rest of the UK and Scottish Labour is not in a fit state to influence the outcome.

The last year has been one of upheaval in Scottish politics with the first ever SNP administration under Alex Salmond. The SNP now dominate the political landscape, set policy and political priorities, and throw up challenges to the other parties, which they have answered in different ways.
This has been particularly true for Scottish Labour who have had a painful, difficult year. Things went from bad to worse with the ‘election’ of Wendy Alexander as Scottish Labour leader who, following in the footsteps of her mentor Gordon Brown, was elected without a contest.
This was part of a wider pattern. Alexander was the fourth Labour leader since devolution and the fourth without a proper election. This shows that the Scottish Labour establishment just don’t get the importance of intra-party democracy, and refuse to acknowledge that there is something rotten in the party’s culture, which rejects democracy and is about managing processes to get the right outcomes.
When you look at the attitudes and faces of the Scottish Labour benches in Holyrood since May 2007 you see a party struggling to accept reality. Scottish Labour MSPs sit ashen faced, by turns angry or despondent, looking over to the SNP sitting in the government benches and thinking that they are sitting in what are their seats ‘by right’. The party has no strategy for working in opposition because it has been in power for so long and cannot think beyond its oppositional mentality towards the SNP.
The first year of SNP Government - as it has now become known to everyone - has been a positive success rather than just winning by default; it is remoulding the Scottish political environment and establishing its credentials as a credible, modern government - more than could be said for Scottish Labour in eight years.
New Labour neo-liberalism
The Scottish Labour Party faces even more questions than it did immediately after its election defeat. The leadership of Wendy Alexander has proven part of the problem, and she seems incapable of developing a style and content that can match Salmond. Not only is she not an instinctual, emotional politician like Salmond, she is unable to tell a story, using imagery, allegory and folksy charm the way he can; she is also a technocratic, modernising politician stuck in the prism of New Labour neo-liberalism.
Labour mishandled the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which the party set up with the Lib Dems and Tories to investigate the case for the Scottish Parliament having more powers. Gordon Brown indicated that the Commission should only have the status of a ‘review’ or ‘working party’ and that he will have the final say. Scottish Labour’s interconnecting crises are combining to overpower it as happens when one- party dominant systems end. The party has lost the power of the patronage state. It has lost the last of the three pillars of Labour dominance - with the massacre of Labour councillors due to electoral reform of local government. The party is increasingly without a sense of mission and purpose, clearly no longer a social democratic party, but not quite the unqualified neo-liberals of New Labour.

Modernisers
The party’s leadership seem to have little understanding of what to do. This stems from the limited nature of modernisation within Labour, which goes back to the early 1990s. At this point the modernisers led by Jack McConnell said that unlike New Labour they did not need to remake their appeal to voters, only overhaul organisational issues. In short, from here on, the modernisers, like numerous intra-Labour groups before then, thought they could just ‘capture’ the party and start pulling the levers to bring about their agenda. This can be seen in Alexander’s answer to the crisis of the party which was to call in Patrick Macdonald, former chief executive of John Menzies to overhaul the party and structure looking at the ‘resources required, capabilities necessary and the infrastructure to stay in touch with members and communicate with supporters’: a remit straight from MBA Business School. Not surprisingly his first recommendations included the politically idiotic suggestion that the leader of the opposition party in the Scottish Parliament sit in the UK Cabinet.
Scottish politics are being taken from under the feet of Scottish Labour, and the SNP has goodwill and momentum behind it for the foreseeable future. In the longer-term, we are witnessing the slow decoupling of Scotland from the rest of the UK. This brings nearer the inevitable independence referendum, which will be a watershed moment for Scotland and the UK. While the pro-independence forces would not win a vote today, the arguments for the union are increasingly defensive and counter-productive. The SNP are preparing for this day, while Scottish Labour and unionism are still stuck in an earlier age fighting the last war.
This is a shortened version of the article in Chartist Mar/Apr 2008. It is also available to read here.

Deborah Littman on the Government’s misguided public service pay policy.

Gordon Brown kicked off 2008 with a depressing New Year’s message for millions of public sector workers. The government announced its intention to keep public sector pay rises close to its two per cent inflation target.  Pay review body awards last year for police and nurses in England were staged to keep them below two per cent. The armed forces, however, in the first pay round of 2008 got 2.6 percent. Non-pay review body groups have been told that they will be held to two  per cent increases for the next three years.
Brown and Chancellor Alistair Darling claim that tight limits on pay are necessary to avoid fuelling inflation. But a number of reputable economists have thrown cold water on the idea that public service pay is responsible for rising inflation. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says pay gains will have little impact on pricing pressures.
Antoine Bozio of IFS points out that the Bank of England considers pay increases of around 4.5 per cent a year across the whole economy to be consistent with its inflation target, putting public sector pay rises well within this category. Moreover, pay increases are usually negotiated retrospectively. According to Incomes Data Services, an independent research organisation which has been analysing pay settlements since 1966, wage negotiators normally take account of what has already happened on the inflation front and react accordingly. “In other words, the causal relationship is usually not from wage increases to inflation, but rather the other way around.”
If wages don’t drive up inflation, what does? Stephen Nickell of Nuffield College states that inflation is a measure of what people buy, not what they earn. “It is the things that are produced by the private sector that go to the calculation of inflation – haircuts, potatoes.” And those costs have been soaring. The Retail Prices Index (RPI) has been running at over four per cent for most of the past year (much higher than the government’s preferred inflation measure, the CPI, which excludes mortgage interest and other housing costs) but even this higher figure doesn’t seem to adequately reflect the price shocks people are experiencing in their local shops, railway stations and garage forecourts.
Beyond the pain that pay restrictions will bring to public service workers themselves, they could have a disastrous impact on Labour’s broader policy agenda. The government has set itself ambitious targets for eradicating child poverty by 2020, for combating ill health and social exclusion and for getting people into work. All of these goals will be undermined if public service workers are not paid incomes that allow them to adequately support themselves and their families.
Historically, low pay levels resulted in serious recruitment and retention problems in many areas of the public sector.  Some of the early improvements in pay and conditions post-1997 had helped to make working in the public sector more attractive.  Cutting pay over the coming three years will undo all that good work.
Holding down public service pay while leaving private sector pay untouched, will also have a disproportionate and unfair impact on women, undermining the government’s efforts to close the gender pay gap.  Almost twice as many women as men work in the public sector and it provides many of the professional and career level jobs for women in areas such as healthcare, education and social services, as well as offering greater opportunities for flexible working and pay parity.
The inescapable conclusion is that the Government is cutting off its nose to spite its face.  There is no evidence to back up their claim that public sector wage freezes will counter inflation, but plenty to show that it will undermine a whole raft of progressive policies.   If the Prime Minister is serious about his commitment to helping the lowest paid, promoting excellent public services and delivering a fair deal for women in the workplace, he should think again about imposing this damaging unnecessary two per cent limit on public service pay.

This is an edited version of the article in the March/April 2008 Chartist.

Andrew Coates tells a tale of opportunism, egos and splits as Respect disintegrates – what is to be learnt from this period of relative success for the left? Do you agree with Andrew that this is the end for Respect?

Where to begin? Where to end? Respect’s attempt to create a credible left-wing alternative to New Labour has culminated in a split, ferocious even by the standards of the British left. This won it coverage from Newsnight and Channel Four News reports, and a tide of instant Web reports and comments. Nevertheless, beyond the rhetorical fireworks, and the apparent lack of political differences, is there anything to be gleaned from this débâcle? Did it start from false premises? Does the saga of the two fighting wings of Respect throw up issues important to democratic socialists?
Respect’s feuds appear just another case of the left’s tendency to self-destruct. Yet when it was launched the party looked as if was aiming for an enduring political presence. Called the ‘Unity Coalition’, it was founded in January 2004. It was primarily an electoral vehicle, allying expelled Labour MP, George Galloway, the Socialist Workers Party (SWP), anti-War Muslims and some small Leninist groups. It stood, if one remembers the mouthful, for respect, equality, socialism, peace, environment, community and trade unions. The main platform was opposition to the occupation of Iraq; Respect was the biggest organised force in the Stop the War Coalition.
In the General Election of 2005 George Galloway was elected MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, replacing Blair loyalist, Oona King. In three constituencies it came second in the polls – though other results amongst the 25 seats contested were much lower. At its local electoral highpoint in 2006, the party got 26% of the vote and three seats in Newham, 23 % and 12 councillors in Tower Hamlets and a victory for liberal Islamic activist, Salma Yaqoob in Birmingham. To leading SWPer, Lindsey German, this indicated, “there is a big audience for socialism and radical ideas.” (ISJ No 108. 2005). Three further municipal by-election gains seemed to confirm a real, if limited, electoral base. The Coalition’s leaders began to appear on the national media, and their sense of self-importance was visibly growing.
All this was to fall apart. By November 2007 there were two ‘Respects’. One, SWP dominated, held a National Conference, and the other, a Galloway-Yaqoob led alliance, Respect (Renewal), staged an alternative rally on the same day. The former accused the other of launching ‘an onslaught’ on the left. Accusations of communalism and Tammany Hall politics were made. The latter asserted that the SWP operated a two-tier organisation, controlling Respect through a system of ‘Russian Dolls’. There were allegations of packed meetings, an illegal donation, intimidation, and even violence. The pro-Galloway Socialist Unity Blog was flooded with hundreds of posts by warring former comrades. In group therapy they poured out their woes and mutual loathing (http://www.socialistunity.com).
There are now two rival lists for this year’s GLA elections. The SWP is standing Lindsey German as Mayoral candidate with a List for the Assembly. Their opponents are trying to build a “broad based progressive slate” of constituency and party list, candidates, and (with some dissent already) back Ken Livingstone for Mayor. Disputes remain about who has the right to the ‘Respect’ label under electoral law.
[…]
The prospects for both the SWP Respect and Respect (Renewal) are not good in the GLA elections, or elsewhere. Their political differences are invisible to the general public. The intensity of the dispute means that voters are more likely to shy away, and the pool of left activists willing to engage in either of these ‘unity’ alliances has shrunk drastically.
Lack of public accountability, the culture of going for ‘what works’ – regardless of who gets hurt – and a disdain for democratic debate, helped bring Respect low. This contempt for the membership of parties, treating people as tools, connects Respect’s leadership to the norms of New Labour. Can anything be learnt from Respect? Perhaps that a serious effort to create democratic socialist politics has yet to be tried.

The full version of this article can be read in the March/April 2008 edition of Chartist.

Andy Howell and Peter Kenyon call on Labour’s NEC to sort out Party finance and not to expect the government to bail them out.

Labour in government committed in the 2007 Queen’s Speech to bring forward new legislation to regulate political party finances. Labour in government is there for the country. Labour’s NEC is there to manage the party on behalf of members to enable candidates for elected office to win power. It is essential that those functions are clearly separated in thinking ongoing at No.10 about party funding.
While the Labour Party’s national officers think through the recruitment of a new General Secretary, they face two other equally important questions: Is the Labour Party solvent, and is it a going concern? Both these will have a considerable bearing on the Party’s ability to recruit. It is evident from recent statements and answers to questions in the House of Commons and at the Prime Minister’s latest press conference that the No. 10 political managers are stuck in a time-warp over the funding of political parties.
Where should there be action and where should there be caution? It is probably clear that two conditions need to be met. Firstly, there can be no move forward unless there is a consensus across the political parties. Secondly, we need to follow the thinking of the public. Would they put up with state funding? Public scepticism will reinforce the belief of the Tories that they should simply leave us out to dry. Thirdly, wouldn’t it be unprincipled to take state-aid to redress Labour’s own failures to keep its financial affairs in order?
That’s how the public will see any attempt to increase the state-funding of political parties. Even the Fabian Society’s General Secretary, Sunder Katwala in his latest Review Editorial, has joined the siren calls. Is there anyone in No. 10 awake to the fact that the Tories are in a win-win scenario over this issue? The series of funding fiascos means they can just keep on hammering Labour. They don’t have to respond to Hayden Phillips’ Inquiry into political party funding. They can be confident that while there is another police investigation into Labour’s fund-raising, key marginals can be flooded with donations from rich Tories.
No. 10 political managers have got to think trust. How can a progressive consensus be achieved when your party finances are in tatters? The answer is counter-intuitive to Westminster villagers. No more state-funding, just caps on spending. The public would welcome relief from billboard advertising wars and junk-mail blitzes. Voters will gradually warm to Labour’s readiness to put its own finances in order. The proposed legislation with Liberal Democrat support will expose Tory tactics to ‘buy’ votes. The controversial Communications Allowance granting £10K to every MP to get their message across passed through Parliament in 2006 may have to be sacrificed to reinforce the message to the public and encourage MPs to get to know their constituents better in person.
The NEC are not simply there to support the leadership. While Government sorts out election spending limits, the Party’s NEC has got to think finance. The NEC must be able to manage the Party in trust for the membership. While mainly accounted for by the insistence on loan finance for the 2005 election, which has inflated our debts, the current crisis is in part due to a desperate need to raise funds to pay for expensive electoral advertising, which the public isn’t interested in unless it alerts them to a tax bombshell. NEC members should be in possession of a clear analysis that looks at actions and considers how these might have an impact on the financial bottom line over time. Someone must have done some financial modelling. There must be – or there should be – clear income targets that are needed to pull the position back. If these targets don’t exist, then in any organisation you can think of board members or trustees would be demanding that these be produced. They have a legal duty to properly consider the financial position of the entity and then ensure that appropriate steps are taken to move forward. This is not an issue of political judgement but of financial responsibility. Members need to be told what is being done on their behalf.

This article is an extract from the original piece in the Jan/Feb 2008 edition of Chartist.