Accountability Brown

Responsibility should be the theme of the leader’s speech

In wake of the ‘September coup’ two years ago, Tony Blair prefaced his statement announcing his impending resignation with an apology to the country on behalf of the Labour party. It had not been, he remarked, the party’s ‘finest hour’. Gordon Brown should think hard about following his predecessor’s example in his speech to this month’s annual conference: the past year, he should say, has not been the party’s finest. 

In reality, Brown has little choice. Labour has currently lost permission to be listened to; vast swathes of the public have simply tuned out to what the party has to say. An admission that all has not been well over the past year – and that voters are justifiably angry about it – offers one of the few ways to break through to those not inclined to hear the message the prime minister must get across to the country. 

But a willingness to be frank about the shortcomings of the past year serves a second, perhaps more important, function. It demonstrates that Labour understands that accountability – taking responsibility for failure as well as success – is critical to the relationship between the state and the citizen. It will show that, having rightly taken a share of the credit for the economic good times over the past decade, the prime minister is prepared to accept a share of the responsibility: not simply for the current economic difficulties the country is experiencing, but also for the wider problems the government has faced this year.

To clear the air, and demonstrate his willingness to learn from mistakes, Brown should – as Blair did over the 75p pension rise in 2000 – make an explicit statement that he accepts that the decision to abolish the 10p tax rate was a mistake, and, on behalf of the government and the party, he apologises unreservedly for it. 

Showing that he is willing to accept responsibility should act as a stepping-stone to what should be the core message of Brown’s speech: the recognition that government in general, and the centre in particular, can no longer do it all and that citizens are going to have to step up as Whitehall and Westminster step back. The prime minister could echo the words of Bill Clinton in 1996: ‘The era of big government is over.’ And draw the dividing line with the Tories using the next, less oft-quoted line from Clinton’s famous speech: ‘But we cannot go back to the time when our citizens were left to fend for themselves.’ 

So what should Labour’s new progressive contract between citizen and state look like? In Beyond Whitehall: A New Vision for a Progressive State published this month by Progress, some of the leading lights in New Labour sets out the key tenets. 

First, greater local and individual responsibility. Challenges ranging from climate change to obesity, and pensions to worklessness can only be tackled by both individuals and government each accepting their respective responsibilities. But it must be accompanied by far more power devolved to local government, neighbourhoods and communities, and individual public service users. Why, for instance, shouldn’t communities enduring failing local services have a legal right to replace them? And why can’t we develop new forms of public ownership – community-run mutual organisations – to run local services like children’s centres, parks and estates? 

Second, greater fiscal responsibility. When families are struggling to make ends meet and tightening their belts, so must government too. What about cutting the size of Whitehall by a quarter (why would it need to remain its current size if power is flowing to our town halls and beyond) or slashing the number of government ministers? Or why not both? And while he’s at it, Brown could signal that the pre-budget report will offer a downpayment on these pledges by providing tax relief to low and middle-income earners. 

Finally, greater responsibility from our public services. As George Osborne has demonstrated, public spending is always the first target of the right in an economic downturn and the only way to defend that which we know must be spent, is to prove it’s being wisely spent. There will, therefore, be no let up in the pace of either public service reform – with Labour firmly on the side of patients (unlike the Tories), parents and pupils – or welfare reform. 

‘Fairness’ is the much-vaunted theme for the government’s autumn relaunch. It’s a concept hard to disagree with, but also hard to define. Indeed, it’s ultimately subjective. It can, for instance, be easily appropriated by rightwing populists, whose notion of it in relation to immigration, tax or crime could have a strong electoral appeal to many in the country in these insecure times. 

By contrast, reciprocity – the principle that, in a community, we all have responsibilities to one another – has always been at the heart of Labour’s politics. And it should be at the heart of Gordon Brown’s conference speech.

Comments

Posted by Noel on 21 September 2008, 11:26:17 AM

What about the "responsibilities" of the rich? What do people feel about the fact the British government is intending to lead the opposition when it comes to EU finance ministers’ plans to attack the ‘social scourge’ of excessive executive pay and bonuses? Sorry, did I mention that Angela Merkel and Nicolas Sarkozy are part of this social democratic coup?

Accountability Brown is a great advance on McCavity Brown. Is it a realistic aspiration? Maybe not; but as things are too much realism means too little hope.