No exit

Now is not the time to give up on Labour, but to have an open and honest debate about the party's future, says Alex Smith

Recently Sunny Hundal wrote on the Liberal Conspiracy website that there is a ‘strategic reason for not supporting this New Labour administration’ and that it is more sensible for the both the liberal and left-minded to let the party die and ‘figure out how to influence the next one’.

Let me be honest: I used to feel the same way. Last summer, when I still lived in New York and was wondering what to do next, I told two friends on the subway that I felt the Labour party was weary and divided and that there was nothing anyone could do to help it survive; there would inevitably be a Tory government after the next election, and Labour would require a period in opposition to find and renew itself again.

My mates were angry with me, and told me quite bluntly that that was not a compelling argument for someone who believed in the ideals that Labour is meant to stand for. Of course, as usual, they were right and I was wrong.

So when Hundal wrote of a self-serving factionalism in the party, I explained why his contribution was unhelpful in an article for LabourList:

‘It is not – and it cannot – be in our fabric to let the party that has been the most radical vehicle for progressive change this country has ever known to wither on the vine of opposition. To do so is to foster introspective self-pity and ultimate indifference.’

I concede the so-called ‘factionalism’ within the Labour party is based on real policy differences, on public service reform in particular. We will need to find a way to iron out those differences, and the sooner the better. But Hundal’s ambivalence is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

So what we need now is an honest and open discussion that focuses on where our people agree, rather than a bitter dispute about where we differ – because Labour has been most successful and most relevant when it has confronted its inner demons, rather than allowed difference to flourish through navel-gazing.

Yes, those struggles against Militant and in favour of modernisation in the 1990s were won in opposition, but with the recession taking effect and working people hurting more than ever before in recent memory, this time we have to make sure it’s done in government. Giving up on Labour now is an invitation to those agents of exclusion and isolation, and to a lasting Tory majority.

So I welcomed the launch of Open Left – the important new Demos project that has embraced discussion about what it means to be on the left by bringing together two of our party’s potentially most divisive figures, James Purnell and Jon Cruddas. This project shows that while there are policy directions still to be resolved, there are far more issues on which the respective wings of our party agree.

Cruddas and Purnell both identify Labour’s key tenet as actively pursuing meaningful equality through the redistribution of power, income and wealth. Progress and Compass, meanwhile, are not the bitter enemies some would have us believe: they agree on scrapping Trident; they agree on the need for a massive expansion of social and affordable housing; and both have launched and sponsored campaigns for citizens’ involvement in parliamentary reform. Compass chair Neal Lawson even told me when I interviewed him recently that markets are dynamic wealth creators and that Labour has to be about synthesis and balance.

Compass seeks to achieve these goals largely through movement politics, Progress through educational events and articles that contribute to the discussion. Both will be equally important in renewing our party for the future.
What the Open Left project does differently is provide a new platform for finding agreement, without the baggage of the dated, counter-intuitive and overly monolithic labels of Blairism and Brownism. It is a project that takes our party’s future seriously, and so it should. Because while a Labour government will always need to compromise, we can surely agree that we can’t compromise on the need for a Labour government.

Hundal should consider whether he really wants that Tory government. And perhaps he should remember that Labour is not about left and right – it’s the sum of what we can all do when we work for and with people and when we put our minds together. Driving a wedge is just not helpful at a time when we need to be building a bridge.

Alex Smith is editor of LabourList

01 Sep 2009 10:59

 

Comments

• Posted by angela pinter on 08 September 2009, 11:11:10 AM

  Alex does not mention the term New Labour. Does he then admit that New Labour is dead? Unfortunately is is not quite as simple as that. Labour is well and truly finished because the party is no longer democratic. Labourin office has been as right wing as the Tories. So perhaps Alex can tell us what is so distinctive about Labour in office that deserves support.

• Posted by Alex Smith on 09 September 2009, 5:24:14 PM

  There will always be people who fall into the New Labour category. Those people existed before the modernisation of the party in the 80s and 90s, and they will be a loud voice within the party thereafter. I do not believe that the most basic tenets of New Labour should be wholly abandoned. I believe that markets are the most powerful wealth creator we have, and that business and personal aspirational wealth should be encouraged - but I also believe it should be expanded to include more of the people who Labour traditionally sought to represent. So, no, I do not believe that New Labour's ideas and values are dead. But I do believe that there needs to be a severe appraisal of where we are as a party and a country, and an adaptation of Labour's ethos to fit modern times. New Labour is effectively a 20 year old ethos, and those who lead the party in the future need to reframe its language, ideas, ideals and specific policies for the current era. With regard to your belief that the party is no longer democratic, I would say that the structures, meetings, motions, language and cronyism within the party are anachronistic. Many of the processes of the grassroots are not fluid enough or flexible enough. If I were not a member of the Labour party now, there's no way I'd feel welcomed or invited into the system. Indeed, there's no way I'd even want to join a "system" because such a formal relationship doesn't suit comtemporary lifestyles. So, I agree: Labour must change. The last 12 years - at least the last 8 - have been a hugely wasted opportunity. That said, this country is so unrecognisably different from how it was in 1997. From investment in hospitals to the creation of Academies, from gay rights to the National Minimum Wage and peace in Northern Ireland, from more support for families with Sure Start, the long term social consequences of this government have brought us on decades. I want to see more of that in the next Labour manifesto. I don't want to see us pitting ourselves against the Tories - they are not our benchmark. I want to see a vision for the sort of society we want to live in, building on the things I mentioned above, expanding on them, taking fairness to more and breaking down more barriers for parents, nurses and state school kids. I'm not saying I see that now; I'm saying the case is there and so are the foundations to create another set of lasting changes. Alex