Facing forwards

Labour can win another term in office if it stops talking about the past and focuses on the future

Labour is faced with the need to hold firm to two insights. The first is that politics matters: the outcomes of political contests change the lives of millions of people. The second is that there is nothing inevitable about politics: the efforts and insights of individual people can and do change political results.

Many pessimistic or cynical pundits, and others, promote differing views. They recycle the old saw that ‘there’s no real difference between Tory and Labour’. They argue that Labour has now reached the natural end of its period in power. They suggest that politics will be helped by one term of the Tories in office, after which Labour will return, refreshed.

I believe that these gloomy views are very wrong but that Labour has to do far more to prove them wrong and to build a strong and confident progressive government founded on its focus on the future.

I begin with an overview of political change since 1951. Essentially there have been four basic cycles of political power. The first, 1951-1964, saw13 years of Conservative government, with four prime ministers, characterised by an acceptance of many of the inherited Attlee achievements. The second, 1964-1979, had 15 years of relatively unsuccessful Labour dominance, with two Labour prime ministers and the 1970-4 Ted Heath interregnum, and in 1974-9 a paralysing hung parliament. Labour chucked away its chance to establish a long-term reforming government. The third,1979-1997, contained 18 years of generally effective (though mostly wrong) Conservative government, with two prime ministers and a working parliamentary majority until the final years. The fourth, 1997 - present, has seen at least 12 years of successful Labour government, with two prime ministers, characterised by a good parliamentary majority and acceptance of many of the Thatcher changes.

Each of these four cycles began with energy, enthusiasm and direction. But they all ended when three ingredients came together: the government seemed lethargic and unfocused (1961-4, 1977-79, 1994-97); the opposition offered a genuinely fresh and different programme for change; and the individual leaders (Wilson, Thatcher and Blair) were new and could be trusted. One or other of these three conditions were missing earlier – for example in 1959 or 1992.

On this basis if Labour gets it all wrong (and the Conservatives get it all right) the next general election (I expect it in May 2010) will become the next major turning point, leading to more than a decade of Tory power. But if Labour gets it right it could easily win well again and even lay the basis of a more long-term, Scandinavian-style ‘progressive century’, where our approach and values become strongly entrenched. So the stakes for the country are high.

I draw three lessons for today from this short historical survey. First, 12 to13 years is a relatively short period in office and Labour should be absolutely determined to seek a fourth term and then be ruthless in winning it. There is absolutely no reason to surrender to the inevitability of defeat, as too many seem now to be doing.

Second, the Conservative opposition is still far from showing that it can be trusted with power. That is why David Cameron is attempting to lead ‘from the centre’, while travelling light with policy. His difficulties on, for example, grammar schools and EU cooperation, indicate how far his party still has to go. Labour must constantly press on their policy intentions. Third, Labour has to demonstrate clarity, decisiveness and a lucid sense of direction and purpose - culminating at the next election in a clear offer to the country, which shows Labour’s capacity to address the challenges of the future. It will not be enough simply to defend past achievements, however substantial. That tactic didn’t work for Jim Callaghan or John Major in 1997. It won’t work for Gordon Brown.

In this political contest there is everything to play for. But there is no time for delay. At the moment both the polls and the general state of opinion suggest that most people in the country believe that Labour has a long way to go to establish both clarity of purpose and the confidence that we are genuinely looking to the future and not backwards.

That means that we have to change our relationship with the past. We have to understand that Tony Blair, though an outstanding Labour prime minister who massively changed Britain for the better, has departed the British political scene and neither he nor his policy prescriptions have any future significance. His victory in 1997 and then the first two terms of office, to 2005, were a radical transformation of the country for the better, reversing the decay and decline of the introverted Thatcher-Major years.

But that important achievement is not enough to win a mandate for the future. In May 2005 we reached the turning point in the post-1997 political cycle, and Labour, and in particular Tony Blair as leader, should have made that the time to shift from implementing the 1997 mandate to setting out our store for the future.

In those first two terms to 2005, many hard decisions were put off or avoided and many of the reforms which were set in motion were not completed. The reasons were varied, and often understandable, but the list of subjects where change is incomplete, or has not even been broached, is lengthy. It includes: establishing green and sustainable practice (for example in transport, energy and construction); public sector reform (local government, trust schools, foundation hospitals, ‘copayment’, and public sector pay); housing; welfare reform (housing benefit, women’s pensions, care in old age, disability); constitutional change (Lords reform, Scotland and the UK); EU engagement (constitution, euro); conduct of politics (party funding and the media); prisons and probation; immigration and identity.

This catalogue remains potent because it is about enabling Britain to face the future in the changing world as it is and as it will be and not as it was. These issues transform the lives of everyone in the country; and in many areas the Tories continue to offer only oppositionism and reaction.

Since Blair’s pre-announced retirement in October 2004, inner-party politics has dominated attention and consequently Labour has wasted much of the first half of this parliament. With some exceptions, our action to make the necessary changes has been insufficient. And now it seems to me that Labour still remains very unclear about our approach, both in this parliament and the next.

By now people are entitled to expect Labour to know what works, and not to need short-term reviews and pilots. Now, above all, we need clarity in each policy area. The current uncertainties are widespread, debilitating and give ammunition to our opponents.

Everyone will have their own priorities. My personal list is environmental sustainability, modern and effective public services, and our relationship with the EU and the wider world.

But whatever the specifics, we must all understand that rhetoric about past Conservative failures and past Labour success will not disguise a failure to face the future effectively.

Both now and at the next general election, Labour in government needs to show its commitment to change in practice, and its readiness to promote discussion of the best ways to achieve that.

Rt Hon Charles Clarke MP is the former home secretary

Comments

Posted by Mick Hitchin on 31 January 2008, 11:14:41 AM
Thanks for being positive Charlie, we do indeed need to look to the future and your vision is a sound one. The centre ground approach id indeed the correct one but the troops on the ground need something to sell and it has not just to be practical like the minimum wage was but also symbolic as the minimum wage was. Finishing the job with the Lords and slimming down the monarchy would be popular with many. Or taking away the charitable status of private schools and moving against grammers to some extent. None of this is that radical really, it's just like banning fov hunting. But if we do lose in 2010 (I agree about the date) then we will wish we had done more in the years since 1997. In some ways we still the defeated mentality mould by the previous 18 years. They are still the nasty party and lets stick it to them while we still can. But like Chas I will go down fighting and proud of our record. Mick Hitchin

Posted by Dan on 31 January 2008, 2:13:19 PM
So it is the job of a "progressive" government to introduce "copayment"? To unilaterally abandon the greatest success of the British left - winning universal recognition of the NHS as an entirely tax-funded service freely available to patients? Some progressive Clarke turned out to be.

Posted by Stuart Madewell on 31 January 2008, 4:00:45 PM
I too am baffled by Charles reference to 'co-payment'. My understranding is that co-payment schemes are appropriate in 'social insurance' type of health services not in tax payer funded systems like the NHS. Nobody is sugfgfesting we should abandon the taxpayer funded schemes so how would 'co-payment' apply? Is a mixtur of tax-funded and social insurance schemes being suggested. There will always be a problem of resources in a tax-payer funded scheme. The comparison with the French system doesn't hold because taxes are lower but social insurance is compulsory. Even the French system breaks down e.g. the August heatwave a couple of years ago when many people died because doctors were on their summer holidays! That could not happen inn Britain.

Posted by Robin on 31 January 2008, 4:56:18 PM
So what is your position? it seems to me this article is as guilty as its subject matter of discussing the need for an agenda without having one in the first place. You don't know what you stand for anymore becasue you've failed to win the argument that the government knows how to spend money better than the individual. It's too late now to try and set an agenda; you've had ten years to do that nad failerd spectaculary. this is particularly the case as the first four years were spent not altering the Thatcherite agenda. As a party you are bankrupt of new ideas, are incapable f putting your name to a single achievement now the Tripartie regulatory system has failed so spectacularly and not trusted with the electorates' money. In itself, this is all quite an achievement. Well done.

Posted by Cllr. Rupert Read on 31 January 2008, 5:30:30 PM
I'm one of the twelve Norwich Green Party Councillors. Mr. Clarke's concerns about Labour's prospects of defeat at the next election may be linked to last year's local election results in his own Norwich South constituency, where the Green Party came in first with 30% of the vote… And Norwich Greens have a strong chance of further gains at this year's local elections on 1st May. Charles Clarke knows full well that his constituency is one of the strongest prospects for a Green MP -- and that, I believe, is why he is running scared. He is right to be

Posted by Gary on 01 February 2008, 4:23:04 AM
Mr Clarke's article is thought provoking and should be taken seriosuly. It is beyond belief that "slimming down the monarchy further and finishing the job on the Lords" could possibly be issues to be noted for the troops on the ground when there is so much more important work to be done - may I offer just one example? I suggest bringing all school standards UP TO those of the private sector so that everyone can enjoy such benefits rather than adopt laughable responses such as lotteries to allocate places - this is what people need not class warfare dogma. People need to get over the old emotions and think about what is trying to be achieved.

Posted by RON REECE on 01 February 2008, 9:10:00 AM
How to prove the difference between tories and labour ? First. Recognise that social aspirations exist and that labour supporters share many of them with the their conservative counterparts. Clean up the sink estates. punish the yobs and thugs, show that they will provide conditions that will really shake up the habitual scroungers, and reward those who have standards and try to live by them. Let the waverers see some vigorous action on these and other matters that make so many lose all pride in our history and PAST.

Posted by RON REECE on 01 February 2008, 9:10:00 AM
How to prove the difference between tories and labour ? First. Recognise that social aspirations exist and that labour supporters share many of them with the their conservative counterparts. Clean up the sink estates. punish the yobs and thugs, show that they will provide conditions that will really shake up the habitual scroungers, and reward those who have standards and try to live by them. Let the waverers see some vigorous action on these and other matters that make so many lose all pride in our history and PAST.

Posted by Francis on 01 February 2008, 9:43:05 AM
So Dan "winning universal recognition of the NHS as an entirely tax-funded service freely available to patients"? Really! Is that why so many people have no option - yes really no option - but to pay for private denistry and private health, because the NHS couldn't deliver. I object to the government taking money first and then not bothering to provide the service we paid for. NHS great people working in it, great idea. I'd just like to know where all the tax payers money really goes