This coalition is built to last. It has every chance- if David Cameron and Nick Clegg hold onto the leadership and keep working together- of surviving. As Patrick Dunleavy of the LSE has calculated 81 Tory MPs have to abstain or 41 Liberal Democrat MPs have to defect for the Goverment to fall. We can talk about confidence motions and dissolutions all we like but if Cameron and Clegg are resolute then this is a five year government with an election on May 7th 2015.
So Labour is in opposition for the long haul in all likeliness.
But there begins its trouble and toil. For in 1992, it was obvious what the broad strategy had to be- some form of repositioning in the political mainstream. For the Tories, their broad strategy was obvious in 1997- re-humanise the party and re-articulate their commitment to high quality public services. They just chose not to do it until after a third defeat in 2005.
Labour’s strategic challenge now is not at all clear. The obvious thing to do is go Clegg and Cameron. The centre-ground is now occupied, but let’s try and elbow our way in there albeit with a pinkish hue. That would require picking a telegenic, smart, savvy, retailable leader.
The obvious thing if this is the strategy is to go for David Miliband or brother Ed (which is going to be the stereotypical media view though it is, in many ways, very unfair as they are more than that.) In so doing you could complete the Adrian Mole generation- a shape-shifting, socially liberal, shimmering generation of Oxbridge educated political elites as described so dexterously by Martin Bright in the New Statesman four years ago. Why the Adrian Mole generation? They are all roughly Adrian Mole’s age. (I am reliably informed that Kathryn Corrick holds the copyright of the Adrian Mole generation concept!)
Or the strategy might be the distinctiveness strategy. You might say that Labour is at a ‘sack the board’ moment- i.e. no recent Cabinet members. And it needs to present a distinctive Labour alternative to the mushy liberal conservative centre-ground. Jon Trickett goes for this argument today but his analysis seems incredibly stale. The policy proposition is to be: (i) A new long-term investment state to rebalance the economy; (ii) Long-term investment in public services; and (iii) a new politics. Sound familiar? Well, that’s because it is. It is basically the Labour election manifesto but with a new leader (presumably Jon Cruddas.) No change in other works- just shout louder or with a different voice.
The third strategy is something entirely different. That is to acknowledge that there is no clever way of positioning the party that will win back power- either in the centreground or to the left. Instead, what we have to do is recognise that the rules of the game are changing. Political parties no longer control the political conversation. They can facilitate it. And where it is happening they have to ask permission to be allowed into the conversation- this happens both online (eg Mumsnet) and offline. The modern political party could be about association with a set of discussions rather than machine-like organisation and mobilisation. It is about expanding political space not just aggregating votes.
It will require pointing out the hypocrisies and failures of the ‘new politics’ in the form of the coalition- which tries to sound new while looking distinctly like the old politics. Millionaires, white, male, Oxbridge, political elites are all over this ‘new politics.’ Labour could attempt to exemplify the new politics in style, through real and not tokenistic diversity, and through genuinely ceding control of political conversation. This is what I mean when I talk about a ‘movement for change.’ It is non-hierarchical and about direct contact with people in their communities through a new, pluralistic, and eclectic political movement. I like this third approach.
The next leader should the individual who demonstrates how Labour can give life to this real new politics- one that expands political engagement, gives a voice to Gillian Duffy as much as Dominic Mohan, excites the young, liberal urban motivated as much as the hard-working market town family who just want to be supported to get on with their lives, and engages trade unionists not just big union beasts.
It is not about magically conjuring up the right policies pitched at target demographics or constantly poking the embers of the recent past. It is about remembering what the Labour party was about- a spontaneous and kaleidoscopic movement of people working together to make Britain equal and free. The next leadership must understand the present and re-apply the lessons of the past to build a politics that is genuinely new.
It will take time and the party should take time. And if it fails to have a female candidate on the ticket then that is shocking- step forward Harriet Harman and Yvette Cooper. For the new politics must be as diverse as it is democratic.
To be clear, and I am genuinely open-minded about who it may be, the candidate who demonstrates a real understanding of this will get my vote. If, in the way they conduct their campaign, they show that they can do politics differently and engage millions of people in a different type of political conversation then they will have earned the right to lead in my eyes. A new way of doing politics- in deed as well as words- will get my vote.
May 14th, 2010 at 12:34
Millionaires, white, male, Oxbridge, political elites are all over this ‘new politics.’ And the Millibands or Ed Balls – white, male, privileged, Oxbridge, never had a proper job are so far the proposed antidote to this. The Labour Party has to quickly develop a sense of irony if it is not be heading towards the even newer new politics which will be a Lab/ Tory alliance after the next election produced by the same white male Oxbridge poiticial elite.
May 14th, 2010 at 15:17
Hi Anthony,
I do not share any of the euphoria about a ‘new politics’. But you are absolutely right to suggest that this Lib-Con coalition may last some time. Then again, there is also a chance it could fall foul of events. We have to be prepared for both eventualities.
Labour needs a new leader who can act as a bridge between the old Blairite/Brownite acrimony, and the future generation.
Some of the younger candidates – such as David Milliband – are tainted by their association with the bitter personal and party divisions of the past. Ed Balls and David Milliband must not be allowed to repeat the rivalries of the Blair-Brown years.
And however “clever” the younger folk are supposed to be, they are not ready for power. Crucially, they do not connect well with the wider public. They are (and look like/sound like) Oxbridge-educated policy wonks.
There are two scenarios looking ahead. A combination of infighting and/or economic instability may bring down the coalition. In that case we need a leader who is a mature, calming and consensual influence. As has been said, in the event of an election in the next 24 months, Labour could benefit enormously from the anti-LD backlash.
But, if the coalition functions well, Labour may be out of power for some time. In this scenario, we also need a ‘transition’ candidate who is well placed to guide the party through a period of renewal and self-examination.
Alan Johnson has a great gift for communication, and the wider public – especially the disenfranchised Labour vote – will identify strongly with him. He would constitute an excellent contrast to Clegg and Cameron. He could take advantage of coalition failure, or guide the party through a prolonged period of opposition.
For the sake of the party, and the country he should reconsider his decision not to stand.
May 14th, 2010 at 23:49
Anthony Painter: “Political parties no longer control the political conversation.”
As many people did not vote as voted for centre-left parties, i.e 35% of the electorate. Many of these non-voters are, I imagine, non-political, i,e. they long for democracy. It is glaringly apparent to them that for a politician the ‘national interest’ (a term much in use by politicians) means nothing more than personal power and privilege. And in case we – they – ever forget their place, the toffs will always remind them that the natural party of government are the Tories. So the non-voter is not interested in who controls political conversation. The non-voter is simply not interested in politics.
May 15th, 2010 at 02:54
i think we need to accept the coalitions a done deal . i hate and will apose it as a labour person , there is much evidence to say that clegg is just a torie look at his passed in the torie party . the libs have been infiltrated bye them at the top . clegg brought many cons with him when he defected to the lib dems . sell out on PR TO AV AV IS JUST ANOTHER FIRST PASSED THE POST SYESTEM . STEALING THE PEOPLES DEMOCRACY BYE CHANGEING IT 55% needed now to bring them down . now realy a discusting move bye them thwy have no mandate for that at all .what they have done is what no other govt in history has done change the dessilution rules of no confidence to secure their position . they will have to tak the democrtas out of thir name now , they arnt democrats at all this proves it . dont worry their is so much ammo for labour its not funny . ps i like alan j as well . you know i like both the millibands as well . dave duident get on with blair as much as is made out in the media . mind you got to hand it to tony those landslides in 1997 and 2001 were awesome . well get bact there only this time well crush the libs two . hers something diff , i beleave its smart politics to open dialog with the green party , they greens have proven a stable partner for labour in new zealand and australia , in govenment and in opposition over the long period . beleave me its smart politics . they wont always just have one seat , and the greens will never vote with the tories beleave me .
May 17th, 2010 at 01:47
Sack the Board moment?? Who’s that GB (he resigned!) or the electorate??
Like quite a few recently, I am a newish member of the Labour Party. I managed to get through online application before the Labour Party website crashed under the pressure of new membership applications.
Seems to me that the “healing” crisis which the party needs to undergo can, if we are careful, be combined to, and synchronous with, the Leadership election.
It is not enough to say the Labour Party “lost touch” with its supporters. It actually pursued measures which disrespected and hurt them, including (in my opinion):
- A war in Iraq (not Afghanistan); and - Welcoming immigrants on economic grounds, no matter what strains this put on ground level social services like health care and education; and - Neoliberal fiscal policies which cost the Exchequer revenue and facilitated house-price inflation; and - Failing to regulate utility and transport companies in the consumers’ interests. - Adopting a complacent attitude to electoral reform in the belief it supported the Labour Party’s electoral self interest, instead of having the self-confidence to believe that proper ER (STV or the german model) could strengthen the progrssive majority in the UK and the Labour Party’s leadership of it -No doubt there are more (please insert).
My point is, we should consider this list rigorously, and where we (the Labour Party) believe these have failed our supporters and their intersts, we should apologies profusely, repeatedly and sincerely.
Only then, when catharsis happens, will the space exist in our minds for us to work our what our Values and Vision are. The Leadership candidates can help this process and in so doing convince us of their ability to lead and strengthen the Progressive Cause which the Labour Party should embody!