Anthony Painter

It scarcely seems possible that the presidential election was two years ago. It was and now the destiny of the Obama presidency hangs in the balance. Let’s take the catastrophic 1994 mid-terms as a guide to how this year’s elections look. Well, with almost eight weeks to go it’s looking like the outcome could every bit as bad as those elections which were the worst for the Democrats since 1946.

Fivethirtyeight, now nestled under the longingly protective wing of the New York Times, forecasts that the Democrats are likely to lose seven or eight seats. The seat that keeps them in a majority (including independents) is that of Senate majority leader Harry Reid in Nevada. If that goes then the Republicans will have a majority. In 1994, the Democrats lost eight Senate seats and this was seen as catastrophic.

Real Clear Politics meanwhile is forecasting a net gain of 28 with 35 toss-ups for the Republicans. If the Republicans perform as well as RCP is forecasting and takes 12 of the toss-ups then it will be in a majority in the House. The Democrats lost 54 in 1994 so the performance may be slightly better than that but that will do very little to console Democrats if they lose the House.

By way of comparison, the Democrats took 30 House seats and 6 Senate seats in their stunning 2006 success. So it’s looking bad.

Despite the growth of private sector jobs over the last eight months and the return of growth, the economic recovery is not yet tangible enough to convince many Americans that President Obama’s economic policies are sound. How he must regret not pitching for a larger stimulus in the earliest part of his presidency. His desire to see a $50billion transport infrastructure stimulus is relatively small fry and won’t get through a pre-election Congress anyhow.

So the economic message is fuzzy. Healthcare is misunderstood with Republicans more throatily campaigning on the issue than Democrats. The only thing that can save the Democratic majorities is a bit of the Obama campaigning magic (his approval ratings are negative but only marginally so) and a vigourous turnout operation.

All is not lost for Obama and the Democrats but don’t underestimate what a Republican takeover of Congress could mean as the President will inevitably have to compromise- unfunded tax cuts for the wealthy, a fiscal policy more in step with Europe and potentially deflationary as a result, and little chance of sensible immigration reform or climate change policies.

To put it another way, the next few weeks matter.

This week’s LabourList column looks at the vexed issue of ‘free schools.’ The list released yesterday sounded like the scheduling list for Channel 4′s Autumn season of real life documentaries rather than an educational movement. But there’s serious politics- and more importantly education- at stake.

For what it’s worth, the concept of the ‘free schools’ which are more flexible than academies has merit. Because they are easier to establish than an academy- a low cost alternative if you like- they spread the opportunity to establish schools to a broader range of people. This empowers parents. The major drawback is what parents potentially do with that power.

So beyond compulsory etiquette and fine dining (!), musical instruments learning and Latin, what are the potential drawbacks? The major one that I see from an educational point of view is that parents will abuse their new found power. Once parents step over the governance-management line then things get very precarious indeed. Parents having undue influence over curriculum would in most cases be over that line. Parental voice is important, expressed at the right place and in the right way.

What I hope is that we can move away from the raw politics of this where one group articulate an exactitude of provision under some sort of misguided notion of formal equality (where fairness basically is everyone getting exactly the same) and another group who romanticise a bygone age of education (in which, for the record, literacy, opportunity, standards etc were actually so much worse than today that it barely warrants any sort of comparison.) Educationalist, Mike Baker, for example, unpicks the arguments about what ‘literacy’ actually means and why so many misunderstand the concept.

There must instead be a public discussion about the reality of education in modern Britain- the different rights and responsibilities of the different players, the type of education that will open minds and extend real opportunity in a modern economy, and ensuring a place for due respect and humility towards professionals who actually know what they are doing.

‘Free schools’ can be part of that mix but there needs to be a far more sensible and measured discussion about the future of education if they and all other types of schools are to give all students every possibility of touching the outer limits of their talents.

I’m touching the edges of the top ten Labour blogs in the Total Politics best Labour blogs poll at Number 12. Not bad for a blog that focuses on ideas with a bit of commentary mixed in?

Thank you to all those who voted for me. Good to see three websites for which I have also written in the top ten:

- LabourList for whom I write regularly is at Number 1.

- Next Left is 4th.

- Labour Uncut is 8th.

Also good to see Hopi Sen (no.3) and Political Scrapbook (no.6) do well.

Congratulations to all those. I’ve a long way to go as a blogger. There’s a ‘top 20 Labour blogs’ button (above) that you can put on your site somehow. I’ve no idea how.  But I try (Aha- worked it out using something called Google. Anyone come across that?)

The Sky News Labour leadership debate has provoked broader discussion about ‘socialism.’ It was taken up by Newsnight last night with Tony Benn and the New Statesman’s Mehdi Hasan. Tony Benn wanted to define socialism as ‘democracy’ but let’s put that to one side as it clearly can’t be defined in that way. The outcomes of democracy are not determined; they are open. Mehdi Hasan’s contention was that none of the leadership candidates were really socialists. He was right. They are not but Ed Miliband has come closest to meaningful definition of socialism in this leadership contest. In a recent New Statesman interview he said:

“I’m happy to be defined as a socialist. My socialism is about being willing to critique the injustices of capitalism.”

He said a similar thing in the Sky News Debate and there is definitely a hint on a meaningful socialism in that answer. But then he goes on to say:

“We’re not about to replace it, but there are different forms of capitalism we can have . . . My socialism is not about a blueprint for the perfect society, but it is about saying we can have a more equal, just and fair society.”

For me, this means that he is not a socialist and nor are any of the candidates for the Labour leadership.

Now I could spend my time mining lots of socialist texts and come up with all sort of definitions but I have other things to do today. So let me say what I believe to be the essential elements.

Firstly, socialism *is* a means. It is not simply an end. So those in the manner of Crosland through a sleight of hand define it as a set of values or principles then say any means can used to get there as long as you get there are tricking you. Means and ends are tied and socialism is the only means to a just end in the eyes of a socialist. Which leads us on to capitalism…

Secondly, socialism is against capitalism. It is an alternative economic and social system. It is a replacement. Early social democrats (who were socialists) saw a reformist route to this alternative. Marxists just want to get the job done and done properly. And there are lots of other variants. Capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive (definitional note: markets and capitalism are not inter-changeable concepts though markets are intrinsic to capitalism!) Crosland realised this and tried to get around it by arguing that real capitalism no longer existed in any meaningful sense. Modern Labour candidates generally try to pretend this conflict doesn’t exist- if it doesn’t then socialism is meaningless.

And finally, socialists believe in some substantive version of equality (and by extension, the elimination of class and status distinctions) as a route to freedom. This is not legal equality or equality of opportunity or less inequality. It is equality pure and simple- material, social, political. For the socialist equality and liberty are pretty much the same thing.

If you do not believe that socialism is the only means to a just world, that it is an alternative to capitalism, and that there is only freedom with actual equality then you are not a socialist.

Where I did agree with Tony Benn was with his contention that the Labour party was never a socialist party. It was a social democratic party with a state socialist clause (IV.4) in its constitution until 1994 (“to secure for the worker…) The new clause IV (1) claims that Labour is a democratic socialist party. It’s not. It’s a social democratic party:

“It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour, we achieve more than we achieve alone so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect”

That does not fulfil any of the three criteria I set out above. I’m not even sure that it’s really social democracy other than in sentiment and tone- there are not many people across the political spectrum who would disagree with the (very long) sentence. In fact, what in it would Margaret Thatcher have disagreed with? She fell short most definitely (!) but there’s not one element of that Clause IV (1) with which she would disagree other than expression and tone. So democratic socialism it ain’t.

So why this silly game that any candidate that stands for a Labour election has to go through the rite of passage of defining themselves as a Socialist only to define it in a way that proves they are not? It is an attempt to save the word while removing from it any meaning (as the new Clause IV(1) shows.)

Ed Miliband is alone in understanding that socialism is an alternative to capitalism. But like the other candidates- and the Labour party itself- he’s no socialist. Remember, even Tony Blair was a social-ist.

The gossipy bits along with the major controversies from ‘A Journey’ have received far and away the most attention this week. But there are forward-looking aspects to the book also which warrant some (considerable) comment. These are scattered throughout but Tony Blair lays out his ideological and policy prescription for, well, the world in the book’s postscript. I was asked by Martin Stanford on Sky News the other night whether Labour would take these prescriptions on board. My answer was that it wouldn’t immediately would ultimately would have to even though by no means should his ideas be taken as gospel.

Let’s get the less interesting part of the discussion out of the way first. Tony Blair asserts that a New Labour agenda- keeping direct taxes down, being more aggressive about closing the deficit, major public service reform, and maintaining a liberal interventionist foreign policy- would have won Labour the 2010 election. I wouldn’t go that far but I certainly think that it would have won more seats than the party actually won for two reasons. Firstly, that would have been a clear agenda. Labour’s election pitch was, frankly, all over the place. The New Labour approach would have recognisable, distinct and would have nudged Cameron off the centre-ground as he struggled to be heard. Secondly, the Labour renewal debate seems to be determined to ignore a central fact- while Labour did lose working class voters more than the middle and professional classes, it lost them, in part, because they had lost faith in the the state and Labour’s governance of it. I wrote about this last week and Peter Kellner touches on the same point. A purist New Labour agenda would have appealed to these voters (and ps he is the only Labour leader to win an election in my lifetime.)

So I suspect on this one that Tony Blair is mostly right when looked at from the perspective of political positioning (leadership, incumbency, party strength, record etc also need to be taken into account!) For me, this is the least interesting of the debates that the book has provoked. Just because a set of positions give you greater electoral strength, it doesn’t make those positions right necessarily. And one of the arguments above makes the point about clarity. Other positions have clarity too and are mainstream- there are alternative strategies and positions that can build a coalitions. One of New Labour’s errors is to suppose that there is one path to electoral success. There are in fact many. Physics created this universe but there are many other universes with different rules (doffs cap to Stephen Hawking.)

The New Labour 2010 agenda as outlined in ‘A Journey’ – which is essentially a liberal agenda which is why it chimes with the Coalition to such a degree- has four elements: liberal, global markets; liberal interventionist foreign policy; public service reform, and engagement with emerging economies and powers. I’ll leave the last one out as it’s basically motherhood and apple pie (though Tony Blair does have some important reflections on the EU all of which I agree with.) I’ll take the others in turn.

1) Liberal, global markets

Many people will tempted to stop reading Blair’s account of the credit crunch when he asserts that, “‘the market’ did not fail. One part of one sector did.” I’ll not waste much time on that other than to say that these markets seem to have a habit of popping in many and varied ways- housing boom and busts, stock market exuberance, banking system failures, hedge fund crashes, asset bubbles bursting, etc- and in many places. So we need to be a bit more watchful about the nature of market forces than Tony Blair implies.

It is worth reading on beyond that point though. He argues for an increase in VAT and a more aggressive response to cutting the budget as soon as possible on the basis that a high and continuing deficit will impact confidence. Martin Woolf takes on this argument this morning in a column praising Ed Balls’ Bloomberg economy speech last Friday. Actually, on this one Tony Blair has a point. The wolves are not at the door but that does not mean that they will not be and being caught with a large deficit without a serious reduction plan in that process is disastrous. This is not just about funding the deficit, it is about confidence in the UK economy as a whole. Deficit reduction is not the be all and end all- and done the wrong way is economically and socially damaging as the Coalition will in all probability find out- but it is not something to be blasé about either.

There is a deeper and in some ways more important point also. Blair’s economic approach is the right one for those who have market power and are able to compete in the global economy. There is little in it to consider the destinies of those who are less advantaged. New Labour’s prescription was to run with the global market then redistribute its rewards. That’s not good enough. Opportunity, worth, and security need to be redistributed beyond that and what public policy mechanisms can be used to spread opportunity and raise the life outcomes of all. The New Labour prescription stopped short in this regard and, as consequence, found itself minimising the consequences of equality rather than tackling it at source. Quite apart from the individual and social consequences of this which are severe, there are economic consequences- more unequal societies suffer from high debt, insecurity, and demand deficiencies. This needs to be acknowledged as part of a credible economic growth policy going forward.

2) Public service reform.

Here Tony Blair is on much stronger ground. Strangely, he completely undersells his argument and even neuters it to a certain extent by turning it into a discussion about efficiency and the involvement of the private sector in public services.

It is actually more profound than that. It is about a complete readjustment of the relationship of the individual with the state where a much greater space for individual empowerment and civic action is created. Essentially, it is about humanising the state by making it a series of local relationships that insist upon responsiveness. It is easy to see why he found the sell difficult- he never found a way of popularising the mission. David Cameron is trying to achieve that through the ‘big society’ and is struggling- not least because the context is severe cost-cutting.

The craziest thing about public service reform is that it became a threatening rather empowering thing to many of the public sector professionals who could make it work. This is because it was too often more centralising than decentralising. The Coalition is going for a very different approach- one I suspect that Tony Blair wishes he had pursued. Labour will need to engage energetically and constructively with this if it is to respond to what is a desire to see a different and more personal type of state- one that responds to both individuals and civil society.

3) A liberal, interventionist foreign policy

It is to Tony Blair’s credit that he refuses to duck responsibility for the Iraq War. But there is one downside to this that I hope he will find a way of resolving. That is we are denied his full and frank reflections on how we should approach an Iraq-like situation in the future again. As Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense during the Vietnam War has argued:

“We of the Kennedy and Johnson administrations who participated in the decisions on Vietnam acted according to what we thought were the principles and traditions of this nation. We made our decisions in light of those values. Yet we were wrong, terribly wrong. We owe it to future generations to explain why.”

Perhaps a Blair penned equivalent to McNamara’s In Retrospect could be a worthwhile project for him in the future. Liberal interventionism has to be distinguished from neo-conservatism. There are liberal interventionists who were for and some who were against the Iraq invasion. The problem at the moment is that there are times- Sierra Leone, Kosovo, and even Afghanistan- where it is right to intervene because we need to protect our own security or we can, with proper analysis, international support and a credible exit strategy, alleviate suffering. Those arguments are currently difficult to make anywhere but in the US as liberal interventionism which relies on smart power has become fused with neo-conservatism which relies on hard power in the general mindset.

So that’s it- a reflection on Blair’s postscript. Two final things. I agree with every word Tony Blair says about the pitfalls of oppositionalism- you get short term cheers but saddle yourself to unsustainable positions in the long term.

And I profoundly disagree with those who argue that it is time to ‘move on.’ The issues that Tony Blair confronts in this book – extremism, economic collapse, the nature of the state – are still pressing challenges. His perspective is important and has significant merit – it shouldn’t be accepted wholesale but most definitely should not be dismissed. Unfortunately, the serious aspects of this book have been dismissed all too readily. If you read just one thing, read the postscript and take it seriously – David Cameron and Nick Clegg are. And they will in the US and elsewhere. These issues will not go away. We all will have to take his perspective seriously eventually so best start now.

In the Independent this morning, John Rentoul poses the question: “Where does the Blair rage come from?” It is a valid question. He looks at the events of the Blair years- the turning points, the horrors, the media reaction, and the political fall-out. But Blair rage goes much deeper than that.

It is actually about us. We are used to being on the side of virtue. We are used to being on the side of good. We revere our leaders as they stand up to dictators and crush oppression. We are respected and we are admired. We are decent and we are just. Only in the case of Iraq we weren’t these things. And it wasn’t a demonic figure of the right who had led us there. It was a messianic figure of the left who triumphed over the forces of Thatcherism. How could this be? We must have been duped. And then this leads us back to Tony Blair- and to his relationship with the Bush Presidency.

For those of us who reflexively oppose almost any military action- especially one led by a right-wing Republican President- this was always clear. The majority are far more circumspect in their assessment of any military action; this is especially the case with invasion and regime change. As US forces ended their combat mission in Iraq yesterday, this is especially timely. They were engaged in glorious service. But let’s not mark this moment with a new revisionism. The assessment of our time in Iraq must place costs alongside outcomes. And the cost was enormous- in terms of life lost, the moral authority of democracies, and the geo-political consequences. Was removing a brutal dictator and giving Iraq a chance at making freedom and democracy work an acceptable outcome for these costs?

My guess is that relatively few people would take that cost v outcome balance if it was laid before them. And that is the source of the anger and the guilt. There were no Weapons of Mass Destruction and no programme to develop them in any meaningful way. Saddam Hussein miscalculated and so did we. And there is a terrible guilt about associating ourselves as a nation with that. The obvious impulse is to deflect that onto Tony Blair.

For his part, he has been remarkably consistent. I find that both frustrating and admirable at the same time. He writes in the chapter on Iraq:

“But the notion of ‘responsibility’ indicates not a burden discharged but a burden that continues. Regret can seem bound to the past. Responsibility has its present and future tense.”

This is the admirable element of his position. He hasn’t ever tried to deflect or reapportion blame for what transpired. The frustrating element of his position comes in the overall tone of the chapter which essentially suggests that his opponents haven’t properly thought through their position. This is Blair the missionary, the salesman, the defence lawyer in action- if only he had more time, if only there were more open minds, if only all the facts would reveal themselves then he will persuade his opponents of his case. So we are treated to yet another justification where facts are crammed into narrative – often distorted to fit. But we’ve heard it all before so not a single mind will be changed as a result. However, none of this warrants the vengeful attacks on Tony Blair’s integrity. He is a man of honour and integrity. He takes responsibility for his decisions but just makes a different calculation of the justice of the Iraq War.

But we bear collective responsibility for the Iraq War also- ‘not in my name’ is an easy refrain. And the best way to handle that responsibility is to insist that the mistakes aren’t repeated- we never accept arguments for regime change that are pre-emptive and insufficiently conclusive, we weigh the risks alongside the mission, our media becomes far more questioning, our politicians far more insistent on better evidence and more sufficient post-war planning, and we have a better awareness of what we may be walking into. Some did of course, most notably Robin Cook whose reputation can do little but rise. The vast majority did not and in this we are bound by collective responsibility as a nation.

These memoirs are utterly transfixing from the extracts that I’ve had some time to read so far. The language can be imprecise and cumbersome but there are flashes of insight into the man, his world, and what it means to be Prime Minister in the early part of the twenty-first century. One man who will be reading them is David Cameron for sure.

Like President Lyndon Johnson, Tony Blair is a man whose enormous domestic achievements will be over-shadowed by a disastrous foreign invasion. If we can place our Blair rage to one side then our consideration of the man and his achievements will be far more textured and fair. His ten years in office rebuilt the UK’s public services, extended fairness, were economically successful, and instituted significant democratic reforms. New Labour relied too much on the market while failing to reform the state enough and over-extending its power. To critique is not to condemn. Critique is a positive process. To turn critique into rejection is a mistake. Too easy. And dishonest.

The Blair years were good for Britain on balance and he was a good Prime Minister who made a monumental mistake. He was an expression of Britain at the time and now we are moving on. To pour scorn on Tony Blair is to pour scorn on ourselves. I for one consider it better to assume a standpoint of collective responsibility rather than collective guilt.

Oh, and he won three elections- the only Labour leader in my lifetime to win even one.

The economic strategy of both Ed Balls and George Osborne are inspired by their reading of economic history. George Osborne is looking back to the 1990s when fiscal retrenchment, exports, capital investment and consumer expenditure led an economic recovery from recession. Ed Balls is looking to periods when failure of Government to support the economy with fiscal expansion led to economic disaster- 1925, 1930, 1949, 1967, 1981, and 1990. They draw equal and opposite conclusions.

Balls v Osborne is a economic death match. Only one can win and if you lose then you are politically broke. This is the argument of my LabourList column this week. Just because George Osborne has decided to bet all his chips on one strategy, it doesn’t mean that Labour should do so also. It is just not sensible economics or politics to go for this win or lose approach. If Labour goes down that road it will be left in the invidious position of secretly hoping for a economic downturn- it would be politically broke if there was a recovery. That’s exactly what George Osborne wants. Labour would be advised not to play his game. Even if the bet comes off, Labour would be tarnished in the process as the doom-mongers of British politics. And the outcome is anything but certain (and, for the record, OBR forecasts show a much greater chance of the recovery following George Osborne’s rather than Ed Balls’ path.)

No-one can predict the direction of the economy over the next few years with any degree of certainty. In essence, both have a point. The economy does still need fiscal support and a high and continuing deficit does pose a different but by no means insignificant risk. Both extend their position to its logical- and extreme- conclusion. And that is a mistake.

George Osborne has taken an enormous risk with the UK economy apparently with no plan B. For his plans to succeed they require three years of export and private sector investment growth at a level not seen since the mid-1960s. And this at a time when our main export economy is stagnant and the pound has appreciated again. He may get lucky and Labour should always remember that- the UK’s is still an open and dynamic economy that could respond energetically in the next few years. The issue is not *will* happen. The issue is the risk associated with that.

Ed Balls in his Bloomberg speech last week not only took the historical lessons- and these can be contested relatively easily- but turned the risk that George Osborne’s growth projections will be missed into a certainty. On that basis he proposed an equally risky economic strategy as a response. Should the tide turn and the UK had not demonstrated that it was serious about tackling the deficit then that would be a dire situation to be in.

A better approach for Labour is to demonstrate that it is serious about tackling the deficit at the earliest possible moment that didn’t jeopardise the recovery. Let George Osborne take the risk. And for the Chancellor, he’d be advised to contemplate a Plan B. Just in case.

Guy Aitchison has an analysis of the ‘No to AV’ campaign on Open Democracy. He goes for the man rather than the ball but that emphasises a critical point: the ‘no’ campaign means business (in more ways than one.) According to the piece, the organisers of the ‘yes’ campaign are about to be announced. I don’t know who they are beyond a hunch or two but I sincerely hope they are ruthless campaigners. The ‘yes’ campaign can’t afford to rest on idealism and organisation alone. It is going to have to throw the odd punch- and hard.

I would even go as far as to say that the ‘yes’ campaign should actually be the ‘no’ campaign. It should be a no to our broken system of politics that allows MPs to be elected on just 29% of the vote. This means that they can afford to ignore up to two-thirds of their constituents should they choose. And it should be ‘no’ to a system that collapsed in scandal a year ago.

In fact, there are only two arguments for First Past the Post that I can see. Firstly, that it produces clear outcomes. But it doesn’t. We have a hung parliament and the breakdown of class blocks of voting means that hung parliaments will become more common without a major class-voting realignment. And as Patrick Dunleavy of the LSE reported yesterday, the ‘Westminster model’ or majoritarian political systems are no longer producing clear outcomes. Again, this would appear to be something structural- we are becoming more pluralistic societies and majoritarian political systems sit uncomfortably with pluralism hence the breakdown of the ‘clear outcome’ argument.

The second argument that has ostensible merit is the ‘maverick politician’ argument. This asserts that AV will make elections anodyne as the system awards the most popular candidate who offends the fewest voters. This is a stronger argument than the ‘clear outcome’ argument but is by no means decisive. It has acquired added force by the ‘safety first’ approach of the Labour leadership contest. However, there are very few ‘maverick politicians’ in the current system. Where there is a successful one- Boris Johnson as Mayor of London- he was elected under AV. The force of personality can out in any electoral system- are there no maverick politicians in Australia? Of course there are.

So the ‘yes’ campaign should actually be- in major part- the ‘no to the First Past the Post’ campaign. It should get stuck into a system that allows incumbents to be reelected election after election with no real reason to engage with anyone other than their political base. It disenfranchises the majority. It is a recipe for static politics and resistance to change. All these elements together mean that many politicians had become so disconnected from voters that there were able to become serial expenses fiddlers. Its claimed advantages don’t stand. Without stability and decisiveness it’s a dud system.

Under no circumstances should the campaign be about the Coalition. There will be pro and anti Coalition forces on each side and that needs to be clearly articulated then the conversation should be about the damaging nature of First Past the Post.

The message is simple: be nice and lose. Fight fire with fire and be the anti establishment campaign and you may win. If you let the status quo become the anti-establishment force then that is negligent. It is a critical battle. The ‘yes’ campaign will need to be as ruthless as the ‘no’ campaign if not more so. This referendum is there to be won but it will need an incredibly robust campaign. Who will step up to the plate?

Demos Open Left has today published the YouGov (very large scale) poll that comprises the next stage of the Open Coalitions project I’ve been leading on since the end of last year. While the initial analysis reached a point where we were ready to publish some initial findings, I’ve had access to the raw data for a number of weeks. In part, this explains why I have been critical of what I have described as the party’s oppositionalism.

To be honest, I was staggered when I first saw the poll. The areas where there was biggest gap between Labour’s lost and loyal voters had a very clear pattern. Some of the biggest differences were all seen in the questions related to the size, efficacy and function of the state.

When you take into account which voters Labour disproportionately lost- C2, D, E voters who are mainly working or lower middle class- these findings are even more stark. Ed Balls writes in The Times today about the three traps that Labour must not fall into in opposition. One is that it must remember that it was mainly working class voters that Labour lost not the middle classes. He’s right. But he omits the caution the party about understanding why it lost them. So he misses one gargantuan trap that the party could fall into- projecting the party’s assumptions onto voters. There is a very clear message that comes from the Demos poll. Labour must change and to not do so would be to fall into the biggest trap of all.

I’ve presented the poll findings in a small number of private settings to academic audiences etc and a number of objections have been raised. The first is the most telling- voters become less inclined to support public spending when there is a Labour government and more inclined when there is a Conservative one. This is empirically correct. However, I would say two things in qualification. This poll shows that only 14% of Labour’s lost voters believe the priority is to avoid cuts. That is exceptionally low by any standards. Secondly, the scepticism shown towards the state manifests itself across a number of dimensions not just spending.

Just take one area: we asked people whether the state was a help or a hindrance in the lives of the respondent and their family. By a margin of only 33%-27% lost Labour voters considered it to be a help rather than hindrance. The comparable figure for Labour’s loyal voters was 54%-14%. What’s more, in all these measures Labour’s lost voters are very near the national average. It’s the loyal voters who are a distance from the average.

The second objection to these findings is that all this will reverse once the coalition cuts bite and people fall in love with the state again. Undoubtedly, there will be some shift back to the party as a protest at the cuts- mainly from disillusioned Liberal Democrats or former Labour voters who didn’t vote.

But the concern with state is not just about its size. It’s about its form- over-centralised with too little choice and control. And it’s about its function as the ‘help or hindrance’ question demonstrates. Even if Labour wins the argument on avoiding cuts- which I suspect it will only do in part as it carries the can for their necessity in the first place- then it will still lose the form and function argument if it simply proposes returning to the world of May 2010.

This is all tough analysis and Labour can choose to listen and respond or not. But better to say this now rather than lose another election or two and then say it- or win an election narrowly but rapidly lose support and legitimacy thereafter. If I was David Cameron watching Labour in opposition I would be very relaxed indeed whatever the polls may say. He has the party exactly where he wants it regardless of any tactical victories. As things stand, Labour has decided not to change. And that will suit the coalition just fine.

OK, I did it. I bought the IPad; I’m a fashion victim. And a long haul flight to Japan gave me the opportunity to experiment with e-books. I read two books on the flight and noticed my behaviour changing along the way. And this behaviour shift will have consequences for the entire book industry. First though, let’s get the big issues out of the way: will the book survive? It will but will change radically.

If I was Waterstones I would be in a state of deep concern. I have a near monopoly on the High Street and so my business will survive as long as books do. And they will survive as there is a psychological attachment to the media in a way that there wasn’t to the same degree with CDs. Nonetheless, I would imagine that within ten years 20% at least of Waterstones sales will disappear which shifts the economics of iconic stores such as their flagship on London’s Piccadilly. The simple fact is that previously someone could browse the store then go and order from Amazon should they choose. That was bad enough. It’s even worse with e-books. Potential purchasers can go over the road and hook up to a Wifi connection and download it. They can even get a 3G connection *in the store* and download it right under their noses. What’s more, Waterstones don’t even sell the format of the book that people want!

Yesterday in a subway station I saw a Japanese guy reading manga on his iPhone. He was stood right in front of a kiosk which relies on manga sales to survive but would have bought (?) the manga online. It is not only booksellers who face challenge from new technology but newsagents will do also. But booksellers have a greater degree of control over their own destiny.

Surely Waterstones can use their power to both protect their business and improve the offer for their customers? For example, when you buy a CD you get to load it onto your Iphone. That is not the case when you buy the traditional version of the book- you don’t get it in digital format as well. Personally, I would be willing to pay a couple of quid extra for the traditional version of the book if one was able to download the electronic version also. Others would no doubt be just as willing. So Waterstones needs to get ahead of the game without going down the questionable route pursued by Barnes and Noble in the US which offers its own proprietary e-reader and online store. It will be blown out of the water by IPad and Kindle. If it succeeds in this then that would be very good news for independent book sellers also. The big fish would help the tiddlers instead of swallowing them up.

So that’s retail. What of publishing? Back to my changing reading habits. The first book I read on the IPad, I read in traditional fashion: largely a linear exercise. I made the same amount of notes that I would do normally (and hope to have a way to export those notes soon- still a way to go!) Then, and completely unconsciously, I started to read the second book in a completely different fashion: I began to read it more like a website. I had shifted to hyperlinked reading rather than linear reading. This has consequences for both publishers and writers.

Once books are read in this way, are they books at all anymore? For example, why not instead sell a package of materials that constitute the author’s argument? It could comprise a TED style talk, an overview of the argument with links to further analysis and evidence and even hyperlinks to external sources. The ‘book’ would then become a richer and more involved experience. You could even build communities around the ‘book’ and link it with social media. Imagine if your Twitter followers or Facebook friends see how involved you are with a particular ‘book’- will they not be tempted to buy in also?

And writers will need to be architects of their ‘books’ rather than authors per se. This applies mainly to non fiction as fiction books will remain largely linear- a story has a beginning, middle and end. Though even here there is no reason why rich content should not become part of the experience. It could even see revival of the wonderful ‘Choose your own adventure’ books that are probably the only reason- along with Roy of the Rovers and Match- that I continued reading in my primary school years.

All this is wonderful news for those publishers and writers who are prepared to innovate. If they are also prepared to work with retailers to innovate new products and distribution then it could be a golden age for the book industry. And all of this will be wonderful news for the reader.

In all honesty, I would be amazed if books in the digital age didn’t radically change our reading habits- in my case they are already doing so. iPod changed the volume and variety of the music I listen to and I expect iPad to do the same for the books I read. It is also radically changing the way I read and I find that extremely exciting, Oh, and this was written on a train heading to Kanazawa on WordPress for iPad. Brave new world. I wonder what Huxley- as a writer- would have made of it all?