After Glasgow East
Much has been written over the past few days about the Glasgow East by-election and its likely aftermath. It was indeed a watershed, but not because a seat in a Labour heartland was lost. The SNP is a credible party for a protest vote: they are left-leaning and have power as the largest party in the Scottish Parliament, to say nothing of the national question. Personally I think Crewe and Nantwich was more of a disaster. No, the significance of this one is its timing – Party Conference this year will be hell on wheels.
It is more important to ask what people are protesting about, and how Labour might respond. It’s not enough to keep saying the Party is listening. I look forward to learning more about the decisions made at the National Policy Forum this weekend, but from what I’ve read so far it’s piecemeal and reactive stuff.
It will be clearer who should lead the Party if we know what Labour stands for. In times of economic hardship, Labour should prioritise protecting the poor as much as possible, through ensuring benefits retain their real value as the cost of living rises, and also by returning to an emphasis on the importance of high quality public services, which used to be known as the social wage. Labour could learn from the Irish experience of social partnership here.
Also the electorate needs to grow up. Cheap energy isn’t coming back; cheap food probably shouldn’t. House prices need to continue to come down if the next generation is ever going to be able to afford home ownership. We’ll need to modify our behaviour, and it’s gratifying to see this starting to happen. We’ll also need to become more aware of what governments can and can’t control, or rather, how much government intervention in the market we want, and how we think it should be paid for. This is the context for the debate on Labour’s future.
4 comments:
I don't think they should totally abandon the Blair years altogether but most certainly Labour cannot sustain them, both in terms of policy and indeed characteristically.
Blair was a great leader in my opinion, absolutely excellent in his own unique way. In my view he took Labour completely into a Centrist position (largely because his personality was also built for it) while also building up the image of a better Britain too. Labour used modern media and Blair's great charm and real political wit to counter problems, issue by issue with some retort that always seemed just a good deal more than okay. In doing so he occupied so much ground slightly left of centre to slightly right of centre that the Tories had no way in. Superb.
A year after his loss and it is showing; but the media and blogasphere had it in for him and rightly so. He picked the wrong basis for war in Iraq but probably has the right reasons - (democracy?) people cry out that it was for oil, etc but even if it was who exactly benefits. Besides, the blogs are always so hard on Labour, IMO! Poor Iain Dale, backing Tories yet the half of them would string him up over his sexuality!
As for Brown, he will need to rely on vibrant policies and a unified team working together on issues partly keeping up the image that Blair built up but highlighting the colour of its social policy that outshines the SNP's with actions in those affected areas.
Perhaps a media-led surprise call of Salmond to Downing Street asking him just what he wants would be interestingly done under the banner of removing party-politics to try and deliver genuinely for the people of 'east end'. Etc
DC - thanks for this - I would't be as kind as you about Blair, I was always a bit suspicious of his lack of roots in the Labour movement, but you are right about occupying ground which pushed the Tories out. Also it's easy to forget that he shifted Britain's centre of political gravity into the, um, centre, making 'greed is good' a bit less acceptable.
But then, as you say, there was Iraq...and his mystifying wish to back the USA at every stage.
I think your point about the SNP ignotes devolution, though - they have their own power base in the Scottish Parliament so why would they talk to Labour? If the Tories not only win the next election but do very well, it'll be interesting to see whether that brings about a new impetus for independence in Scotland.
Yes, Tony was prone to being 'Trust me Tony', trust me to triangulate, sofa-government, style over substance; however, there is something about him and his term in office that in the areas of communication and presentation it has set a sort of high water mark for his successors.
Without his media and style approach from this point on there is something lacking. I think it is affecting Brown who is unable to fill that void with his substance alone. Tony Blair's predictable approach to NI was useful some say 'useful idiot, but I feel just a little unsure at times now without him and Ahern there. The Tories are a slight concern. It is like J Powell says in his book about standing back and admiring the democratic threshold. Yet that past doesn't feel that far away especially now without those GFA custodians.
Perhaps Tony Blair used Labour and Labour used him, taking it in a direction based on a wide appeal but not that deep yet still not that shallow, if ya know what I mean.
At times you do get the Phoney-Blair feel, but for what it is worth I really think he was genuinely positive and optimistic. The ridicule was obvious under the Phoney approach, Iraq we will have to wait and see.
My reason re the SNP is to try and provoke a reaction to take the sting out of them, if at all possible. Or else GB needs to go to Scotland with some of that Tony effort and be seen to be caring more.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5R48f3becY
Yes, I'm reading Jonathan Powell at the moment and enjoying it - and being spooked at how much David Milliband reminds me of Blair on TV tonight! Is uppose for many of us we hoped against hope that TB would be a new dawn for Labour but we were disappointed. I'll be interested to see what happens next, but woudl be more interested if I could actually vote for them, of course.
Post a Comment