Have you noticed the rising chorus of concern expressed by the outriders for “new” Labour? Columnists and former political high flyers have been falling over each other with advice for Gordon Brown, and how he might retrieve Labour’s poll position in advance of the next election. Their words remind me of Tony Benn’s claim of long ago, after another electoral rejection, that the then Labour Party was not socialist enough.
Of course, the cry now is that the government has not modernised enough, whatever that may mean. It is sensible to be cautious of the terminology of “new” Labour since to many, it is an easily translatable newspeak, where “modernisation” means “privatisation: “transparency” means opacity; and “accountability” means irresponsibility.
Brown is well aware that “new” Labour never added up to much more than a social and career opportunity network, advantaging the few rather than the many. As a brand, it was cloaked in various disguises, but in reality depended largely on the personalities of its two principal advocates, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. As the former recedes into the past, his court have had to reassess their positions.
Many have gone off to alternative – and well paid – employment in the private sector. Others are left to look like lost sheep, searching for someone to guide them again into the sunlit uplands of influence. Unfortunately for them, Gordon Brown remembers well how he was demonised by these same people when Blair was in the ascendant. It is highly unlikely that he will listen to Guardian commentators or has-been politicians.
Instead, he has launched innumerable reviews to prepare for what one must hope is a fresh platform of ideas for winning back the millions of lost voters disillusioned by the perceived betrayals of the Blair years. If his fresh, if cautious, approach to Iraq is anything to go by, then there is hope in his revisionism. If, however, his rhetoric on welfare or privatisation is the real Brown, then I believe that his cause is already beyond redemption.
The recent Australian general election shattered the old myth that “it is the economy, stupid” which necessarily wins elections. There, an economically successful and highly rated prime minister, overseeing a boom economy, was unceremoniously dumped. If, as many believe, Brown is reliant on his record for economic management to carry him to electoral success, he should think again. Whilst accepting economic success as a positive electoral factor, there are so many other areas where the government seems entirely disconnected from large swathes of the electorate.
Foreign and defence policy has atomised Labour Party loyalties. Decreased activity in Iraq does not mean approval for increased activity in Afghanistan. Concerns about the European constitution do not mean a warmer regard for the American administration. Regard for our troops in the field, does not mean support for an often cavalier and reactionary defence establishment.
Domestically, the twin concerns of immigration, and social disorder in our communities, are a potentially volatile mix. If unemployment rises, and immigration continues unabated, it will be a gift to those seeking to exacerbate increasing social tensions, rather than defusing them. Naturally, these matters depend largely on economic pressures, an area in which Brown’s reputation remains strong.
However, one wonders how he will cater for a global downturn, or particular extra-territorial problems impacting on our banking and finance sector. Higher mortgage repayments as new housing starts stutter, is a sure way of alienating the voters of middle England. Many of these homebuyers are also public sector workers, already hemmed in by, and resentful of, restricted wage increases, due to government policy.
Of course, not all political dangers are economic or stem from abroad. As the NHS Confederation pronounces that there are now four different health services in the United Kingdom, it brings home the unfinished question of devolution. Under the principle of subsidiarity , as more discretion is afforded to Brussels, Scotland in particular is dragging more and more power from London to Edinburgh. The bemused English look on, wondering what is in it for them, given the obvious rewards to Scotland of the Barnett Formula.
Thus, it is wise for Brown to review so much of policy, to see how it fits into the heady mix which now often hamstrings clear and responsible government. The ad hoc nature of the Blair years, in which presentation was more important than substance, when today’s headline triumphed over consistency and coherence, has come home to roost with a vengeance.
The Prime Minister has time to turn things around, recognising his need to woo again, not just floating voters, but also traditional supporters who have walked away. This will not be achieved under the permanent revolution prescription of SDP-lite “new” Labour, but only through listening to the real wishes of the mass of the British electorate who lie outside of the chattering-classes’ dinner party circuit.
