The trouble is that “Westminster isn’t working” also requires Labour to believe that “Whitehall isn’t working”, and that they will never do. What used to be collectivism has become statism, and statism has become Whitehallism (ugh! sorry). The WIW agenda belongs (with the alternative and less wubbly-wubbly label of “broken politics”) to the Liberal Democrats.

The irony is that true collectivism, in terms of a willing group of people signing up to one particular way of life and set of measures, is possible, indeed flourishes, within a devolved liberal democracy. That Labour people aren’t willing to acknowledge that just indicates how far collectivism has come to be synonymous with “run from Whitehall” for them.

Interestingly, I see Dermot Finch says devolution is the answer, putting into policy terms much what you’re suggesting as a campaign.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/19/labour.labourconference4

Same objection applies, I think, though I’d be astonished and pleased to be wrong. Devolution is the one policy it’s truly churlish to mind if someone steals from you!

Perhaps now is the time to stand up for the state and government intervention?

Maybe spelling out ot the average voter why a low tax, small government approach is not in their interests? Perhaps showing how those on median incomes and below benefit from state funded health, education and pension provision, and what percentage of the population would gain from a low tax environment – i.e. the same small percentage that have benefited from the shift in the burden of taxation through reductions in the top rate, and from taking the lion’s share of the proceeds of growth (with the top 10% taking over 40% of national income – which includes newspaper proprietors, TV and print media editors and journalists).

At a time when the neoliberal free market is being bailed out by the taxpayer with a seemingly endless succession of blank cheques, the big lie that ‘we’ can no longer afford the welfare state stands exposed. What the credit crunch illustrates starkly is that ‘we’ can’t afford not to have a welfare state to secure provision in those areas of the economy that the market can’t and won’t serve – to explain how state provision in health and education is not only more equitable but more efficient, and how leaving basic pension provision to the market is pure madness.

With the Lib Dems turning into libertarians the field on the centre-left and beyond is pretty sparsely populated – leaving 40% of the electorate with no-one to vote for.

“Maybe spelling out ot the average voter why a low tax, small government approach is not in their interests? Perhaps showing how those on median incomes and below benefit from state funded health, education and pension provision…”

The trouble is that whenever anyone makes this argument I just think, “But it’s not your money!” I’m all for collectively doing the things that are best done collectively, and doing them lavishly, but this is best decided on a case by case business and not in the form of a giant blank cheque for the state to carry on growing. I just don’t understand why a rational person would want to do things any other way. When you’re talking about actual arithmetic that can actually be done, when you can weigh up x piece of expenditure against y tax cut and decide which has the greater benefit for society as a whole, why would you want to have taken a prejudicial position before any of the facts became known to you which would entirely determine your answer?

“and what percentage of the population would gain from a low tax environment – i.e. the same small percentage that have benefited from the shift in the burden of taxation through reductions in the top rate”

That’s totally meaningless. If you’re talking about a “low tax environment” in which the “low” bit is reductions in the top rate, then of course only a tiny (top rate-paying) percentage benefit from that particular “low tax environment”! If you’re talking about a “low tax environment” in which, say, the basic rate has been cut and the personal allowance raised, then obviously the bottom 90% of the population benefit instead of the top 10%. Tax is one of the few areas of policy where you actually can measure who benefits, so treating the very word as a touchstone for either socialism or barking right-wing marketeering is just daft.

“- It’ll need someone close to the cabinet and yet not too closely tied to Brown. I think Ed Miliband is the man. I prefer Jon Cruddas, and he’s the only ‘outsider’ who could pull it off more convincingly, but (a) he wouldn’t do it and (b) I think he’d be better off in a supporting role. ”

For PM?

Well.

I’m going to come out of a corner and say what I really think.

I think Gordon Brown is finished.

I suspect Alec Salmond will make a complete meal over the HBOS thing. Because it was pretty obviously a manufactured disaster.

I suspect that Scotland will be upset enough by this, and other things, to vote SNP in Glenrothes

And at the General Election. I think. It seems reasonable that English ideas of Conservatism are not going to bode well North of the Border

I predict a Northern landslide.

Perhaps large enough to break up this nation.

Sunny,

You’re still hedging your bets. If the policies are wrong and must be changed then an election is required in order to give the new policies a mandate. If the change in policy is sufficiently small as not to require a new mandate then a change of leader is mere spin.

Clearly you think that this is a false dichotomy but you have not said why you think this is.

so here is the nub of it.

What reason, other than an essentially tribal affinity to the Labour party, can you give for advocating that the Government be given a chance to refinvent itself and its policies without consulting the electorate?

Brown had his chance – he failed. Now its up to someone else to run with a narrative most people can relate to.

Couldn’t agree more. The only problem I see is that it’s going to take a senior cabinet minister to resign (Straw, Johnson, Milipede etc) to create the condition for him to go. So far they’re all looking like they have about the same amount of spine as your average jellyfish.

George V,

You haven’t a clue how UK politics works, have you? It is up to the incumbent PM to decide when he or she goes to the country.

for advocating that the Government be given a chance to refinvent itself and its policies without consulting the electorate?

That has been, historically, the advantage that governments have always been given.

Personally, I hope that, this time around both the Tories and Labour electors will vote outlandishly for the SNP and we can be rid of you. Though, sadly, I’m not holding my breath….

Jesus,

Leon.

I love you man.

Who are all these idiots?

They appear to be all around me.

Some of them seem to say stuff like this:

You’re still hedging your bets. If the policies are wrong and must be changed then an election is required in order to give the new policies a mandate. If the change in policy is sufficiently small as not to require a new mandate then a change of leader is mere spin.

Clearly you think that this is a false dichotomy but you have not said why you think this is.

so here is the nub of it.

What reason, other than an essentially tribal affinity to the Labour party, can you give for advocating that the Government be given a chance to refinvent itself and its policies without consulting the electorate?

Does that, I’m just asking, contain content?

I don’t think so.

“What reason, other than an essentially tribal affinity to the Labour party, can you give for advocating that the Government be given a chance to refinvent itself and its policies without consulting the electorate?”

Where does this have any basis? Everyone knows that an election is coming no later than Spring 2010, which is a year and a half. If you’re talking about sacking Brown now then you’re still talking about a couple of months of leadership contest situation, which gives just over a year to finalise a whole new policy direction ready to put to the electorate for an election.

Getting rid of Brown doesn’t give someone the chance to set new policies for Britain without consulting the electorate, it barely gives the administration time to sit down and truly flesh out a complete new direction before an election is compulsory.

“Maybe spelling out ot the average voter why a low tax, small government approach is not in their interests? Perhaps showing how those on median incomes and below benefit from state funded health, education and pension provision, and what percentage of the population would gain from a low tax environment”

You can’t do this under a blanket measure. Healthy middle income earners will simply look at it and go “well screw that, I’ve not used the NHS since getting my Booster, and TBH Labour have screwed up so much I *have* to go private for my dentist”, basically rinse and repeat this regarding other sectors of public pay and you see why suddenly you CAN’T make an argument in general terms for why people are better off being taxed.

Ultimately people either see that tax benefits society or they don’t. Labour being like they are now doesn’t show that people suddenly think taxation isn’t worth it for the services, it shows they’re questioning if every tax is justified…and after the 10p removal and the new VED changes it’s hard to argue how they are. And beyond that it goes even further from tax, because people are willing to pay tax when it makes a difference and keeps everything stable. Labour over the last 10 years have seen popularity decline most over the war in Iraq than any other issue, it is only now that people are also starting to ask how they can be paying so much in taxes yet seeing their cost of living soaring. This is also mainly Labour’s fault for falsely painting the picture that they were the cause of stability for so long, it means they are the ones to blame now it’s gone wrong.

And who is the person that painted that picture, while driving us further in to individual debt and shifting the tax burden to the poor? Oh yeah, Gordon Brown. And people wonder why he should be going?! Fuck Harman and her “people would wonder why we’re concentrating on a leadership election rather than the problems at hand”. People are wondering why the person that was MEANT to deal with the problems at hand for a decade has fucked up so badly and is somehow allowed to keep the top job in the country because of party loyalty. People are wondering why in a time of strife where it’s nothing to do with the party but with global economic turmoil, as Labour have been so quick to claim, they aren’t taking the opportunity to ditch the guy that lied to us.

Hi Sunny – great post. I’d like to draw everyone’s attention to Peter Tatchell’s Cif piece, which asks a similar question but arrives at different conclusions:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/18/labour.labourconference?gusrc=rss&feed=global

In my opinion, there isn’t anything Labour can do to win the next election. Even if there were, no one who could command a decent rump of MPs has the guts to put themselves forward now: I imagine David Miliband doesn’t want to risk vying for the leadership when it is a contest he cannot be sure to win, and when it is very likely that Labour will lose at the next election. It would be a very short time at the top, indeed. No one wants to take responsibility for the impending train wreck of 2010, and soon after Labour lose there will be a great deal of hand-wringing and some young fresh faces, along with some old wizened ones, will find their cojones and stand for a leadership contest.

The problem is that unless someone puts themselves forward now, and does what they can to limit the damage caused by Brown’s almost unbelievable lack of leadership whilst fully aware they will have to “take one for the team” in 2010 and be saddled with an election loss blighting their career, Labour might not recover after that election. It could be the 1980s all over again, with 18 years of Tory rule. So it might make sense for someone with some clout in the Party, perhaps someone older, to provide much needed leadership, and after 2010, paving the way for a young new contender.

The analogy with the Republicans is useful: however, Labour is going to need someone distinctly new to skip a generation of hierarchy and aim for the top from within their ranks. Chuku Umunna or even Sadiq Khan could be future leaders. I just can’t see anyone with the courage to take charge right now, who could substantially change the Labour narrative and turn the media tide enough to retain some sense of dignity at the ballot box in 2010, in the current PLP.

We need a change of policy to win a fourth term a change of leader without that will be pointless – all the blairites calling for brown to go don’t disagree with the policies just his lack of salesmanship. It really is like two bald men fighting over a comb.

The general public think that labours policies have failed them they don’t want private hospitals, private schools pay cuts, 10p tax etc etc etc the tories and lib dems are trying to play up to the social justice angle and fair tax – but all that will happen is voters will stay at home in droves.

The labour party have demoralised the whole country and people have lost faith in politicans.

I blogged the other day about how many ex ministers are making money now for taking consultant roles in the sector they used to manage or move into director roles – it is disgraceful.
http://www.unionfutures.blogspot.com

As for cruddas your seriously mistaken if you still hold any illusions in him and or compass – they have no strategy or alternative policy and as seen in the times article – he’s still nothing but a blairite loyalist. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4783692.ece

Compass and their MPs assisted brown in preventing a challenge on policy issues last time round and are attempting to do it again now.

The only MP who has consistently said its about policies not personalities and who has put forward alternative policies is John McDonnell.

Maybe spelling out ot the average voter why a low tax, small government approach is not in their interests? ~ Chuck H

That’s a rather odd conclusion to take from the New Labour project.

Until recently I thought that the Lib Dems would survive the upcoming train wreck without too many causalties – more recent polls have changed my mind. Now I think that, like Labour, they’ll lose nearly two-thirds of their seats, quite likely including Cleggy’s own.

The Labour narrative in the year after defeat will be one of memoirs and recriminations – not ideal for a leadership election: if Brown is to stay until the poll (which FWIW the mandarins think unlikely) there is a case for his staying on for a while after it, as Howard did, until the Party has had a chance to calm down and think rationally.

It is a long time until a General Election so it is a bit premature to predict what the Lib Dems will do. I think as things are it is fairly safe to say there will be some casualties in Tory seats but today’s You Gov poll shows us just 4% behind Labour which means some Labour seats will come our way and Clegg made it pretty much clear during his speech that this would be the tactical focus.

This in turn will change the composition of the parliamentry party. If progressives who are members of both parties see both their parties shrink to a rump then there will most likely be some huddling together for safety and warmth. I think ‘whether we want Labour to win’ is an academic debate – it obviously isn’t going to so the real question is ‘where do we go from here’?

Hi Sunny,

Interesting article. Worth noting that this approach doesn’t seem to have worked for the Republicans in America, they are sliding in the polls after a short term boost.

Personal view, all this talk about devolution and decentralisation is something which fascinates the political class (Labour, Lib Dems and Tories alike), but which there is very little interest in amongst the wider population. This doesn’t mean it is not worth doing (there are some policy changes which would probably lead to better governance), but it’s not the basis for a political strategy.

For instance, the SNP (ironically) has been doing exactly the opposite of devolving power to more local levels and instead has a range of centralised, top down and popular policies from replacing council tax to scrapping parking charges at hospitals and scrapping prescription fees. I think that the problem is not that people are against ‘big government’ but that the Labour government isn’t doing enough to sort out problems which concern people, and that the SNP’s approach is instructive in this regard.

Apart from the political strategy, two other points worth considering, since this is a liberal-left site. Firstly, devolving power often runs the risk of ‘empowering the already empowered’ and increasing inequalities of power. Westminster and Whitehall aren’t perfect, by any means, but ensuring that devolution of power doesn’t increase inequality takes a lot of time, money and effort.

Secondly, practical instances of devolving decision-making to very local levels often show that the main discussions tend to be about how to stop people from doing things which the majority disapprove of or find annoying. Mostly fine by me, but people who are a) worried about the erosion of civil liberties and b) keen to devolve power to local communities would find it a bit of an eye-opener to go along to things like their local residents associations or ward forums or suchlike.

Where the liberal left is now, was defined by Disraeli 100 years ago: “You behold a range of exhausted volcanoes. Not a flame flickers on a single pallid crest.”

donpaskini,

Hi. I’d like to take issue with this;

Personal view, all this talk about devolution and decentralisation is something which fascinates the political class (Labour, Lib Dems and Tories alike), but which there is very little interest in amongst the wider population

Up here the SNP seems to be doing quite well.

And they do seem, to me at least, to have popular support for what you could reasonably describe as left / liberal policies. Quite apart from the obvious successioinist principle.

I agree that Brown is finished although it is an open question how long it will take the PLP to draw the necessary conclusions in relation to the individual.

I regret that the PLP is very unlikely and perhaps collectively incapable of drawing the necessary conclusions in relation to the policy direction of the Party.

My interest – as a trade unionist – is that trade unions should have some voice in Parliament.

This has not been a Government of the left for years and a Government of the left is not on the immediate agenda I fear.

We have to aim for something constructive – which means trying to get the most effective voice for trade unions and working class people in this Parliament and the next.

Therefore I would like to see John McDonnell contest the Labour leadership in order to provide a focus for an argument about the necessity for socialist policies, both to build the organisation around those beliefs but also to drive debate leftwards until it gets somewhere close to public opinion on issues such as foreign policy and public services.

I wish that the social democrats in the Party could find a worthy leader but am unconvinced by your preferred candidate Sunny.

The PLP wont get rid of Brown because they are not that stupid. If Brown goes now then the pressure for an election would be irrisistable and as things stand Labour would be wiped out regardless of their leader. At least if they hobble on until 2010 the economy might be better and people might feel better disposed to Labour if not Brown.

Sunny: My view is that, like the Republicans, a new contender would have to adopt a ‘Westminster Isn’t Working’ narrative.

Well, it wouldn’t be the first time New Labour took its political cue from a right-wing party. This isn’t much more than ‘a big boy did it and ran away’ – the attempt by New Labour that some other government did all those nasty things – Iraq, tuition fees, 42 days – that a new New Labour will (maybe) undo or at least not repeat this time around. (I’m not holding my breath – Toynbee’s been selling that line for years.) Maybe this is what happens to all governing parties after a while, or it might be just the result having only two changes of government in the last 29 years – New Labour are now repeating all the same rhetorical excuses that the Tories did right up until 1997, only this time – having trashed all its intellectual and political supporters – only the party hacks can defend it. Cruddas has indicated that he has some vision of what the state is for, and what the Labour party could do in future. Unfortunately, no-one in the New labour hierarchy is going any where near his agenda. I’d want Labour to win (if only for tribal reasons), but it’s hard to see that happening when New Labour keeps sucking all the air out of the room. As for Brown’s replacement: I’ll see your Ed Miliband and raise you Harriet Harman on a ‘Westminster boys’ club’ ticket – after all, McCain picked Palin.

Douglas, Lee,

In my partial defense, I was asking Sunny a continuation question from another thread but, since you seem keen to come in on this…

I am not stupid, I am perfectly well aware that it is the Prime Minister who chooses when to have an election. I am also perfectly aware that it is legitimate to change Prime Ministers without recourse to an election (two out of the last three changes at Number 10 have, after all, happened this way). The reason that this is OK is that, in this country we vote not for a Prime Minister but for MPs who stand on a platform of policies established by means of the manifesto.

When Gordon Brown took over from Tony Blair, he was anxious to strike a balance between the desire to mark a change by distancing himself from the policies of his predecessor and moving too far from the manifesto upon which both he and Tony Blair had been elected. At the apogee of his popularity, he contemplated the election that would free him from the shackles of the 2005 manifesto by allowing him to put a new one to the public and receive a mandate for his new direction.

As we know, that election never took place. Many people suggested that the reason for this was fear but Brown himself suggested that no election was required and, in doing so, implicitly bound himself even more tightly to the manifesto.

Now, another change of leadership is being contemplated. Again, this is all fine and democratic so long as whoever takes over also sticks to the original manifesto. However, it is arguable that, the policies in that manifesto and the macro-economic policies that underpinned it were not, with the benefit of hindsight, the ideal policies and assumptions for the current climate. So a new leader will certainly be asked whether he means to continue with current policies.

My point was that such a leader will be pilloried for sticking with failed policies if he or she does so but, if he or she decides to strike out in a new direction, then those policies will not have been before the public and will not have been voted on. This is not only undemocratic but short-sighted because it deprives the new leader of the key tool of party discipline at a time when tough, and potentially radical, decisions will be required.

Imagine that the contest comes down to an “old left” candidate vs a “Blairite ultra” candidate. Whoever wins, some members of the party will not have voted for them. Now imagine that the new leader proposes new legislation or new taxes in next year’s budget with which the other faction disagrees. The whips can no longer point to the common manifesto upon which all potential rebels stood when they were elected. Indeed, rebels can take a principled stance and say that they voted for another candidate in the leadership contest.

This would be bad enough if the candidates were to set out an intellectually coherent stall before the leadership contest, it would be worse still if the new leader were elected without putting his or her new ideas even before the party and then established new policy on the fly. If this were to happen, not only would MPs who had voted for other candidates be entitled to rebel but so would any MP who felt able to say that they had not expected this policy direction from the leader when they were a candidate.

PS, Lee, do you really think that what the country needs now is to elect a leader who will then begin a 12 month process of policy formulation?