Should Labour lurch left?

Helen Goodman MP argues today that Labour should adopt policies that enhance liberty and equality. She says the party allowed its "bossy tendency too much free rein".

Labour MP and former pensions minister, Helen Goodman, argues today that, as it considers how to respond to the coalition government, Labour should adopt policies that enhance liberty and equality. Labour, in power, allowed its “bossy tendency too much free rein” and allowed other parties to “outflank us rhetorically and criticise our record on equality”.

In a new paper, published by Left Foot Forward, “Stuck in the middle? Should Labour lurch to the left or stay on the centre ground?“, Helen Goodman – who is supporting Ed Miliband in the leadership race – uses a liberal/authoritarian axis and an equality/inequality axes to argue that:

“There now seems to be a growing consensus (which I share) that we need to become more “liberal”

“[We also need] more energetic policies to deliver social justice and better communications [of those policies].

In relation to civil liberties, Ms Goodman says:

“we gather that in the coalition negotiations AV and the abolition of the DNA database were offered. On reading this, many of us were left wondering why we’d had them in the manifesto anyway! …

“there is also a good case for arguing that actually the last government did allow Labour’s bossy tendency too much free rein – and not just on the big issues like ID cards – also in allowing the development, especially at local authority level of a risk minimisation culture which is self-defeating.”

On equality, Goodman asks:

“How was it that despite the fact that our policies in government and our prospectus for the future (minimum wage, tax credits) were way more distributive than those of the opposition parties (inheritance tax cuts etc.) they were able to outflank us rhetorically and criticise our record on equality?”

Download the full paper here.

27 Responses to “Should Labour lurch left?”

  1. Jacquie Martin

    Sorry, errors in above. What are the head honchos called? LibDemCons, ConDemLibs? Instantly forgettable, to me.

    Also, stamp duty raised for 1st time buyers only.

    Aplogies. Inequality and enforced lack of social mobility makes steam come out of my ears.

  2. rjb

    Why “lurch” left? Agreeably alliterative, I’ll grant you, but why not discuss the ways that Labour has reeled right over the last fifteen years?

    The centre-ground, at any rate, is not exactly prime real-estate at present. Let’s assume the governing coalition has that covered.

  3. Fat Bloke on Tour

    The whole exercise shouts of Q+D analysis done by crayon.
    The level of overlap between the parties is totally out of kilter with what the parties would actually do in practise.

    Labour = Close to the centre because it has a record to defend.
    LibDems = Middle class welfare state / motherhood and apple pie to everyone else.
    What happens in practice, Orange Bookers call the shots and they end up being Tories without the kicking boots on.
    Tories = The box may be where Clan Cameron want to be but as time will soon tell the Maggie lovers will soon put a stop to that.

    Labour lost the election for many reasons.

    Since 97 they have lacked confidence and imagination.
    They were too rational and lacked emotion.
    Their ranks were filled by too many metropolitan, middle class, professional politicians, a failing that the leadership election reinforces to a degree beyond parody.

    Consequently the 2D analysis is far too simplistic.
    Any progress towards a successful labour government has to include the following:

    Making the state work — Too many good ideas were poorly implemented. Managerial competency over the state apparatus has to improve. Ministers being moved every 12 months is a recipe for disaster.

    Making the state work for people — Too much effort was put into controlling the officers of the state without taking into account how this would affect their relationship with the people.

    The party has to become more blue collar / working class. We have to be the party of the poor and the underprivileged and we need to see the world through their eyes. Consequently a quota has to be placed on Oxbridge graduates coming from professional homes and entering politics through the SpAd route.

    People have to understand what government is trying to do — KISS.
    Transparency has to be introduced throughout society, private sector as well as public.
    Public services need to be improved for those at the bottom in a non prescriptive, non patronising manner.
    Taxes need to become simpler, more comprehensive and more transparent.
    Working class issues need to come to the fore — Fairness, opportunity, improved public services and social mobility need to come first.
    The middle class liberal agenda needs to be put on the back burner, needs work and should be implemented at a gradual pace in a non threatening manner.
    Too often the Trendy Wendy’s in the party were implementing policy to impress their dinner party guests and not help the people at the bottom.

    Basic point in all of this is that if the state wants to do something it has to do it well and it has to generate the results that the policy was set up to do.

  4. Robert

    It would be nice if somebody did remember us at the bottom, I’ve a disability we are being attacked from all sides at the moment, the best bet for me voting this time around was to sit at home because everyone wants us dead.

    I had an accident at work breaking my back damaging my spinal cord I had to have three disc removed and the last one gave me MRSA for god sake why is it I’m not the baddie

Comments are closed.