2011 must be the year Labour realises the scale of its electoral, political, and philosophical defeat and finally articulates a different future.
This year has been a year of displacement activity for Labour. 2011 must be the year that it realises the scale of its electoral, political, and philosophical defeat and finally articulates a different future. Let’s recap briefly. The year started off with a botched attempt to make amends for failing to hold a leadership election the previous Summer. It was too late and so failed.
Within a few short breaths the election campaign was underway. It never got off the starting blocks. That Labour staffers were celebrating a paltry 29 per cent – the party’s second worst showing in living memory – on the morning of Friday May 7th shows how utterly hopeless the cause had become.
Labour was then- mistakenly- thrust into a leadership election before it had any time for reflection. This was the third displacement activity. Ed Miliband had a bit more verve and freshness than his rivals and deservedly won. The contest itself had no context. There was no analysis of Labour’s predicament or the challenges that it faced. Those things were left unsaid.
No sooner had the leadership contest finished but the final displacement activity set in. The Spending Review and the cuts- most particularly those that affecting higher education and students – became the final diversion of 2010.
And so the campaign goes on. Is this what people mean by perpetual campaigning? Rather like a grieving widow, the Labour party is keeping itself occupied. Surely at some point it will have to face its loss?
Meanwhile, the coalition (Tory-led!) has defined Labour’s recent past for it. In this framing Labour was profligate, economically incompetent, and authoritarian. Just saying ‘no we weren’t’ mixed with frenetic and exhausting activity won’t be enough. And if Labour thinks a Republican opposition strategy of ignoring the past while digging your heels in will work then it will have another thing coming.
There is no UK equivalent of the Senate super-majority and the left has no Glenn Beck etc backed by a multi-million dollar message machine. In fact, the reverse is the case.
Labour is not going to stop the coalition in the short term. They may grab the odd straggling gazelle- Vince Cable looks fair game- and provoke the odd u-turn and that will feel good. Civil society might slow it- and the likes of False Economy are more than capable of mobilising dissent. The politics of reform may weigh too heavily as all sorts of unintended consequences take hold- keep a close eye on the NHS.
The harsh truth, however, is that no matter how uncomfortable they are with many of the coalition’s policies, as things stand people want David Cameron as their Prime Minister. If there were an election tomorrow, he would become leader of a majority Government. The fact that the Liberal Democrats would be wiped off the electoral map is scant consolation.
Labour needs a policy review for sure and it has one. What it doesn’t have is a vision in which the review can sit. What this means is that there is a risk that the party will end up with spring freshly washed clothes without a washing line to hang them on. They will remain damp and become musty in time.
The greatest dramas turn on events that shift everything from one state to another. Politics is a dramatic pursuit where the weakest players pretend it is a rational enterprise. Cameron is prime minister because he a sense of the dramatic and the bold. His play changing event happened on May 7th; Labour became mere extras at that precise moment. Leadership sprang from apparent defeat.
Ed Miliband must, in time, respond with a similar sense of drama. He has so far sought to reconnect the Labour party to the lost leadership of John Smith. It was a noble and moral leadership and would have almost certainly still have returned Labour to power in 1997.
However, it was Tony Blair who was the first leader since Harold Wilson (Mark I) to make Labour a party of the future once more. Three Labour leaders have won majorities in the party’s history. Each of these majorities was secured on the basis of Labour cast as the party of a bright and optimistic future (not the party of being nice and fair!)
So this is less a prediction than a plea but 2011 must be the year when Labour ceases the restless displacement activity. It should have stopped in 2010. It didn’t. It should have stopped in 2009. It didn’t. Quickly though, it must then spring forward with a different vision: of an economy that provides good jobs in new creative services and industry; that re-defines public value and values for the post-austerity age; and makes real the promise of the Big Society as a new citizenship that tangibly improves communities and lives.
Do not under-value the decency of John Smith. Equally, do not forget that Labour wins when it is the future. 2011 must become the year when Labour is finally honest about its recent past and then with a sense of drama and panache, it imagines and articulates the different future that it can create and turns it into a poetic conviction. The alternative is a third year of frenetic displacement activity. Surely now is the time to move on?
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
57 Responses to “Labour wins when it is the future”
SlashedUK
RT @leftfootfwd: Labour wins when it is the future: http://bit.ly/fQX9X4 by @AnthonyPainter
Anon E Mouse
Éoin Clarke – Everything you say may be true except where you state Tony Blair “hung around” completely rewrites history.
He didn’t hang around – he was elected on a “Full third term” ticket by the electorate in this country – for anybody voting Labour at that election, party politics were thrown out of the window.
Gordon Brown wasn’t even elected by his own party let alone the public. Apart from his financial incompetence and tribalism – he employed a man, Damian McBride, to smear David Cameron the week his disabled son died for goodness sake and his wish for state control made him unelectable.
And Labour couldn’t/wouldn’t see it. You’re still doing it now calling him “Big Gordy” instead of “That tw*t who wrecked the Labour Party”. Which he was. He is a bullying dishonest thug according to Peter Mandelson amongst others.
ID Cards, PFI, 10p Tax, 90 days detention are all sideshows. The elephant in the room now is Ed Miliband – while he is Labour leader the party will remain in opposition.
Matthew Bond
This argument is unconvincing. It ignores the fact that Labour has caught up in the polls and appears to have a slight lead. Given that polls are the best evidence we have about the public mood why is AP so convinced the Tories would win a new election or that the public want Cam to be PM? Of course Labour should prepare itself for government but at this point in the political cycle it does not seem to be doing worse than most successful oppositions. After all, Cam never set out a clear vision. His Big Society plea was vague and didn’t connect with the voters. So I agree work needs to be done but that does not mean we need to overestimate the power of this government nor should we start hand wringing about our prospects.
BenM
AnonEMouse is getting carried away.
The elephant in the room now is Ed Miliband – while he is Labour leader the party will remain in opposition.
I know Tories would love this to be true, but it isn’t.
Labour is now the ONLY party of opposition. That has been much of the driver behind its ascendancy in the polls since the election.
That and the disposal of Gordon Brown.
Ed Miliband is right to take a little time – not too much though – to develop the policies required to stiffen the support the Party receives in current polling.
Ed only needs to consider that David cameron had 4 years to do this and still failed to win an outright majority despite facing possibly the worst Prime Minister this side of World War 2.
– Labour are broadly more correct on the economy than the coalition, which next year’s economic stats will ram home.
– The Tory NHS reforms are half baked and highly damaging and any route back to power must provide robust opposition to them and it must champion the clear success of Labour’s management between 1997 and 2010.
– Ed should provide a break from the maddening knee jerk abuse of civil liberties that grew out of Blair’s premiership
– And Ed should provide principled support to the Yes camp in the AV referendum.
Anon E Mouse
BenM – I recall people just like you who said the same things about Gordon Brown and they were as wrong then as you are now. Miliband is useless.
The ascendancy in the polls is nothing – no real honeymoon for Ed Miliband because he’s a dud and if someone can’t get a lead under these conditions of cuts then they must be dead.
What the Labour Party do not do is get rid of useless leaders – Kinnock, Foot, Brown spring to mind and it will cost them.
You can say blah this blah that but the fact is Ed Miliband is a loser. Now Tony Blair – there was a leader.
Keep dreaming BenM but you know I’m right. Even Labour Uncut published this article: http://labour-uncut.co.uk/2010/12/21/the-left-is-losing-its-marbles/
He knows BenM. So do you but you won’t admit it…