Jon Bright (London, OK): When announcing that there would be no election on November the 1st, Gordon Brown said he wanted time to set out his "vision" for the country. On Monday, Sunder Katwala released a Fabian Society pamphlet urging him to do just that - and to make it a bold one.
His basic premise is twofold. The tactics that have won Labour the previous three elections (a sort of "safety first", broadly inclusive manifesto, combined with the unelectability of the Tories) won't win the next one: the Tories are re-energised, and Labour cannot continue to ask for "more time" after what will have been 12 years in government.
So Katwala argues that Brown should therefore lay out a "progressive vision" for society. Previous Labour policy has almost been tantamount to trying to bring in "social democracy by stealth" - implementing progressive policies whilst not really talking about them. Now Labour should be explicit, and Katwala lays out a five point plan for this new vision (tackling the challenges of inequality, democratic reform, the environment, civil liberties and planning for a putative multipolar world). On democratic reform, he says:
Labour should bite the bullet and back a written constitution. But the party should also pledge to put a more radical ‘democracy package' to a public referendum. This should propose electoral reform - the Alternative Vote for the Commons, so that every MP must seek 50% of the vote in their constituency - which should be combined with proportional representation for an 80% elected second chamber.
Making voting a duty of citizenship could also be put to the public vote. Increasing turnout is important for the health of our democracy. And it is also in progressives' interest to ensure that as many people as possible vote, particularly to prevent the political agenda being skewed against the interests of the young and the poor.
The 2009 manifesto could end a century of stalemate since Lloyd George's 1909 People's Budget began the argument about democracy and the Lords. Putting a new Great Reform Act in place for the centenary of the 1911 Parliament Act - always intended as a stop gap - would give progressives from Labour and Liberal traditions an historic common cause. That cooperation would be rooted in shared democratic principles on the particular issue of democratic reform.
Most people who talk about politics perceive Brown as being in crisis (though Mike Smithson points out that Brown's polling numbers perhaps aren't as bad as they are often made out to be). So Katwala is right, I think, that Brown should try and regain some initiative and set out a clear vision.
But the key point is time. Brown has the time he asked for to set it out - but not that much. He needs action as well as words; and of all the five points Katwala outlines it is only in the areas of democracy and civil liberties that Brown can really make noticeable progress before the next general election - and he would only be able to do so in civil liberties by tearing up measures introduced by his own party. Democratic reform therefore seems like the only field where Brown has an opportunity to do something bold, something historic, something visionary, before going to the polls. Will he take it?
Comments
Yes, Sundar discusses the problems of winning a fourth election and the fact that trying to do so by re-running 1997 won't work. he is right about this. But recently David Miliband said that showing the government was competent is the essential thing they need to do. He needs to read Sunder. In 1997, after nearly two decades in the wilderness, Labour did need to demonstrate its competence - its fitness to govern. It did so which is why it won again. But also, by the time the opposition were seen as hopelessly incompetent.
HBere is the quote in full from the Independent
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/article3157790.ece
"Mr Miliband also warned that Mr Brown could lose the next general election unless the Government was seen to be effective and competent. That was seen as a signal to No 10 that it has to "raise its game" following blunders over the timing of the general election, the retreat over capital gains tax, the Northern Rock fiasco and the row over the leaked Home Office memorandum on illegal immigrants. "The next election is Labour's to lose and not the Tories to win," Mr Miliband said, adding that it would be the Government's decisions that would reveal its competence, and its vision in office. "I believe if we are both a competent and effective Government, we will be in a very strong position in the next general election," he said."
Why won't this work? Because the crucial factor is whether or not the _opposition_ is seen as competent. There is little the government can do about this. Once it is so perceived then the game is over for this approach. Voters will think, well, if the government are only running on their competence and effectiveness why not give the other guys a chance now they don't seem to be too bad. Change is good and if the risk is low...
As the Tories under Cameron have indeed made this breakthrough, the game is over for Labour merely to run on its ability to govern well. It must offer a way forward that is attractive and distinctly its own. Whether Sunder has gone far enough to provide this is for debate, but on the fact now that this has to be done he is spot on.
Anthony
Post new comment