There can be countless seminars, focus groups, reports and intellectual discussions on how the Left can ‘win again’, but they are futile if they don’t come up with a coherent answer. Discussions of this sort can be fascinating, and I do miss the tutorials I had for a politics module I took at University (an ‘outside’ option from my degree in English Language). However, such discussions and potential solutions need to translate to the electorate. I’m more than happy to talk political ideologies and philosophies, but the man/woman on the street has every right to say “who cares about that?” The question I pose is therefore a difficult one.
Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, is the madness cliché which does ring true for political theory. How can Jeremy Corbyn’s 1980s Labour model possibly ‘get it right this time’? The Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard experiment didn’t work for the Tories, hence the so called ‘compassionate Conservatism’ agenda of David Cameron. Left wing populism has its attractions, but even if there is a brief electoral reward it often comes back to bite you; look at Alexis Tspiras and Syriza, or Francois Hollande in France. The original doomsday prediction was that whoever was set to win the 2010 UK General Election would be out of power for a generation thereafter, due to the unpopular measures that would need to be taken; the fact that the Conservatives still won in 2015 should have the Left seriously concerned. Now is not the time for Michael Foot redux.
I don’t profess to have the answer, merely my own suggestions and predictions, although I am very confident that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would be doomed in 2020. There needs to be a coherent and structured approach. The Centre-Left should provide aims for the next ten, fifteen and twenty years, not just for 2020. The balance needs to be right. Let’s not have broad slogans like “we’re for the common good, for fairness etc” without specific policies, nor can there be minutiae in policy documents. The first port of call for dealing with inequality and unemployment can no longer be to simply increase spending and taxes. The Centre-Left needs to show how money is spent, which is why looking at how spending in the early years is vital. Show centrists and people who lean right that you are pro-tax cutting, but tax cutting progressively (low and middle incomes). People need to trust you on running the nation’s finances, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t be radical. By radical, show that you’d cut down on waste and bloated spending in all areas, meaning that you’d clamp down on subsidies for the rich as much as you’d trim welfare. On the latter point, show that you’re for people in work, but mean it. I mean this in a progressive sense; the whole “make work pay” mantra has to have meaning, so don’t take the Tory approach and hurt those who are working but at the lower income scale. Trump the Conservatives on taking “difficult decisions”. Financial behemoths like Trident shouldn’t be exempt (whether that means scaling down or abolishing, but that’s another topic), and strive for more ambitious debt elimination targets.
There’s a twofold challenge for the Centre-Left: How do you put forward a positive and progressive message when deficits need to be dealt with, and what vision will you fight for once the deficit has been cleared? The composition is what truly counts. It’s great to say that you’re against inequality, that you’re pro-fairness and that you want to strive to reduce unemployment, but who honestly wouldn’t say these things? The solutions can’t be based on old ideas, and the spin from the Right means that conservatives can try and claim the ‘compassionate’ mantle even if it’s not justified. Stereotypes need to be shed (e.g. tax and spend); the Centre-Left needs to convince people that it’s more competent in areas that people would assume (think economics), whilst having new ideas for dealing in areas where it apparently has a monopoly (fighting for the underdog, ‘fairness’).
Assumptions need to be challenged and (if applicable) addressed. The Centre-Left does not have a monopoly electorally or idealistically. Leave the self-indulgent seminars and textbooks. It’s time to get out there and talk to everyday people, and to be bold and pragmatic.
Doing the same thing over and over, and expecting different results, is the madness cliché which does ring true for political theory. How can Jeremy Corbyn’s 1980s Labour model possibly ‘get it right this time’? The Hague/Duncan Smith/Howard experiment didn’t work for the Tories, hence the so called ‘compassionate Conservatism’ agenda of David Cameron. Left wing populism has its attractions, but even if there is a brief electoral reward it often comes back to bite you; look at Alexis Tspiras and Syriza, or Francois Hollande in France. The original doomsday prediction was that whoever was set to win the 2010 UK General Election would be out of power for a generation thereafter, due to the unpopular measures that would need to be taken; the fact that the Conservatives still won in 2015 should have the Left seriously concerned. Now is not the time for Michael Foot redux.
I don’t profess to have the answer, merely my own suggestions and predictions, although I am very confident that a Corbyn-led Labour Party would be doomed in 2020. There needs to be a coherent and structured approach. The Centre-Left should provide aims for the next ten, fifteen and twenty years, not just for 2020. The balance needs to be right. Let’s not have broad slogans like “we’re for the common good, for fairness etc” without specific policies, nor can there be minutiae in policy documents. The first port of call for dealing with inequality and unemployment can no longer be to simply increase spending and taxes. The Centre-Left needs to show how money is spent, which is why looking at how spending in the early years is vital. Show centrists and people who lean right that you are pro-tax cutting, but tax cutting progressively (low and middle incomes). People need to trust you on running the nation’s finances, but that doesn’t mean that you can’t be radical. By radical, show that you’d cut down on waste and bloated spending in all areas, meaning that you’d clamp down on subsidies for the rich as much as you’d trim welfare. On the latter point, show that you’re for people in work, but mean it. I mean this in a progressive sense; the whole “make work pay” mantra has to have meaning, so don’t take the Tory approach and hurt those who are working but at the lower income scale. Trump the Conservatives on taking “difficult decisions”. Financial behemoths like Trident shouldn’t be exempt (whether that means scaling down or abolishing, but that’s another topic), and strive for more ambitious debt elimination targets.
There’s a twofold challenge for the Centre-Left: How do you put forward a positive and progressive message when deficits need to be dealt with, and what vision will you fight for once the deficit has been cleared? The composition is what truly counts. It’s great to say that you’re against inequality, that you’re pro-fairness and that you want to strive to reduce unemployment, but who honestly wouldn’t say these things? The solutions can’t be based on old ideas, and the spin from the Right means that conservatives can try and claim the ‘compassionate’ mantle even if it’s not justified. Stereotypes need to be shed (e.g. tax and spend); the Centre-Left needs to convince people that it’s more competent in areas that people would assume (think economics), whilst having new ideas for dealing in areas where it apparently has a monopoly (fighting for the underdog, ‘fairness’).
Assumptions need to be challenged and (if applicable) addressed. The Centre-Left does not have a monopoly electorally or idealistically. Leave the self-indulgent seminars and textbooks. It’s time to get out there and talk to everyday people, and to be bold and pragmatic.
No comments:
Post a Comment