|
Yvonne Roberts
© Yvonne Roaberts 2008
Chuku Umunna writes:
After Labour must come an honest exposition of what Labour is all about - building a fairer, more equal, democratic and sustainable world - and an attempt to popularise these notions in the way that Thatcher did for the beliefs of Hayek, Friedman et al. Labour has got to stop running scared for fear of offending and make the case for its politics.
But how? The 'living wage' - highly desirable in my view - provides a good example. Let's give the debate around that issue some emotional texture. We do not just strive for a society in which every person has the opportunity to reach their full potential (all parties lay claim to that); we want to build a society in which whatever talents people have, they are rewarded with a comfortable standard of living when they apply them …
I'm not sure what 'emotional texture' means (personal testimonies? food bills?) but I do know that Thatcher had it easy. Her political 'ideology' boiled down to three simple ingredients that had a strong and primitive resonance with those already well endowed with a reasonable income and deeply rooted social networks: the free market; pared down central government; and the need for individuals to 'stand on their own two feet'.
Labour, in contrast, soon became lost in the rhetoric of the 'Third Way'. For the past 11 years, it's as if it has been trying to complete a jigsaw puzzle with pieces from a dozen different boxes, and little clue as to the picture on the box.
So what kind of society does it now govern? According to the cabinet office's strong analysis of the bottom rungs of society, Think Family, there are around 140,000 families experiencing multiple disadvantage including mental illness, poor housing, low income, alcohol and drug addiction. Each family has the help of up to a dozen 'professionals', mostly contradicting each other and achieving very little. Child poverty persists on a huge scale.
Annually, 45% of young people leave school without a decent set of qualifications; a high proportion of older people live on very low incomes. While last year, Unicef, the UN's children's organisation, put the UK bottom of a table of 21 industrialised countries, measuring wellbeing in children. The Netherlands, Sweden, Denmark and Finland came top. The authors of the report say they used the most up to date information to assess, 'whether children feel loved, cherished, special and supported, within the family and community and whether the family and community are being supported in this task by public policy and resources'.
That's the challenge. All politicians say they want a fairer, more equal and sustainable world. What's at issue is the role that the state plays in achieving that aim. Of course what counts is decent housing; an education system that works (according to whose criteria?); proper care for the elderly; en end to poverty; civility; respect; revived social networks. But how is that translated from a shopping list into a linked set of aspirations and an ideology? An ideology that conveys intent in the way that Thatcherism once did, in all its destructiveness, to its followers?
Much of what Labour ought to do comes down to redistribution, but not all. If the poorest suddenly have riches yet live in a society in which greed, celebrity and doing nothing for others is the template, what damage does that inflict on citizenship, a sense of personal security, the exercise of democracy and a sense of community?
Unlike the 1940s, the 21st century needs to address issues such as resilience and personal control, surveillance and privacy and the damage done when permanent welfare dependency is the government's favoured method of 'support' instead of using tools that encourage empowerment and independence.
Redistribution needs to be driven by a set of beliefs that are not contradictory and ambivalent but that come together to power action. Redistribution also needs a fresh rhetoric that strikes a chord - not least because the politician mouthing the words, is believed - for a period at least. They are believed, as Thatcher was, even by those who detested her, because she was driven by personal conviction, not the prime goal of winning the next election .
As Thatcher understood then, and Obama understands now, rhetoric has to match a prevailing mood. How can Labour find a simple and striking language that makes the re-allocation of resources an action of universal benefit? As it surely is.
How can it develop a set of criteria and goals that speak to what appears to be a growing non-materialistic need in people - a need to feel connected; valued; part of a community of equals - not Thatcherite individuals fighting alone?
Once again, Labour is a party in search of an ideology. What it needs to do is to respect its past, hold fast to many of its traditional ideals and look to the future, recasting the whole in a platform that it believes in out of principle, not as a cynical electioneering tactic. Umunna says its time for Labour to 'make the case for its politics'. First, it has to decide on its politics, and only then will be able to make its case.
Part of the Comment is free Soundings debate, first appeared 4 November
Subscribe to Soundings a journal of politics and culture
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
