|
|
Tuesday saw
another excellent panel of speakers take on the thorny issue of individual
responsibility in the rather apt surroundings of the Thatcher Room, Portcullis
House. Kate Bell of Gingerbread; Steve Reed, leader of Lambeth Council; and
popular blogger Tom Harris MP came together in the light of the welfare reform
bill to consider the Labour party’s sensitivity to intervention in peoples’
private lives and the social and political consequences of it.
Having spent 3
years as a minister in the Department for Work and Pensions, James Plaskitt MP
was suitably qualified to chair the evening, which began with a speech by Kate
Bell. As a representative of the largest charity supporting one parent
families, she highlighted that only a small proportion of single mothers are
teenagers and that many of instances of teenage pregnancy occur in the context
of social exclusion. Teenage pregnancy isn’t therefore a problem to be judged
as wrong, but social exclusion is. Although the welfare reform bill focuses on
individual responsibility, Kate argued that the problems people are facing are
really structural, particularly at a time of high unemployment.
Steve Reed followed
with an example drawn from a different field, that of guns and gangs. He pointed
out that when Labour came to power in Lambeth in 2006 the borough had the
lowest level of spending on youth services and the highest rate of youth crime.
Looking at research into this crime it was clear that it was also linked to
social and economic circumstances and the limited choices that faced many local
youths. Steve highlighted the need for policy makers to give each child the
choices they need, citing Lambeth as a practical example. It was interesting to
hear that a battery of measures, including increasing youth services and
providing skills training, has led to a halving of the number of youth
homicides and a 17% reduction in youth crime in the area.
Tom Harris MP rounded up our speakers with a call for a radical manifesto, arguing that
Labour ministers have stopped talking a language that the electorate understand
on these issues. Whilst agreeing with Kate Bell about many things, he argued that Labour is too
scared of offending people and needs to be more in tune with an electorate that
generally celebrates marriage and considers teenage pregnancy to be a bad
thing. For Tom this agenda is not about victimization of individuals or the
making value judgements about them, but about trusting and empowering people to
make their own decisions.
A lively debate followed with most of the assembled audience weighing in
with their own views and experiences. A broad spectrum of views emerged, from
the suggestion that where Labour has really failed is in not being compassionate
enough in relation to the difficulties people face to the idea that we should
be being more honest about our dependency culture and unafraid to condemn bad
choices. Although there was much disagreement about where the lines
are drawn, most present seem to feel that it is possible for the state to
intervene without moralising and to empower through choice.
On Wednesday Progress joined forces with Justice for Colombia to hold a meeting about prospects for human rights and peace in Colombia. Newly appointed Foreign Office minister Chris Bryant began by admitting that because he had only been in the job a week, he wasn’t able to make many informed comments about the specific situation in Colombia. He was at the meeting to listen and learn from the discussion. But he was able to start by showing off his fluent Spanish, honed over time spent in Latin America when training to be a priest. Chris emphasised that his experiences of Latin America instilled an instinctive commitment to supporting human rights and poverty eradication. He also drew a link between Colombia and his Welsh constituency – both scarred by the problems associated with cocaine. Colombian Ambassador Noemí Sanín Posada had bravely agreed to speak to an audience dominated by those who were angry and hostile about the Colombian government’s treatment of trade unionists. She made a spirited defence of the approach of the government, facing a conflict of huge complexity and depth. Colombia is Latin America’s most enduring democracy, but also the most troubled by violence. In 2001 the EU described Colombia as a failed state – but since Álvaro Uribe came to power homicides and kidnappings have fallen dramatically. The reduction in violence in the cause of the president’s popularity in the country. The Ambassador recognised that the armed forces were committing crimes outside the law, but claimed the government was dealing with the problem – 27 members of the armed forces were dismissed last October. She also pointed out that the opposition are able to organise and hold many important elected positions – including Mayor of Bogotá. Ambassador Posado concluded by outlining Colombia’s continuing problems – three million internally displaced people, human rights abuses and drug terrorism. She argued that the Colombian government has a responsibility to act on these problems, and is working to do so. Human Rights Watch’s Tom Porteous began by thanking the ambassador for her candour, but argued that she was underestimating the degree of the problems. Whilst progress has been made since 2002, with the FARC pushed out of many areas, there were still major issues of concern.
1- The intelligence services are engaged in extensive, illegal surveillance of judges and trade unionists.
2- President Uribe has repeatedly made unfounded allegations linking opposition figures to the FARC, putting their lives at risk.
3- There has been a rise in extra-judicial killings by the army, and that there is a systemic problem with the army killing civilians and dressing their bodies in FARC uniforms.
4- Colombia has the largest number of trade unionists killed of any country in the world.
5- The demilitarisation of paramilitary groups has been flawed.
6- The President has frequently thwarted and undermined the judicial process.
Being based in London, Tom’s major concern is the degree to which the UK and USA provide military assistance to Colombia. There is no accountability for what the UK is doing and what effects its assistance is having. TUC international spokesperson Sally Hunt began by railing against the description made by a Colombian newspaper of the Justice for Colombia delegation she took part in – she was angered at being described as part of a ‘bastion of British Marxism’ leaving with ‘ammunition to fire’ at Colombia. As part of the delegation Sally saw that the Colombian government was responsible for the murder of its own people, and the displacement of its citizens. The situation for trade unionists was most concerning – a rise in murders of trade unionists, 200 arrested for trade union activity, and 1500 trade unionists murdered with no charges brought. A member of the magisterial trade union told Sally that they were seriously concerned Colombia was slipping into tyranny. Sally directly challenged the Colombian government claim that extra-judicial killings are under control. She argued the British government should come clean on funding the Colombian military, that we should know where British military aid was going, and that negotiations for a free trade agreement between Colombia and the EU should be suspended. American trade unionist Dan Kovalik echoed Sally’s criticisms – he claimed the dark hand of the Colombian state was behind killings of trade unionists, and that Uribe’s stigmitisation of trade unionists directly threatened individual’s lives. Being smeared with a supposed link to the FARC set people up for assassination by the right-wing paramilitaries, and in some cases, the army. The first point from the audience was that UK military assistance has been designed to engage with the Colombian armed forces to increase professionalism and human rights. Cutting aid will not aid the improvement of Colombia’s armed forces. Labour NEC member Mike Griffiths disagreed, saying the UK can support a strong effort to prevent drug trafficking without having to fund Colombia’s military. Chris Bryant responded by emphasising that British aid should never aid or abet human rights abuses. He said his predecessor Gillian Merron had been very clear in her criticisms of the Colombian government when she had visited recently. The Ambassador responded to Sally Hunt’s accusations. The Colombian government cannot control what newspapers say about people – there is a free press. By suspending military aid the USA put at risk programmes to train the Colombian military to respect human rights. She claimed justice in Colombia is independent, and functioning well. She pointed out that 238 trade unionists were killed in 2002, but only 38 have been killed this year – too many, but a definite improvement. She criticised attempts to derail free trade agreements – this would harm the poorest in Colombia. Dan Kovalik defended his attacks on the free trade agreements – arguing subsidised American foodstuffs would be dumped in the Colombian market – causing huge problems and further displacement of the rural poor. Tom Porteous concluded by pushing for transparency over how British tax payers’ money is being used in Colombia, Sally Hunt concluded by stating political prisoners do exist in Colombia, and Chris Bryant concluded by offering his willingness to meet those who have travelled to Colombia, and emphasising how everybody is committed to achieving peace in Colombia.
On Monday night the Boothroyd Room was packed out for this most eagerly
anticipated of Progress events. The focus on the fourth term seemed more timely
than we could have imagined following the crushing results of Thurday’s
elections and everyone in the room was eager to start the debate on how we move
forward.
Acting Director of Progress Jessica Asato
opened the evening with a rallying call for a focus on progressive change
(which you can read here), setting out the need for Labour to demonstrate clear
plans to tackle inequality, reallocate central government revenue to local
government, undertake constitutional reform and to set out sensible dividing
lines between a Labour and Conservative future. Lorna Fitzsimons then chaired a
distinguished panel of speakers. Newly appointed health minister Ben Bradshaw
arrived fresh from the PLP and tackled the leadership issue head on with a
strong plea to the party to end speculation and get behind Gordon Brown. He
went on to outline three focal points to take the party forward, namely the
need for radical constitutional reform, continuation of a strong response to
the troubled economy and a building a cross-party progressive alliance on where
we hold things in common. His message was clear; that continued talk of a
leadership contest would only damage Labour’s chances at the next election.
Steve Richards from the Independent spoke
next, outlining his view that the leadership issue
is symptomatic of deeper problems within the Labour Party dating as far back as calls
for Tony Blair’s resignation in 2005. He
argued that New Labour lacks clear definition and what is needed now is
boldness and clarity, particularly in relation to constitutional reform, the
economy and public services. He was followed by Stephen Byers who echoed calls
for strong policy initiatives in key areas but, in the most controversial
section of the evening, called strongly for the replacement of Gordon Brown as
a necessary prerequisite to a Labour recovery in the polls.
Denis Macshane made a well-timed entry at
the end of Byer’s speech, just on cue to hear his comments about the PM. He
went on to disagree, on the basis that Labour’s current difficulties are a
result of “three great tsunamis of challenge”, including social change and
growing racism in Europe. Some solutions proposed by him included postal voting for all and
elections at weekends.
Almost as interesting as the speeches
themselves were the reactions of the large audience gathered to hear them, with
a wide range of views expressed through vigorous applause or lack thereof
and the many questions posed to the panel. However despite some clear divisions
over the leadership question and the direction of reform, the
overall impression was of Labour members searching for practical ways to
reinvigorate the party and work towards a fourth general election success. I
left with the welcome feeling that despite the troubles and disagreements of
recent months, we ultimately have a dedicated, strong and vibrant body of
Labour supporters who will continue to drive the party forward.
It will be of little surprise that the
event gathered a great deal of media interest. Links can be found here.
With the people of
South Africa just a few hours away from heading to the polls, Tuesday evening
saw Progress and ACTSA gather a distinguished panel of speakers to consider
whether this national election could spell the end of ANC dominance. Sally
Keeble MP, herself a former South African journalist, chaired and first to
speak was Peter Hain MP, the former Minister for Africa whose history of
campaigning against apartheid required little introduction.
Peter Hain’s
assessment started on a positive note, with a reminder of how far South Africa
has come in recent years and a round up of key achievements, such as successful macro management of the economy and the creation of a strong
constitution. However he also highlighted a number of issues, progress towards
resolution of which will form the benchmarks that will be used to judge the
success of a Zuma presidency. These include concerns about lack of judicial
independence, the need to tackle corruption, the response to HIV/AIDS and
problems with foreign policy, particularly in relation to Zimbabwe. Dr Knox
Chitiyo, Head of the Africa Programme at RUSI, followed, citing South Africa as
a positive example of electoral process and a model for a future Zimbabwe.
Whilst acknowledging some of the problems highlighted by Peter Hain, he noted
that ANC politics are managerial rather than values based, catering to an
electorate who are primarily interested in deliverables. Therefore the ANC will
need to downsize their foreign policy and concentrate on delivery on domestic,
in particular economic, issues if they are to retain prominence.
Mark Ashurst of
the African Research Institute considered some of the wider issues around the
shift in leadership from Mbeki to Zuma, identifying a shift in power from the
liberal left of the ANC to a more populist leadership. He also described the
next phase as the end of the beginning because as one of the last freedom
fighters, Zuma’s successor will be the first truly post-apartheid leader. To
close, Tony Dykes of ACTSA reminded us that a peaceful election with record
voter turnout expected is something to be celebrated. A lively question and answer session followed, with audience members asking the panel about diverse topics such as land reform and the "brain drain" of skilled white South Africans to other countries. Without skirting these and the many other issues that face the country as it tackles the legacy of apartheid, the overall tone at the end of the debate was a feeling of optimism for the future.
On Monday a small group of Progress supporters were treated to a masterclass in speech writing and delivery by Philip Collins, former speechwriter to Tony Blair. Philip stressed the importance of making a clear argument in a speech. If in doubt, ask the question 'could I disagree with this?' If the answer is no, then the speech is arguing very little. A good speech needs to be a dialogue, and the opposing view has to characterised in a recognisable way. Characterising your opponent's view in an absurd or overblown way turns people way from your argument. Despite being maligned by many, the soundbite is still a useful devise. You should be able to encapsulate your argument in a single sentence. The greatest speeches are delivered on the greatest occasions. More everyday incidences are not suited to 'purple prose', which should be avoided. Clarity and punchiness are preferable to sixth form poetry. The word 'rhetoric' means 'argument', not poetic waffle. Obama's speeches work because he always confronts the issues. It also helps that his delivery is beautiful, a kind of spoken gospel singing. Philip's pet hates are over-used words like 'challenging, '21st century', 'agenda' and 'value-added'; and lazy diction like 'quality' to mean good. Good writing should be specific. Politicians should be brave enough to ask civil servants to rewrite speeches which aren't good enough, and they should consider delivering fewer speeches, limiting them to big occasions. A question and answer session is usually far more illuminating for everyone involved. It should be obvious that observing the pleasantries and formalities of the occasion is a must, and that magnanimity in victory or defeat is always wise. Being succinct will almost always please your audience. In response to a question about pacing the speech, Philip advised a gentle start, preferably with some kind of interaction with the person who introduces you. During the speech, the intensity should undulate, with crescendos every few minutes. Ending on a major flourish should generally be avoided - consider instead ending on a diminuendo - but make sure it is clear when you have ended! (That's the end of the report, by the way.)
Last year the Progress policy group on progressive internationalism suggested a ‘concert of democracies’ as one of its recommendations for the future. This is an idea on which political thinkers and activists are divided, and Wednesday’s event ‘Could a concert of democracies be the solution for UN reform?’ promised to provide a lively discussion on the issue. Indeed, the panel was divided firmly into two camps, with Alan Johnson arguing in favour and Paddy Ashdown and David Hannay arguing strongly against. Alan Johnson began by claiming that there is a strong political argument for a concert of democracies, a definition of which can be found in the Princeton projects’ work on the subject, and that failings in global governance have led to a recent rise in the interest in the idea. Alan outlined his ‘top ten’ arguments in favour which ranged from the ability of the concert of democracies to impose sanctions when the UN could not to the support democratic nations could offer fledgling democracies to the fact that the construction of an alternative body could provide an incentive for UN reform. Brushing off accusations of abandoning liberal internationalism, Alan claimed that in fact a concert of democracies was a way in which to genuinely embrace this school of thought as liberal democracies could stand up for their values on a global level. Lord Hannay argued that there was a lack of intellectual rigour around the idea. He claimed it is currently fashionable due to neocon republican support for the idea during the 2008 American elections but that it had only low level backing by Democrats, has received a negative response in Europe and has received no interest or support throughout the rest of the world. He argued the support that has been gathered is a result of impatience at the slow reform of the UN. He outlined a number of points to explain his opposition to the idea starting with the fact that a concert of democracies would divide the world into two, a throw back to the Cold War era. He raised the point that the main challenges we face are global challenges which need global solutions, something that could not be reached if the world was divided into two camps. As well as these two major points he argued that developing democracies such as India, South Africa and Brazil would not agree with such an approach and that problems around how to classify a democracy and thus membership would arise. He argued strongly that democracy alone doesn’t create legitimacy or international law and a concert of democracies could not be a substitute for the UN Charter. He concluded by saying that a concert of democracies is not the solution to UN reform and outlined potential alternatives which included expanding the G8, expanding the UN Security Council, a new UN environmental agency and finishing the Doha round. Paddy Ashdown began by agreeing with much of Lord Hannay’s speech. He argued that the idea of a concert of democracies had been created to bypass the UN and that, whilst there were problems with this institution, a concert of democracies would make it worse. The UN, he argued, is about having discussions with people you don’t like. Most vehemently he expressed his view that we do not have the right to export democracy and it is up to the people to choose their own form of government. Lord Ashdown asked what we would define as liberal democracy – is the UK one? Also, he asked, if the world’s greatest democracy can have created Guantanamo Bay and a network of torture, can we really see democracy as such a moral force? Finally he argued that on issues like climate change we cannot leave out nations like China and need to reach out and accept their imperfections. In response to Lord Ashdown’s claims Alan Johnson commented on the irony of being lectured about democracy by two lords. Following the panellists’ discussion questions were asked on a range of issues from how a criteria would be created in order to allow entrance into the concert of democracies to questions around the legitimacy of such a body and issues around the changing US administration and what effect a less progressive administration could have. One question which sparked significant debate was the issue of Kosovo. Paddy Ashdown argued that whilst this had been an illegal intervention, it had been carried out because of the overwhelming support of the international community. Meg Munn ended the event by asking for a show of hands on the issue which demonstrated that the room was almost exactly split 50-50 (with a slight tilt in favour!) on whether a concert of democracies was a good idea or not, proving this debate shows no sign of being resolved any time soon!
Patricia Hewitt, who chaired yesterday’s Progress event on the future of globalisation in the world recession, opened the debate by stressing that the current world financial crisis is absolutely a crisis of globalisation, caused by complex interconnected financial networks. Author and economist Philippe Legrain started by saying he hoped that this wasn’t the end of globalisation, as he is currently writing a book about the future of globalisation! However, in these turbulent economic times nothing can be ruled out. Globalisation is neither inevitable nor is it doomed to fail. The cause of this financial crisis is excessively loose American monetary policy, and not free trade, migration, or other features of globalisation. A retreat into protectionism will be a disaster, not least because protectionism is the very opposite of a fiscal stimulus. Philippe concluded by stressing the importance of the G20 taking decisions to ensure greater balance in the world economy (with more spending in Asia and more saving in the USA and UK), and better international institutions. According to David Coats, most people in committee room five on Wednesday evening would agree that on balance open markets have been a good thing for most people in the world. The real question is whether the globalisation of finance has been beneficial. He argued that greater integration of the world financial system since the 1970s has led to greater instability. Like Philippe, David stressed the importance of beginning to unravel the global imbalances that have grown over the past 15 years. This will not be easy, as the Chinese still have a huge appetite for US government bonds, and their people have a huge need to save their money to compensate for the lack of social security. David’s colleague Will Hutton believes that the IMF should take charge of unravelling the global imbalances, if necessary imposing tariffs on countries that refuse to cooperate. Finally and most importantly, global markets must be legitimised to the public across the world – their benefits explained and their excesses constrained. Rather than resorting to unfortunate soundbites about British jobs for British workers, the government should be ensuring the social dimension of the EU is strengthened so that workers have a guarantee that they will not be adversely affected by globalisation. The countries with the strongest welfare states are those best-placed to succeed in a globalised world. Former Minister for Europe Denis MacShane gave an entertaining and erudite speech ranging over the topics of protectionism, political extremism, and social and cultural liberty. The current crisis is a crisis of free trade, and it is more important than ever for the progressive left to be arguing against protectionism, authoritarianism and xenophobia. Denis outlined some possible responses to the crisis – crucially, a philosophical assault on money secrecy, against British territories like the Channel Islands as much as against Switzerland. A restatement of the benefits of openness to the world, and the utility of the EU. And a re-invigoration of international bodies like the International Labour Organisation, which no Labour cabinet minister has bothered attending in the past 12 years. DfID still directs too much funding to market fundamentalists like the Adam Smith Institute and not international trade union initiatives. Until the crisis New Labour wasn’t prepared to consider these arguments – now we must. Denis concluded with the aphorism from economist Joan Robinson: ‘there is only one thing worse than being exploited by a multinational, and that is not being exploited by a multinational’. Andrew Simms from the New Economics Foundations responded directly to that quotation by asking whether there couldn’t be a Buddhist ‘third way’ between inactivity and exploitation, and also questioned whether capitalism’s much-vaunted creative destruction isn’t often destructive destruction. Andrew emphasised that we are facing a triple crunch – not just an economic collapse but the crises of climate change and pressure on natural resources. The global economy has no conception of its asset base – its natural resources – and the limits imposed by them. Like a self-indulgent teenager we have been working on the assumption that our resources are limitless. Yet we could be only 93 months away from the point where the environmental crunch arrives. Andrew argued that the global economy has not just been inefficient in its use of resources, but also in its ability to reduce poverty. A rebalancing of the economy towards local activity is required, as is a green ‘new deal’ – reflating the economy through environmental improvements. In the end the global economy should be better, not bigger. Philippe took issue with this argument, pointing out that globalisation makes the economy more efficient, therefore making dealing with climate change easier. Localisation of the economy would result in greater consumption. It’s technological change that offers the best hope of a solution to the problem of climate change. In response to a question about the UK’s manufacturing sector, Denis pointed out that the UK actually has a higher level of manufacturing than France – it’s just more specialised and not in the traditional ‘big ticket’ industries. He would like to see a greater proportion of GDP being directed to universities, which can they develop the innovations that will drive future economic growth in the UK. Denis again emphasised that the progressive left must speak with one voice in favour of the EU, and Labour pro-Europeans (who have been briefed against frequently in the past 12 years) must be allowed to make the case for Europe vocally. Patricia interjected with her thoughts on the difficulties of achieving change through international institutions. Progress on the Doha round of WTO talks will be almost impossible, as Washington and Brussels are no longer able to cook up a compromise and impose it on the rest of the world. The G20 looks like the most likely institution that can achieve economic reform with the consent of most countries in the world. David concluded by arguing the centre left has failed by not proclaiming the progressive story there is to tell about globalisation. The lack of intellectual self-confidence is stunning. For the past two decades the centre left has accommodated itself to market fundamentalism – but Kevin Rudd’s 2007 election win in Australia will be the last victory in this ‘third way’ mould. The centre left now needs to explain how it will recreate the global economy in its own image. We have to make the case for markets with a social dimension. David responded to Andrew’s critique by arguing that it was critique of capitalism in general, and not of the globalised economy of the past 20 years. Globalisation has been the biggest poverty reduction programme in history, and we should celebrate it for being so. Patricia stepped in to moderate David’s critique of the centre left – New Labour understood the need to balance markets with social justice, and great strides have been made in the UK over the past 12 years in quiet re-regulation of labour markets. The lack of intellectual confidence applies more now, when markets have been understood to have failed, than it does to the previous 12 years. Patricia concluded the meeting by quoting an adviser to President Obama: ‘never let a crisis go to waste’.
Yesterday saw an excellent panel of
speakers join us for a well-attended Progress debate on winning back London.
Tessa Jowell, Steve Reed, Nicky Gavron and Julia Clark of Ipsos MORI shared
their assessments of the strengths and failures of our campaign in the lead up
to 2008 and highlighted a number of issues that we need to look at if we are to
turn the tables next time. Two themes in particular emerged, namely the need
for a Labour vision for London that address the concerns and aspirations of all
Londoners and the need to ensure that out our message reaches people in terms
that they can identify with. Julia Clark’s facts and figures hit home hard on
this point, particularly those on the satisfaction divide between inner and
outer London heading into 2008 and the uncomfortable evidence that actual
voting patterns were split more along ethnic than class lines. There was
panel-wide consensus that we will need a courageous debate on these issues as
we head towards 2012, but it is clear the real challenge will be achieving
consensus on the best way to address them.
Steve Reed accurately identified crime as
one key area in which we failed to properly articulate our understanding of
voter concerns and set out our policies and achievements. Tessa Jowell
highlighted the loss of Labour support amongst aspirational voters living in
suburban London and the importance of a ‘one London’ approach that includes
people from Zones 1 to 6. Nicky Gavron stressed the importance of a unifying
vision to underpin our policies and also caused something of a stir amongst the
audience with talk of a coalition of progressive parties.
During the course of a lively questions session it became clear that
opinion is polarised about how hard we should be on ourselves given the
relative success of Labour in London as against the national backdrop. But, as
Tessa Jowell reminded us, the greatest truism in the world of politics is that
you either win or lose. Last time we lost, and we need to put that right. There
was a lot of food for thought on how we might do this, but I’ll close with some
sage practical advice taken from Julia Clark’s closing comments: if we are
serious about engaging our local communities on the issues that matter to them,
we need to do more listening and less Guardian reading.
Labour must not allow the public to be deceived by Tory warm words about progressiveness, Yvette Cooper said last night at a debate in parliament held jointly by Progress and Policy Exchange.
'It's not enough to have warm words about the ends, you have to be prepared to do something about it and recognise that policies require money,' said the chief secretary to the treasury. 'My definition of being progressive includes a sense of anger about inequality and not one-nation Tory concern for the poor. Widening equality of opportunity for all is fundamental and something the Tories are not prepared to sign up to.'
Shadow culture secretary Jeremy Hunt hit back, saying that a sense of anger and injustice about inequality was the exact reason he was in politics.
Hunt claimed that by denying the Tories meant what they said about poverty and inequality, Cooper was making the same mistake his party made before the 1997 election when they portrayed Tony Blair as a red-eyed socialist. 'We were wrong and the country was right. The country has sensed the Conservatives have changed.'
The Guardian's Jonathan Freedland conceded the Tories had shifted to a more progressive position, but only so far. While the party advocated progressive ends such as social justice, they were 'nowhere near a progressive place on means,' he said, talking about a broken society but disavowing the tools necessary to fix it - collective action. 'Saying the voluntary sector should fill in for government is a hollow claim in the UK, it's effectively saying we will leave people to chill wind of an empty landscape where only the strongest survive.'
He added: 'Where is the social enterprise or business paying for a couple's bonus? Where is the company which will pay for health visitors? When the rubber hits the road, you are left imagining that charities are going to do it. It's confusion.'
Hunt insisted the choice was between a bottom-up and top-down approach to provision. 'The Conservatives are not retreating to a Victorian system, we are the accepting state's responsibility to sort out problems,' he said, adding that the last 11 years had shown that problems couldn't be solved with money and targets, but required partnership with the voluntary and private sectors.
Anthony Browne, director of Policy Exchange, claimed it was rightwing policies that did most to help those in poverty and branded the left's policies counter-productive. Championing workers over users had led to ineffective public services which the middle classes had bought their way out of; the welfare system had encouraged people to languish on benefits; housing policy 'traps people and kills off aspiration'; and pouring aid into developing countries rather than allowing them to benefit from globalisation.
'Helping the poor has been one of the great achievements of the right. The left have actually been deeply regressive,' Browne said.
Hunt echoed these views, claiming that 'you can't say any party has a monopoly on social reform', citing the introduction by the Tories of the 1995 Disability Discrimination Act (although an audience member insisted the Tories did not bring in the Act and had in fact opposed it). The shadow culture secretary also claimed that Margaret Thatcher had introduced meritocracy to the country by such measures as enabling people to buy their own homes.
Cooper flatly disagreed with this, citing evidence that showed that social mobility had decreased under Thatcher, and concluding that the former Tory PM reversed meritocratic trends and presided over high unemployment.
Both sides agreed that it was significant this debate was taking place at all. 'It's testimony to the work of Labour that the debate has shifted,' said Cooper, noting that John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard had not tried to claim progressive credentials. 'The Tories are trying to claim to be progressive because the country is more progressive than 20 years ago.'
Freedland said the debate's topic should sound warning bells for Labour. 'It's coming to something when Labour even has to argue for itself as the progressive party. I say, with a heavy heart, that Labour now has to argue for why it's a progressive party.'
John Denham told a packed Progress meeting on Tuesday that he was optimistic about Labour’s prospects and branded talk about whether Gordon Brown should remain leader ‘damaging’ and ‘ridiculous’.
At a debate held to discuss how Labour can win back support in the south following May 1’s dismal election performance, the secretary of state for innovation, universities and skills insisted it was futile to debate which group of voters – core or new - Labour should target.
‘I am optimistic that we can win in the south as long as we talk with confidence about the society we want to create for southern voters,’ he said. ‘At heart we either believe we belong - and therefore win - or we don’t believe we belong - and therefore lose.’
Denham said Labour must not forget that it had governed well in the south, citing policies such as the minimum wage and investment in public services that had resulted in higher living standards. ‘I am absolutely certain there is not a single constituency in south-east England where there is not a clear majority of people who have been better off in the last 10 years than they would have been under the Tories.’
Charles Clarke – whose cover story in this month’s Progress magazine has been widely trailed in the media – agreed that Labour’s poor showing in the elections did not mean the electorate failed to recognize the party’s achievements since 1997. ‘May 1st was a slap in the face from an electorate that wants us to succeed but feels we stumbled,’ said the former home secretary.
He added that the government could only regain the electorate’s confidence by conducting politics differently and avoiding the politics of triangulation, setting out clearly what it is trying to achieve and focusing on long-term issues. Clarke’s specific proposals included a radical change in attitude to sustainable transport and energy, increasing confidence in the criminal justice system and addressing short-term errors – saying that problems should be addressed ‘in the same spirit’ as the chancellor’s recent statement dealing with the 10p tax controversy.
Joan Ryan MP, vice-chair of Labour’s campaigns team, argued that effective political campaigning would be fundamental to any recovery as it would enable the party to keep in step with the issues voters cared about.
‘If your main issue is not what voters think is the main issue, you don’t get their trust and you can’t give political leadership,’ she said, adding that it had been proved many times the party did best when it had established relationships with voters on the ground, in places like Slough, Oxford, Hastings and Enfield & Haringey.
Talk of vision was important, said Ryan, but had to be accompanied by a relationship with the electorate. ‘We need a thorough going change of attitude to campaigning. The electorate will abandon us if it’s all ideas and they don’t see delivery.’
YouGov’s Peter Kellner, who also contributed to the latest edition of Progress, said the underlying issue that mattered to voters in the south was the economy, stupid, with pessimism at its highest rate in 40 years. This was a curious state of affairs, Kellner explained, since the economy was not in the dire state it was in the early 90s or early 80s. And while people were feeling the pinch from rising costs in essential goods such as milk, bread and petrol, the major cause of pessimism was that voters had become frightened about the economy, ‘blaming the government for not taking action to forestall horrors they fear lie ahead’.
Labour’s fate at the next general election would be decided over the next nine to 12 months, said Kellner, pointing out that after Black Wednesday in 1992 the Tories hit the ‘point of no return’ – unable to recover its reputation even though the economy faired pretty well between 1993-1997.
Labour had not reached the point of no return yet, said Kellner, but if the economy didn’t soon show signs of recovery, it could reach that point later this year.
Kellner urged the party to stop using statistics – ‘any claim based on numbers is apt to be disbelieved’ – and outline its concrete achievements such as Sure Start, the minimum wage and civil partnerships. ‘It’s not a bad record and Gordon was behind a lot of it as chancellor. Let’s get away from this self-indulgent crap about Gordon [and the leadership]. We need to persuade people that the taxes they’ve paid are used effectively.’
|
|
