One problem with this thesis – the reason why Cameron has to hide his radical policies. If New Labour didn’t any kind of a case (and I agree they could have done a lot more), then where did that need come from? Why are conservatives of today likely to criticise inequality rises during the last 13 years – something which probably will be hubristic over the next few years, and should be a major problem for them now, if only people would talk about the differences in changes in equality between the Blair/Brown and Thatcher years – instead of saying inequality isn’t a problem? Remember the arguments over who and what was progressive, in both the general and specific meanings? The next guy is not reversing the minimum wage. That’s not despite the last government never making the case for it.

Interesting piece, but don’t agree with “the problem is that Labour never made the case for the principles of the left.”

You’ve mentioned the obvious example of equalities, but to pick just a few: Labour fought and won elections on the principle of investing in public services before tax cuts, pledged to end child poverty, took a leading role in developing an internationalist and Keynesian response to the banking crisis, championed increases in international aid spending to help meet the Milennium Development Goals and Make Poverty History, called for and implemented windfall taxes on private utilities to cut youth unemployment, drove the right wing press to shrill fury over human rights, pledged to be tough on crime and the causes of crime…

They also did a lot of pandering to the right, and implementation of these principles was often disappointing, but “never made the case” is way too strong a claim.

In the sublime world of marketing methodologies, there (really) is a technique known as Confusion Marketing, applied to discourage potential buyers from making informative comparisons between competing products:
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_561546683/confusion_marketing.html

A few points, in addition to what Don Paskini said above:

1) people always over-estimate the impact politicians have on changing public perceptions. Gay rights were won through a change in public opinion – a battle that was primarily fought and won by civil society campaigners not politicians. New Labour simply legitimised public opinion, it did not lead it.

The problem with a lot of lefties is that they want politicians to lead public opinion without looking at how they can first shift public opinion (the faster way to get change).

2) New Labour did make the case – but by doing rather than just saying. They invested in public services enough to make people appreciate them (thnk the NHS and SureStart). They offered public subsidies (Winter Fuel Allowance etc) that proved popular and entrenched the importance of the state.

3) Cameron did want to over-turn this: by pushing the ‘Big Society’ as an alternative to the state so that public spending could be reduced without creating a vaccuum. but he’s failed to sell it. That’s where we are lucky, not for lacking of trying on his part.

@ 4

The Big Society is a good example of a politician trying and failing to shift public opinion, now that you mention it.

By this recent YouGov poll, a large majority of those polled don’t claim to understand what David Cameron’s notion of the Big Society is supposed to do:
http://today.yougov.co.uk/commentary/peter-kellner/why-big-society-isnt-working

@ 6

Yep, that was a big reason for its failure! Arguably NOBODY understands the Big Society concept, because there’s a massive gap between what it aims to do and how it intends to acheive it.

While I understand and respect your argument I think you fundamentally misunderstand how Britain’s political landscape works.

The first half of your argument is about how to win elections, the second part is about some vague narrative concept of politics… Narrative does not win elections, and is best left to historians rather than people who really want to see power implemented in specific ways.

In a first past the post system elections are won by carving pieces out of your enemy, and thereby laying claim to parts of the electorate that were previously theirs… When you’ve got a two party duel on the way to win it is to define what the “center” is (and the center is just the halfway point between both parties) as something your party represents better than the other. Win a handful of swing constituencies this way and you’ve won power. You can, and should, ignore your own base because they’ve got nowhere to go.

As long as our country lives with this batshit crazy system of doing politics, then winning elections is going to consist more of marginalising your enemy than energising your base (because turnout really has no relevance to outcome at all in british politics). And so, it’s always going to be about triangulating.

Triangulating means publicising issues that make your opponent look like nutters. At the moment that means feeding the left just enough anti-feminism to make the feminists come out in force and alienate middle England. It means pushing just enough so that the unions come out in force making the left look regressive. It means managerialism aimed at alienating the public sector so they become militant and defensive. And dispicable as this is, it will win elections…

“Despite the lies of the Iraq War, the 2005 election wasn’t even close.”

If I remember correctly, Labour’s majority would have been wiped out if just 16,000
voters in its most marginal seats had voted for the second-placed party.

“If the main party of the centre left is accepting the language of the right, then the whole of the political debate moves to the right. The foundation on which the party is built begins to slip. For example: Labour stopped talking about inequality. Fewer people care about it. Labour did talk about gay rights. People are much less homophobic”

Yes, just look at how utterly spineless the Democrats have been on the subject of gun control. Obama did not even attempt to re-instate Clinton’s ban on assault weapons. The Democrats could win on this issue but prefer to run away.

As for the Big Society concept, I’ve repeatedly posted fundamental questions here which have never been answered:

- has the Big Society ever existed in Britain – if so, when?

- in which other countries has the Big Society existed?

Failing answers, the rational conclusion is that the concept is entirely mythical.

Labour did nothing to wind back any of the anti-union legislation introduced by Thatcher, either through legislation or even trying to reframe the debate on the need for unions leaving future attacks on unions as an open goal.

Labour did nothing to build an economy either through legislation or words beyond that of one dependent on the financial sector. After 13 years of Labour we have an economy that is the financial sector or depends on the scraps thrown to us by the financial sector. Just because the Tories are no different is no excuse for Labour.

There has been no ambition to argue for or build an economy that will provide people with productive, fulfilling and worthwhile jobs. Far more important than many of the band aid solutions that Labour has promoted and legislated for to deal with poverty and inequality. These worthy band aid solutions are especially necessary because Labour like the Tories seems to see people as servants to the economy rather than the other way round.

Kevin

It’s odd what has happened to our discourse in the last few years. The language of the right has been blurred into policy ideals which actually owe more to the left. Whatever Cameron does, spending as a percentage of GDP will still be higher than it was in 1997. Polticial correctness gathered pace under New Labour, the rights of minoriites always took precedence over those who criticised them. People of all classes and incomes saw their taxes shoot up. Business was strangled half to death and the country borrowed up to its eyeballs.

New Labour may have talked ‘right wing’ but was something else when you drilled down. Cameron is essentially a slightly bluer version of Blair in that sense.

http://outspokenrabbit.blogspot.com/

@12

Your post and your blog may as well be titled “I’m not racist/sexist/classist/misogynistic, but…”

I think you slightly misinterpret the 2005 election; the Iraq War did have an impact.

Between 2001 and 2005 the votes shifted from (L-C-LD) 40.7%-31.7%-18.3% to
35.2%-32.4%-22.0%, with the L vote down by 1.2m and LD up by about the same.

The voting system prevented the change showing.

11. Oxford Kevin

” Labour did nothing to build an economy either through legislation or words beyond that of one dependent on the financial sector. After 13 years of Labour we have an economy that is the financial sector or depends on the scraps thrown to us by the financial sector. ”

I am not defending Labour here. But how does FS employing 3.5% of the UK workforce and paying 11% of taxes and accounting for around 8-9% of GDP constitute dependent on the financial sector. It is important to the UK economy but it is not all we do.

http://217.154.230.218/NR/rdonlyres/68F49A7E-8255-415B-99A8-1A8273D568D9/0/TotalTax3_FinalForWeb.pdf

12. Daz Pearce

” People of all classes and incomes saw their taxes shoot up. Business was strangled half to death…”

Outside of Portugal, Greece, Spain and Ireland otherwise known as the PIGS in the shit, UK taxes are the lowest in the EU.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-KDnWToIhMZ8/TakK6I_xnPI/AAAAAAAALi0/rSKqigrEnZY/s1600/Screen-shot-2011-04-15-at-1.12.04-PM.png

Global rankings for ease of doing business places the UK 4th in the world

http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings

I’m sure the banks located in Britain were deeply appreciative of the relaxed regulation of financial markets and institutions under the New Labour government – whatever that did for banking bonuses, Tim Geithner, the current US Treasury Secretary, has recently remarked on the systemic consequences of light regulation:

Geithner warns on light-touch oversight

Tim Geithner, Treasury secretary, warned overseas regulators against undercutting US financial regulations, citing the “tragic” example that the UK set in light-touch oversight.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/255e97ac-9048-11e0-85a0-00144feab49a.html#axzz1OmtW3Tph

News update:

The NHS and education reforms, the opaque Big Society notion and now this:

Localism bill is incoherent, say MPs
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/09/cameron-localism-bill-incoherent-mps

On the evidence, we are being governed by a bunch of clowns.

The tories don’t have to spin too much because most of the media is covering for them.

Labour had to spin because the biggest spinners are the tory media. so Labour got their spin in first.

Hi guys,

sorry, I’ve only just sporred that this piece went up here.

I agree with many of the criticsms – in the longer version over at Bright Green, I said that ‘though this is only half true, I sometimes find it a useful prism through which to look at government policies’.

So, as Don says, Labour did make a case for some things. But as Kev says, they didn’t for many others. As Sunny says, building support isn’t just about going on the telly and saying why something is a good idea. It is about building up constituencies of support with a material interest in your success, and about, as activists, campaigning for things in our communities.

So, one example of the government’s failure, for example, is that they are cutting police pay. Slightly more rebellious police (I’ve had countless conversations with officers who want to win back their right to strke) could cause them real problems if they end up in confrontations on the scale of the miners’ strike.

But another example is I think about their rhetoric. Sure, they tried the big society thing. But they haven’t regularly been banging on about how this means we should privatise, etc.

So, yes, I agree that this piece is only half true. But I still think it can be a helpful way to look at the whole set of complex issues around building political support for economic revolutions.

Thanks for the comments – sorry I didn’t chip in earlier,

Adam