contribution by John Clare

Yesterday, Ben Jackson and Gregg McClymont published their pamphlet: Cameron’s Trap – Lessons for Labour from the 1930s and 1980s.

The report, which received some publicity in the press, seemed quite controversial, and coming out of Peter Mandelson’s think-tank, has been perceived as a right-wing attack by Sunny Hundal and Eoin Clarke.

But from being a right-wing diatribe against Ed Miliband – when you read the actual report, it is in fact a rather banal statement of commonly accepted truths interlaced with some significant concessions to the left-wing of the Labour party.

The majority of the report, indeed, consisted of a relatively dry historical review of Labour in opposition last century.

What the Authors Actually Said
So, before we go rushing to imagine a Party split, let’s remind ourselves of the points the authors actually made (you can read them for yourself here):

A. The Conservatives benefit from economic recessions
- They manage successfully to blame the economic problems on previous Labour fiscal incompetence.
- They introduce politically-motivated austerity measures, but dress them up as ‘in the national interest’, claiming that there is ‘no alternative’.
- Thus the Tories get re-elected even when they are presiding over a failing economy
- going into an election cutting benefits and seeking confrontation with the Unions actually benefits the Tories, because they are then able to brand the Labour opposition as a ‘tax-and-spend’ party in thrall to the Unions.

B. To sidestep this ‘Tory Trap’, Labour must do four things:

1. refuse to be driven back to its core support – an unnecessarily controversial phrase, by which the authors merely meant that Labour should not imagine that it could win the next election simply by opposing the cuts in welfare benefits and public services … such would simply play into the Tories’ hands. Rather, Labour must avoid simplistic ‘borrow-and-spend’ or ‘tax-and-spend’ solutions based wholly on opposition to the cuts, and instead propose a pro-active economic policy for growth.

2. mount a contrasting manifesto to the Conservative ‘small state’ policies based on an ‘activist state’. This – the authors stated – is an area where Labour can take on the Tories, and where Labour can win.

3. highlight the regressive nature of the Tory cuts, and propose instead an alternative policy ‘offering more progressive funding mechanisms, and developing new welfare policies that reduce economic insecurity’.

4. focus on the ‘economic underperformance and relative decline [of the economy], presided over by an out of touch Tory elite.

A Significant Lurch to the Left
The pamphlet presents itself, not as a right-wing attack on the Left, but as a substantial move by the Right-wing of the Party to reconcile itself to the Left. Let’s look in turn at the article’s four proposals:

1. Surely everybody on Right and Left agrees that – as indeed I pointed out in an earlier article on my blog – that the Tories are just lying in wait for us to start opposing the cuts so that they can label us ‘the profligate party’. To say so is a truism, not a statement of a right-wing position.

Whilst there is probably some pretty hard bargaining going to have to be done between Right and Left over just exactly whether and how much a Labour government would increase taxes, surely NOBODY is suggesting indiscriminate taxation. My own personal inclination would be gradually first to close the tax loopholes, perhaps target bonuses and the super-rich … and then see where that takes us.

2. The pamphlet’s proposal for an ‘activist’ state is a radical departure from right-wing laissez-faire policies, and something that left-wing Labour can thoroughly agree. The authors use the term ‘activist state’, but they might as well have said ‘Courageous State’ – the intention is evidently similar.

3. The authors’ proposal to offer ‘more progressive funding mechanisms’ is surely a major concession by the Right to the Left of the Party. This, surely, is what the Left have been arguing for; now we have Mandelson’s protégés implicitly accepting the need to rebalance wealth, to tax the super-rich and the close tax loopholes. Again, there will have to be some hard bargaining over exactly what form any ‘new welfare policies’ might take – I can see Right and Left of the Party having some pretty polarised views on this issue – but at least we have moved away from a Darlingesque ‘cuts’ agenda towards a more proactive ‘welfare-reform’ agenda.

4. Again, do you not see a considerable concession here, as Jackson and McClymont explicitly reject the suggestion that the Tories have ‘got it right’ on the economy, and instead wheel round behind the Left’s assertion that the Tories are out of touch and elitist. OK, it’s not quite ‘vicious blood-suckers’ language, but the explicit assertion that the Tory cuts are political and unnecessary is a significant lurch leftwards from the Right of the Party.

* * * * * * * * *

It would be a disaster if the Left were to accept the Guardian’s caricaturing of this short pamphlet as a right-wing attack on Ed, and to reject it.

I read it as a significant concession by the Right of the Party towards the Left, and – personally, for what it is worth – I would be quite happy to take its proposals as a basis for further discussion.

—
A longer version of this post is here. John Clare writes at Another Rant

Reader comments

1. Liberal Conspiracy

   An attack on the left? No, the Labour right is offering concessions http://t.co/XcJrJeuG

2. sunny hundal

   Far from being an attack on the left, as Guardian implied, @johndclare says 'Tory Trap' report offers concessions http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

3. leftlinks

   Liberal Conspiracy – An attack on the left? No, the Labour right is offering concessions http://t.co/pDwAcRVw

4. Plymouth City UNISON

   Far from being an attack on the left, as Guardian implied, @johndclare says 'Tory Trap' report offers concessions http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

5. Patron Press - #P2

   #UK : An attack on the left? No, the Labour right is offering concessions http://t.co/l02FBBLp

6. Wendy Hibbs

   Far from being an attack on the left, as Guardian implied, @johndclare says 'Tory Trap' report offers concessions http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

7. sunny hundal

   "Far from being a right-wing diatribe against Ed Miliband – it has significant concessions to the left-wing of Labour" http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

8. James Dunford

   "Far from being a right-wing diatribe against Ed Miliband – it has significant concessions to the left-wing of Labour" http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

9. Jackart

   Shorter @sunny_hundal: Most people agree with the Tories' economic analysis. Waaaaa! http://t.co/o9bzADlo

10. Jonathan Davis

    "Far from being a right-wing diatribe against Ed Miliband – it has significant concessions to the left-wing of Labour" http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

11. Lynda Constable

    "Far from being a right-wing diatribe against Ed Miliband – it has significant concessions to the left-wing of Labour" http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

12. Jon Stone

    Far from being an attack on the left, as Guardian implied, @johndclare says 'Tory Trap' report offers concessions http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

13. Neil Atkinson

    This is worth a read. http://t.co/OPgycfjz

14. David Taylor

    An attack on the left? No, the Labour right is offering concessions http://t.co/XcJrJeuG

15. sunny hundal

    Have to admit I also made the mistake of reading Guardian report on that pamphlet and taking it at face value http://t.co/TjVhe2pe

16. Colette Booth

    Far from being an attack on the left, as Guardian implied, @johndclare says 'Tory Trap' report offers concessions http://t.co/TjVhe2pe