British politics
“Which four people, real or fictional, would you most like to go down the pub with?”
On Monday the Mirror’s James Lyons published Ed Miliband’s answer to this question, alongside the answers of the other Labour leadership contenders. “Rachel Weisz, Bobby Kennedy, Alex Higgins and my brother”, said Ed.
Labour Uncut reacted to the Alex Higgins selection: “Alex Higgins. Alex Higgins? That’s more like it. Suprising. Quirky. Great shout. This is what we want, something leftfield. The kind of answer that makes you kick yourself in the pub, wishing they were on your short list.”
My reaction was to note that this was the second time, to my knowledge, that Ed had offered Alex Higgins as an answer to an interview question. He recently told the Spectator that Higgins is one of his heroes, along with Geoff Boycott and Jimmy Connors. He explained these choices by saying he was attracted to ”the charisma of imperfection”.
Perhaps, flawed genius is the only real kind of genius. Certainly, that is what Alex Higgins was. Labour Party members are increasingly concluding that Ed is a political genius. He recently drew the largest crowd to a Labour Party meeting in Carlisle since the days of Harold Wilson, so they may very well be right. The excitement at this Carlisle event, while more sedate and less alcoholic, may just have rivalled that at the Jampot Billiard Hall, Belfast, in Higgins’ early days.
Philip Stephens makes a striking observation in the FT noting the harshness of the coalition’s rhetoric on the public sector and public servants:
“The government’s tone of voice is one that suggests all public spending is wasteful, and all those working in central or local government are on the make or take. Perhaps, given his goal of a smaller state, this is Mr Cameron’s intention. If so, it is neither sensible nor politically astute. It also happens to be unfair.”
How long before this unfairness jars with the public?
I have a childhood memory (perhaps, I mean nightmare) of a member of the public describing themselves as a civil servant on Noel’s House Party and Noel doing nothing to discourage the booing which came from the audience as a result. I didn’t even know what a civil servant was at the time but this booing didn’t seem fair to me. Of course, this may all be false memory. There is no doubt, however, that this government wants to bring public servant bashing back into vogue.
Jamie Reed, MP for Copeland, reacted to Gordon Brown’s resignation as Labour leader by writing for Progress on 11 May 2010: “The PM’s decision has set in motion a leadership contest, but it also marks the beginning of a new post-Blair/Brown era in the Labour party.”
That Tony Blair’s autobiography has been published on the same day as ballot papers have been sent to party members in this contest is an unwelcome echo of this era. While his actions as PM, particularly on economic policy, have had a distinctly Thatcherite flavour, David Cameron was the first Tory leader to fully emerge from Margaret Thatcher’s shadow. He was also the first of these leaders, since John Major in 1992, to win a General Election. There is a lesson in this for Labour. And Blair’s seeming desire to play back-seat driver isn’t helpful in assisting Labour avoid the electoral fate of the Tories post-Thatcher.
While Labour needs to move on from the Blair/Brown era, this shouldn’t mean a lurch to the left. Blair is, actually, sensible in imploring from the back-seat that any such lurches be avoided. The trouble is that it is the driver who the electorate needs to hear and their voice is drowned out by any noise coming from the back-seat. The driver also needs to hear himself think and to think afresh. Such thinking is unlikely to be assisted by the noise coming from the back-seat. The back-seat driver is right to avoid lurches to the left but the very meaning of left and right are much in flux and it is far from clear that the back-seat is truly able to think whatever unthinkables need to be thought in this context. 1994, after all, is not 2010.
The evocative sound of a blind busker whistling Jerusalem resonated around the vast tube station as I emerged at Canary Wharf. This was apt as I was on my way to see Ed Balls speak at tonight’s Open Left event. Praise from Irwin Stelzer in this week’s New Statesman may have further fortified Balls to not let his sword sleep in his hand:
“Remember, Brown and Balls got it right when the financial crisis hit; this puts Balls in the best position of all the candidates to point out that the Tories got it wrong. And it is economics that government will be all about for the foreseeable future, for the solution to the deficit problem will determine the scope of the welfare state.”
Certainly, this economic credibility makes Balls an asset to our party and tomorrow morning he will turn his economic fire on David Cameron and George Osborne. While his speech tomorrow will rightly stress the importance of having a strategy for growth, this can’t be at the expense of Labour credibility on the deficit. Part of this credibility is itself about having a growth strategy, as the deficit will be far more manageable in a growing economy. It is also, however, about tough choices on taxes and spending, which, as Pat McFadden has sensibly argued, crafts a Labour response to the deficit that is about neither Thatcherism nor denial.
At the Open Left event, Balls lamented the failure of Gordon Brown to more straight-forwardly make the case for the socially just Britain that they both believe in. “In a 24-7 media age”, Balls said, “you can only win by being straight, open and authentic”. This is as true about the tough choices that we now face on economic policy as it was about Brown’s political philosophy and motivations.
Oddly enough, this reminded me of some advice that Bruno offered to Brown at the London premiere of Sasha Baron Cohen film. “Admit who you really are”.
That the Liberal Democrats are in a very different position is not in doubt. I think they’ve figured this out for themselves. Labour people don’t need to remind them that not only are they in government with the Conservatives but that this creates a risk of them splitting in some way. Defections of Liberal Democrat MPs and voters to Labour could be part of this mix. But the best way for Labour to encourage this is to concentrate on publicly putting forward the most impressive and progressive alternative programme for government possible and privately launching a Liberal Democrat charm offensive. To rub the noses of the Liberal Democrats in their difficulties is just to come across as crass and unlikely to build the confidence necessary for them to cross the floor.
Jon Cruddas addresses these issues in his New Statesman interview:
“I think it’s a mistake to attack the Liberals. We should have a much more subtle approach to this, because what we’re seeing is the first major political realignment following the economic crisis. The question is: what is the equivalent centre-left response to this moment of rupture? Attacking the Liberals is wrong. There’s a danger of us spraying too much lead across the forecourt and not really thinking about how we need to regroup. We need to have respect for and show courtesy towards different traditions as part of an overall, plural realignment across the centre and the left – that’s what’s going to be needed. Arguably, the era of majoritarian [sic] victories by single parties is at an end.”
The Conservatives are, however, a different beast. There should be no limit to how much lead we seek to fire across their forecourt. We should be unrelenting in our opposition to them. While Jackie Ashley is right that Labour appears tone deaf when we are too blunt in our attacks upon the Liberal Democrats, the kind of passion which Ed Balls, in particular, has shown in opposing his opposite number, Michael “pipsqueak” Gove, is entirely justified. The more of this we can summon up the more likely it is that the threat which the Conservatives pose to the NHS, schools and all public services will get through to people.
