do on polling day. Moreover, the long-term socioeconomic trends are against the Party. So what actions should Labour take? Given the seriousness of the situation I believe it imperative for the Party to develop a two-track strategy. The first is to go for an all-out win next time. The second is simultaneously to plan sharing power with the Liberal-Democrats as a serious fall-back position. A contradictory approach? When asked about holding what might be contradictory positions, Jimmy Thomas, a Minister in Ramsay MacDonald’s Labour Government replied that, if you couldn’t ride two horses at once there was no point being part of the circus. And while it is a mistake to think of political life only in terms of the circus there are common elements to both activities.
In planning for an outright win Labour must ask itself the most fundamental question of all: what is it that Labour believes it can and should add to political life that no other party does or can contribute? Once the question of what Labour believes in is asked we are immediately faced by Labour’s black hole. It is a question which has taken a long time to be asked, and even longer to be answered. But now two major political events have swept away the political life-support machinery which had hitherto prevented such a question being even posed.
The first, the collapse of communism, has had a silent but devastasting effect on Labour’s confidence. It is not that many activists wanted a Bolshevik state established in Britain, but rather, that the Soviet régime acted as a beacon for those believing in Utopian politics. Here was an example not only of a Utopian ideal translated into day-to-day practice, but of a superstate motivated by a system of ethical judgement based around rewards – each according to his ability, each according to his needs. The Soviet régime collapsed almost overnight. Labour is taking a much longer time to adjust to the sweeping away of Utopian politics.
Secondly, Labour has at the same time suffered a series of major electoral rebuffs with which the Party has still to come to terms. At first senior party figures believed that the loss of power, while regrettable, was part of a normal course of events in the two-party system. That view is still mightily represented in some parts of the Party hierarchy and expresses itself around the idea that one more heave will restore Labour to power.
The results of the last four elections were not solely about the electorate embracing the Conservative cause. Equally important has been the electorate’s rejection of the kind of socialism Labour was offering. An economy with core industries nationalized, a highly centralized government machine (although not nearly as centralized as the Thatcher Governments proved themselves to be) run on the basis of a compact with the trade unions, is not now the formula for successful electoral politics. Most of the activists in the country know this to be true, but some of the party’s hierarchy is slow to adapt to the political facts of life. The key question is what should replace Labour’s traditional appeal which has so often emphasized institutions rather than values.
This political life-support machinery – of believing that a Utopian solution to British political and economic problems was at hand, and that a swing back to Labour is inevitable – now needs to be switched off. Labour must answer the fundamental question of what it believes in.
In doing so, it must face the reality that, for at least the forseeable future, no party is going to get elected which is against the market economy. Here is the crunch. Is Labour going to embrace the market economy or not? At the moment the Party’s position is ambivalent. Labour mouths statements in support of the market principle but all the Party’s body language speaks of a deep distrust.
The market economy must be embraced without reservation. It works too well for too many people for too much of the time for any alternative to be practical politics. It is responsible for the highest standard of living known to mankind. It is inextricably bound up with a free society. Why then, if the advantages of the market economy are so obvious, is Labour diffident about embracing its principles?
Here again the answer is quite simple. For the whole of my political life Labour has espoused a view of human nature which is simply wrong. The self-regarding side of the human character has been ignored or suppressed. The result has meant a shaping of politics which not merely ignores self-interest, but goes out of its way to punish it. Self-interest is one of the most powerful of human characteristics and practical politics has to be built around that simple but fundamental fact. Moreover, it is through a market economy that self-interest can operate most easily to greatest effect and for the greatest common good.
That doesn’t mean that the exercise of an unadulterated self-interest is always edifying, let alone acceptable, or that self-interest is the only consideration which society must take into account. What it does mean is that radical politics is about channelling self-interest wherever possible so that it also promotes the common good.
The agenda for radical politics for the next decade or more is one of attempting to deal with the unacceptable faces of the market economy. What those unacceptable faces are is dealt with at some length in this book. Instead of exhibiting a body language which most voters read as an expression of opposition to the market, Labour should embrace the market and spend the whole of its effort expressing its disapproval of the market’s unacceptable faces – particularly its inability to tackle unemployment and its power to punish the poor and the least strong. The radical agenda is about eradicating these unacceptable faces without undermining the essential principles of the market. Here Labour’s ethical tradition of socialism can come to the fore.
That ethical tradition has always consisted of two clear strands. The first, which has often been overshadowed, has been about the opening up of opportunities so that individuals (rather than classes) can develop and use their talents to the full. The second strand of the tradition is concerned with the protection and enhancement of the poor, the weak and the disadvantaged. It is here that Labour can play its strongest card. For the market economy left to itself is at best amoral. Labour’s ethical tradition, built around the importance that should be attached to each individual member of the community, can provide the moral framework within which a more just market economy can flourish.
Merely to espouse the first principle – of ensuring the widest possible extension of opportunity to individuals to use their talents to the full – immediately suggests a whole range of policies, from action against unemployment right through to education reform. It is important that the development of policies on these fronts should be within the moral framework which is part of the Party’s heritage. The emphasis on each individual will give a coherence to the Party’s manifesto, while at the same time presenting the policies themselves with a much clearer cutting edge. The attack on unemployment, for example, is not urgent merely because of the lost production which results from it, or the added social problems which undoubtedly arise because of it. The task is urgent because unemployment is an attack on the sacredness of each unemployed individual. The existence of unemployment is a reminder of another important political fact. Contributing to, as well as receiving from, society must be given its proper weight in public policy. Today’s unemployment prevents millions of people from making their rightful contribution to society, thereby gaining equal status to those in work.
Tackling unemployment effectively is at the heart of the ‘vision thing’ for British politics.
Reinventing the Traditional Party of Opposition
In The Importance of Being Earnest what Lady Bracknell said of Ernest’s loss of both his parents could also be said about the losing of elections. If the loss of one election is unfortunate, and two careless, then three is reckless, four criminal, and to lose five in succession might well prove fatal. This chapter looks at the reasons for Labour’s losing streak. It considers whether the Party is now so enfeebled that it will be unable to win again, unless it offers an electoral reform which will ensure that it is unlikely ever to form a one-party government again. The promise of electoral reform must be accompanied by the most fundamental changes in the Party’s constitution if Labour is to continue to be a serious political force.
Rationalizing defeat
Whatever