Martin Kettle, in today’s Guardian, joins the ranks of those no doubt well-intentioned observers whose advice to the Labour party, as it chooses a new leader, seems to be based on a curiously limited and one-dimensional view of the political landscape.

In this view, there are only two possible directions of travel and therefore just one issue to be resolved. The Labour party, in this tightly constrained, imagined environment, must choose to go either forwards or backwards (or, perhaps, to use slightly different terminology to describe the same choice) rightwards or leftwards.

The choice to go “backwards”, Kettle says, is to opt for “purity rather than power”. It is a journey back to the “old-time religion” guided by the “everlasting gospel”. We are spared such emotive descriptions of the other possible choice – to go “forwards” – but we don’t need to try too hard to recognise that it means that Labour must appeal more to middle-class voters and their “aspirations” – shorthand, in other words, for accepting even more of the Tory agenda

If the political landscape really were the one of Kettle’s imaginings, and those really were the only choices available, his advice might be seen as unpalatable but difficult to resist. Better perhaps an occasional “Tory-lite” government, when the voters periodically tire of the real thing, than a permanent sojourn in the political wilderness. We might then at least hope for a brief respite every now and again from the relentless, not to say ruthless, passage towards a society of entrenched and growing privilege, widening inequality, extreme poverty, economic failure and social disintegration.

But is Martin Kettle right to describe the political landscape in this one-dimensional way? Surely there are many other possible directions of travel that, in our increasingly diverse society, would stand a better chance of attracting popular support than either of the unpromising options he offers.

Why is there no recognition of the possibility that a truly reforming and radical party might actually come forward with new ideas as to how the enduring goals of a good society might be achieved? Why should Labour not set out to reach new destinations and objectives, and use new modes of travel?

Why should we accept a political map that does the Tories’ work for them by locating them at the centre, with the only other directions requiring a literally eccentric diversion? Why should Labour not aspire to create new and different poles of attraction, so that voters are offered a real choice – a different vision of how society could operate and of how that could be achieved?

These questions may sound other-worldly, but that is only because they are so far removed from anything the Labour Party has even contemplated, let alone tried to achieve in its recent past. The recent election campaign was notable for Labour’s complete failure to bring forward an alternative analysis and strategy as to how the economy could not only be run better but run in the wider interest, so that the “aspirations” of most people are properly served.

What we got instead – the only real thing said about economic policy by Labour – was that a new Labour government would commit to austerity and continued spending cuts, in the over-riding interest of eliminating the government’s deficit – a goal that makes absolutely no sense when taken in isolation from other economic factors such as the country’s perennial trade deficit.

The election was lost when that commitment was made. It immediately validated the Tory claim that the deficit – the government’s, not the country’s – had to be the over-riding priority. It disabled Labour from persuading voters that they could somehow get better results from the same policies – indeed, from saying anything else remotely sensible about economic policy.

Labour’s new leaders could have said that austerity and spending cuts have failed (even in their own terms, since the government’s debt is still rising) and have produced unacceptable inequality and poverty, that the way to get the deficit down is to get the economy moving again on the basis of increased output rather than unsustainable consumption and asset inflation, that unemployment is a shocking waste of human resources and lives, that full employment is not only essential but achievable if we tackle our real economic problems.

They do not say any of these things because in their heart of hearts they do not believe them. They are trapped in an intellectual straitjacket, because they have never done and are not prepared to do the hard work needed to produce a convincing alternative that would be in line with much current and developing economic thinking. So they accept advice from sympathetic observers like Martin Kettle that the smart thing to do is to masquerade as Tories but try to look nicer and kinder. They would have nothing different or new to say and could only hope that the voters wouldn’t notice. Little wonder that the voters search in vain for the ring of truth and the genuineness of conviction.

If they were to say such things and mean them, and if they were to develop policies that would achieve such outcomes, would that mean travelling backwards or forwards, rightwards or leftwards, on Martin Kettle’s one-track line? Or would it mean striking out in a new direction, one of Labour’s choosing, one that is consistent with both its great traditions and with a cutting-edge future – a future a long way away from Tory central.

Bryan Gould

26 July 2015

Why does a Labour party whose proclaimed raison d’etre is to offer a brave and radical alternative to current orthodoxy throw up would-be leaders who are clearly so reluctant to rock the boat? These are, after all, people who no doubt entered politics with lofty intentions. They would have felt concern – even righteous anger – at the Tory defence of privilege, the Tory contempt for the disadvantaged, the Tory neglect of what a decent society might look like. They would have been determined to do something about it. So when, and how, did that bright flame dim?

Some critics will say that they are merely careerists who were never true believers and that their allegiance to Labour and its principles was only ever skin-deep, to be discarded as they got nearer the top of the greasy pole. But it is not as simple as that.

I have no doubt that the impulses that took them into politics were good and true, and that their intentions were to act on those impulses so as to make a difference. But they discovered that noble impulses and good intentions are not enough, and are in any case easily displaced by apparently more pressing considerations.

What takes people into politics is not just political conviction. Many people have strong political views, but practising politicians tend to be self-selecting on grounds of temperament. These are the people who want to see their ideas carried into practice and who have the ambition and self-confidence to believe that they are the people do it.

But when they get to Westminster, they discover that the team game – one side against another, Labour against Tory – is only part of the story. There is also a whole series of individual contests, as the more able begin to distinguish themselves, and the possibility of influencing, even eventually leading, one’s party becomes apparent.

The skills that the Westminster arena requires are not necessarily those of commitment and consistency, innovation and courage. They are those of the debater and speaker, the media performer and glad-hander. The minutiae of politics, rather than the clarity and strength of vision, become increasingly important in determining who is up and who is down.

And the day-by-day requirements of Westminster become more and more pressing and absorbing. Our leading MPs work very hard; they put in long hours, spinning from one difficult topic to another at often half-hourly intervals. It is not surprising that the hand-to-hand, close-quarters combat across party lines takes virtually all of their attention, and they find it easy to persuade themselves that they must be fighting the good fight because they are so busy.

The influences brought to bear on them as they become more senior and more influential are equally short-term. The focus is on the latest newspaper headline or television interview. And, as they are drawn into the party’s higher councils, they are made privy to the findings of the pollsters, each nuance of which is given great weight.

The polls are treated, not as a snapshot of opinion at a given moment, but as signposts to future action that can be ignored only at one’s peril. So they will, in the case of Labour politicians, tell them that Labour is not trusted on the economy; this is seen as immediately requiring redoubled efforts to assure voters that Labour will be prudent and responsible – prudent and responsible, that is, as seen in the context of the current orthodoxy.

The way to win, it is accepted, is to find out what people think, and then frame policies accordingly – to follow rather than lead. An attempt to change the way people think is doomed to failure. The best that can be done is to follow the much-admired Clintonian “triangulation”.

The original impulses and intentions are taken as a given and are rarely reviewed. They are submerged by the new imperatives – to perform well, to get good notices, to raise one’s standing in the eyes of one’s colleagues.

As to actual analysis and policy, there is no time – and even less incentive – to go beyond an increasingly automatic recital of vague objectives that are disconnected from any of the hard work and thinking that would be required if orthodoxy is to be effectively challenged. And that is in any case unlikely. Today’s generation of leaders were brought up in a world where voters were consumers rather than citizens, where the market would deliver better outcomes than could be expected of public provision, where running a country was best done according to business principles and where spending and borrowing in the public interest was dangerously irresponsible and imprudent.

Today’s leaders, in other words, are totally ill-equipped to advance any persuasive account of how they could run the economy better so as to deliver the commendable objectives that took them into politics in the first place. They are still capable of reciting the old catechisms about social justice and helping the disadvantaged but are at a loss as to how these are to be achieved – largely because, in their heart of hearts, whether they know it or not, they accept so much of the Tory analysis and agenda.

Labour’s would-be leaders have never done the hard work needed to mount a proper challenge to the neo-liberal hegemony. That is why, for example, when Labour entered the last election prioritising a commitment to eliminate the deficit, most of those who endorsed that commitment had no idea which deficit – the country’s or the government’s – they were actually talking about and why it was in any case entirely beside the point if we are seeking a well-performing economy that serves the interests of the great majority of voters.

Bryan Gould

20 June 2015