Skip to main content

Labour needs a better narrative

Labour has rarely been kind to the party's former leaders.   The memberships, or activists at least, are quick to slate them as 'traitors'.  Decades later, the view is different.

This was certainly so with Harold Wilson who was despised on the right of the party and abandoned by the left.  Labour tends to over-state its failures and minimise its successes.   Now we look back and see how successful Wilson was in the circumstances of his time.

This has also been so with Tony Blair.  The record of Tony Blair's government is remarkable by any standard.  His sin, for the left of Labour, was that he hunted with the hare and the hounds.  He set out to make capitalism work better.  It was a laudable aim and his achievements were considerable.

Blair's government massively increased funding of the NHS and waiting lists and times tumbled.  It made inroads in reducing child poverty with targetted policies.  It reduced pensioner poverty.  It put more police officers on the streets.  It produced remarkable constitutional reform with devolution to the nations, and it pushed the peace process in Northern Ireland to an agreement.

It transformed our human rights laws and introduced openness and accountability with freedom of information legislation and the Human Rights Act in 1998.

But this article isn't written simply to praise Tony Blair.  It is to make the point that very little of this achievement has been presented by the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn.   Even the minimum wage was a major achievement of the Blair years.   The Labour Party should be writing its history and not leaving it to others to denigrate it.

When I left school in 1964, I went to work in a branch of the Home Office.  It was just at the time of the first Wilson Government with a slender majority after thirteen long Tory years.  Most of those working in the office were shocked by the result of the election that October. My immediate superior told me that Wilson would bankrupt the country, just as they had done under Attlee.

I found that odd, given that the Attlee government had achieved so much, but I was sixteen and a bit wet behind the ears.

Of course, Labour did not bankrupt the country.  When I read the history of it I found that not only had Attlee's government introduced the welfare state and the NHS but that during the years that followed the war the national debt plummetted.  Of course, it would because we were no longer funding the war.  But increased welfare spending and spending on infrastructure didn't bankrupt the country.

On the contrary,  as people were put back to work and wages rose, so tax revenue increased to pay for social funding.  Libraries and schools and council housing were built.  People's lives were transformed, and opportunities created.  My generation, in particular, benefited substantially from the welfare state.

Decades have passed since then, and we can now see that far from Labour governments bankrupting the country, they tend to run smaller budget deficits!  Their record on the economy is, in general, just as good if not better than the Tories.

The Tories tend at some point to push up unemployment, and paying for that increased the budget deficit under the Tories.

But if you consider the perceptions.  The generally held view is that the Tories are good with the economy and Labour bad.     This is why it was easy enough for Boris Johnson to suggest that Labour always left the country in an economic crisis.   It remained unchallenged.  But it is wrong.  It is a distortion of history.

But that distorted history is aided by the tendency of the left to critique Labour governments.  They use the language of failure.  They call former leaders 'traitors'.  They question the 'socialist' credentials of former leaders.  But by doing so they add to the Tory narrative of socialist failure.

Already, the knives are out for Jeremy Corbyn.  He has not yet stood down, but he is being blamed for the election defeat.  Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonell have accepted their responsibility as leaders.  Yet the knives are plunged.   History is being written.  Blame apportioned.  Even the word 'traitor' is used.

Yet, this is before anyone has been able to fully reflect on what went wrong.

Of course, we all have our ideas on that.  But we should be wary of writing a Tory history of Labour.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well. No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing. The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party. That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team. Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more

The lion and the wildebeest

Birds flock, fish school, bees swarm, but social being is more than simply sticking together.  Social groups enable specialisation and a sharing of abilities, and enhances ability, learning and creating new tricks. The more a group works together, the more effective they become as a team.  Chimpanzees learn from each other how to use stones to crack nuts, or sticks to get termites.  All around us we see cooperation and learning in nature.  Nature is inherently creative.  Pulling together becomes a rallying cry during a crisis.  We have heard it throughout the coronavirus pandemic.  "We are all in this together", a mantra that encourages people to adopt a common strategy. In an era of 'self-interest' and 'survival of the fittest,'  and 'selfish gene', we lose sight of the obvious conclusion from the evidence all around us.   Sticking together is more often the better approach.  This is valid for the lion as it is also for the wildebeest.   We don't