By Vivienne Russell
24 September 2009
This year’s conference season will be dominated by cuts – uncomfortable ground for Labour. Far from providing a policy platform, it might only highlight the government’s problems
As you read this, a small army of lobbyists and journalists, of trade unionists and constituency party secretaries, of ministers and MPs, are preparing themselves. They are packing their cases and getting their suits dry-cleaned in anticipation of what will likely be New Labour’s last conference as the party of government for some time to come.
Party conferences are traditionally occasions for troop rallying and tub-thumping – remember the optimism and confidence that infused Tony Blair’s early conferences, first as leader of a resurgent Opposition, then as a phenomenally popular young prime minister?
Conferences were even relatively kind to Gordon Brown, as he steered the Labour Party ship through rather more turbulent waters. Brown enjoyed two autumn mini-revivals of a kind. In 2007, as a newly anointed prime minister, there was some momentum, a sense of new beginnings, a brief spell of popularity and talk of a snap election that never happened. Last year, amid the fallout of the global financial crisis, Brown at least had the gravitas of a world leader who was at the centre of things, who had something of import to say.
But he’s unlikely to make it three in a row. The debate has shifted away from Labour’s natural territory – investment in public services. Everyone, even Brown himself, is talking about cuts.
The mood is gloomy. Some say that, psychologically, Labour is already defeated, its MPs reconciled to the prospect of defeat and preparing themselves for careers either outside politics or on the opposition benches. It’s hard to get away from the sense that everyone is marking time until a general election is called. So how can the party rejuvenate itself?
Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics, says Labour’s difficulty is that the party is ‘suffering from the serious problem of having been in power for 12 and a half years.
‘It’s a very difficult place from which to suddenly describe yourself as a party of public service modernisation or a party of change, which is really what you need to do when you’ve been in power a long time,’ he tells Public Finance.
‘The trouble is the Labour Party shows no sign of being capable of thinking itself through to being a party of change.’
One issue that will be debated on the conference fringe, although not the main stage itself, is how Labour should and could begin that process. How does the party regroup and move forward?
The Fabian Society, the oldest Labour think-tank of them all, is set to use the conference to agitate for Labour to return to its core principles.
With some on the liberal Left beginning to talk of restricting the provision of welfare, such as child benefit and winter fuel payments, to the poor and away from the middle classes, the Fabians are calling on the Labour Party to stand up for the principle of universalism.
Research director Tim Horton is alarmed that some Left-wing commentators are ‘sleepwalking’ towards a welfare system that will resemble the ‘nightmare of America’s threadbare welfare system by offering up their child benefit for the national debt’.
‘Universal benefits are expensive,’ he concedes. ‘But in the long run the size of the public spending pie is not fixed. People’s willingness to pay depends on what they get back.’
Systems based on universalism, such as the one that operates in Sweden, are far more successful at tackling poverty because they are based on the idea of common citizenship, the Fabians maintain.
‘Some of the Left are asking what we stand for. If we truly care about the fate of those in poverty, then universalism matters. It is time to stand up for it,’ says Horton.
Ian Mulheirn, director of the Social Market Foundation, has a different take. It is possible, he maintains, for Labour to use dwindling public sector budgets to its advantage. When in opposition, the party should think seriously about how commissioning processes could be improved and services redesigned for less cost but no reduction in service.
‘It seems governments run out of ideas because they spend so long doing the day-to-day stuff,’ he says. A focus on the ‘more for less’ agenda will allow them to intellectually regenerate.
‘[It] will translate into a manifesto of strengthening public services even in a time of restraint, and that is a message that will sell,’ he argues.
But Travers warns that this approach presents the party with a new political problem, making them vulnerable to accusations of time-wasting in office.
‘They’re trapped… If they say, “We’ve found we can make these efficiency savings without making any impact on the front line,” their opponents are going to say, “Well, what have you been doing all this time?”,’ he says.
Andy Sawford, chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, says that if Labour is serious about returning to office it needs to get away from a simplistic cuts versus investment debate.
He acknowledges that Labour is bound to make some political hay out of any public services cuts a Conservative government is likely to make, but says: ‘I don’t think that will be very honest, in that the government took us into, whether you think it’s right or not, this massive public debt.
'I hope that whoever is in opposition gives some space to politicians, locally and nationally, to make tough choices and not be simplistic. But I suspect that won’t happen.’
Two things are likely to determine the direction Labour will take in opposition, Sawford tells PF: the size of the Conservative majority and the choice of new leader.
A party led by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, Foreign Secretary David Miliband or even Health Secretary Andy Burnham would stand a ‘realistic prospect of coming back at the next [but one] election’, he says.
Or, as the Conservatives did in 1997, Labour could adopt a core vote strategy. This would see them veer to the Left and rebuild relations with the trade unions, Sawford says, but it would also be likely to lead to a long time on the opposition benches.
The tension between these two wings of the party has always been present and could well flare up again in Brighton, but will anyone care?
The conference will be a ‘damp squib’, says Sawford. ‘At the moment, people aren’t interested in what Gordon Brown has to say… David Cameron has the ear of the British people and people will be listening very carefully to what happens at the Conservative conference.’
Brighton could herald the beginning of the healing process or exacerbate existing wounds. Whatever happens now with a psychologically defeated party, a leader no one wants to listen to and the intellectual inertia that comes from too long in office, Labour’s problems are immense.
24 September 2009
This year’s conference season will be dominated by cuts – uncomfortable ground for Labour. Far from providing a policy platform, it might only highlight the government’s problems
As you read this, a small army of lobbyists and journalists, of trade unionists and constituency party secretaries, of ministers and MPs, are preparing themselves. They are packing their cases and getting their suits dry-cleaned in anticipation of what will likely be New Labour’s last conference as the party of government for some time to come.
Party conferences are traditionally occasions for troop rallying and tub-thumping – remember the optimism and confidence that infused Tony Blair’s early conferences, first as leader of a resurgent Opposition, then as a phenomenally popular young prime minister?
Conferences were even relatively kind to Gordon Brown, as he steered the Labour Party ship through rather more turbulent waters. Brown enjoyed two autumn mini-revivals of a kind. In 2007, as a newly anointed prime minister, there was some momentum, a sense of new beginnings, a brief spell of popularity and talk of a snap election that never happened. Last year, amid the fallout of the global financial crisis, Brown at least had the gravitas of a world leader who was at the centre of things, who had something of import to say.
But he’s unlikely to make it three in a row. The debate has shifted away from Labour’s natural territory – investment in public services. Everyone, even Brown himself, is talking about cuts.
The mood is gloomy. Some say that, psychologically, Labour is already defeated, its MPs reconciled to the prospect of defeat and preparing themselves for careers either outside politics or on the opposition benches. It’s hard to get away from the sense that everyone is marking time until a general election is called. So how can the party rejuvenate itself?
Tony Travers, director of the Greater London Group at the London School of Economics, says Labour’s difficulty is that the party is ‘suffering from the serious problem of having been in power for 12 and a half years.
‘It’s a very difficult place from which to suddenly describe yourself as a party of public service modernisation or a party of change, which is really what you need to do when you’ve been in power a long time,’ he tells Public Finance.
‘The trouble is the Labour Party shows no sign of being capable of thinking itself through to being a party of change.’
One issue that will be debated on the conference fringe, although not the main stage itself, is how Labour should and could begin that process. How does the party regroup and move forward?
The Fabian Society, the oldest Labour think-tank of them all, is set to use the conference to agitate for Labour to return to its core principles.
With some on the liberal Left beginning to talk of restricting the provision of welfare, such as child benefit and winter fuel payments, to the poor and away from the middle classes, the Fabians are calling on the Labour Party to stand up for the principle of universalism.
Research director Tim Horton is alarmed that some Left-wing commentators are ‘sleepwalking’ towards a welfare system that will resemble the ‘nightmare of America’s threadbare welfare system by offering up their child benefit for the national debt’.
‘Universal benefits are expensive,’ he concedes. ‘But in the long run the size of the public spending pie is not fixed. People’s willingness to pay depends on what they get back.’
Systems based on universalism, such as the one that operates in Sweden, are far more successful at tackling poverty because they are based on the idea of common citizenship, the Fabians maintain.
‘Some of the Left are asking what we stand for. If we truly care about the fate of those in poverty, then universalism matters. It is time to stand up for it,’ says Horton.
Ian Mulheirn, director of the Social Market Foundation, has a different take. It is possible, he maintains, for Labour to use dwindling public sector budgets to its advantage. When in opposition, the party should think seriously about how commissioning processes could be improved and services redesigned for less cost but no reduction in service.
‘It seems governments run out of ideas because they spend so long doing the day-to-day stuff,’ he says. A focus on the ‘more for less’ agenda will allow them to intellectually regenerate.
‘[It] will translate into a manifesto of strengthening public services even in a time of restraint, and that is a message that will sell,’ he argues.
But Travers warns that this approach presents the party with a new political problem, making them vulnerable to accusations of time-wasting in office.
‘They’re trapped… If they say, “We’ve found we can make these efficiency savings without making any impact on the front line,” their opponents are going to say, “Well, what have you been doing all this time?”,’ he says.
Andy Sawford, chief executive of the Local Government Information Unit, says that if Labour is serious about returning to office it needs to get away from a simplistic cuts versus investment debate.
He acknowledges that Labour is bound to make some political hay out of any public services cuts a Conservative government is likely to make, but says: ‘I don’t think that will be very honest, in that the government took us into, whether you think it’s right or not, this massive public debt.
'I hope that whoever is in opposition gives some space to politicians, locally and nationally, to make tough choices and not be simplistic. But I suspect that won’t happen.’
Two things are likely to determine the direction Labour will take in opposition, Sawford tells PF: the size of the Conservative majority and the choice of new leader.
A party led by Home Secretary Alan Johnson, Foreign Secretary David Miliband or even Health Secretary Andy Burnham would stand a ‘realistic prospect of coming back at the next [but one] election’, he says.
Or, as the Conservatives did in 1997, Labour could adopt a core vote strategy. This would see them veer to the Left and rebuild relations with the trade unions, Sawford says, but it would also be likely to lead to a long time on the opposition benches.
The tension between these two wings of the party has always been present and could well flare up again in Brighton, but will anyone care?
The conference will be a ‘damp squib’, says Sawford. ‘At the moment, people aren’t interested in what Gordon Brown has to say… David Cameron has the ear of the British people and people will be listening very carefully to what happens at the Conservative conference.’
Brighton could herald the beginning of the healing process or exacerbate existing wounds. Whatever happens now with a psychologically defeated party, a leader no one wants to listen to and the intellectual inertia that comes from too long in office, Labour’s problems are immense.
