An edited version of this article appeared in The New Statesman, 16 May 2005
The question exciting political commentators and restless members of the Parliamentary Labour Party is when Blair will go and Brown take over. This is clearly a crucial question, but it is worrying that there has been very little discussion of what difference this will make nor of how a change of leader could restore trust and ensure that the third term Labour Government pursues the promised ‘progressive consensus’. Many former Labour activists and supporters remain of the view that Blair is unfit to be Prime Minister because of Iraq and make clear that they will not return to Labour until Blair has gone. But even those whose measure of success is simply the retention of power, are becoming aware that there is a real danger that the unpopularity of the Prime Minister, the mess in Iraq, a weakening economy, growing inequality and demoralisation in the public services will lead to further Labour losses in local government elections, a continuing crumbling of Party membership and a Labour wipe out in 2009.
I share the view that the deceit over Iraq requires a change of leadership to restore Labour’s honour, but with Brown having come out strongly in support of Blair on Iraq during the election campaign, a simple switch from Blair to Brown will not guarantee that we correct what has gone wrong. Gordon Brown could at his best be the instrument of a restoration of Labour’s pride, values and electoral success, but if he is shuffled into place late in the Parliament, having to defend all that has gone before and inheriting an increasingly unpopular Government with an ‘unremittingly New Labour’ agenda, it is unlikely that he will be able to turn things round.
David Blunkett has told us that those who call for a change of leadership are being self indulgent and Peter Hain that we have just won the election and been given a clear mandate to implement our manifesto. But the victory was shallow. Labour won the votes of only 35 per cent of those who voted. Even worse, if we take into account those who did not vote, then of every ten people registered to vote, four did not vote, four voted for other parties and two voted Labour. Thus the mandate is very weak and many in the Parliamentary Labour Party do not support the Government’s approach to ID cards, the Prevention of Terrorism or the special relationship. Those who spent the last 4 weeks on the streets will know that the Prime Minister’s support has diminished very considerably and the sudden restoration of his partnership with Brown, was crucial to holding on to the votes we did win. Those of us who represent seats where many of our poorer citizens live will also be aware that life has got somewhat better for poor pensioners and families with children, but we are still a grossly unequal country with people who are living on tax credits or low wages grinding along in low paid, poor quality jobs with little hope of improved life opportunities or decent pensions. On top of this, there is a growing crisis of access to decent affordable housing as house prices rise and council houses are taken out of the stock by tenants exercising the right to buy. And, despite the extra money, the targets, central control and bureaucracy put in place to drive public sector reform is demoralising and undermining the pride of those who work in the public services. Many schools and neighbourhoods still suffer from bullying, insecurity, disorder and blight. We have a very long way to go to reduce inequality and build the sense of community and quality public services that our neighbours in Scandinavia have achieved alongside their full employment economies. Tax credits, inspired by the thinking of the Clinton administration were a welcome first step in making work worthwhile for those who had been marginalised, but they are not a solution to the deep inequalities that continue to scar British society after two terms of Labour government.
And when we turn to foreign policy, the Government will remain haunted by the mess in Iraq and instability in the Middle East. We are told repeatedly that we must not live in the past and it is time to move on from Iraq. It is of course right that we must deal with current realities as well as learn from past mistakes, but the consequences of the errors made are still with us. The situation inside Iraq is disastrous with levels of unemployment, disorder and suffering that are feeding the insurgency and continuing to destabilise the region. It is also increasingly clear that Bush has no intention of holding Israel to the promises of the road map and that Israel intends to expand its territory, creating a series of Palestinian Bantustans rather than a state based on 1967 boundaries. Blair’s support for Sharon’s Gaza plan suggests he may be happy to go along with this, and if so he will continue to help the US to undermine the UN and international law and the anger of the Middle East will continue to fester.
And thus a progressive consensus requires a real debate in the Labour Party about British foreign policy. Is the ‘special relationship’ its centrepiece as it has been for all post war Prime Ministers except Edward Heath? Should we commission a new generation of nuclear weapons? Should we provide facilities for the US planned national missile defence which in providing an umbrella to protect the US from nuclear attack, makes US weapons more usable and is likely to escalate the arms race? Is there an alternative British role in the world as a large economy committed to an EU common foreign and security policy devoted to building strong multilateral institutions and bolstering the international rule of law? Could the UK use our influence at the EU, UN the Commonwealth , the IMF and the World Bank to work with others to create a more just and sustainable world order that begins to face up to the challenge which will flow from continuing environmental degradation, global warming and world population set to grow from the current 6 billion to 9 billion by 2030-50.
Labour’s achievements in the two terms since 1997 in domestic policy have rested on Brown’s successful steerage of the economy and the release of resources for public services. But rockier times lie ahead and the quality of public services is being undermined by the stress and demoralisation of the workforce. And Labour’s foreign policy is now dominated by its close alliance with an extreme right wing American administration so that a Labour Government has ended up supporting a strategy which undermines the UN and international law.
We urgently need a change of leader to begin to put things right. But Brown needs a vibrant progressive debate generating ideas and demanding a new and more open style of government if we are to bring out the best in him. There is a real danger that time is running out and that it will soon end in tears with Iraq emblazoned across the chapters that explain the failure of Blair’s New Labour project.
Rt Hon Clare Short MP
Member of Parliament for Birmingham Ladywood
10 May 2005
