1) Democratically choose a new leader. Now, this sounds like
a statement of the obvious, but it’s not what happened last time. And while
Labour’s failure to win wasn’t entirely Ed Miliband’s fault, when someone is
putting themselves forward as a potential Prime Minister they are going to be
judged on their personality, and their ability to persuade, to look like
leadership material. Ed failed to coherently rebut the childish lie that it was
Labour’s borrowing that caused the economic crisis and not a bunch of banks mis-selling
subprime mortgages to each other. (However, given that the banking sector was
acting like a magic money tree during the Blair years Labour did become too
reliant on that tree’s tax yield). He failed to make the story about Labour
coming to the rescue to save the UK from the consequences of the crash, which
is what actually happened (I was there at the time, it was definitely on the
news).
The point is, it was clear a couple of years ago that Ed
wasn’t making any headway with voters, that he was a politics gonk, someone who
had gone from student politics, to time-serving at Labour party HQ, to a safe
seat in Westminster, without ever seeing daylight. One of those people who
tweets about the X Factor without having watched it. Yes, he improved over the
course of the campaign, but it was too little, too late. He should’ve jumped
when it became clear he was a liability two years ago. And if not, then somebody
should’ve pushed him (or at least, given him a kick up the arse). Any new
leader should have, let’s say, two years, and if they’re a liability not an
asset, they should make way for someone who stands a better chance of winning.
Which brings me back to ‘democratically choose a new leader’.
The parliamentary Labour party and the members didn’t vote for Ed for their
first choice as leader, and you know, maybe they knew what they were doing. Polling
your membership isn’t just a democratic act, it’s a popularity contest – a contest
to find out who will be best equipped to win the general election popularity
contest. You don’t ignore or over-rule such an excellent opportunity for market
research (yes, I realise Labour members might not be representative of the entire
UK, but remember they are not voting for the candidate they like most, but the
one they think other people will like most).
2) Labour should be in favour of proportional
representation. By which I mean proper proportional representation, not the ‘miserable
little compromise’ of AV. For too long Labour has let the fact that FPTP gave
it an advantage over-rule the fundamental principle that PR is fairer. Any party which is committed to
equality of opportunity and responsibility has to be in favour of equality of
voting power. Every vote should matter and matter equally. Any parliament that
represents the people should be representative of the people.
And, if we’d had PR at the last two elections, maybe Labour would
have been in power, as part of a coalition, so there’s that too. Thing is, there’s
quite a bit of policy overlap between Labour, the Greens, the Lib Dems and even
the Welsh and Scottish nationalists, so it’s more important – and more representative
of the wishes of the electorate – to not have a Conservative government than to have a singlehanded
Labour government.
Following on from that, until the happy day where PR is
introduced, Labour should co-operate with the Greens and the Lib Dems in
by-elections and future FPTP elections, in the way outlined by Caroline Lucas a few days ago. The Greens and the Lib Dems are unfairly underrepresented in
parliament. Labour should not step aside in by-elections, but instead we should
field joint candidates. After all, many Labour candidates are already joint
candidates of the Labour Party and the Co-Operative Party, why not candidates standing on
a joint Labour and Green Party ticket? The differences between the parties are so
small it is incredibly counterproductive for us to be fighting each other –depriving
each other of supporters, votes, and seats – when 95% of the time we’re on the
same side. In any upcoming by-election, whatever party that
has the best chance of defeating the Conservatives should be the one the Labour
party endorses, with the other parties reciprocating where Labour is best
placed. After all, if we’re prepared to work together in a coalition, we can
field candidates that are standing on a coalition ticket. This is not about
panicking, or cheating – it’s about making the commons more representative, and
getting us to a point where we can introduce PR and such arrangements will no longer be necessary.
Obviously I think there is plenty of scope to reform/abolish
the house of lords but I don’t think it’s a vote winner or a priority.
3) Policies. I might offer some specific suggestions later
on, I might not, but the fundamental principle has to be this; what actually works. I’m rephrasing a
Facebook post I sent to a friend here, but the thing about Labour is that it
shouldn’t be driven by ideology, it should be about practicality. Pragmatism.
We should be in favour of nationalising the railways not because
nationalisation is a good thing in and of itself, but because when you travel
in Germany, for instance, you can’t help noticing that their nationalised railways
are run more efficiently and cheaply than ours, it’s like living in the future.
On the other hand, where the private sector and the free market have been shown
to be more efficient and deliver a higher quality service, we should be in favour of
the private sector and the free market. Absolutely. Never mind ideology; do
what actually works.
It’s like with medicine. You follow best practice, where it
has been proven to work. You conduct clinical trials, and you act according to
the evidence, not what you would like the evidence to be. It’s nothing to do
with ideology, but about being rational. Scientific.
(I do happen to believe that in many cases the state sector
is more efficient than the private sector, but I am open to being proved wrong
and changing my mind, that is the whole point).
Ah, you might cry. But isn’t our ideology what makes us
different from the Conservatives? No. The difference is that they are the ones
who blindly follow their ideology over the facts. That’s what’s so fucking terrifying
about them. That they believe the private sector is a panacea, irrespective of the
evidence from history or elsewhere in the world, and they are hell-bent on following
that belief with a fundamentalist zeal. Never mind if it makes things worse,
the free market can never be wrong! Never mind if our health service gets
worse, our schools get worse. They are the ones who are happy to ignore facts
that don’t fit their worldview. They have often shown themselves
to be hapless, blinkered and corrupt, and it’s inevitable they will again.
So that should be what makes Labour different. It’s largely
the approach that was taken under Tony Blair. Never mind considerations of left
and right, just do what actually works.
What makes people’s lives better, what makes services better. The only test of
a policy is whether it will work to address a problem; not whether it is ‘the
right thing to do’, not to do something because it looks left wing, not to do
something because it will piss off people who are right wing.
The uncomfortable truth is that the Conservatives are going
to get a few things right over the next government. Not very many, and by
accident rather than judgment, but the law of averages states that some of
their policies will be effective, even if they don’t fit our ideology. And
Labour should recognise that. We should change our policies to fit the facts. We
should be the party of best practice, of proven effectiveness, of good management.
Do what actually works. If that means
nationalisation, fine. If it means a mixed economy, fine. And if it means the
private sector, fine.
4) Changing the narrative. We live in a very strange world
where the prices of food, fuel, cars and train tickets coming down is a good
thing, but where house prices going down is a bad thing. Because they are not
buildings for people to live in, but investments, like old paintings and copies
of the Please Please Me LP in stereo
with the gold label. When, of course, house prices don’t reflect value at all,
just how much debt people are willing to take on and how much debt the banks
are willing to risk them with. Rising house prices just mean, for those who are
paying off mortgages, more people with a negative-equity Sword of Damocles
hanging over their heads, desperately hoping the ever-inflating bubble won’t
burst (like bubbles ever do anything else). There are all sorts of things
Labour can do with housing – adopting best practice as shown elsewhere, see
point number three – but I think stabilising house prices would be a start.
There’s no point in trying to help people get on the bottom rung of the ladder
if the bottom rung is rising faster than the help you’re providing.
The same applies to immigration. If a company is employing
foreign workers instead of people who live nearby who would cost the same, it’s
the company that’s the problem, not the foreign workers. But if foreign workers
are cheaper than British workers, it’s not the company’s fault, any company is
going to employ the cheapest workers it can find – the problem is that the cost
of living for British workers is too high. The point is, immigration is not a
bad thing. But sometimes it is a symptom of underlying problems in the economy,
problems that need to be addressed. But it’s important to make clear, it’s not
a cause, it’s an effect. Foreign workers are doing nothing wrong going where
they can find the best work; companies are doing nothing wrong employing the
cheapest workers they can find.
The same applies to benefits. Is it right that the
hardworking taxpayer (or, in my case, the lazy,
do-the-absolute-minimum-I-can-get-away-with taxpayer – we still pay our taxes, our
voices should be heard!) should subsidize multinational companies paying low
wages by making up the difference through income support and housing benefit?
Is it right that the hardworking taxpayer should be paying off buy-to-let
mortgages and generating profits for landlords through housing benefit? Is it
right that we subsidize people owning second homes when there is a housing
shortage? Is it right that foreign companies get grants and tax breaks that British
companies don’t get – meaning British companies are at a competitive disadvantage
in their own country (doesn’t seem very patriotic, or very nurturing of
business – how are British businesses supposed to become the multinationals of
the future when the government is more interested in helping their foreign
competitors?) You have the bonkers situation where the SNP has given Amazon a
grant (far more than Amazon pays in tax) to put Scottish bookshops and mail
order companies out of business. For every job they create, at least one is
lost. Bonkers.
The point is, the narrative should be about ‘How do we do
the best for the taxpayer and for British companies?’ (And foreign companies
too as well, of course, they are not all entirely evil).
And to all the people in low-paid shitty jobs; I’m not sure
Labour promising them that their jobs will be paid very slightly better but
still be equally shitty, or have slightly better contractual arrangements but
still be low-paid, is going to make much difference. If you’re in a low-skills
job, you know that the company can always replace you with somebody else rather
than pay you more or give you a better contract. I suspect making Labour the
party that says ‘Never mind your current shitty job, you will be able to go and
get a better job somewhere else’ might work better. I don’t know how to do
that, though. I am not an expert.
Those are my main thoughts. I think if Labour adopts
policies which are best practice – where they can point to examples in other
countries and go ‘Look, it works over there, we are literally copying’ then
they will regain support and confidence of voters. I don’t think voters are
looking for the party with the most ideologically pure politics, I don’t think
most voters give a shit about left wing or right wing, I think all they care
about is which bunch of suits will actually run the country better. Which means
a leader who inspires confidence, a party that co-operates with other parties
it shares common ground with rather than arguing with them, and policies which
are not pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking but which are proven to work.
Because here’s the thing. There will be another financial
crisis. No matter what party is in government, the global economy is a bubble
machine and there will be another financial fubar. That said, the Conservatives
have managed to create their own fubars in the past, and given that we’re in
for two years of uncertainty and in-fighting over being in or out of the EU,
our economy is – at best – going to be in a holding pattern waiting for a
decision to be reached. The Conservative’s policies are doing nothing to
protect us from the next disaster – if anything, they will leave us more
vulnerable – and when it comes, Labour has to be ready.
