One Party Under ... ?

Political Parties exist to further political ideals. That is to further ways of living together based on understandings of Man and Society. Already from that it becomes clear that you choose one because you share certain understandings, certain values. Becoming a member of a political party is not an undertaking everyone chooses, it involves a certain commitment, both financial and emotional, which goes beyond the civic duty to vote responsibly.

Becoming a member of a party is a considered choice that goes beyond fighting on a single issue or supporting a single person. People who join political parties make a statement about how they see themselves and the world around them and it is this way of seeing things that both brings and keeps them together.

There are of course instruments of unity; symbols, events, ways of speaking, structures, that help make that unity concrete and tangible but these instruments are not the substance or the sense of that unity. The Party is not one because of these things rather these things arise from the party being one.

Unity is not maintained by every member scrupulously holding to every instrument of unity that has been forged. This would present a uniformity of appearance, by all means, but even then for how long? The meaning and connotations of symbols and words change overtime, people of different generations react differently to events, structures succeed or fail depending on where, when, and how they are employed, and, of course, people come and go. Uniformity is like a vast monocrop, while conditions suit it it thrives but when they change it fails utterly.

The life blood of unity, as opposed to uniformity, in a political party is the way of looking at the world that brings people together to start with. It is that world-view that holds them together and spurs them on. A party that strives for uniformity has no future. We are one in so much as we are true to the vision we share. Let no one fear the constant struggle to express that vision more clearly. Let no one shy from asking where that vision is to be seen in each and every thing the party they have chosen does and says. None of us is the party's 'anointed one' but each and every one of us must be its 'prophet', admonishing, rebuking, and exhorting the party to be true to itself, to the vision that unites us. We are united so long as we trust that we share one vision. We are united so long as we share it deeply enough to care about how best it is to be expressed in different places and in different times. We are united so long as we fight, yes even amongst ourselves, to see that shared vision made real.

We are one party, not under but united nevertheless.

Enterprise - Living Wage - Inequality

How are we to encourage entrepreneurs AND raise the minimum wage to the level it is generally accepted people need to live in today's Britain? You may think I have forgotten the third point from my title but I haven't. The issue of inequality in the work place, at least in terms of remuneration, comes down to the balancing act I have just outlined. People take risks, make sacrifices, 'invest', in all the senses of that word, because of what they hope to get back. They have to judge if the extra effort, if the extra risk is worth what they will be putting in. Every time the minimum wage rises it reduces either the profits of investors or the share of the wage pot going to people taking on more risk or putting in more effort (training included). Every time the minimum wage rises it requires more investment to start up and maintain a new business. These are not reasons to not do it, they are however reasons why being for both these things, coherently, is no easy task.

Government, unlike the Unions, does not, in a narrow sense, represent just the interests of the 'Workers'. Government also represents the interesets of 'Business', i.e. the entrepreneurs and investors. Without entrepreneurs and investors there are no jobs for the workers and the question of their minimum wage is irrelevant.

For equality to be anything but the leveling out at the lowest common denominator of everyone, wealth creation and not just distribution needs to be at the heart of Government.

This is nothing new, nothing that hasn't always been the case, no new challenge. This was the case in 1997, and in 1907, and it is the case today.

Something else that hasn't changed though is this: Pay a minimum wage and you get a minimum work force. Minimum in the effort they will put in, the commitment they will give, and the service they will deliver. More than that you get a minimum work force in that those who don't need to work won't, as the effort to find ways not to and the risk of getting caught seem at least as worth while if not more so than paid employment.

Getting the balance of reward right, both for those who provide as well as those who do jobs, is the key to raising standards of living and reducing benefit payments and crime. You can tell this story in terms of money saved or in terms of lives enriched but whichever way you tell it the story remains the same.

There is no future in telling people how big the reward for their efforts is allowed to be, as if doing well was a thing to be done in moderation only. Government must be about everyone doing as well as they possibly can. Clause Four commits us to that.

We need to find a way where the rewards we reap are matched by the responsibilities we take, be they the responsibilities of further and ongoing training, or the responsibilities of taking decisions that effect others.

We need to find a way where the choices we make as a society can be informed by a true sense of the the cost of those same choices.

We need to find a way where the cost of living is well within the reach of those who work hard.

Tackling inequality does not mean choosing between the demands of enterprise and the demands of a living wage but it does mean developing a global, if it is to be coherent, approach.

Clause Four

'The Labour Party is a democratic socialist party. It believes that by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone, so as to create for each of us the means to realise our true potential and for all of us a community in which power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duties we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.'

In 1995 this was the defining moment for New Labour, this was the change worked on the party. No longer would we confuse the values and aspirations we share with the means to achieve them that can and do vary and change. Never again would we be committed to a limited analysis of the root cause of the ills of our society as if there were simple abiding answers to every challenge in our complex and changing world. No more were we to be a party representing only a part of our society.

The 'New' in New Labour was not a one time change but an ongoing process of change an 'Ever-New' Labour, adapting and changing as the world and the challenges it faces changes. The 'New' in New Labour was about finding new ways to bring our values to bear in a world very different from the one in which the Labour movement first emerged. The 'New' in New Labour was about no longer forcing the nation to accept the rights of a few but in making the argument for the good of the many.

I speak here in the past tense but of course Labour retains the 'New' summed up in Clause Four, it remains the 'Ever-New' Labour which is the heart and soul of the New Labour movement. New Labour isn't going anywhere anytime soon as it is not just the past of the party but also its present and its future. The Labour party understands itself in Clause Four and Clause Four is New Labour.