We are at a junction now where it is becoming ever clearer that Labour's New Generation is building upon the lessons learned by New Labour, it's concerns, and it's approaches. Indeed the overlap between New Labour and the New Generation seems to be being ever more openly cemented. In some ways it was inevitable. The results of the Leadership Contest were hardly a ringing endorsement of the views of those who wanted to break with New Labour and trash its record in government and the Coalition is stumbling over itself to appropriate New Labour's language and mine it's policy ideas. New Labour has shaped the political discourse in this country and is not so easily cast aside as declared dead. If we are to avoid being tarred as simply rebranding and, possibly even worse, simplistically rebranding, we need to make clear what this New Generation talk really means. If it is not to fall as flat as the Big Society, which everyone is talking about but no one thinks much of.
It has been made clear that the New Generation is not about age, though many of the younger members at all levels are tempted to put it in the context of the intergenerational phony war of current culture.
We have seen that it is not about involvement or otherwise with the past administration, the Shadow Cabinet and indeed the Leader make that abundantly clear.
Can I say what the New Generation refers to? No, and I am trying hard.
Personally I think we have enough to define ourselves against in the Coalition and it's policies without needing to define ourselves against our own stint in Government. The Leadership Contest is over now so lets focus on the business of winning the policy arguments and demonstrating to the voters that we are in this with them for them. The success's of New Labour should not be an anomaly in our parties history so lets forget about the big new things and be the right thing for the country.
Saturday 9 October 2010
Tuesday 5 October 2010
A new consensus
Thinking over the proposed changes to Child Benefit I cannot but help thinking we need to widen the debate. Both sides spend a lot of time talking about the money, how much will be saved, how much it will cost longer term, and this does matter. It matters not just when, like now, money is tight, because Government spends 'other peoples' money. Government has a duty to account for each and every penny, to spend each and every penny well. It's not just about the money though. The money is only one part of the spending debate. We need to come to an agreement about what we want to spend our money on not just how much we want to spend. We live in a very different world to the world in the immediate aftermath of the Second World War. What we can do has changed greatly since then and looks set to keep on changing. Social attitudes and norms have also changed. The family model and the 'local community' are not what they were, for better and for worse.
I am Labour because I believe ' by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone'. I do not see the welfare state simply as a safety net, a next best option for those who can't take care of themselves. There are some things the State simply does better than even the most well off individual. Those are the things the State should be doing and of course it is over these things that there is some disagreement. I want to make clear now that I am not talking about questions of nationalisation or privatisation or the involvement of the third sector. These are questions of how provision is managed and achieved. I am talking about not how but what the State should provide. What things constitute national infrastructure and identity?
The new consensus we need to arrive at, to be able to have a genuine debate on spending, is what we want to do with our money and then look at the best ways to do it. Those things the State should provide it should provide for every one of its members. There may be many things the future State will not provide that it has till now, or has tried to. There may also be things that it provides going forward that it never did because they weren't available or weren't as important before. Lets not be frightened of change and lets not be naive about the fact there will be people worse but also better off in the process. Most of all though, lest not be frightened to have the genuine debate about spending, not just how much but why. In the end it's not just about the money its about our identity.
I am Labour because I believe ' by the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone'. I do not see the welfare state simply as a safety net, a next best option for those who can't take care of themselves. There are some things the State simply does better than even the most well off individual. Those are the things the State should be doing and of course it is over these things that there is some disagreement. I want to make clear now that I am not talking about questions of nationalisation or privatisation or the involvement of the third sector. These are questions of how provision is managed and achieved. I am talking about not how but what the State should provide. What things constitute national infrastructure and identity?
The new consensus we need to arrive at, to be able to have a genuine debate on spending, is what we want to do with our money and then look at the best ways to do it. Those things the State should provide it should provide for every one of its members. There may be many things the future State will not provide that it has till now, or has tried to. There may also be things that it provides going forward that it never did because they weren't available or weren't as important before. Lets not be frightened of change and lets not be naive about the fact there will be people worse but also better off in the process. Most of all though, lest not be frightened to have the genuine debate about spending, not just how much but why. In the end it's not just about the money its about our identity.
Monday 4 October 2010
Campaigning to win, campaigning so as to deserve to win
During the leadership contest there was much talk about which candidate and which approach would put Labour in the best position to win come the next election. I am sure there was even more talk within each candidates team about how best to win the contest however the different candidates may have interpreted this.
I remember while reading the various literature that was sent out being very much struck how there was talk of not just winning but deserving to win. This was about far more than just winning in the right way but also winning because that was for the best. This is such a novel idea for many in politics, and many who watch politics played out, that it deserves going over again.
Everyone campaigns to win, it's not just about killing time, and even those who are only in it for the financial rewards know the rewards are bigger when you're in power. Power, we are told, is what it is all about. All the policy, all the ideals, amount to nothing if you don't win.
That was not the message I took from the Leadership contest. It matters that you deserve to win, not in the sense of a consolation if you then don't, but in that you need to fight for the policies, the ideals, and the dialogue that mean you are fighting for what is genuinely the best cause. You need to deserve to win so that when, or sadly if, you do it is something to celebrate for everyone.
Let me take an extreme example to make my point: The National Socialist party in 1930. It may well have been a better thing for them not to have won so much support in the Reichstag election of that year. They ran an effective campaign, they played to the concerns of the people very well, they mobilised their grassroot supporters, and they focused their efforts to make the most of the gains they expected to make. If winning is all that matters then they did a great job in becoming the second largest party in the Reichstag.
I don't think the argument needs drawing out; winning is not in itself everything, deserving to win is an essential component.
So amongst all the talk of how important the manner of winning is, which can quickly descend into just another part of the how-to-win debate, lets not forget the importance of setting out a program of alternative government that truly deserves to win.
I remember while reading the various literature that was sent out being very much struck how there was talk of not just winning but deserving to win. This was about far more than just winning in the right way but also winning because that was for the best. This is such a novel idea for many in politics, and many who watch politics played out, that it deserves going over again.
Everyone campaigns to win, it's not just about killing time, and even those who are only in it for the financial rewards know the rewards are bigger when you're in power. Power, we are told, is what it is all about. All the policy, all the ideals, amount to nothing if you don't win.
That was not the message I took from the Leadership contest. It matters that you deserve to win, not in the sense of a consolation if you then don't, but in that you need to fight for the policies, the ideals, and the dialogue that mean you are fighting for what is genuinely the best cause. You need to deserve to win so that when, or sadly if, you do it is something to celebrate for everyone.
Let me take an extreme example to make my point: The National Socialist party in 1930. It may well have been a better thing for them not to have won so much support in the Reichstag election of that year. They ran an effective campaign, they played to the concerns of the people very well, they mobilised their grassroot supporters, and they focused their efforts to make the most of the gains they expected to make. If winning is all that matters then they did a great job in becoming the second largest party in the Reichstag.
I don't think the argument needs drawing out; winning is not in itself everything, deserving to win is an essential component.
So amongst all the talk of how important the manner of winning is, which can quickly descend into just another part of the how-to-win debate, lets not forget the importance of setting out a program of alternative government that truly deserves to win.
Saturday 2 October 2010
Dignity in difference
It was with some trepidation that I went along to a local party telephone session today. It was the first time since that demonstration when we had all fallen to talking about the Leadership Contest and we had been far from one on our take and our choice. Some of the talk, though little I am glad to say, had become quite barbed back then before the Conference. I really wasn't sure what to expect from this gathering of more or less the same activists today.
I am glad and a little proud to say that those differences in view and expression, which have not gone away, were handled with dignity and tact. There was neither crowing from the one side nor sniping from the other and sore points were studiously avoided. This will not I trust mean that debates on policy and approach will not still be intense over the next months, as there is still much to be decided other than the Leader, but for now there needs to be real maturity. Let it not be forgotten that there was a time when the differences between some members of the Labour party were so strong that for a time they split into two parties. That rift has been healed and we have no wish to see it reopened. This conference has seen examples of great dignity in the face of personal disappointment. I hope we can all learn from these as much as from the successes of the Contest itself.
I am glad and a little proud to say that those differences in view and expression, which have not gone away, were handled with dignity and tact. There was neither crowing from the one side nor sniping from the other and sore points were studiously avoided. This will not I trust mean that debates on policy and approach will not still be intense over the next months, as there is still much to be decided other than the Leader, but for now there needs to be real maturity. Let it not be forgotten that there was a time when the differences between some members of the Labour party were so strong that for a time they split into two parties. That rift has been healed and we have no wish to see it reopened. This conference has seen examples of great dignity in the face of personal disappointment. I hope we can all learn from these as much as from the successes of the Contest itself.
Friday 1 October 2010
Services - Cuts and Costs
It is a common error to equate the amount spent on Services either to an improvement in outcomes or a commitment to issues. Neither of these equations adds up. It is perfectly possible to increase how much you spend on a given Service while there is no actual change in the outcome or worse yet while the outcomes fall. For example you can pump money into the training of dentists but if those dentists do not then remain working in the NHS the outcome of improved dental health for the nation does not follow. Equally a couple of million pounds, while being a fortune to most individuals, amounts to little in a national budget and so can easily be 'invested' in any area that panders to public opinion at the time with little or no thought for what if any difference it will make. Do not misunderstand me: Services require investment but not all spending is investment.
It is a trap too easy to fall in to claim to have done a great thing by spending more on Services, after all it is laudable for any one of us to give of ourselves to a worthy cause. The trap is that when Government gives it gives not out of its 'own' coffers but out of the pockets of the people of the country. Spending other peoples money is not in itself a good thing and so those figures can be thrown back all too easily as criticism. There have been those in Labour and there are yet those who make this mistake time and time again.
What matters is not spending on Services but the outcomes of those Services.
Labour has a phenomenal record of improving Service outcomes across the board. Labour not only increased the outcomes but peoples expectations of those outcomes. Labour worked hard at taking the 'second rate' out of peoples view of Services in the UK. We have a record to defend there that cannot be assailed.
I am going to go further though: Just as it is not spending that matters it is also not the Service Providers. It is not teachers and nurses but Education and Health. Government has to be there for every man woman and child in this country, it has to be there for them as people not professions. If a Service Outcome can be best reached with fewer providers then fewer providers we should have. Yes, I do mean if we can best educate our children with fewer teachers then we should have fewer, if we can best care for our sick with fewer nurses then there should be less. I know how counterintuative and how cold this feels but pause and reflect upon the books, computers, school trips, exchange programs that might be made available with fewer teachers, or the drugs and technology that might be on hand with fewer nurses. I am not saying that cutting the number or pay of providers is necessarily the best way to improve a Service Outcome but I am saying it does not always follow that what is good for the Service Provider is good for the Service Outcome.
I passionately believe in our countries Services and not just for those who can't afford 'better' but for us all. I genuinely believe that by our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone. But I also believe that we need a welfare state focused on outcomes and not just spending or the interests of Service Providers. You may not want to agree with me but I think if you think this over you just may.
It is a trap too easy to fall in to claim to have done a great thing by spending more on Services, after all it is laudable for any one of us to give of ourselves to a worthy cause. The trap is that when Government gives it gives not out of its 'own' coffers but out of the pockets of the people of the country. Spending other peoples money is not in itself a good thing and so those figures can be thrown back all too easily as criticism. There have been those in Labour and there are yet those who make this mistake time and time again.
What matters is not spending on Services but the outcomes of those Services.
Labour has a phenomenal record of improving Service outcomes across the board. Labour not only increased the outcomes but peoples expectations of those outcomes. Labour worked hard at taking the 'second rate' out of peoples view of Services in the UK. We have a record to defend there that cannot be assailed.
I am going to go further though: Just as it is not spending that matters it is also not the Service Providers. It is not teachers and nurses but Education and Health. Government has to be there for every man woman and child in this country, it has to be there for them as people not professions. If a Service Outcome can be best reached with fewer providers then fewer providers we should have. Yes, I do mean if we can best educate our children with fewer teachers then we should have fewer, if we can best care for our sick with fewer nurses then there should be less. I know how counterintuative and how cold this feels but pause and reflect upon the books, computers, school trips, exchange programs that might be made available with fewer teachers, or the drugs and technology that might be on hand with fewer nurses. I am not saying that cutting the number or pay of providers is necessarily the best way to improve a Service Outcome but I am saying it does not always follow that what is good for the Service Provider is good for the Service Outcome.
I passionately believe in our countries Services and not just for those who can't afford 'better' but for us all. I genuinely believe that by our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone. But I also believe that we need a welfare state focused on outcomes and not just spending or the interests of Service Providers. You may not want to agree with me but I think if you think this over you just may.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)