Labour, ever new

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.