{"id":4135,"date":"2015-05-13T14:19:31","date_gmt":"2015-05-13T13:19:31","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/unitelive.org\/?p=4135"},"modified":"2015-05-14T13:04:22","modified_gmt":"2015-05-14T12:04:22","slug":"labour-cant-survive-without-the-unions","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/?p=4135","title":{"rendered":"Labour can\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t survive without the unions"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/div>\n

Back to the future seems to be the pre-cooked consensus response to Labour\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s dramatic defeat last week. To hear many party grandees tell it, all we have to do is party like it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 1997 again.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

I would like to disagree. I think it is common ground that the Labour party now needs a serious, reflective debate running in parallel with an unrushed leadership election.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For New Labour veterans the debate appears already over, however. Their prescriptions for a Labour comeback are often, although not always, wide of the mark.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

For example, while we hear plenty from John Reid and Peter Mandelson as to why Labour was beaten, they remain silent as to why the party lost five million votes between 1997 and 2010. Under Ed Miliband, at least the first instalment of those losses were clawed back \u00e2\u20ac\u201c insufficient, but a start.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

But that is where the debate should begin. This general election was a long time in the losing. Millions of people voted for parties perceived to be to Labour\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s left \u00e2\u20ac\u201c the SNP and the Greens. Even more voted for Ukip and in many cases they too were expressing hostility to elite economics. Yes, we need votes from the Tories \u00e2\u20ac\u201c but we need more.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Too left wing?<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

Nor do I accept that Labour lost because it was too \u00e2\u20ac\u015bleft wing\u00e2\u20ac\u0165. In fact, the policy offer was not particularly radical. Radicalism would have meant taking railways back into public ownership, for example, or challenging the City\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s grip on the economy.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Labour didn\u00e2\u20ac\u2122t lose votes by proposing to tax the wealthiest a bit more, or intervene in the housing and energy markets. It did lose support because of its muddled message on austerity. The \u00e2\u20ac\u015btriple lock\u00e2\u20ac\u0165 budget pledge was allowed to entirely dominate Labour\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s manifesto launch \u00e2\u20ac\u201c surely securing not a single additional vote.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

In fact, Labour had fallen for the Tories\u00e2\u20ac\u2122 austerity trap much earlier. Ignoring the views of many economists, it accepted a need to balance the budget and eliminate the deficit which left them playing on Tory ground.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Once this was conceded, Labour was on a hiding to nothing \u00e2\u20ac\u201c no one will ever believe that they would be more reliable cutters than the Tories. So Labour was left trying to protect the victims of the Tory cuts agenda while accepting its underlying premises, also depriving itself of a coherent narrative linking together popular individual policies.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Here I agree with last weekend\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s critics. Labour had no central theme, defining what it stood for. Something that could \u00e2\u20ac\u201c as in 1945, 1966 and 1997 \u00e2\u20ac\u201c unite working-class and middle-class voters around a vision for society.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\u00e2\u20ac\u015bOne nation\u00e2\u20ac\u0165 was a promising idea but it was not pursued. Miliband was trying to take Labour in the right direction and I admire his convictions, but he did not seem to have the courage of them and was unable to get many of his own shadow cabinet on message.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Some of the fights he picked were with the right people, as with Rupert Murdoch over phone hacking, and some were with the wrong ones \u00e2\u20ac\u201c attacking Unite over the Falkirk selection.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

New consensus needed<\/strong> <\/em><\/p>\n

So we need a strong leader with a clear message, obviously. I will not express a preference at this stage in the leadership race. But on policies, I think we have to work towards a new consensus that avoids the errors of the recent past.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Take the argument about the need for Labour to be a party of \u00e2\u20ac\u015bwealth creation\u00e2\u20ac\u0165 as well as redistribution. This should be uncontroversial \u00e2\u20ac\u201c socialism was always about releasing the creative and productive capacity of people, as much as it was about welfare. I hope that any Labour politician would accept that all working people are wealth creators, not just business leaders.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

A problem we face is that the New Labour model of wealth creation went bust in 2008, and nothing has been put in its place. Leave it to the market, let the City rip \u00e2\u20ac\u201c these were guiding principles of New Labour\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s economic policy and, whatever their merits in 1997, they are simply not credible today.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

What can we put in its place? Ironically, Lord Mandelson in his final stint in cabinet started pointing the way towards a more creative interventionist approach in relation to industry. A bolder approach to public involvement in economic management in key sectors should be a cornerstone of a new approach.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Or take the invocation of \u00e2\u20ac\u015baspiration\u00e2\u20ac\u0165. If it means aspiring to a home or to better treatment at work that formed part of Labour\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s offer. The broader aspiration to improve one\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s circumstances, and see one\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s children live better still, can only be underpinned by green public sector-led economic growth \u00e2\u20ac\u201c which leads us back to wealth creation.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If \u00e2\u20ac\u015baspiration\u00e2\u20ac\u0165 and \u00e2\u20ac\u015bwealth creation\u00e2\u20ac\u0165 are taken seriously, it should be possible to come up with a new progressive consensus around economic development which no longer relies on the finance sector and speculative bubbles.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

If however they are code-words for ignoring Labour\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s historic role to protect the neediest, then we are in for a battle. We can see from Scotland where that might end up \u00e2\u20ac\u201c another article in itself.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Union support<\/strong> <\/em><\/p>\n

Trade unions can be proud of the support Unite gave Labour in the run-up to last Thursday\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s vote. Without it, the situation would have been still more dismal.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

It is strange that Mandelson seeks to condemn our involvement in his party. All the pews in his broad church will apparently be occupied by the filthy rich. His anti-union outlook is in danger of becoming obsessive and demeans an otherwise interesting political figure.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Unite will play its part in the debate ahead and \u00e2\u20ac\u201c unlike the politicians \u00e2\u20ac\u201c will also be the first line of defence for millions of people in work and in the communities now facing an all-out onslaught on what remains of the welfare state and a decent society.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

*This article appeared on The Guardian website, May 13 <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Back to the future seems to be the pre-cooked consensus response to Labour\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s dramatic defeat last week. To hear many party grandees tell it, all we have to do is party like it\u00e2\u20ac\u2122s 1997 again.   I would like to disagree. I think it is common ground that the Labour party now needs a serious, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1538,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":[],"categories":[22],"tags":[],"wps_subtitle":"Mandelson wrong says Unite GS Len McCluskey ","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4135"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=4135"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4135\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4137,"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4135\/revisions\/4137"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1538"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=4135"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=4135"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/unitelive.test.igniteamt.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=4135"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}