Labour needs a new Clause IV

By Societarian

The Societarians were campaigning this week in Norwich North for the Labour cause. Those amongst us who are employed kindly subsidised the journey for the others amongst us who are part of the graduate unemployment rate in this country. But what we were deep in conversation about while we were there (apart from where best to apply to for a job) was the debate sparked by Tony Blair’s and David Cameron’s favourite think-tank Demos about the future of the Labour party.

What is strange is that this debate at Demos is being carried out amongst a closed-off clique. How many people are really involved in this debate? A couple of hundred maybe, a few thousand at most? The actual launch of the event at Demos Towers, as Laurie Penny pointed out on LabourList earlier in the week, was stocked full of political apparatchiks. Fundamentally, think tanks should suggest policy initiatives that help political parties deliver the aspiration of their supporters; not to create political parties that appeal to voters. A political party that is founded on the principles of a select few rather than the feelings of the many is destined for failure. So surely if we are to have a party that is of the people our discussion has to be taken to the people who make up the party? Even Prezza knows that!

Anyway, we all read and re-read what James Purnell had to say on what it meant to be on the left, in his view. Although it was a welcome contribution we have met many people, while we have been at the battlements of the Labour party in Norwich North, who are not “In The Loop” of this new debate who don’t think that its exactly doorstep friendly:

“Hi, I’m from the Labour party and I am a Utopian unlike those ghastly Tories! They just love the status quo don’t you know!!”

Not exactly what gets most people to vote Labour, and not very accurate. The Greens, Lib Dems and the Tories all believe in some sort of Utopian outlook as well; be it a return to a golden age or the fixing of a broken Britain or a greener planet. But one person’s utopia is another’s dystopia. Also, we in the Labour party believe in a form of status quo too; for example I don’t see many MPs demanding or even debating the over throw of the “capitalist regime” as they use to?

When we sat down for a few drinks after a day of canvassing we noticed that the single question that we were asked by the majority of those who said they used to vote Labour was: what does Labour believe in which separates it from the Lib Dems (and the Tories)? So we whipped out our membership cards where it says what we officially believe in, and that read:

“By the strength of our common endeavour we achieve more than we achieve alone.”

It’s even in bold just in case you missed it! But it’s a pretty vague definition of what we stand for, as any party despite their ideology has to believe in that sentiment alone otherwise they wouldn’t be able to form a party to begin with.

It’s all well and good deciding what values we stand for, but values are only as good as the means with which you plan to achieve them. Values such as social justice and equality are universally agreed upon in the party but how do we reach them?

Tony Blair once argued that Labour’s values should be the ends not the means of what we stand for as a party, but the crux of the problem we have at present is that without a recognised path to reaching those ends we are adrift and indefinable as a party. In the past, one of the cornerstone which separated the Labour party from the others was the ideology wrapped up in Clause IV that set out the party’s values and the methods by which we would achieve those values. Back then the goal of Labour was to secure the “full fruits” of what society produced as a whole for everyone within our society. And the means of obtaining that goal (or fruit) was the redistribution of the wealth produced by that society. That wealth was cultural as well as material.

Now we don’t want to debate the merits per-se of Clause IV’s content or call for its exact return, but there is a need for a terminology which defines Labour from the other political parties. And that terminology has to define us as easily as Clause IV used to, something which defines not just what Labour is for but how we achieve it.