Why Labour should apologise

By Jessica Asato / @Jessica_Asato

In an excellent piece for the January edition of Prospect, out today, James Crabtree has hit the nail on the head. He argues that if Labour loses the next general election its quickest route back into the public’s favour is to do an Elton and say ‘sorry’ for the mistakes it made in office. I would go one step further and say that Labour needs to say sorry for a few things now – and that as long as it is coupled with a new direction, it could help us to win the next election.

Crabtree points out that, historically-speaking, political apologies have been seen as a sign of weakness, but argues cogently that in the last decade or two, contrition has become de rigueur. He suggests that it was the ending of the Cold War which created the space for historical grievances to be aired. That seems plausible, but so too is the broad international acceptance that human rights have to be upheld and that where they have not been a country’s reputation suffers. Look at the damage that Guantanamo Bay and the abuse of Iraqi prisoners did to the US.

One of the reasons Labour has failed to ‘renew’ in Government is because it has been mostly incapable of acknowledging where it has made the wrong decisions. There have been a few exceptions – Tony Blair admitted he messed up on the 65p pension increase and apologised for the maladministration of tax credits. I can’t think of any occasions when Gordon has offered an unequivocal apology, though he has u-turned plenty of times.

In general, though, while the government has said sorry for individual cock-ups, it hasn’t apologised for the substance of some of its policy decisions. A series of apologies for matters of ideological import could help to show the public that a fourth term Labour government would not mean business as usual; that it is genuinely interested in governing anew.

As James Crabtree writes:

“A properly executed apology is an act of political strength, not weakness – an act that allows the skilled leader to define the terms of debate, allows supporters to achieve closure over the divisions of the past, and provides the firmest base for political renewal.”

As long as Labour doesn’t over-egg the pudding and suggest that the last twelve years were a complete aberration (which I firmly believe they were not) and without starting from the viewpoint that Labour losing is a done deal, what might the Party consider saying sorry for before the election? Everyone will have their list (and many people’s lists will be as long as their arm), but I will nominate three things the party should do:

1 – Say that Labour went too far in backing the financial sector over and above others. We relied too much on banking as an engine of growth and worried too much about losing London, in particular, as a centre for global finance, without being concerned enough about what that over-reliance might do to our future economy. For this to work, we need to have an alternative. Charles Clarke, among others, has suggested that we need to divide retail and ‘casino’ banking. We need to consider introducing greater diversity back into the sector through the remutualisation of Northern Rock. In addition, much greater emphasis should be placed on seeing the demands of climate change as a potential engine for economic growth.

2 – Acknowledge that the decision-making to go to war in Iraq was undertaken in completely the wrong way, that the legal basis which was sought to take us to war was flawed, that this hugely damaged public trust and undermined Britain’s ability to take a stand against tyrannical regimes in the future. Anthony Painter wrote much more eloquently on this yesterday. In the future, Labour should invest much more in building the capacity for change in civil society within countries with human rights abuses. Through our international aid, our trade and our own actions in relation to things such as extraordinary rendition, we must lead by example. That does not mean we cannot and should not condemn Iran and other countries when they fail to uphold women’s rights, or persecute homosexuals. Britain’s voice must continue to be loud and clear – Labour must not become isolationist.

3 – Labour should admit that it governed in a way which was too top down, that it became obsessed with the media and the Westminster village, forgot about the people and failed to devolve power and reinvigorate democracy. It missed too many opportunities to be bold – on proportional representation, on House of Lords reform, on local government, elected mayors and citizen assemblies. It also failed to take users of services and the staff who worked in them with the party in its reform. Too often the language of reform was about them and us, rather than working with us. In the future, Labour should promise wholesale, not piecemeal, constitutional reform. In the public services, reform shouldn’t stop, but it should be up to local communities to direct the change, not Whitehall, through the greater use of mutuals, social enterprises and other collective models.

I’ll stop there, but there’s lots more. And I have no doubt LabourList readers will be more than happy to oblige!