James Purnell calls for radical solutions but gives only old answers

By Gus Baker

In an interesting article in the Guardian yesterday, James Purnell set out a case for “hope and radicalism” in the next Labour manifesto. He is right to question many of the methods used by New Labour but seems unable to escape their central premises and assumptions.

In a pretty stunning admission, Purnell says that New Labour too often pushed “naive models of choice that too often gave power to the provider rather than the citizen”. This is welcome and timely. As Tory councils and a prospective Conservative government threaten public service workers, Labour needs to be clear that outsourcing and selling off parts of public services to the private sector is ineffective and results in a poor deal for staff and users. For example, selling off cleaning services in schools and hospitals to private companies often results in a “race to the bottom” as low skilled workers are stripped of job security and asked to work for a for-profit employment agency. Unfortunately Purnell chooses to contradict himself several paragraphs later with a vague assertion that that the state is too strong and we need “more powerful individuals”, without any explanation of what that might involve. This is classic Blair-speak for privatisation, is old news and contains not a glimmer the hope Purnell talks of.

Purnell rightly praises London Citizens for their fantastic work in winning the living wage for many low-paid Londoners and expresses his regret that he “cannot remember a time when Labour nationally engaged in this kind of politics”. This is frankly a bit weird. During the time that London Citizens was most active in its living wage campaign, the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions was James Purnell himself. At the time he only paid them lip service.

The idea of “society as a rival to and buttress against the state’s power” is also confusing and badly explained. Which elements of society could take over the role of the state? Churches and schools? Charities and hospitals? Private companies and prisons? The use of the term “society” here is interesting but overall misleading. A democratic socialist party cannot and should not talk down the role of the state as an instrument for good. The Conservatives are adept at calling the companies they plan to take over schools “societal groups” but in the real world, some services must be provided by government, whether local or national. That Purnell talks of devolving power without the slightest mention of who he would devolve power to shows his plan is for more Blairite reforms rather than any new “radical” agenda.

The article then goes on to use a Tawney quote about Labour’s loss at the 1931 election. This is worth repeating in full.

“According to Tawney Labour lost because: “when it ought to have called people to a long and arduous struggle, it too often did the opposite. It courted them with hopes of cheaply won benefits, and, if it did not despise them, sometimes addressed them as though it did. It demanded too little and offered too much.'”

Is the problem we face for the 2010 election that Labour is offering too much for those on low incomes? One in fifty children in Britain cannot afford a winter coat. That is a chilling statistic. Many people are asked to survive on subsistence wages, while the cost of living rises. Is Labour really offering these people too much? Should we tell the supermarket worker on minimum wage raising children that they have to be prepared for an arduous struggle? Will that really help us win?

Gordon Brown said in his email to party members last Friday that Labour is “the greatest fighting force for fairness that our country has ever known.” Let’s make sure that the fairness that we are fighting for is based around our ideals of equality, social justice and collective action. The cuddly version of individualism based around “empowerment” that Purnell talks of is not new and is not radical at all.

This post was also published at Gus’ blog, A Newer Dawn.