Change is all the rage

By Darrell Goodliffe

As the last, desperate, scramble for precious votes in the leadership contest gets underway there is one thing that is quite striking; every candidate wants to be the change candidate. I would bet change is the most overused and probably abused concept in this leadership election. David Miliband has his Movement for Change; Ed Miliband talks of changing to win; Ed Balls wants to move on from the ‘soap opera’; Andy Burnham is aspirationally opposed to elites and Diane Abbott is fixated on ‘turning the page’. Of course, considering we have just lost power it should be taken as a given that change is necessary. Whoever wins change is in the air and here to stay. No matter who your favourite is I would hope it would be the one thing that there is broad consensus about, the need for change.

Change is a rather expansive concept so the question then becomes what kind of change do we want and how much do we want of it? It would be tempting to look at the election result and conclude not too much. However that would be a mistaken conclusion given that Labour’s problems were camouflaged by an inept and unsure opposition. Fundamental problems, like the schism between the membership and the leadership, have been fermenting for a considerable amount of time. Also, the angry and agitated feeling amoung Labour’s core support has risen from the status of a constant niggle to a menacing threat.

This doesn’t concern some people whose sole concern is building ‘coalitions of support’. Strong coalitions that are built to last however require a solid core; after all, a building built on sand is unlikely to last longer than one that is built on concrete foundations. We cannot go on ignoring our core support and engaging with bodies like the unions, who have been clamouring for change for some time, are a part of the necessary process of reengagement with the ignored, forgotten and slighted. Already the union leaders have made it clear that they want a role, as well they might; this isn’t a gun to the head, it’s a reasonable request to make.

It would be tempting therefore to look stay within the comfort zone of what has been successful before and assume that its time will come again. This is an attitude that the Labour right often accuses the Labour left of with no apparent sense of irony. However, that is a passive and dangerous attitude to take because it assumes that nothing has changed in the wider world. What gave ‘New Labour’ its successes was its adaptability. Therefore the likes of Peter Mandelson, in elevating it to the level of dogma, are acting against the spirit and the letter of the very thing they created and claim to defend.

No matter who wins the change cannot stop there, nor can the pressure to make it happen; more needs to happen than a change of leader and the prominence of the c-word only highlights this. How we as members shape that change will determine Labour’s electoral fortunes for a considerable amount of time to come.

Related posts:

1. Rage: this campaign can teach us something
2. 100,000 Lib Dems mobilise in new Rage-inspired Facebook group: Could this really be an Obama moment?
3. Why the EU’s leaked document on spending cuts has got me in a rage
4. Times of change demand change of pace
5. The change we see