One Hundred and Ten One Nation propositions

November 20, 2012 4:26 pm

It’s a theme at the moment for senior Labour figures to compare the Labour approach to the challenge of government with that of Margaret Thatcher.

By this, they usually mean they want Labour to be inspired by Thatcher’s sense of purpose, determination and grit, rather than by her beliefs.

Reading LabourList’s “One Nation” series last week1 I found myself seeing more in common with another electorally successful national leader of the Eighties, France’s Francois Mitterrand.

Mitterrand was elected on the back of a manifesto called “One hundred and ten propositions for France“. The title gives a clue to the scale of the transformation the Socialists intended for France. That broad approach carries over to Labour today.

The sheer number of “One Nation” themes Jon Cruddas highlighted last week demonstrates the general transformation Labour’s thinkers would like to see in British society. Whether it’s universalitiescommunities or families, the politics of place or the politics of class, investing in welfare to cut costs or in industry to boost growth, it’s all to be found in the file marked One Nation.

Similarly, look back at Mitterrand’s agenda, and what strikes you is how many of the ambitious ideas he proposed then find strong echoes in Labour thinking today.

Propositions 14 and 15 set out an economic stimulus programme focused on jobs, technology, bio-industry, the environment and automotive.

Proposition 16 is investment in public housing and local social infrastructure.

Proposition 17 is support for R&D.  18 is extra recruitment in public services. 19 is about increasing earnings, especially for the low paid.

Proposition 22 strengthens unions in the private sector. 25 limits rents, 27 offers tax benefits to employers with a social conscience, 28 promises greater regulation of poorly functioning markets. 19 is nice about local businesses. 31 increases wages, 32 cuts VAT, 34 taxes wealth, 35 promises tax cuts for the poor.

Theres’ a whole set of social reforms too – 54-57 promote a new decentralised localism, 60-63 propose economic workplace democracy, 64-70 focuses on equality for women, 71-77 focus on help for families and the young, 79-81 combines a cap on foreign workers with offering rights to those who do make it in.

Yet reading the propositions with the knowledge of what actually happened, you are struck not by the broadness of their ambitions but the patchy results of their contact with reality.

Many of the 110 reforms proved enduring. The section on Women’s right’s in particular now feels prophetic and advanced.

But the nationalisation of industry, the decentralisation of the state, the development of workplace democracy, the emphasis on industrial investment all made very little difference. (France’s Manufacturing share of GDP followed a pretty similar path to the UKs, though by a very different route).

The problem came with the careful plans encountering of the need for “rigour”. The policy of reflation and incomes growth didn’t deliver, and France was eventually faced with a choice between accepting devaluations and deflation or trying to protect and reflate.

It chose the former, and while it was subsequently able to deliver many social advances, the overall path of the government was from then on much more restricted in the scale of their ambition.2

In the end, most of the explicitly ‘Socialist’ elements of the 1981 programme were undone by the Chirac government of ’86-88, and the Socialists did not seriously return to them under subsequent Prime Ministers.

The lesson here is twofold, I think. First, overall economic policy is paramount.

I’d argue that the later success of a limited, fiscally tight, business friendly Parti-Socialiste allowed the left it to entrench wider social reforms, while attempts to reconstruct interventionism (whether in fact, as from 81-83 or in tone, as under Cresson), led to disaster.

Similarly, historians of British attempts to introduce a wealth tax suggest that it was effectively macro-economic concerns and economic crises that prevented such a move, not neo-liberal ideological rigour,

The second lesson is that politics isn’t as powerful as all that. Mitterrand is remembered as much for his U-turn as his propositions.3, but it can make a targeted difference.

The ambitions of the socialist propositions for France weren’t able to prevent the rise of the global market, while socialist found themselves constrained by the need to be a part of the European market and monetary system, ambitious shifts in nationalisation or taxation found themselves undercut in other ways.4

Yet where limited, targeted interventions and detailed worked through policy combined, the 110 propositions did make a significant difference. After the rigorous turn of 1983, the left approach was broadly economically and politically successful. This is most noticeable in the gender and family rights systems, but is also noticeable in the way the Wealth tax is used to support employment, in support for local businesses and so on.

As it happens, being of a liberal cast of mind, I’m not always a huge fan of much of this state interventionist stuff, but there’s no doubt it is part of the French national fabric and is politically popular.

So perhaps the answer for building one nation is to go with the grain of fiscal convention to begin with, not hopefully set your face against it, and to make your big interventions in the thickets of policy detail.

Of course, that’s what I think anyway and have said for ages.

At least in that sense, my article apes all the other “One Nation” essays produced by Labour thinkers, bloggers and activists.

  1. I admit that this series left me feeling that the ideal Labour supporter’s article now consists of the words ‘One Nation” repeated several hundred times, with an occasional “audacious“, “Ed Miliband“,“transformational” and ‘details need to be explored further” leavening the one nation pudding []
  2. Political longevity is one of the strange differences of British politics. The French Prime Minister who oversaw much of this shift, Fabius, is, 30 years later, Foreign minister. []
  3. I love this quote in the paper linked to: “However interpreted the political limits to fundamental change in the distribution of wealth and income are perhaps more powerful than many social policy reformers are ready to accept” Too true! Also, it follows a quote from Miliband, R []
  4. for example, Mitterrand’s Wealth tax is still in place, but other taxes have steadily reduced –Corporate tax from 50% to 33%, while the top rate of income tax was in steady decline from 1981to today, and isn’t likely to grow much despite the proposed ‘Supertax” because Hollande has already said he wants it to be temporary, and his advisers downplay it. []

Latest

  • News Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Woolf and May should “meet survivors groups” over Brittan links, say Labour

    Labour have spoken out about complaints that Fiona Woolf QC, head of the public inquiry into historical sex abuse, has links with Leon Brittan. Brittan was the home secretary at the time when the dossier about alleged pedophiles went missing. And Woolf, who is also Lord Mayor of London, admitted yesterday that since 2008 she had dinner with Brittan and his family on five separate occasions but she has said she has “no close association” with him. A number of Labour MPs […]

    Read more →
  • Comment PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    PMQs review: Miliband lands punch on NHS as leaders go through the motions

    Here we are again. Another week, another Wednesday, and another wrangle between Cameron and Miliband about the NHS. This is getting a bit old. Cameron attempted to get Miliband on the back foot – he kicked off PMQs by posing questions to the Labour leader about the Welsh NHS. Rather predictably, the rest of PMQs descended into the two party leaders arguing about who can be more trusted with the NHS. But, there was something a little more sinister about […]

    Read more →
  • Comment There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    There is no such thing as a safe seat any more

    A couple of weeks ago saw the UK elect for the first time a UKIP MP – Douglas Carswell, with a huge majority of 12,000 votes. UKIP made enormous strides in the safe Labour seat of Heywood & Middleton as well, reducing the Labour majority from 5,971 to 617. This rise in the ‘acceptable’ far right should be a cause of concern not just to the Tories but also to us. It is clear from these results there is no […]

    Read more →
  • Comment We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    We must tackle Ukip’s emotional appeal

    The result in Heywood and Middleton may have shocked some people, but not all. Some warned this could happen after UKIP took or seriously challenged safe council seats in the north, topped the national vote at the Euros, and polled strongly in Labour areas. Their highest average share of the vote in the 2014 elections came in Labour areas like Rotherham, Mansfield and Hartlepool. We’re told if we campaign on the “issues” people will come back to Labour. This fails […]

    Read more →
  • Featured Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Young Labour voted against supporting the free education demo, but the debate on tuition fees has been reopened

    Last night Young Labour voted on whether or not to come out in support of the free education demonstration set to take place on the 19th November. Reports suggest, they voted against the motion. This result could easily be interpreted as another sign that the argument against tuition fees is dead in the water. In reality, it tells us that opposite is true. The very fact that this was a topic for discussion at Young Labour’s national committee, that there […]

    Read more →
7ads6x98y