It’s time to acknowledge New Labour’s successes and failures – and move on

The Labour movement column

By Anthony Painter / @anthonypainter

It is easy to dismiss thoughts of a Peter Mandelson leadership as the onset of silly season. Actually, it seems more serious than that. While Tony Blair’s mission to make the Labour party love Peter Mandelson seemingly remains incomplete, as a prospect it is now no longer completely outlandish.

First, let’s deal with the slightly less interesting aspect of this: the constitutional and legal implications of an ermine clad move from life peerage to first lordship of the Treasury. An amendment to the Constitutional Reform Bill would allow life peers to renounce their peerage in the same way that hereditary peers have been able to do so since the Peerage Act of 1963.

This is precisely what happened when Sir Alec Douglas-Home renounced his hereditary titles in 1963, sitting in neither the Lords nor the Commons for two weeks until he won the Kinross and West Perthshire by-election following the untimely- or timely?- death of Gilmour Leburn. Realistically, Peter Mandelson, should he become leader, would have to return to the Commons either in a by-election or in the general election.

There are far greater barriers than constitutional or legal ones though. The obvious one is that there is no vacancy. There is a leader of Labour party, Gordon Brown, and while that is the case this discussion is rather academic.

But, as it’s August, let’s just consider the wider implications of Peter Mandelson becoming leader of the Labour party.

Peter Mandelson is a colossal figure in the history of the Labour party. His tireless endeavour contributed massively to the transformation of the party from the inchoate, self-indulgent shower that it was in 1983 to something that not only became electable but was elected – and with a thumping majority. For all our grumbling with and criticism of New Labour, it is easy to forget that fact.

We can pursue a glass is half empty attitude to the Labour government – but it is a mistake to do so. Tax credits, the national minimum wage, colossal investment in health and education, Scottish and Welsh devolution, the maintenance of constructive engagement with the European Union and Sure Start are just some of the achievements that spring to mind that would not have been possible without the election of a Labour government in 1997.

That is not to say there haven’t been disappointments – Iraq, reticence in attacking inequality, slowness off the mark on the environment and an, at times, over-zealous security policy immediately spring to mind. But there needs to be an honest appraisal.

As European commissioner, Peter Mandelson pursued a principled and resolute policy of free trade underpinned by fair rules. That was not just a regional but a global contribution; his pro-Europeanism has been an important contribution to the domestic political discussion.

And since returning to the British political scene he has once again shown himself formidable in driving political and public policy strategy. In December of last year, he laid out his concept of the ‘strategic state‘ where growth industries are indentified and supported. It is distinct from both laissez-faire and old-style industrial policy (though in the environmental domain something akin to this may actually be what’s needed.) If we were being retro, we’d say that it was very third way.

Lord Mandelson – as we’ve just got used to calling him – is eminently capable in intellectual, charismatic, and political terms of being leader of the Labour party and, indeed, Prime Minister.

Capability and desirability are two separate questions, however. The driving dynamic of New Labour was novelty. Modernism was its fundamental ethos. Inevitably, it was a political idea that would consume itself. Times always change, things move on. That was New Labour’s central insight. That, more than anything, is the lesson that we must never forget. It goes for New Labour itself as much as anything else.

Now after twelve years of government, for all the achievements, there is a sense that we can afford to be bolder, more challenging, to rub against the grain a little more rather than go with it. This society is too unequal, too alienated, too hurried, too pressured; it values things and often forgets about people. We are angst-ridden and frustrated. We want support but we feel alone.

And New Labour doesn’t feel quite up to the task in hand. The Labour party needs to be a more liberal, greener, movement based party energised by a commitment to secure a Britain where everyone has a stake and has a say. New Labour just doesn’t feel able to challenge vested interests – in the private sector, not just the public sector – in a way that is meaningful. It is time to acknowledge New Labour’s achievements and shortcomings – in an honest, historical way, not just dishonestly resting on hindsight – and move on.

So this purely hypothetical discussion comes down to a very simple set of considerations. Could Peter Mandelson create a new political movement out of New Labour’s twilight? Could he be the person to pour away the bath water while retaining a firm grip on baby? It comes down to this: do architects have just one style or can they evolve successfully as times change and new materials become available?

Should a vacancy arise, it would be fascinating to hear Lord Mandelson’s thoughts on all these issues. Even though a vacancy has not arisen and is very unlikely to, it would still be interesting. There is no questioning his capability but his answers would determine whether he was the man for these times – not just as a Secretary of State but as a leader.

Ultimately, this is a set of questions that is bigger than one individual. They are fundamental to defining the next chapter of the left in Britain. And it is encouraging that these are discussions that the left is capable of having while its major party – Labour – is in office. It is worth remembering the value of that.

Note: I feel I have to mention the Tories’ open primary in Totnes where it appears that something in the region of 10,000 have voted. If Labour thinks it can carry on as normal while the Tories are experimenting in this staggeringly successful way then it has another thing coming.