Charles Clarke’s doublespeak

It is an honour to follow Peter Mandelson’s first lecture in this series ten days ago, in which he rightly confronted Labour with the need to address our current fiscal deficit in an open and clear way.

The May 2010 General Election

It will set the international locus of this country, both in relation to the European Union and in the nature of our relationship to the United States as we continue to contest the threats posed by international terrorism. It will decide how democratic politics will be conducted, and with what integrity, for decades to come.

And it will shape the form of British politics for the next generation, in particular determining the nature of progressive politics and the place of both trades unions and the Labour Party within it, if indeed they have a future after the very serious defeat which opinion polls currently predict.

The stakes next May could not be higher.

As this country faces up to these various challenges, it needs strong and clear leadership, of the type which David Cameron’s Conservatives have so far showed not the slightest capacity to offer. That is why, as so many commentators observe, the Tories have so far failed to ‘seal the deal’ with the British electorate despite the awful weakness of Labour at this moment.

I see no signs at all that the Conservatives will rise to this challenge. They are mired in the petty point-scoring of partisan oppositionist politics. Their Party is deeply divided upon policy issues of the greatest significance. Their demeanour remains introverted, provincial and backward-looking, notably so in the international arena, they offer no policy or political vision for themselves and they inspire no confidence in their team of political leaders. Both in 1992 and in 1997 Labour prepared far more seriously for the challenge of office and had a far more substantial programme for government.

But I am sorry to say that many in Labour are also failing to face up to the grave situation which we face. Our leadership is weak, uncertain, tactically unsure and lacks vision. We are unpopular, with current poll standings at an average of 41 Conservative, 26 Labour and 18 Liberal Democrat. Labour voting intentions consistently underperform the Party’s core support, with a big pool of lost Labour voters now backing other parties and Labour supporters apparently more likely than Tory ones to be thinking of switching sides.

These ratings have declined consistently since 2008 despite an apparently unending sequence of new relaunches, a string of policy initiatives and significant political changes, such as the arrival of Peter Mandelson into Gordon Brown’s government.

This level of performance is likely to lead to the loss of well over 100 Labour seats, and some estimate even 150 losses.

And, worse than unpopularity, all the evidence is that Labour is not trusted at the very time when trust is essential for any Government which needs to make the hard choices which really are necessary to set this country’s course for the future.

Some in Labour, principally those around the Prime Minister and his close supporters, believe that some level of economic recovery will bring with it increased confidence and popularity as the public gives Gordon Brown the credit he rightly deserves for the leadership he offered internationally in fashioning a global economic resource to the crisis which came upon us a year ago.

And they believe that with an increase in Labour popularity the Conservative Party will implode as its own weaknesses and contradictions lead to deeper divisions and turmoil, out of which a Labour victory could emerge. It’s a respectable view, though not one most people in Labour, including myself, share, and it would require the heroic improvement in our political performance which continually fails to materialise.

Others in Labour believe that if we go on as we are defeat, possibly disastrous defeat, is certain. However they feel that this is the natural, even inevitable, end to a period of three terms of Labour government. They believe that the ‘pendulum’ effect in British politics will, more or less inevitably, return Labour to office in a few years – possibly as early as 2015 – and all of our efforts should be focussed on preparing the policy agenda for 2015 and determining the leadership of Labour which will take us into that General Election, which they expect to take place after Tory failure in Government.

It is perhaps not surprising that such views are held by those who want to reassert ‘traditional Labour’ as the dominant force in Labour post-2010 (our version of a kind of German ‘Die Linke’ – statist, narrow and backward-looking in its approach) particular as some of these purport to believe that there is no real difference between ‘New Labour’ and the Conservatives in government.

But it is rather more surprising that views of this kind are also held by some of the strongest New Labour voices who believe that there’s no hope for 2010 but that something will turn up to make Labour victory in 2015 a real possibility.

Whatever their detailed ideological approach both these strands of opinion coalesce in the defeatist conclusion that’s there’s not much to be done now about winning in 2010: the real battle will happen after the (in their view) inevitable defeat, and we should prepare for that battle now. Various sophisticated defences are made of their view that there’s nothing to be done but knuckle down behind the current leadership but the net effect is that they both propose no real change whilst in their souls acknowledging that this will lead only to disaster for Labour and the people Labour was founded to serve.

To do the best we can we have to answer the questions which will then be asked by millions of voters, which is ‘Why Labour? Why does Labour deserve our support? Why should Labour stay in power?’

If we have strong, truthful and persuasive answers to these questions we will gain their support.

If we don’t we won’t.

Today, in September 2009, we still have a chance, precisely because there is still, despite Labour’s weakness, tremendous uncertainty about the Conservatives. But every month that passes without Labour making the necessary changes reduces our chance of winning.

– Promoting and explaining our record

– Changing the conduct of politics

– Setting out our clear policy programme and vision

– Forcing our opponents to set out their approach by being utterly candid about ours

– Galvanizing the Labour Party

Promoting and Explaining Our Record

The first reason to vote Labour in 2010 is our record in government. What Labour has achieved in office is in itself a big argument for supporting Labour again in 2010. It is of course also true that Labour’s record since 1997 will be an important element of the political battleground as our opponents try and misrepresent the history of these years. The Tory ‘Broken Britain’ campaign is just one example of the levels of dishonesty to which David Cameron will descend. Their strategy of constant repetition of this big lie has succeeded in giving far wider currency to this distortion than it deserves.

That means that the case for Labour’s record in office since 1997 has to be about a great deal more than a series of statistics, impressive though they often are – for example on living standards, crime levels, educational achievement, reductions in illness and many other aspects of our national life. We can genuinely claim to have changed the country for the better and we need to explain how we did it and why it was necessary.

Important institutional changes from the minimum wage to Sure Start, from the Scottish Parliament and London Mayor to foundation hospitals, from stability in Northern Ireland and stronger legal rights for everyone, including minorities previously discriminated against, from binding climate change targets to an expanded European Union are all strong achievements for which Labour can take credit.

But our record is about more than describing progress. We also have to explain how the changes were achieved and to describe the obstacles we had to overcome. We need to acknowledge where we have failed, or our methods have not worked, and we need to explain where major events – say 9/11 or the collapse of the international financial system – have changed the way in which we set about achieving our goals.

Labour’s ambitions in 1997 were enormous and some could be quickly implemented and legislated, despite political opposition, mainly from the Conservatives (including its current leadership).

But some of our ambitions were far more difficult to achieve and required better consideration of the means to achieve them than we sometimes gave. In some cases we shook up the existing system, often substantially, without providing a new stable settlement. The House of Lords and some parts of the legal framework following the passage of the Human Rights are examples.

In other cases we set out on great and profoundly ambitious programmes, such as reducing child poverty, ending social exclusion, raising educational standards for 11-year olds or improving levels of public health. In general we made good progress but not enough, and as we did we, rightly, raised expectations which we have not been able wholly to deliver.

In areas such as these our mantra was ‘invest and reform’, but we sometimes believed too much in the change that could be achieved through ‘investment’ (public spending) on its own and too little in the benefits from the often more difficult ‘reform’. But we now have a good idea of how well our measures have worked, or not. In general we understand the difficulties which remain. It is now essential (it would have been better if we had started a couple of years ago) to explain our successes and failures and to set out openly what we now have to do to improve upon our achievements.

So the debate about Labour’s record in office cannot simply be about some kind of toytown tit-for-tat with statistics and anecdotes called in aid of partisan political assertions.

Labour’s experience in office ought to be a major asset in 2010. We have learned both from what we have genuinely achieved and from our understanding of where and why we have failed. We should use that comprehension to fashion our proposals for the policies of the future.

This has to include explaining why some very hard decisions have been put off or avoided and why some of our reforms are still incomplete. This list includes the delay in establishing green and sustainable practices, some reforms of the public sector and welfare and our failure to develop a system of prisons and probation which reduces re-offending.

Labour’s record should be a massive election asset rather than the albatross which our opponents believe that they can hang around our necks.

Nowhere is this more important than in the management of the economy. It is now critically important that the Labour leadership does what it has not yet been prepared to do and explains fully and carefully how it is that the enormous British economic success story of 1997 to 2007 has turned into the economic adversity of today.

It is not enough simply to blame the ‘world economic crisis’, or evil bankers; we also need to acknowledge where we made misjudgements, albeit in common with others, and what we have learned which will inform and change our policies for the future.

There was never any need to respond to the childish media game about ‘Gordon Brown apologizing’ but it was necessary to explain openly what happened and why, and what we are going to do about it. And that need remains today, particularly in relation to the taxation/spending stance which Labour will follow.

It is extraordinary but true that our political opponents see Labour’s record since 1997 as an asset in their efforts to persuade voters to support them in 2010.

The second big reason to vote Labour in 2010 has to be our commitment to the clean conduct of democratic politics.

This may seem ironic given the sequence of problems that have haunted Labour in recent years from the ‘Cash for Peerages’ claims, to the conduct of our own Deputy Leadership election and the MPs expenses scandals of recent months.

The basic reason why all of these matters are now in the public domain at all is because the Labour Government passed the Freedom of Information Act and legislation to make Party funding transparent.

The fundamental truth is that, despite Labour’s discomfort from particular revelations, the Act has improved and will continue to improve the conduct of government business and public life in general. The exposure will lead to further beneficial reforms which will be good for democratic politics despite the current pain.

But that’s what makes it so important for Labour to be in the vanguard of making the necessary changes.

Labour is committed to the highest possible standards of political probity but it must show this by its actions, in a way that the Labour leadership has so far totally failed to do.

That means ensuring that a proper system of pay and allowances for MPs is put in place, only part of which Sir Christopher Kelly is empowered to recommend if he sticks to the remit he was given by the Prime Minister. This should have happened by the end of July and must now happen by Christmas.

It means legislating in the final session of this Parliament to reform the system of political Party funding along the lines recommended by Sir Hayden Phillips, difficult though some aspects of his proposals are for Labour.

This culture of politics remains a major Achilles Heel for Labour in May 2010, unless we show by our actions in the time which remains to us that our commitment to high standards is honest and real, which means action now and not promises for the future.

Indeed future promises without current action threaten to make the whole situation worse, which will bring about the ironic and damaging outcome that it will be the Conservatives who will be able to create the rules of the future conduct of democratic politics, which I have no doubt that they will do in the most partisan fashion.

That said we have to be clear in our own propositions. Most have already been well-rehearsed and need only to be summarised here.

We need to strengthen regulation of the world’s financial system so that speculative banking is separated from the necessary finance for households and business.

We need a fair and transparent posture on the balance between tax increases and spending cuts which is necessary to reduce the fiscal deficit.

We need to continue focusing delivery of high quality public services upon the needs and choices of the consumer of the service.

We need to construct high quality housing for all parts of our community.

We need to strengthen our efforts to reduce local crime, to contest serious and organized crime and to control illegal migration.

I also believe that it would be electorally popular and would enable Labour to present itself clearly as the force best placed to manage the social challenges which our country faces.

It would set out with clarity the reality of the choice that the country faces next May and convincingly answer the question, ‘Why Labour? in a way which would gain the support which we need.

Forcing our opponents to set out their approach by being utterly candid about ours

The fourth big reason to choose Labour in 2010 is the appalling nature of the Conservative alternative.

Thus far our Conservative opponents have been very successful at diverting attention from their proposals or the implications of their actions.

This not because they have a clear and coherent position which has few real questions to answer. It is because of a combination of fleet-footed public relations, mainly from their Leader David Cameron, and the absence of any clear Labour propositions against which they could reasonably be benchmarked and challenged.

If Labour both explains its record properly and openly, and also provides clarity about its own proposals and intentions, I believe that the Conservatives will be drawn onto the territory which is most dangerous for them, namely their specific plans and objectives.

The less clear Labour is about its own approach, the greater will be the Conservatives’ ability to avoid scrutiny.

And it is indeed scrutiny which they rightly fear as they are beset by serious ideological divisions far deeper than any in Labour. At the moment they are disguised because of David Cameron’s success and what they believe is the imminent prospect of power.

But the Tory divisions have not gone away.

The more discussion that there is about tax and spend, the greater will be the splits been those Conservatives, like George Osborne, who viscerally favour a combination of tax cuts for the wealthy and deep cuts in frontline public services and those who take a more ‘One Nation’ approach in the belief that state services can make a positive contribution.

The clearer that Labour is about its plans for improving the quality of education and health, the more that argument will be joined by Tory advocates of the return of grammar schools, like David Davis and Graham Brady, or of charging for GP visits, like Charles Tannock MEP.

And the Conservative divisions around security, on matters such as ID cards and counter-terrorism, remain a major weakness for their Party.

But the greatest tension remains around Conservative attitudes to the European Union where the Party leadership has adopted stances and forged alliances which are really incredible and will massively damage Britain’s national interest, as many Conservatives will privately concede. These issues will come to the fore if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified. A strong pro-European position from Labour will exacerbate those tensions and divisions.

In short, the current kid-glove treatment for the Conservatives is not inevitable. Scrutiny of their approach and proposals will intensify the more that Labour is clear and strong about ours. And the more the Tories are scrutinized the more likely it is their apparent unity and coherence will be weakened.

Galvanizing the Labour Party

In all epic contests, as the May 2010 General Election will surely be, the morale and commitment of the competing forces is bound to be of great importance.

We can expect the Conservatives to be optimistic, engaged and confident as they have been at the European elections and recent by-elections.

For Labour’s part, our members and local leaders need clear explanations for our successes and failures – both locally and nationally – to engage with local debate.

They need a clear sense of the positive programme and ambitions which a Labour fourth term would seek to out into practice.

And they need real-life and credible illustrations of the consequences of a Conservative win, and clear examples of Conservative division.

Nationally, the Labour Party needs to find the resources which a modern national election campaign requires. The collapse of funders’ confidence in Labour under its current leadership means that it is a real challenge even to pay the wages of our current staff, and we need nearly £20 million just to pay off our debts and keep going until next May.

Raising the money to fight a General Election campaign seems almost impossible in current circumstances and so it is essential for the Party, and its Leadership, to establish the sense of momentum and direction which is necessary to earn financial support.

That said, the commitment of members of the Labour Party is our greatest asset. The fatalistic sense of impending defeat has to be replaced by confidence that we know the direction in which we are going and we have the means to put it into effect.

Conclusion

It is also the most important General Election for Labour itself. A resounding defeat of the type many predict if we fail to change our approach would lead to a real collapse of our Party, which would have few resources and all the potential for bitter internecine conflict following defeat. It is by no means clear that we could succeed in pulling ourselves around as we did with such difficulty through the 1980s and early 1990s.

For Labour itself the stakes are far higher than the personal futures of a few politicians. It is about the future of the Party itself.

As we face this the issues are fairly straightforward for those who believe that if we go on as we are we can win the General Election, as people gradually shift to give us their support. Their task is to try and encourage improved performance by our national leadership, to hope that an increase in economic optimism will translate into increased support for Labour and to attack the Tories on the best available grounds.

For those of us who doubt the efficacy of that approach and who fear the consequences of just going on as we are without any fundamental changes the issues are rather more difficult.

For many of us the analysis which I have offered today is very gloomy. It does say that if we go on as we are the prospects for Labour victory are very low. To say this is only to repeat what almost every commentator, politician and citizen (if the polls are to be believed) already believes. We need to address this political reality armed with Antonio Gramsci’s famous injunction – ‘Optimism of the soul, pessimism of the intellect’.

The optimism of the soul is very much needed because for many Labour member this widely held pessimism leads directly to fatalism and even despair. Many have decided to make the best of the next few months of Labour office in the view that there really isn’t much to be done to avoid the disaster which is coming down the line next May. So they make their own dispositions.

Others have come to the same conclusion but see a longer term political strategy for them. They focus on the shape, nature and leadership of Labour after the 2010 defeat they expect. In political terms they are positioning themselves, but have in effect decided to depart the field of battle for 2010, except in formal terms.

My appeal today is to these fatalists, to those who are in despair.