As we go into our life and soul election, the big questions for Labour

By Floyd Millen

In my last post some time ago I argued that the problem at the heart of Labour was much wider and deeper than preoccupation with Gordon Brown. I went on to argue that in our hour of greatest need the country needed Labour to do something very special – our leaders needed to lead.

It is a categorical imperative that we conclusively win the arguments on the big – and the small – issues of the day and expose the fatal flaw at the heart Cameronism. What Labour needs to do now is to take a fresh look at the plethora of new and revamped initiatives that we have ushered in and engage in a short, sharp offensive to ‘fix the wiring’, ensuring that these initiatives are having the desired effect.

Under Labour we have positively changed the nature of political discourse; we have attempted to reengage the citizen in unique and innovative ways – although not always consensually. Whether or not one fully subscribes to the notion of placing choice at the heart of our reform agenda, the resultant effect is that we have raised people’s hopes, and in so doing we have delicately altered the relationship between the state and the individual.

The difficulty we now face is that by its very definition choice implies an abundance of – formerly scarce – resources, services and provision; it implies and overtly supports a plurality of providers competing for and striving to achieve excellence, innovation and greater levels of efficiency. This, ultimately, is the Third Way.

The reality of our experiences will test The Third Way to breaking point as we emerge tentatively from recession. The mantra of choice, greater access and personalisation of services appear inconsistent with cuts in public services, increased job losses and further contraction of our manufacturing and light industries.

Whilst the Third Way rejects wholly laissez-faire or paternalist approaches to social, political and economic life there are times when it needs to reposition itself in favour of one or the other; this may be one of those times.

Firstly, for example, whether real or imagined, there is a feeling that the progress and the programme of choice has resulted in services, agencies and departments that are not fit for purpose. Secondly, the intention appears inconsistent with everyday experiences and there are a lack of joined-up approaches to delivery, expectation and accountability. Finally, the level of dysfunction and buck passing between agencies and Quangos – not to mention the apparent lack of co-ordination and consistent message – is quite alarming.

The solution is that we need to fix the wiring and ensure that it’s as neat as the glossy external finish. Society is a living thing and its multi-faceted interactions serve to remind us of this. Attempts to sanitise and distance officials from their decisions inevitably distances the citizen from the real decision making process. Labour needs to be aware and communicate that the tick box culture only provides a narrowly defined stamp of authority – and legitimacy – and that we need to ensure that our institutions, their systems and process are not self-serving.

Today, our institutions appear more accountable than at any other time in our history; they are monitored and scrutinised in a multitude of ways and at numerous levels. Yet something is missing. Like a dancer we seem to have all the right moves, our motion and our stance is good, we pirouette gracefully, but we appear to have lost the hunger in our bellies, our grit, our fluidity and the natural grace that goes hand in hand with a virtuoso performance.

Let’s be clear: this election is for the life and soul of the nation. It is as much about the big ticket items as it is about the peripheral issues that affect or offend or offer hope; that may sometimes please but invariably cause concern to every citizen. At its heart, the election is about the future interaction between the state and the citizen, which ultimately leads to the question of trust.

Trust is not about policies, sharp phrases or glossy images: but when the electorate look into our eyes, we need to understand what they see; when we speak, we need to understand what they hear. We need to be aware that most of our communication is non-verbal – the gaps, the pauses, the gestures and the look all say much more of what we are about.

For too long, Labour has been afraid to make game changing decisions. Increasingly, our ministers appear poorly briefed or unable to respond in real time.

At all times, the Prime Minister should be Prime Ministerial – and continue to focus on the big issues with passion and with resolve; exposing the lack of policy content and the dearth of substantive questions from the Tory frontbench.

The strength of the Conservatives comes from Labour’s weakness, we know that from the polls. What we now need to do is reassure the electorate that we are listening and that if re-elected we will continue to listen, and respond accordingly.

So as I quoted during my speech at party conference:

If you can keep your head when all about you,
Are losing theirs and blaming it on you;
If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you,
But make allowance for their doubting too…
If you can meet with Triumph and Disaster
And treat those two impostors just the same…
If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue,
Or walk with Kings – nor lose the common touch;
If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you,
Then, comrade, we shall secure another term.