Labour must reject sectional politics

By Joe Ottaway

As reported here on LabourList, Thursday saw the launch of a new left-wing think-tank, ‘Gender, Environment, Equality and Race’ (GEER), chaired by Luton North MP Kelvin Hopkins.

Perusing acting chair Garry Kitchin’s address to GEER’s launch event at Portcullis House, I initially found plenty to agree with as he provided a succinct articulation of the values and beliefs that unite all that congregate within the broad church of Labour politics, whether they be of the Blue, Green, Old, New, left, right or centre variety.

“Society can be both fair and prosperous” and, “many of the things we value cannot be measured in monetary terms” he argued. “People’s background, sex or race should never be a barrier to achieving their human potential,” he continued before concluding “unregulated capitalism can be self-serving, destructive and against the broader interests of society as a whole”.

However, if his description of our core beliefs was compelling, I found GEER’s analysis of where we stand as a party, how we got there and how we best put our values into practice, far less convincing.

First came the somewhat dubious assertion in GEER’s press release to mark the launch event, that “Labour lost 5 million voters under New Labour whilst attempting to appeal to the outdated concept of ‘middle England’.”

This statement suggests that the party was in a strong electoral position until the “New Labour experiment” came along and carelessly lost us 5 million voters. You don’t have to be an expert in the history of the Labour Party to know that this analysis is simply a nonsense.

New Labour was unprecedented in its electoral success, winning the support of 33.4 million voters over 3 elections which included 2 of the biggest landslides in British electoral history. The 13.5 million votes that swept the party into power in 1997 was an increase of 5.1 million on the results of 1983, the party’s ‘Old Labour’ electoral nadir.

Tony Blair was the party’s longest serving Prime Minister, and remained in power and popular (or at least credible) with more of the population than most on the left of the party realised (or cared to admit), despite the length of his tenure in Number 10 and the post-Iraq battering his reputation (rightly) endured.

However, it would be foolish to deny that by May 2010, the language of “New Labour” and “middle Britain” was clearly out of date. The succession of Gordon Brown as Prime Minister, the changes at the top of (and to a lesser extent, within) the Conservative Party, and the seismic impact of the global financial crisis, had shaken the world of British politics on its axis.

However, in many senses the electoral and political principles that formed the basis of New Labour remained in 2010, and remain in 2011, as relevant as ever. Looking beyond the rhetorical veneer, ‘New Labour’ was rooted in a fundamental political truth; the party closest to the centre of British politics, not only stands the best chance of electoral success, but also best represents the hopes, aspirations and beliefs of the British people.

That is not to say that Labour was successful, or will be successful again, by simply allowing itself to be blown from place to place by the prevailing winds of voter opinion. Rather, the genius of New Labour was the way it was able to define where the gravitational centre of British politics stood and then dominate it so comprehensively.

So, far from losing us 5 million voters, the New Labour doctrine, however we wish to re-label it for a new era, represented the party’s best hope of success at the last election. Contrary to GEER’s analysis, it was Gordon Brown’s rudderless drift leftwards, away from the electoral and political principles of New Labour, that scuppered Labour’s chances of achieving this success.

To suggest New Labour or “the third way” were to blame for the party’s defeat in 2010 is to misdiagnosis our illness, and offer a false prognosis.

Reading on in GEER’s press release it struck me that the very name ‘Gender, Environment, Equality and Race’ made me uneasy. After all, this title suggests a renewed focus on the sectional interests listed in the organisation’s name.

However, like so many leftists before them, GEER have failed to identify the fundamental flaw at the heart of sectional politics. While, as pointed out recently on the ‘Green Shoots of Recovery’ blog, it may be true that “80% of the population are women, working class or black or minority ethnic”, it is not these characteristics that define their hopes, fears and aspirations or indeed, how they vote.

Rather it is their economic circumstances, their chances of advancement, the health and happiness of their families and their perceptions of crime and their personal safety that define how people see themselves, the world around them and the politicians who want their vote. Financial security, aspiration, safety and happiness are the touchstones of voter behavior and run through all voters regardless of their gender, sexuality or race. To try and appeal to voters solely on the basis of their lifestyle choices or genetic inheritance does nothing to address these underlying priorities.

So, the prospectus of GEER is fundamentally flawed in two respects; their analysis of how we got where we are, and their analysis of how we should move forward.

Only by regaining the ability to define and dominate the centre ground of politics, and by rejecting sectional politics in favour of broad-based social democracy, can Labour regain power and do what it does best – make life better for all the people in this country.