Labour needs a more radical narrative – or face political irrelevance

Earlier this week the Labour Party published a policy programme – a 29 page statement of intent. The vast majority of this document contained policies which have long since been announced. But taken as a whole there is a surprising degree of radicalism implicit in Labour’s policy offer. From freezing prices and restructuring the energy marking, to breaking up the banks, from banning zero hours contracts, to a public sector operator on the railways. There is a clear theme here: free market dogma has prevailed in British politics for too long, markets have clear limits, and a Labour government will not be afraid to intervene in the economy to put an end to the crippling inequality our nation currently faces.

But this isn’t just about playing to the home crowd, our policy agenda repeatedly polls exceptionally well, with many proposals supported by over two thirds of the public.

You’d think all was rosy in the red camp. Yet we all know that’s not the case. Really not the case.

Labour neck-and-neck with the Tories, an impending collapse of the two-party system, and widespread party political apathy on depressingly large scale. It wouldn’t be a stretch to predict within a decade the end of conventional politics as we know it.

The party political apathy is fuelled by an antipathy towards the way in which politics in general is done – its sources of power, its end results, and crucially in its language. Politics has never felt so other, so alien. The communications achievements of the New Labour machine marked a terrific victory of modernisation back in the day, but its very short-term success for the Party has created a long term predicament; copied across the political spectrum the watertight slick laws of doing politics have created a shared language amongst all major parties which the general public now find utterly devoid of meaning. The damage is that whilst in policy there is perhaps more of a difference between the two major parties than at any point in recent history, the rhetoric doesn’t reflect this divergence. People want their politicians just to say something different, even if they disagree with it – this in part explains the success of populists on the fringes, shown in Russell Brand and Nigel Farage’s Question Time appearance on Thursday night. They inject a shot of passion sorely lacking in contemporary political debate.

This problem stems from our recent past. Part of Labour’s transition in the 1990s was about shedding unpopular ideological baggage, constantly keeping one eye on not appearing ‘anti-business’. These concerns were legitimate in their 1990s context, but are largely redundant fears now – after thirteen years in power voters frequently criticise Labour for failing to regulate the financial services and reign in tax dodgers, they rarely criticise our designs for a socialist utopia. So, if we intend to take the firm action needed to end free market dogma (as I believe Ed does) we should have the confidence to state how different this approach will be. After all it was Tony Blair who said ‘let us say what we mean and mean what we say.’

A comparable with the changes we now face occurred in the late 1970s, and Ed Miliband recognises this. In reference to Mrs Thatcher’s election as leader, Ed said: ‘In the 1970s, it was a similar moment… the old order was crumbling, and it wasn’t 100% clear what was going to replace it.” Labour’s policy document is hardly revolutionary, and far too timid in many regards – but it must be remembered that the Conservative 1979 manifesto was famously light on detail; their radicalism came through once in office, and there is no reason to dismiss the likelihood of a similarly trajectory occurring should Labour win in May.

The old order is indeed crumbling, and at such times fetishizing an abstract ‘centre ground’ is mere folly (as Thatcher recognised in the 1970s).  New Labour was meant to be all about adjusting to pre-existing realities; the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath is the most pertinent pre-existing reality we face, and it needs adjusting to. It’s impossible to say what will replace the ‘old order’ – but if Labour has a chance of overseeing that transition, it needs to be less timid, accept it will upset some people (in the process earning more respect) and stress at every point over the next six months that this country will transform fundamentally should a Labour Government win in May.

Rory Weal is Publicity Officer for the Cambridge Universities Labour Club