Labour needs a return to its basic values more than it needs a new leader – Henry McLeish
With the UK in decline, Labour must re-emphasise its traditional focus on the ‘common good’
Three challenges have dominated the Labour party over the last century. First, winning general elections, which has been an uphill struggle with the party spending only 36 years of the last 100 in power. Second, a country dominated by privilege, injustice and inequality. And third, the plight of what was once referred to as the ‘common man’, which has formed the basis of the party’s cri de coeur, often expressed as the class struggle.
Labour’s response to these challenges has been a focus on the ‘common good’ and efforts to deal with the excesses of capitalism.
This is worth remembering amid the debate over Keir Starmer’s leadership. Poor results for Labour in recent elections darkened the mood and damaged the Prime Minister further in the eyes of many Labour backbenchers, Cabinet colleagues and, of course, the right-leaning press.
Lost in translation
But amid the clamour for change, there are dangers for a country that stubbornly refuses to wake up to wider realities. Britain, still a prisoner of delusion and the stultifying lure of ‘greatness past’, is in long-term decline and remains reluctant to face complex challenges.
Yet replacing Starmer seems to be the rebels’ whole agenda. What would happen next? With the immediate prospect of paralysis in government over the next few months, the idea that changing leader would be an immediate solution to our problems requires some scrutiny.
The current ‘no leadership contest yet’ situation has prompted questions about what the party stands for. Fundamental ideas about the common good and the common man remain important but they are often lost in translation when dressed up in modern political language.
Streeting vs Burnham
Wes Streeting, a contender for the Labour leadership, is unlikely to win. However, by virtue of this, he has been able to be bold and cause some grief for potential rival Andy Burnham, especially in relation to rejoining the European Union.
Burnham is more likely to become Labour leader, if he wins the Makerfield by-election. He also wants to rejoin the EU “sometime”, but prefers not to discuss it for now as Makerfield is a Brexit-supporting constituency – this is how expediency or pragmatism raises the nightmare of all of us being imprisoned in the insane catastrophe of Brexit until the end of time.
Burnham does, however, strike the right note about the foundations of the current crisis: our outdated and divisive constitutional set-up. He favours more devolution of powers to the English regions and metropolitan authorities, and greater possibilities and ambitions for the devolved nations.
Above all else, he continues to talk about scrapping the ‘first past the post’ electoral system and moving towards proportional representation. For a potential Labour leader this is seismic, highlighting the need for progressiveness, consensus, and cooperation to overcome the deep divisions in our toxic politics and make every vote count.
Both Streeting and Burnham talk of deindustrialisation and the vanishing employment opportunities of vast swathes of the country – and this is all about the ‘common man’. But what kind of country does an angry nation want? We don’t seem to know. If we are to address the deep-seated questions and challenges facing our democracy, this needs to be a real part of the current debate.
Tech giants trying to push UK around
Politics has become vastly more complex. Britain has never been so divided. There should be a more intense and relevant reassessment of where we are heading and a reinvention of politics to cope with this.
Governments seem unable to influence or control social, economic, environmental or technological change in the public interest. We remain at the mercy of crude consumerism, unfettered capitalism, the moguls of the free market and giant US tech companies, which are framing politics, controlling the messaging and trying to coerce Britain into abandoning regulation.
These challenges are real and could outstrip our ability to cope. They also raise further questions: Who runs Britain? And even, for some: What’s the point of politics? Change is overwhelming our governance.
In his 2009 Reith Lectures, American philosopher Professor Michael Sandel talked about “a new politics of the common good”, arguing that we need to reframe the terms of the political debate with, first, a debate about the moral limits of the market and, second, a more robust discourse which engages more directly with the idea of ”a public philosophy”. Sandel argued that “democratic governance is radically devalued if reduced to the role of handmaiden to the market economy”.
People want ‘change’, but they are currently exposed to an incomplete and superficial analysis of Britain’s deep and enduring problems with no obvious solutions. The removal of the Prime Minister may leave a scalp hanging on the railings outside Number10, but also important questions unanswered.
We no longer seem to be a resilient country or society, failing to recover quickly from difficulties or adjust easily to misfortune or change. We are becoming more dependent on the state as poverty, ill health, ageing, inequality and lack of opportunity for millions of people feed into a collective sense of being left behind. There is also little sense of unity, common purpose or shared respect, with a lack of ‘obligations’ to each other, to society and to democracy.
None of this may affect the plight of the Prime Minister, but it requires all of us to be careful about what we wish for at a time of massive uncertainty, anxiety and global instability. Our perilous situation essentially demands that we are aware of not only the problems that are holding us back, but also of the need to develop the common good, respect the ‘common man’ and promote a common sense vision for a more successful and contented country.
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.