Quality | 2009.07.25
New Labour became too much of a sect | James Purnell
Which way forward for the left? It is time to unite around our common desire for a fairer society
\'Where did it all go wrong? Why don\'t you write a book about that?" an agent asked me last week. Because it didn\'t all go wrong, I thought. I resigned because I am proud of what Labour has done and want it to continue, not because I think the past 12 years have been a failed project and I want it to stop.
More often than not, Britain is a policy model – for example, in Washington where the twin priorities of more charter schools and fewer bad teachers are inspired by our schools policy. But with distance comes perspective, too, and space to think about what did go wrong – and right.
My first lesson is the depth of what I don\'t know. Being a minister is a conspiracy against renewing your ideas. I ended up operating on a set of assumptions – prejudices, some might say – which may have been based in fact 10 years ago, but could be completely wrong today. I hope I got more right than wrong, but it\'s exciting to have a chance to explore the depths of my ignorance again.
Nevertheless, it does seem to me that we can say some big things about British politics, and the way it\'s changed.Both parties have had to learn lessons from each other. In the 1990s, Labour learned that it was wrong about methods – we thought public was better than private, that the state was better than markets. We learned the lesson that we should use markets or the private sector, where they achieved the relevant outcome.
Since 1997, the Tories have had to accept that voters want a different kind of society – hence George Osborne\'s quip about wanting to create a progressive society through conservative means. < > It\'s a compliment that the opposition feel they have to imitate our language. But it\'s also a challenge: is there anything distinctive about Labour\'s goals, if the Conservatives can say they share them? And is it really true that they can be achieved through conservative means?
The Demos project , which we launch today, will try to answer those questions. It starts by asking what it means to be on the left today. Of course, there are areas where different political traditions have overlapping goals. Instead of constructing straw men to exaggerate the differences, we should be comfortable with this pluralism. People come into politics to do good, and it\'s not surprising that they should often agree.
But my experience in government is that Labour and Conservative politicians have very different instincts. By defining clearly what it means to be on the left today, we hope to have more compelling arguments to convince voters to support us in those areas where we disagree with the Tories.
To me, two key differences stand out. First, the left believes in equality – we disagree about equality of what, but we agree that it should be a goal. For the right, equality may or may not be a consequence of their policies, but it\'s not an intrinsic goal. Second, the left is more optimistic about the ability of the state, the right more sceptical.
The right has a point here – governments do often fail, as do markets. But the answer is to have the courage to reform the state so it does work. One of the prejudices I have that I want to explore is that the state works best when individuals have the power to choose – whether between different parties, thanks to a new electoral system, or between different providers, thanks to choice in public services.
The left needs to be clearer about the kind of equality it wants to pursue. I think we need to widen out from a narrow focus on income, to aiming for equality of capability – giving everyone the power to pursue their goals.
Once we\'re clearer about our goals, we will be forced to be bolder about our methods. So, if allowing state schools to be run by profit-making companies encourages equality of capability, we will have to allow it. If educational selection by religion increases inequality, we will have to start a difficult debate about it. If child poverty wrecks any possibility of equality of capability, then we will have to make abolishing it our top priority.
But being clear that we want a more equal society may also allow that debate to be open rather than narrow. One of the most attractive things about New Labour in the 1990s was how pluralist it was – with many strands of leftwing thought coexisting, and learning from each other.
Over time, New Labour became too much of a sect – we went from big-tent politics to small-gazebo politics. Perhaps in response, the left has become balkanised into smaller groups, based on small differences. If we recognise that our common goal is a more equal society, we may be able to remember that there is more that unites us than separates us. And where there are differences, we may just see that as an inevitable but manageable pluralism, rather than a reason for division.
That is what the Open Left project aims to foster: with clarity about goals and candour about our record, we can once again rediscover the idealism from which good policies grow.
James Purnell is Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde. He resigned from the cabinet last month purnellj@parliament.uk
For more information, please visit
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/[...]/19/new-labour-left-unite-sect
