Spot On
Lots of people have thrown their tuppence worth in over Tony Blair's remarks about Labour's chances of winning the general election in May, but in this comment piece for The Times Philip Collins sets out the unabashed views of a true believer in the New Labour cause.
The most telling lines, for me, are the ones that deal with the role of government in giving people more choice over their own lives and the importance attached to creating a thriving, successful economy on which the cause of social justice depends, since redistribution on its own never works.
In four months time we shall see whether, as Philip Collins says, 'Labour has no need to accommodate itself to the world because the world has obligingly accommodated itself to the Labour party".
In four months time we shall see whether, as Philip Collins says, 'Labour has no need to accommodate itself to the world because the world has obligingly accommodated itself to the Labour party".
But if Scotland is anything to go by this cannot possibly be true, because north of the border the fortunes of the Labour party and its leader Ed Miliband are at an all time low.
Miliband’s problem is that Blair is spot on
Miliband’s problem is that Blair is spot on
By Philip Collins - The Times
The Labour leader mistakenly believes that his predecessor’s policies are outdated – but he himself is out of touch
On New Year’s Eve the Labour party sent me an email in which they disclosed, with charming irrelevance, that I am one of 3,518 people on their campaign called Philip. It made me think of someone who would have been the 3,519th campaign Philip whose wisdom Labour still needs. Philip Gould was Tony Blair’s pollster and emissary from the suburbs. He was the man who kept Labour rooted in Woking, Watford and Worcester. Philip was the man who did the numbers and the analysis in the era in which Labour won huge electoral victories.
I am sure the Labour party’s digital team can tell us how many Tonys they have on the campaign but the chief among the Tonys hit the news as the year turned with his devastating summary of Ed Miliband as too left-wing to win. In an interview with The Economist, Tony Blair said the election to come might be one in which “a traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”. Mr Blair went on to deny there had been a landslip in British politics since the 2008 financial crash: “I am convinced the Labour party succeeds best when it is in the centre ground.”
Labour’s best Tony subsequently sought to distance himself from his own words, clarifying that he expected a Labour victory in May. His argument, though, rang true because it is such a familiar warning.
In his Philip Gould memorial lecture in July last year, Mr Blair set out in full the case that he only summarised to The Economist. The role of government, he argued, is to give individuals choice over their own lives, which demands a programme of reform to bring public services out of the habit of command and control. Winning the trust of business is vital for a party that wants to create the prosperity on which social justice depends. Hence the need for a political prospectus that corrects Labour’s traditional lean to the left.
Now let us count the ways in which the leader of the Labour party disagrees with that. The most profound issue that Mr Miliband takes with Mr Blair is that clever sixth-former ruse of disputing the question. Mr Miliband believes that the financial crash of 2008 ushered in a new political era in which the distinction between left and right, the shorthand that has been in descriptive use since 1789 when the deputies took their seats in the Assemblée Nationale, no longer applies. It follows that, if there is no left and no right any more, the idea of the centre ground between them also makes no sense.
The political task today, according to Mr Miliband’s analysis, is to give voice to the modern spirit of disillusionment. Therefore, to be the scourge of the bankers is not meaningfully “left-wing”. It is an expression of popular anger. To control energy prices is a recognition of popular sentiment, not incipient Marxism. To adopt Mr Blair’s terminology, which Mr Miliband prefers to avoid, the centre ground has shifted. This is how it is possible for Neil Kinnock to have his party back while, at the same time, Labour remains mainstream. Miraculously, the Labour party no longer has to accommodate itself to the world because the world has obligingly accommodated itself to the Labour party.
This creates political space for an ambitious project that the Philips and the Tonys of the Labour party don’t entirely believe in. Mr Miliband believes that inequality is the monster that stalks Britain and he has a twist on its cause. The reason Germany is more equal than Britain is not because of a left-wing German government. It is because German capitalism produces a more equal settlement than British capitalism — which is even more unequal, because of the dominance of financial services, than American capitalism. Mr Miliband’s project is, therefore, to trace the outline of German capitalism on to Britain. Mr Miliband is not new Labour. He is neue Labour.
Take this vaulting ambition, mix in a few rhetorical assaults on predatory capitalism, the desire to command energy prices to behave better, a higher top rate of income tax and a levy on houses worth more than £2 million and it is easy to see why Mr Blair’s insinuation that this is all too left-wing might resonate. The question here is not whether these policies are right or wrong, in themselves. My own view is that it’s a mixed bag. The question is whether you can win like this.
It is important, in assessing Mr Blair’s advice to Mr Miliband, to note that the latter does not want to win the former’s victories. Mr Miliband’s political strategy is a not very well coded repudiation of Mr Blair’s triumphs, which came, say many in the Labour party, at the cost of too great a compromise with the electorate. The quest for the elusive centre ground meant Mr Blair leant too far to the right. The shift in politics after the crash and a helpful bias in the electoral system mean there is no longer any need for this. Labour can win as its authentic self.
The opening of the Christian season of epiphany is too late for Mr Miliband to be visited by the Magi and struck by a startling new insight. He has had his epiphany; and his slogan is new politics, new era — and therefore not new Labour. It is as if all the years before 2008 are best written as BC (Before Crash) and all the years since as CE (Crash Era).
Listen to the language that Labour’s election supremo Lucy Powell used to denounce her party’s greatest-ever electoral asset. “He has his experience from his era. That is not the era we now live in.” We live, you note, in a different era. Not just ten years since Labour won an overall majority, but a different geological time. Between Mr Blair’s victory and today a meteorite crashed into the world and killed off the dinosaurs.
To which we can only turn to the abiding wisdom in the concluding words of Mr Blair’s Philip Gould memorial lecture. “In the end”, he said, “parties can please themselves or please the people. There is a mindset that speaks to government and one that usually leaves you in opposition . . . Philip was always the one who had us chained to the aspirations of real people. He understood we served them best by freeing ourselves from our own chains first”.
The Labour leader mistakenly believes that his predecessor’s policies are outdated – but he himself is out of touch
On New Year’s Eve the Labour party sent me an email in which they disclosed, with charming irrelevance, that I am one of 3,518 people on their campaign called Philip. It made me think of someone who would have been the 3,519th campaign Philip whose wisdom Labour still needs. Philip Gould was Tony Blair’s pollster and emissary from the suburbs. He was the man who kept Labour rooted in Woking, Watford and Worcester. Philip was the man who did the numbers and the analysis in the era in which Labour won huge electoral victories.
I am sure the Labour party’s digital team can tell us how many Tonys they have on the campaign but the chief among the Tonys hit the news as the year turned with his devastating summary of Ed Miliband as too left-wing to win. In an interview with The Economist, Tony Blair said the election to come might be one in which “a traditional left-wing party competes with a traditional right-wing party, with the traditional result”. Mr Blair went on to deny there had been a landslip in British politics since the 2008 financial crash: “I am convinced the Labour party succeeds best when it is in the centre ground.”
Labour’s best Tony subsequently sought to distance himself from his own words, clarifying that he expected a Labour victory in May. His argument, though, rang true because it is such a familiar warning.
In his Philip Gould memorial lecture in July last year, Mr Blair set out in full the case that he only summarised to The Economist. The role of government, he argued, is to give individuals choice over their own lives, which demands a programme of reform to bring public services out of the habit of command and control. Winning the trust of business is vital for a party that wants to create the prosperity on which social justice depends. Hence the need for a political prospectus that corrects Labour’s traditional lean to the left.
Now let us count the ways in which the leader of the Labour party disagrees with that. The most profound issue that Mr Miliband takes with Mr Blair is that clever sixth-former ruse of disputing the question. Mr Miliband believes that the financial crash of 2008 ushered in a new political era in which the distinction between left and right, the shorthand that has been in descriptive use since 1789 when the deputies took their seats in the Assemblée Nationale, no longer applies. It follows that, if there is no left and no right any more, the idea of the centre ground between them also makes no sense.
The political task today, according to Mr Miliband’s analysis, is to give voice to the modern spirit of disillusionment. Therefore, to be the scourge of the bankers is not meaningfully “left-wing”. It is an expression of popular anger. To control energy prices is a recognition of popular sentiment, not incipient Marxism. To adopt Mr Blair’s terminology, which Mr Miliband prefers to avoid, the centre ground has shifted. This is how it is possible for Neil Kinnock to have his party back while, at the same time, Labour remains mainstream. Miraculously, the Labour party no longer has to accommodate itself to the world because the world has obligingly accommodated itself to the Labour party.
This creates political space for an ambitious project that the Philips and the Tonys of the Labour party don’t entirely believe in. Mr Miliband believes that inequality is the monster that stalks Britain and he has a twist on its cause. The reason Germany is more equal than Britain is not because of a left-wing German government. It is because German capitalism produces a more equal settlement than British capitalism — which is even more unequal, because of the dominance of financial services, than American capitalism. Mr Miliband’s project is, therefore, to trace the outline of German capitalism on to Britain. Mr Miliband is not new Labour. He is neue Labour.
Take this vaulting ambition, mix in a few rhetorical assaults on predatory capitalism, the desire to command energy prices to behave better, a higher top rate of income tax and a levy on houses worth more than £2 million and it is easy to see why Mr Blair’s insinuation that this is all too left-wing might resonate. The question here is not whether these policies are right or wrong, in themselves. My own view is that it’s a mixed bag. The question is whether you can win like this.
It is important, in assessing Mr Blair’s advice to Mr Miliband, to note that the latter does not want to win the former’s victories. Mr Miliband’s political strategy is a not very well coded repudiation of Mr Blair’s triumphs, which came, say many in the Labour party, at the cost of too great a compromise with the electorate. The quest for the elusive centre ground meant Mr Blair leant too far to the right. The shift in politics after the crash and a helpful bias in the electoral system mean there is no longer any need for this. Labour can win as its authentic self.
The opening of the Christian season of epiphany is too late for Mr Miliband to be visited by the Magi and struck by a startling new insight. He has had his epiphany; and his slogan is new politics, new era — and therefore not new Labour. It is as if all the years before 2008 are best written as BC (Before Crash) and all the years since as CE (Crash Era).
Listen to the language that Labour’s election supremo Lucy Powell used to denounce her party’s greatest-ever electoral asset. “He has his experience from his era. That is not the era we now live in.” We live, you note, in a different era. Not just ten years since Labour won an overall majority, but a different geological time. Between Mr Blair’s victory and today a meteorite crashed into the world and killed off the dinosaurs.
To which we can only turn to the abiding wisdom in the concluding words of Mr Blair’s Philip Gould memorial lecture. “In the end”, he said, “parties can please themselves or please the people. There is a mindset that speaks to government and one that usually leaves you in opposition . . . Philip was always the one who had us chained to the aspirations of real people. He understood we served them best by freeing ourselves from our own chains first”.
