Politics International

The phone hacking scandal which has dominated the last few weeks has acted as a much needed catalyst for both the Labour Party and its leader Ed Miliband. Prior to the news breaking of the dealings at News Corp, Miliband and his party were at best treading water and at worst drowning in a sea of mediocrity as they struggled to define themselves in Opposition and as the third most interesting party in the Commons.

Now the wind is very much in the sails of the Labour Party. They are leading public opinion, outmanoeuvring an embattled Prime Minister and are throwing caution to the wind as they round on a once hegemonic Murdoch press. However, as a number of commentators have pointed out, this media storm is just that – a storm, and all storms eventually die out. Come 2015 and the next General Election, any number of issues are likely to take precedence in the public mind ahead of a scandal that happened back in the summer of 2011.

Writing in the Observer, Andrew Rawnsley has said that he can think of at least 10 subjects that will be much more important to voters. He argues that “crime, employment, the environment, Europe, health, inflation, immigration, schools, tax and unemployment will move many more crosses in boxes.” He is correct in this assumption and in arguing that Miliband:

“will make a mistake if he concludes that his performance in recent days, impressive though it has been, has answered all the criticisms and doubts about Labour and himself. He and his party are still in need of a persuasive vision and plausible positions, especially on the economy, before they look like a credible alternative government.”

Therefore, in order to maintain the impetus provided by the hacking scandal bounce, if there even is one considering the poll ratings of each party have hardly budged over the last few weeks, Miliband and his party need to use it as a springboard to talking about the wider issues in Britain’s society and how the Coalition Government is failing to address the wants and the needs of the British public.

Policy Review
A good place for Labour to start is in its much-needed policy review. Launched shortly after Miliband became Labour leader, the review is similar in tone to the one launched by David Cameron when he became Conservative leader. Its aims are to revive a tired and inward looking party in order to make it fit to govern.

Miliband tasked the shadow cabinet to lead the policy review in areas ranging from local schooling through to sustaining the UK’s commercial competitive advantage and asked party members and the public to become involved in setting out the future policy direction of the party. These views were encapsulated in an interim report by Liam Byrne who Miliband has given responsibility for the review.

A Better Future for Britain gives a summation of what the public and party have said, how the party has reacted and how it plans to respond to the suggestions made with a view to further discussion at the Party Conference in September. It details Labour’s response to four key areas of policy: the economy, concerns about the future for the “Next Generation”, communities and Britain’s place in the world.

The overriding concern for those responding to the policy review was the economy and jobs. Unsurprisingly, the document lambasts the current Government for cutting spending to schools, hospitals and police claiming that its plan is simply to “cut spending and increase taxes for people already struggling to get by.” In response, Labour says that its policy will be based around growth and jobs and that fairness will be “hardwired” into the system with support for middle earners and the lower paid.

A Better Future for Britain argues that the public are concerned that the next generation will be worse off than the current one. It gives examples of people’s views on the prospects for their children suggesting that there is a need for Government to support higher education but also give a variety of options, including apprenticeships to help young people make their way in the world. Once again, the review attacks the Government for not helping Britain’s youth. Indeed, it comments: “Since coming to power the Government has singled out young people and families to bear the brunt of their cuts.” In response, Labour argue that their focus is on driving up standards in education and giving young people the opportunity to make their way in the world through providing affordable housing, although the paper does not go into specifics about how this would be achieved.

Community is a key area for Labour. The review document states that the “Labour Party was founded through a belief in community and our shared responsibility to one another.” Included in their vision of community are institutions such as the NHS which Labour accuses the Government of undermining. In this light, Labour contends that the core of the policy review is to protect national institutions. However, it also calls for changes to the wider-community commenting that there should be a greater drive for responsibility throughout the system.

The last section of the interim review concerns Britain’s place in the world. Unsurprisingly, the review found a large amount of concern surrounding Britain’s involvement in places such as Afghanistan and Libya. Labour argue that they will continue to support NATO and the current Government but will scrutinise its policies to ensure maximum support for Britain’s military forces. Similarly, Labour propose to scrutinise the Government’s commitment to overseas aid and are committed to helping the private sector to be force for good in developing countries through transparent practices.

Refounding Labour
When Ed Miliband won the party leadership in 2010, he said that Labour had lost the election not only because they had lost touch with the public, hence the public consultation on the policy review, but also because the party leadership had lost touch with the party members. As a consequence, he asked Peter Hain to conduct a root and branch evaluation of the party and its structure to identify how it could become a cohesive unit once again.

Taking its cue from successfully run Labour campaigns at the 2010 General Election, such as Gisela Stuart’s campaign in Birmingham Edgbaston, the Obama campaign playbook in the States and from countless meetings with left-leaning, Labour supporting think tanks such as Compass and the Fabian Society, the Refounding Labour document argues that Labour needs to change how it operates to avoid being outflanked by the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives and being consigned to the political wilderness for a generation.

It calls for local Labour groups to be more flexible and engaged with both the local community and local supporters. This includes ensuring that the party is both open and welcoming to new members and that structures that may have been in place for generations are reconsidered so as to allow fresh voices and fresh political talent to emerge.

Taking pages straight from the Obama campaign playbook, the Refounding Labour document calls for far greater use of new and social media and for community-driven campaigning. The paper admits that Labour, along with other parties, has been slow to realise the potential of new media in garnering support for the party and for its policies. However, it calls for Labour to use tools such as Facebook and Twitter to encourage civic and political participation from those who may otherwise not engage as much as they may have liked.

As has already been considered above, Labour see community as crucial to their past, present and future. However, it acknowledges that community has been somewhat side-lined by the leadership whilst the party was in power. Now in Opposition and faced by Cameron’s Big Society, some would say somewhat cynically, Labour have refound their enthusiasm for community. Looking at Gisela Stuart’s campaign in Birmingham, which she won against the odds, and the community-driven focus of Obama’s successful run to the White House, the Refounding Labour document contends that Labour needs to reach out to community groups to advance shared interests and create “a genuine community organising movement”.

Moving away from local party issues, Refounding Labour also considers reviewing national leadership structures. Notably, it acknowledges that there needs to be a reappraisal of the leadership election contests through taking multiple votes away from MPs and ensuring people vote in the contest. Additionally, it suggests that the National Executive should be adjusted to take into account changes to the nature of politics in Britain, particularly the devolution of powers to Scotland and Wales.

Challenging Party Philosophy
Running throughout the debates about policy and organisational structure is a questioning of the philosophy that governs the Labour Party. After all, it is only natural for a party that has been in power for thirteen years only to suffer one of its worst electoral defeats to question its very foundation.

Leading this debate is the Labour peer Maurice Glasman. In his essay, Labour as a radical tradition, Glasman argues that, following defeat, “Labour has no shared interpretation of history.” At the same time, he says the movement itself is characterised paradoxically as:

“robustly national and international, conservative and reforming, Christian and secular, republican and monarchical, democratic and elitist, radical and traditional, and it is most transformative and effective when it defies the status quo in the name of ancient as well as modern values.”

It is these ancient and modern values, Glasman contests, that need to form the basis of a renewed Labour Party, in touch with its past, if it is to successful reengage with the public and start winning elections again. He defines these values as those which are:

“rooted in relationships, in practices that strengthen an ethical life. Practices like reciprocity, which gives substantive form to freedom and equality in an active relationship of give and take. Mutuality, where we share the benefits and burdens of association. And then if trust is established, solidarity, where we actively share our fate with other people.”
In other words, Glasman suggests that Labour should be based in community. Critics have labelled this Labour identity as ‘Blue Labour’ with its views based on traditional conservative values. However, the idea of working through community is evident throughout the Labour Party’s past, its present – indeed, membership cards allude to the “common endeavour” – and its future, with both the policy and organisational reviews arguing strongly in favour of community based activism.

Yet the extent to which Glasman actually believes his own vision of community has been called into question by remarks he has made surrounding immigration to the UK. In an interview published in the Fabian Review, Glasman said that Britain needed to “draw the line” on immigration adding that “Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first.” Whilst this assessment may fit into the more national, conservative and traditional assessment of Labour values it does not fit so well with the Labour Party’s 21st century vision of community. This has been indicated by the reaction to the interview by Miliband and the party quickly insisted that Glasman’s views were his own and that they did not represent Labour Party policy. This difference of opinion highlights the on-going debate within the party about what it stands for and how it plans to move forward. This debate is vital if Labour is ever to be electorally viable again.

Conclusions
Labour stands at a crossroads. Out of power for the first time in thirteen years, but with a glimmer of hope emanating from the hacking scandal, the party and its leader Ed Miliband have an opportunity to redefine who they are and how they operate. It is evident that things need to change within the party. The policy and organisational reviews launched by Miliband go some way to starting this project. In order to successfully navigate these reviews, the party needs a relevant philosophy backed up by history. Glasman’s community vision is a good starting place for this philosophical review and is self-evident throughout the two reviews. Whether Miliband can finish the work started by the reviews in time for the next election is hard to tell. However, in starting this process he may well have rescued Labour from itself.
ut some in his Cabinet are starting to flounder with the list of colleagues getting the wrong sort of headlines growing each week.