The return of ideology

Labour's ideas need an intellectual underpinning that give them coherence and a sense of direction

Politics at the moment for progressives feels a bit like being imprisoned in a sound-proofed chamber. We're shouting loud. We're gesticulating madly at the bogey man coming round the corner. But the voters can't hear us. Worse, they actively don't want to hear us.

So far, Labour's approach has been to try and get its future offer to the electorate sorted. New ideas are the lifeblood of progressive politics - they inspire activists and give voters something concrete to hold us to. It's good to see, therefore, that Labour's leadership looks ready to put mutualism at the centre of the manifesto and that the cabinet finally embraced the idea of trying to get a referendum on the Alternative Vote into law before the general election. It is a shame that the drive towards greater constitutional reform has come so late in the day, but it will help to provide a crucial difference between Labour as the party in favour of changing the political status quo, and the Tories, whose first reform instinct is to cut the size of the Commons to make it easier for them to win elections.

The manifesto will obviously be crucial in proving how bold Labour intends to be in a fourth term, and with that in mind Progress has been putting forward a few ideas of our own. But ideas aren't enough in themselves. What is needed is a broader narrative which provides coherence for those ideas and a sense of direction. Dare we say it, but what Labour needs is an ideology. James Purnell made the case for this most eloquently in a speech in February to the London School of Economics. He argued that New Labour's lack of an ideology blighted its time in government for three reasons. First, because it made it hard to prioritise between competing interests and causes. Second, because without an ideology it's more difficult to see inconsistencies in your approach. Purnell picked up on New Labour's emphasis on choice in public services, but reluctance to increase choice in democracy, as examples. Finally, he argued that it is hard to build ‘an enduring coalition for change' without an ‘ideological washing line' upon which to hang policies.

It is this third point which is most interesting and which those involved in whatever replaces New Labour should focus their thinking on. New Labour took root in the decade when Francis Fukuyama famously declared the end of history and the end of the ideological clash between totalitarianism and liberal democracy. Fukuyama was rubbished then, and subsequent events including 9/11, the threat of climate change and the pressing challenge of global poverty, have proved him wrong still further. But the fall of the Berlin Wall provided a backdrop which made ideology look redundant in the uplifting 90s. The 1997 manifesto stated New Labour's opposition to ideology clearly: ‘New Labour is a party of a party of ideas and ideals but not of outdated ideology. What counts is what works. The objectives are radical. The means will be modern.' Eventually, New Labour had to respond to its lack of ideological underpinning with the development of the Third Way, but it wasn't enough to provide the intellectual ballast to support a movement after the departure of Tony Blair.

So what might a new articulation of Labour ideology look like? Purnell's answer focuses on the notion of power using Amartya Sen's theory of capabilities as a starting point. There is an elegance to his argument that the task of the left is to make the individual more powerful - by attacking concentrations of economic power, by taking power away from the state and devolving it to people, and by creating an organised movement to empower people on the ground, in our communities. This isn't new - Purnell cites R H Tawney extensively as a guide to rediscovering Labour's zeal for putting power in the hands of people - but as the basis for the debate at the coming election, and beyond, it's an exciting place to start. It leads Purnell to argue for a living wage, a cap on the cost of credit, state guarantees of work and opening up school catchment areas, as well as continuing more familiar New Labour policies such as placing conditions on benefits and extending control of public services through things such as individual budgets.

As Paul Richards argues in this month's Progress magazine the first major collection to be published by Demos's Open Left project, which Purnell heads up, Labour isn't ‘intellectually bankrupt', despite the media's desire to paint the picture that way. It will be hard to win the election from the position Labour is in, but there is just about time left to use power as a theme for the campaign. It will take us head to head with the Conservatives who are edging towards this territory. But we know that audacity wins elections. Perhaps power is Labour's way of breaking through the glass.

Editorial

01 Mar 2010 10:27

Tags

 

Comments

• Posted by Ralph Baldwin on 01 March 2010, 11:22:29 PM

  Jessica, Nice speech but you needs ideals to have an ideology and ideals require values, shared ones. Shmae your ideals and those of your colleagues are Neo-liberal ones under a red lie. You new ideology would be a few cosmetic poliicies without daring to touch on any fundamental or even remotely relelvant political questioning. Blackmailing disabled people with legisaltion is not an ideology. It is Conservative policy, and if you cannot distinguish even the basics you should not have the audacity to discuss deeper issues which neither you nor James Purnell are equiped to even begin debating about. The only thing I have discovered people like you are interested in is the pointless propagation of your own "careers" and underhanded methods of securing private money for yourselves via "think-tanks" that churn out right wing policy daily and produce the worst kind of tripe which quite frankly has no basis or practical applicability to the majority of the public you know so little about. I'd quit while you are ahead if I were you. Or are you looking for another tea-cake TV spot, or attacking your own side in another Guardian Article? Or are you going to raise sweet meery hell over the numbers of women on a random poster on an underground train nobody really ever pays any attention too? Or perhaps you are going to condemn China for it's treatment of a criminal whilst remaining silent on executions in Iraq, whilst being a member of organisations that receive lots of money who profit from the lack of Human Rights in China, and propagate it. How is Lord sainsbury these days? I hear he has moved funding to your colleagues in the Conservative Party, I bet that smarts.... You are both from the sewers. Jessica, you are shabby politicians and your "ideology" is empty. Ideologies come from people with values and your values are simply £££££££££££££££££££££££££

• Posted by Chilbaldi on 02 March 2010, 9:59:37 PM Well said Ralph. Ideology? What ideology is in this piece? All I can see is a collection of meaningless words unintelligible to the majority of Britons. These think tank people talk and talk about "ideology" without actually providing any. The "Philosopher Politician" is a prime example.
• Posted by Laurie on 02 March 2010, 10:29:03 PM In brief, Firstly, Purnell is ripping off London Citizens. It would be nice if he could come up with his own ideas. Secondly, we have an ideology in the Labour Party. It's called democratic socialism. It would be nice if the party actually followed it. Finally, I really do despair at the verbal diarrhoea that think tanks come out with. Can you actually come out with some original ideas please. Most of what is written is sheer onanism and people talking to similar people in their own little world. Where's the Crosland of this generation?
• Posted by David Phillips on 02 March 2010, 11:11:30 PM Power is indeed the thread which needs to run through the whole new ideology which will underpin Labour going forward. An an enabling state is essential to provide the benign conditions for citizens to be empowered so that they can achieve a greater degree of control and a sense of freedom over their lives, and so be better placed to shape their communities. Freedom for all must be the ultimate goal of this empowerment in which self-reliant individuals act responsibly and in co-operation with their fellow citizens to build a community which is equitable and accountable and where democratic rights prevail. There will always need to be a balance between the negative and positive forms of freedom. There is a need for the former so as to encourage an expansion of the spheres of enquiry, innovation and risk-taking. Equally, there is need for positive freedom in the form of the state creating favourable conditions where opportunities exist for all to build up their social capital or "capability". This addresses the concerns of equality which underlines a major dividing line between Labour and the Conservatives. Just reflect for example on Cameron's anodyne attempts to hijack the co-operative ideal recently, when he showed his misunderstanding of the principles by suggesting that workers could take over their firms and the public services, with no reference to other stakeholders. His proposal clearly demonstrated the right's misunderstanding of the foundational principles of mutuals, and overlooking the strong community bonds of accountability and solidarity inherent in the co-operative ideal. So the message "future fair for all" resonates with and reflects the underlying thread of democratic empowerment of people as a way to achieve freedom which accords with the principle of social justice. David Phillips; Co-operative Party (Wales) and Policy Officer, Ynys Mon CLP; member Unite the Union, former Parliamentary (2005, Truro and St Austell) and Welsh Assembly (2007, Dwyfor Meirionnydd) candidate.
• Posted by Chris Cook on 03 March 2010, 10:21:53 AM It is about Values. We can only build an ideology and political economy upon fundamental tenets rooted in core Values. New Labour's Values - are entirely based upon the sovereignty of the individual and self interest. They swallowed the Washington Consensus hook, line and sinker and indeed, out-Thatchered Thatcher. The Tories - particularly Red Toryism - and the new drive towards mutualism are converging on the fighting ground of the Common Good, and Solidarity. I would adopt Phillip Blond's core tenets tomorrow: Re-moralise the Markets Re-localise the Economy ....and above all... Re-Capitalise the Poor ...and since 90% of us are now in debt to the other 10%, then surely we should be able to get a majority out of providing the right policies? The Tories most certainly won't, because privileged turkeys do not vote for Christmas. The necessary policies are simple, but we have to find the right tools and the right narrative. As the historic party of privilege I believe the Tories will be fundamentally unable to make the policy changes necessary to build a political economy around the Common Good. Unfortunately Labour - who are the natural party of Solidarity - seem intent on failing because they are working within aparadigm fromwhich they must break out. You can't solve 21st century problems with 20th century solutions, never mind 17th century or earlier, and for me the key lies in the underlying plumbing of politics - ie the enterprise model or legal and financial infrastructure of protocols and agreements we take for granted, like contracts; Company Law; Debt; and property rightsgenerally. I see the future in a participative and networked 'Peer to Peer' State of direct instantaneous connections. This IMHO requires a new synthesis between Public=State and Private=a Joint Stock Limited Liability Corporation based upon consensual interactive partnership-based agreements. Once you realise that the conventional is not the necessary, then you can make progress.
• Posted by Luther on 03 March 2010, 1:17:26 PM James Purnell? The man who wanted to charge 27% interest on Social Fund loans to the poorest of the poor. The man who thought you could force unemployed drug addicts - people who are so in thrall to their poison as to be driven to prostitution or criminality in order to feed their habit - into becoming rehabilitated by threatening them with benefit sanctions in Jobcentres? The man who wanted to force the physically and mentally ill, single parents and carers into work by threat and intimidation during the worst recession in a hundred years? What kind of ideology is Purnell espousing? If I wanted advice about childcare I wouldn't seek it from Michael Jackson through the agency of a spiritualist. If I needed an ideology I wouldn't want to saddle myself with one from the wretched James Purnell second-hand from a Purnell apologist and worshipper like you Ms. Asato. You write about Purnell like some simpering love-struck girl. Pathetic.
• Posted by Charlie Rainbow on 04 March 2010, 1:47:55 PM

  There's something a little galling about the chief of a think tank writing article after article after article calling for the need for new ideas, wider concepts for ideological renewal. It's like a political leader in a crisis stepping forward and bravely declaring that what we certainly need right now is Leadership! Or a Queen bee protesting to her hive that what we need is greater numbers! (I feel I can say this as I am working on a piece that will answer this question of ideology & fill the intellectual vacuum for at least the coming generation, & with much greater clarity, simplicity & ambition than the contributions from Purnell & others thus far, so I think, & must now prove)