I am beginning to think it is time to bin my pledge card. Like John Prescott, I still have the 1997 pledge card which I handed out in thousands in our 1997 campaign. To remind you, the pledges were:
- We will cut class sizes to 30 or under for five, six and seven year olds by using money saved from the assisted places scheme
- We will introduce a fast track punishment scheme for persistent young offenders by halving the time from arrest t sentencing
- We will cut NHS waiting lists by treating an extra 100,000 patients as a first step by releasing £100m saved from NHS red tape
- We will get 250,000 under-25 year olds off benefit and into work by using money from a windfall levy on the privatised utilities
- We will set tough rules for government spending and borrowing and ensure low inflation and strengthen the economy so that interest rates are as low as possible to make all families better off.
While they are pretty specific, the point was that they came from a major rethinking of what Labour – or actually New Labour – was for, how we would govern and they served to represent how we had changed. Responsible with the economy and people’s taxes; getting people into work; bothered about crime and being tough on offenders; expecting specific results for users from investment in public services.
Ever since then, and I include the elections of 2001, 2005 and 2010 as well as 2015, our pledges have managed to be both too vague. They have not included a specific target on which a government could be held to account, but nor have they served a broader strategic purpose in communicating our bigger vision to people.
You may remember that I got very frustrated with our policy review likening it to a pregnant panda. I now suspect that the reason the review was slow to come up with specific policy ideas was that there was not a clear view about what the panda was for, let alone whether it was pregnant or not.
Ideas like ‘one nation’ or the ‘squeezed middle’ began that job of defining a broader view of what Labour was aiming at, but then seemed to fade away when we tried to get hold of them to build a programme on.
The problem with the Edstone was less what it was made of and more that our pledges did not seem to match up to the grandiosity of the presentation. For example, I know we wanted to build more houses, but I could never remember if we were the 100,000, the 200,000 or the 300,000 party.
Several people have said to me about the last campaign that it seemed very small – ‘I am sick of all the numbers and the nit-picking over how much things are going to cost’ said one friend ‘I want to know what people believe in and where they want the country to go.’
In some ways this is disingenuous. ‘What will you do for me and my family?’ and ‘how will you pay for it?’ will always be the questions any serious political party needs to be able to answer, but we need to lift our heads again and put specific policies in the context of a much bigger story.
This election has conclusively proved that the old allegiances to a particular party – the core voters on either side – have disappeared. We cannot take for granted that people already have a good idea of what we stand for, or are so loyal – they are not particularly bothered. We need to go back to the beginning in explaining why we exist, what we believe in, how we see the country working well for everyone and how we’ll deal with the big changes in the world.
So let us bin the pledges for a while, get away from thinking about what we would do and think about what we are for. That is the task for the leadership debate which started really well with the Progress ‘hustings’ yesterday. I hope it – and the candidates – are up for the scale of the debate.
———————————
Jacqui Smith is a former home secretary, writes the Monday Politics column for Progress, and tweets @Jacqui_Smith1
“..think about what we are for”.
I like that. First things first.
But even before we get started, could we please ask the candidates to dissociate themselves from sectional interests – i.e. the trade unions. If some powerful individual shoves a preferred candidate to the front, we will lose next time too.
“…….think about what we are for”
good luck with that……
Well, some in our party seem not to recognize the benefits of the market economy – as if we can have the benefits, despite the cost, without the market in which to earn them.
This is how the SNP will let Scotland down and how we can win them back. They offer a no-win road to poverty.
On the other end of the scale, the Tories will let the capitalist elite trash us in their pursuit of wealth. That is how the Tories will lose in the end.
That’s a hell of a range.
The capitalist market system provides us with great benefits, but has to tamed by the state. Given that most people want the benefits, but not the ruthless consequences that are likely, do you not think that should be talked about, so that we might find the best route to general wealth?
Agreed it has to be tamed and controlled by the state….you seem to have a very poor grasp of the structure and the aims of the SNP
It is true, I do not know what the SNP are about.
However, living in the north I feel, as the SNP do, sidelined by the Tories with an overwhelming sense that we don’t matter enough. From that point of view I do understand the SNP wanting to stand together and demand more control. That’s what Labour wanted for Scotland too.
I also feel that we are in danger of having a one-party state in Scotland and another in England. But that’s not going to work for long. Besides which, I am convinced that a left-leaning state will be bad for Scotland in the long run and that we have to grasp what the market economy does well and control the elites at the top that run it for themselves. The Tory’s have split us apart (their ‘wedge’ strategy). leaving us to argue amongst ourselves while they get on with their plans. Much of our support has gone to UKIP. Before long they may not even vote.
If you get the time, have a look at what Will Hutton says:
The future of work: jobs and inequality in the 21st Century by Will Hutton
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gyLfe5qTdGc
This is a frightening view of corporate capitalism, very interesting and very scary.
I was pleased Scotland voted no in the referendum, believing that we really were better together, but now I don’t know.
Labour contenders:
http://www.policyreview.tv/video/1030/7939
After seeing this, I am quite optimistic – however I just hope the unions do not make the same mistake as last time.
John, you say you don’t know what the SNP is about. Let me take this opportunity to explain.
The SNP is about the break up of the British state. we have done great things together and some bad things. History moves on. We are now part of the European union and SNP supporters whether they be socialists, capitalists, anarchists, republicans or royalists want to play their part. It is as simple as that.
I agree that we have done terrible and wonderful things, and we wouldn’t have had a British empire without the Scots, Irish and Welsh. But:
United we stand and divided we fall.
United , we sit around the table of europe as equals.
Let us go with good grace John, we are off regardless.
You are aware of Alex salmonds background in economics?
The only place where the are portrayed as left wing is in the English right wing media..the SNP?are at best centrists in the true sense…for a free market but regulated……for social justice and good union contact without being driven by it…..the party you seem to advocate is the SNP….
We cannot have a one party state in Scotland with the proportional representation system we have here… the SNP at the moment is a means to an end……independence…..after that we will split left right and centre with new parties
I agree on the shape of the future unless we get the rich under control and regulated…..
I can only see it happening in Scotland through independence…..England in the majority seems enamoured with the Tories and ukip and seem to be in love still with Thatcher’s market…..market…..market
I don’t doubt Alex Salmond’s ability, and you put this in a different light – which is helpful. However, you would have most of the Labour party with you on much of that and together we are stronger.
You say the majority are enamored with the Tories but I don’t think they are. Many struggle to survive, even those that appear well off. And most probably, they also feel a sense of injustice but for different reasons to you or I. They are generally uninformed; they don’t spend much time thinking about it all; they go by the splashed impressions that fly about and are steered by the press.
With all those young SNP MPs in the commons we might get some different kind of debate. Let’s hope they make the case for taking on the worst of capitalism whilst not offending all of it – and the companies on which we depend. Stay with us.
I think you highlight the difference. …more people up here are very well informed and can carry an in depth conversation. …its almost the new football. …
Fewer are going along with the media splash and at least half of us are deeply cynical of media and party political rhetoric. …we do tend to check facts….
I have wanted independence all my adult life… it would improve the attitude and outlook of Scots in general …standing on our own two feet….
The growing stoked sense of resentment towards the demanding scots by the Tories means the union will not last much longer…
We can all still be friends though 🙂
Friends: of course. However, I do think it is a mistake for you to leave: you will have more common ground with the English, Welsh and Irish than anyone else.
But Just having things in common isn’t enough…
Especially when faced with consistent accusations of living off English Taxpayers with increasing regularity since 2011…
During the referendum it is all we heard……We get more money than every one else…
Especially when a detailed look at Scottish finances since 1980 shows we are a net contributor to the UK in excess of £150bn ….
Did we get appreciation (which we have never asked for nor want)?
Did we get a basic level of respect as an equal partner?
Or did we get repeated put downs and accusations?
It became quite vitriolic and continued in the run up to Westminster 2015….
the right wing press did a fantastic job of promoting “Ajockalypse Now!” , “Jockestan” “the Thames will foam with blood if the Scots rule England”, “The Scots are in for a surprise when the English run out of patience”
and the thing is…..it was bought hook line and sinker to the point of a Tory Majority and more people voting for UKIP than voted in the Scottish referendum….
and it still goes on…..the union cannot survive this fact alone never mind any other political consideration
Okay. It will be sad to see you go.
The accusations you make against the press are true. They are truly crap and anti-democratic, but they are becoming less and less relevant and, surprisingly, they don’t seem to affect people’s voting as much as one might expect. The people that were swayed by the rubbish press are victims too. Education will change things, eventually.
UKIP took a disproportionate amount of our votes because people cast around for scapegoats. Sad, but true.
You think you will be better off going your own way and I don’t. But good luck. Since we are wearing our host’s server out, perhaps we should leave it there.
As for me, I am going to concentrate on what the article above says: “We need to go back to the beginning in explaining why we exist”.
Fair enough… good luck
:~)
Yes, I agree with you that a discussion and debate is needed with a view to reinventing the Capitalist system from its current form into one that is representative of a more diverse range of people from all walks of life.
However, let us not talk about the Capitalist system as if it is a lone entity out of control. Like any ‘system’, it’s a policy that has been pushed forward by politicians who have benefitted overwhelmingly by the banking financiers who fund their political parties, and most certainly influence and guide policy development in other areas too. This being the case, is it not right and ethical that our politicians are held to account on this ‘influence’ – as they should always be held to account on what they achieve on a annual basis for constituents.
Remind me, what on earth are we paying MPs £67,000.000 a year for??
Yes, those pledges were more like sound bites people never liked, rather meaningless: ‘hard working people’ (a code-word for those on low income, as if those on higher incomes didn’t work hard), ‘exploitative zero-hour contracts’ (some people, like myself have chosen to be on such contracts), ‘a better plan’ (whatever that meant). As a recently retired person who’s seen a lot, I have a feeling that unless Labour Party modernises, it will become less and less relevant. We can’t just go back, the world has changed dramatically, we need to keep up.
You should rebrand this website Failureonline.
Why do you give this woman any space? she finds her partner watching porn and rather than ditch him she charges it to expenses. Sake man as we say in Northern Britain.
This kind of comment does not help in any way at all.
It just wastes energy and bandwidth.
Come on John. Ask yourself, how did Laour get here. This is bad. This may be terminal. Is it possible that Progress has benn infiltrated?
Richard, ‘content’ is the life-blood of the media. You (we) have proved time and time again that engaging with ‘stories’ remains the better option than isolating our views.
It’s clear that the main political parties have a serious problem with harnessing real voices of those they claim to be supporting with policy.
It could be said that the failure of the Labour Party and its leadership was clearly the failure to connect with people and communities from a diverse of background and, thus, use these voices to assess, analyse and develop new and refreshing policies. Isn’t that how CHANGE management or, in fact, Leadership should be applied?
The fact that such principles were not adhered by Labour leadership or team members should sound a warning sound within us all – simply because many, if not all, of these team members who supported leadership are MPs – those whose feet should be firmly placed on the ground to mirror the failings, challenges and aspirations of people.
Surely, if one is passionate about developing a ‘business plan’ they do all what is necessary to ensure its viability. How could MPs and leadership get it so wrong? Could it be that they just did not want to harness the voices of the public for fear the would be reminded of their failings as politicians? In such cases, didn’t they therefore deserve to lose?
It was arrogance in 2010 Jacqui and arrogance again in 2015.
You know the type, the kind that led you to blocking me on Twitter when I said if you keep up with the nonsense of the #pinkbus etc. and pandering to the cliques your party won’t be elected.
Congratulations on your achievement…