Following the publication of “In the Black labour” a Fortnight ago, our publishing Think-tank, Policy Network, has gathered together a series of thoughtful response to the “In the Black Labour” discussion paper which Adam Lent, Graeme Cooke, Anthony Painter and I wrote. The contributions include some from far bigger political “names” than we original authors, and are all well worth a read.
Co-designer of New Labour (and Labour peer) Roger Liddle provides a supportive overview of the challnges and likely tests for the party, while Former Treasury minister and head of Demos Kitty Ussher, argues we need to be radical re-engineers, a point nicely complemented by TUC economic adviser Duncan Weldon, who argues we need a wider tax base and rebalanced economy to make left “Fiscal Conservatism” work, while my friend Joe Goldberg, who is actually having to delivered fiscal restraint as a council finance cabinet officer, makes what I think it the most politically significant point- that there is a vital need for Labour to find optimism and ambition amidst austerity if we are to achieve our social goals.
Perhaps the most critical response comes from Ex No 10 and treasury adviser Dan Corry, who feels we have gone too far and conceded too much ground to the analysis of our oponents (while being supportive of much of the general thrust). It’s an important point, but I confess, as I read Dan’s essay, I felt a tremor of “just one more heave for classical social democracy” come over me. Unfair, perhaps.
My churlish and pouty reaction to even the mildest and most thoughtful of critiques aside, I think all four of us are delighted by the response “In the Black” has received. The paper was billed as a discussion paper, not a manifesto, deliberately. We wanted, and hoped for a debate, and we’ve succeeded in that beyond our wildest hopes.
The discussion we’ve seen, positive and negative, has been first class (a special mention here for Jon Wilson’s “Blue Labour” response, which almost succeeded me in converting me to the Blue Labour cause, it was that good). What’s been even more pleasing is that the discussion hasn’t been factional, or personality based, but really meaty.
This clearly leaves the question, where next. Duncan notes at one point in his essay that there is a clear lack of detail in our initial paper, and we’d hold our hands up to that willingly. I think we have two jobs to do now.
The first is to build even more of a debate – gathering and publicising responses and critiques from a broader range of sources, and participating in a wider debate too. In this cause, my longstanding refusal to attend panel discussions or fringe meetings of any sort has been suspended. All invites accepted.
The second job, is after reflecting on the points others make, then might be gathering together people who are broadly sympathetic to the points we made in the discussion paper, to flesh out what a commitment for Fiscal conservatism (or restraint or responsibility if you can’t bear the C-word!) might mean in detailed policy terms for a future Labour government.
Mind you, much of that depends on how much time Policy Network (who have been fantastic throughout this), and the four of us, can devote to this. We’ve all got day jobs, you know!
So it’ll probably be the new year before we’re able to agree where next exactly.
Hopi,
Well done. As you said you wanted a debate and for it not to be just something that can be used by Cameron at PMQs and it is. Which I suspect has something to do with the esteem you guys are held in by the party.
On the semantics: it’s got to be fiscal responsibility surely? Conservatism is to state that you are borrowing someone else’s clothes and as The US shows there’s no definite correlation at all.
Moreover responsibility puts it firmly within a general theme that fits well with the other things the leadership is pushing.
I admire what you are doing a great deal. It may seem like a courtiers game of hop and skip but I think otherwise.The Conservative Party started to drag itself back to electibilbity in a project not supposed to reach fruition for another elecion. Numerous essays were published seeking a conservative back story and narrative for a more centrist and less free market approach. This was broadly done by emphasising the sceptical and reasonable strands of the tradition, defining Thatcherism as too doctrinal and utopian
I don`t know much about Labour`s past Hopi , is there a figure you could point to as a model , an example of a real policy ?
While I'm always interested in reading what you have to say, I wish I could do so without always having to copy-edit as I read in order to make it comprehensible.
This for example:
"The second job, is after reflecting on the points others make, then might be gathering together people who are broadly sympathetic…"
Either the first comma is in the wrong place and should come after the word 'is', in which case the words 'then might be' following the second comma should be dropped, or the 'is' should have been dropped – though following the logic of the previous paragraph beginning 'The first is to build…", the former correction makes more sense.
Sorry if you think this is griping, but it is frustrating for the reader and doesn't come across as very professional.
I'm glad you are breaking your self-imposed absence from panels. But I hope, Hopi, that you can be the first male thinker on the left to agree to refuse invitations that put you on all-male panels. In The Black Labour is thoughtful, as indeed are the responses. But with the honourable exception of Kitty, the discussion appears to be held solely amongst men. That is not going to be successful or productive. It's not as though the Labour Party and the wider progressive movement are short of women who think long and hard about these things. I do hope they are encouraged to respond and take a full part in the debate, and Kitty is not left to be the sole female voice. Or that "In The Black Labour spawns more all-male panels.
I'm tempted to say you're making the case for the LibDems. I can't work out if it is intentional, accidental or unavoidable.